+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: AGM Candidates (/thread-661.html)
Re: AGM Candidates - Patrick McGovern - 15-08-2013
Quote:One CS official is hounding another (by email) to resign, what is the best way in stamping out this outrageous behaviournice comment Mr Muir, better get your own house in order before making comments like this, you know the old one about throwing stones in a glass house!
Re: AGM Candidates - Ianbrownlee - 15-08-2013
]
Quote:This I assume is similar to the separation of government from the judiciary in the 'real' world. The government (at least in theory I think) can not order the courts do its bidding.
in the real world politicans have the political responsibility and the judiciary have the legal responsibility Does that mean in the chess world that chess scotland has the politcal responsibiliy and that the standards committee has the legal responsibility. Does that also mean than the standards committee has no oversight
Re: AGM Candidates - Derek Howie - 15-08-2013
I have been disappointed with Hamish as a President for the following reasons:
1. Lack of visibility. I have not seen him at any congress or junior event during the year. Perhaps he has been at some but I'm certainly not aware of it. A President should be seen at events throughoput the year.
2. Unwillingness to engage with members. He failed to address points raised in emails to him and is even unwilling to spend 5 minutes joining the forum to put forward his plans for next year. He is also only doing it as a response to Steve’s post. That suggests a continued unwillingness to engage.
3. Failure to carry out last year’s pledges of “To progress CS, 2. To work closely with the Adults and Juniors to further these aims. 3, To fix the constitution.” I fail to see any attempt to do any of that, and therefore can’t have confidence that he would try and carry out any of this year’s pledges.
4. His failure to follow the existing constitution. He blocked 2 people’s membership which was ultra vires and he had to apologise for it, and is blocking the two agenda points highlighted by Robert, with no apparent constitutional back-up.
5. His failure to resolve conflicts. Many of the conflicts arising over the past 9 months could have been nipped in the bud by a proactive president who engaged with all parties before things got out of hand.
6. His censorship of issues. Linda McCusker submitted a report which she then amended as requested by Hamish but he still refuses the CS membership sight of the report. Any posts critical of him on the forum were quickly removed as well.
I believe CS has been weakened over the past 12 months and I can only see more people being driven away from CS if Hamish continues with the same approach and as such I will be voting for Steve.
Re: AGM Candidates - Patrick McGovern - 15-08-2013
Quote:One CS official is hounding another (by email) to resign, what is the best way in stamping out this outrageous behaviour
Mr Muir your sheer cheek in this is astonishing given some of the actions of your fellow members
here just just but a few examples'
Michael Hanley, whilst still a Director of CS hounded Sean Milton (acting HOD) to resign 1/5/13;
A Muir "If there were other candidates for the Standards Committee I might consider voting for them instead of you." clear inference to Dick Heathwood 14/8/13
Phil Thomas - "Given the set of problems caused by woefully inadequate performance of the chair of the standards committee I contend that if you care about the good name of Chess Scotland; you have no choice but to remove him from office."
there are many more example of the cabal hounding CS officials, one must question their motivation,
Re: AGM Candidates - Duncan Grassie - 15-08-2013
Whenever I go back to this noticeboard I keep having to remind myself that all this fervour and debate circles around a pastime involving people moving bits of wood/plastic around the board (and one I still enjoy very much).
I was involved in very low level way in coaching/organising junior chess in Lothians from 2002/7. I felt towards the end of my time that merely by suggesting tournaments which the children I coached could play in I was getting dragged into politics which, having no children of my own, I had absolutely no opinion/care about. Around about that time a few comments from some parents about their children's national selections (not necessarily directed at me although I was involved in junior selections at that time) made me realise that if I got further involved in chess I would be dragged into the poisonous atmosphere.
Around 2007 as well I was emailed by my local orienteering club asking if I wanted to plan/organise an event. Since then I have planned/organised around 10 events and have never witnessed any factions/politics, in fact it is helped in orienteering by the fact that most people want to be foot soldiers and entrust the politics to 5/6 committee members from around Scotland. Contrast that to chess where it seems everyone wants to be a committee member but no one wants to be a foot soldier.
Orienteering probably compares with chess in size in Scotland/UK but our national organisations don't have any standard committees (which I do think is necessary in chess to police you lot!) and board resignations/suspensions halfway through. Instead they have a well organised set of volunteers who all work together as a team and who, in conjunction with the British Orienteering Federation are bringing the World Championships to Scotland in 2015.
I was hoping this would fade out over time, but 6 years on I recently received a circular email telling me of a minor incident I had absolutely no opinion/ care about but which reeked of political intent. In orienteering we have had incidents where people have clashed physically in a race but been able to resolve it once tempers are cooled on the same day. The fact it has not been able to be resolved shows the whole system has become politicised - I go back to my first paragraph above.
My advice is: No matter what role you are involved in/or want to have in Chess Scotland, ask yourself if you have brought more 'footsoldiers' to chess than you have put off through political bickering. If you cannot honestly reply yes then leave the arena now. There seem to be some good people still coming forward to volunteer (some even younger than myself and some parents) who deserve the chance to do their bit in Chess Scotland without getting dragged into decade old politics. I am living proof that people get turned off by the bickering.
