+- 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: Michael Hanley (/thread-617.html)
Re: Michael Hanley - Mike Scott - 11-07-2013
I would have thought that with the AGM fast approaching it makes sense that the resignation of a director needs to be broadcast far and wide to maximise the chance of a replacement being found. However rightly or wrongly my first reaction was that it did smack a bit of a "Got y'u" from CS, which if true would have been inappropriate.
Re: Michael Hanley - Andy Howie - 11-07-2013
Mike,
I believe it is Hobsons Choice. Do nothing be criticized, do something be criticized...
Not the easiest decision I have ever had to make and if it helps, Mike is still talking to me
Re: Michael Hanley - Ianbrownlee - 11-07-2013
one thing is certain it cant go on like this. The council meeting obviously didn't resolve these on-going issues as otherwise reported. Either a specifically called meeting to resolve this or a motion at the AGM is called for where everything is brought out once and for all. I would go as far as saying any such meeting should be chaired by a neutral and there are plenty neutral good guys out there. There are in my opinion old wounds repeatly opened up all the time and it has to stop. So lets all get together, have an agenda and thrash it out. I'm beginning to think that Chess Scotland either has to split into separate adult and chess organisations as was before or Chess Scotland has to have a complete revamp but be he only recognised chess body in Scotland. Either we take control or we lose control its that simple.
I've written my thoughts in a document. Its not ideal but it has constructive comments for others to improve upon.
A lot of people are making good points here so lets focus on any positives we can get out of this
I
Re: Michael Hanley - Geoff Chandler - 11-07-2013
"....how many members making a query about another's status does it take to be deemed important enough for a news"
I view it the same way as when a football player who has had a good game is subbed with 5 minutes go.
This thread was set up so people could post a Thank You to Michael.
Good Luck Michael and thank you for all the time and effort you have put into Scottish Chess.
Re: Michael Hanley - KevinCampbell - 11-07-2013
Ianbrownlee Wrote:one thing is certain it cant go on like this. The council meeting obviously didn't resolve these on-going issues as otherwise reported. Either a specifically called meeting to resolve this or a motion at the AGM is called for where everything is brought out once and for all. I would go as far as saying any such meeting should be chaired by a neutral and there are plenty neutral good guys out there. There are in my opinion old wounds repeatly opened up all the time and it has to stop. So lets all get together, have an agenda and thrash it out. I'm beginning to think that Chess Scotland either has to split into separate adult and chess organisations as was before or Chess Scotland has to have a complete revamp but be he only recognised chess body in Scotland. Either we take control or we lose control its that simple.
I've written my thoughts in a document. Its not ideal but it has constructive comments for others to improve upon.
A lot of people are making good points here so lets focus on any positives we can get out of this
I 100% agree Ian, very nice post Sir!
It would be outstanding to get some positivity/ constructive contributions.
Firstly I would like to say a big well done to all officials / organisers of Chess in Scotland, lets not forget these are entirely voluntary roles. It is a tireless job and often a thankless one too. So a big thank you to everyone who does there part for Chess in Scotland.
The problem seems to be certain individuals take things personally and it escalates from there. If you disagree with something, fair enough, but there has to come a point where you let it go.
As a consequence of all this, there is now certain individuals who would appear keen to create a breakaway movement in relation to junior chess, to cause division. Chess in Scotland would be worse off as a consequence of this. Things have moved on a long way since the formation of Chess Scotland when it absorbed the SJCA. At that time, from my understanding, the SJC was formed as a protest against this and was later assimilated back into the main organisation.
When going for funding/publicising the game in the country it would be far better to have a unified national body. As opposed to Chess Scotland and a few organisers, in certain geographical areas, who want to operate outside the scope of Chess Scotland.
**Edited by A Howie to fix the quote problem**
Re: Michael Hanley - Andy Howie - 11-07-2013
KevinCampbell Wrote:As a consequence of all this, there is now certain individuals who would appear keen to create a breakaway movement in relation to junior chess, to cause division. Chess in Scotland would be worse off as a consequence of this. Things have moved on a long way since the formation of Chess Scotland when it absorbed the SJCA. At that time, from my understanding, the SJC was formed as a protest against this and was later assimilated back into the main organisation.
Just to correct you Kevin, SJC has never been assimilated back into the main organization and has remained autonomous
Re: Michael Hanley - Phil Thomas - 11-07-2013
Patrick McGovern Wrote:The fact that a few vocal protesters are getting short thrift demonstrates that.
Mr Moderator.
Please remove from this notice board this blatant incitement to further abuse selected notice board posters.
Edited by mod: please learn that each opening [quote] statement needs a closing [/quote] statement before the quote will show properly.
Re: Michael Hanley - Phil Thomas - 11-07-2013
Deleted by Mod, duplicate of above post.
Re: Michael Hanley - Phil Thomas - 11-07-2013
deleted by author -accidentally posted twice
Re: Michael Hanley - Phil Thomas - 11-07-2013
Membership Secretary Wrote:One of my rare forays into the world of the discussion forum, so here goes.
I realised that as soon as I was appointed Chairman of the standards Committee I would become a controversial figure. This assessment was based on observing the treatment given to my predecessor. In fact, the Phil