It would be great if one year at the AGM we could just get some new faces in who haven't been poisoned by the previous set of protagonists. The only way I can see this happening is by those who have been propagating the nonsense over the past few decades to voluntarily step back and give some space to some fresh new parents/organisers who haven't had these prejudices bedded in. Then maybe people like myself might return to chess.
Re: AGM Candidates - amuir - 15-08-2013
Mr McGovern "Mr Muir your sheer cheek in this is astonishing given some of the actions of your fellow members
here just just but a few examples"
They are my colleagues views. I posted on their behalf.
"If there were other candidates for the Standards Committee I might consider voting for them instead of you." clear inference to Dick Heathwood 14/8/13
This is my view.
His reply to my queries was " Andy, The complaint has been dealt with and is closed.
Dick Heathwood, Chairman, Standards Committee"
Zero empathy
If Hugh Brechin would simply publish my 2 proposals on the noticeboard then these would succinctly express my views and my other comments would not be necessary.
Re: AGM Candidates - Patrick McGovern - 15-08-2013
Wow Duncan, certainly food for thought and puts a lot of stuff into perspective
Re: AGM Candidates - Patrick McGovern - 15-08-2013
Quote:If Hugh Brechin would simply publish my 2 proposals on the noticeboard then these would succinctly express my views and my other comments would not be necessary.
why not publish them yourself? =|
Re: AGM Candidates - Duncan Grassie - 15-08-2013
Sorry I stand corrected, it would seem we do have an appeals body in British orienteering but I have never heard it being used and the documentation was last updated in 2008.
The last point is we are all responsible for the level at which we have to be policed at online. If you want to see how a sporting community can debate online with anonymity and integrity I would invite you to visit <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forum.nopesport.com/">http://forum.nopesport.com/</a><!-- m --> which is the orienteering equivalent of a national forum. I think all the policing on here (removal of posts- even if it applies to my initial post! and lack of anonymity) are a function of how poisonous the discussions on here can get and seem to be completely justified by the moderators.
Re: AGM Candidates - WBuchanan - 15-08-2013
A couple of points on the standards committee discussion.
1) From the document entitled 1.3StandardsOperatingProcedures (home page, then the AGM stuff at the top, then ‘Motions’), right at the top:
“The Standards Committee (the “Committee”) shall endeavour to uphold the highest standards of sportsmanship, fairness, integrity and transparency, as exemplified by the conduct of its own affairs”
Later in the ‘rationale’ it says
“Like all these organisations, Chess Scotland has a vital interest in ensuring that appropriate standards are upheld. For example, Chess Scotland events depend heavily on the selfless work of volunteers. Further, crucial financial support is received from the Scottish Government and other sponsors. Thus, actions which directly or indirectly damage events or discourage sponsors, volunteers and other parties from supporting chess activities can not be tolerated.”
I acknowledge that if you are trying do some kind of 'good' it can be difficult when you are asked to specify exactly what 'good', and why - and people then say but what about this, or that.... Still, I found the heavy emphasis here on not ‘damaging events’ or ‘discouraging sponsors’ grated along with the stated intent to uphold standards of “sportsmanship, fairness, integrity and transparency”, as the two aims are in general different things. Perhaps by ‘actions’ it is intended to mean those that represent breaches in the expected standards of sportsmanship (etc) that also might IN ADDITION happen to discourage sponsors?
Suppose a sponsor (company or government) is vigorously criticized on the board or at a tournament on ethical grounds, or political grounds perhaps. This could discourage sponsors, and could conceivably damage an event – while not lowering (or perhaps even raising) any standard of e.g. integrity and transparency.
If by ‘standards’ is meant means standards of sportsmanship, fairness, integrity and transparency, then affecting sponsors and tournaments shouldn’t come into it, or should at most play a minor role (a bit like a crime being aggravated by additional factors). On the other hand, if in reality affecting sponsors or tournaments is one of the most important considerations, then surely that’s what it should say at the top of the blurb?
In my example above if the criticism of govt/sponsors was prominent enough, conceivably this could be (mis)construed as a breach of standards. In the wider world the misuse of 'standards' for political ends is a common enough tool of 'establishments' after all – I’m not suggesting this would happen, but I think it would be better for the scope to be more clearly defined.
2) Just to draw on Mike Scott’s post on the previous page
“This I assume is similar to the separation of government from the judiciary in the 'real' world”
But in the real world, government ministers don’t get to be jury members in trials. It seems CS director(s) can be part of the standards committee, so long as they are not in a majority. This suggests the committee will not be independent of the parent organization. Of course with some issues where CS officials might have an obvious interest, a CS director might in practice declare a conflict of interest and stand down. They might not, though. I’m just not sure why any directors should be involved at all? Justice is supposed to be judgement by your peers and all that - not by people wearing two hats.
Even with government ministers not being routinely sent to appear on juries, it seems that the UK government can often manage to influence results in courts when it really wants to (sorry for the comparison with politics, definitely lowering the standard there…).
Cheers
PS - good post by Duncan Grassie, food for thought.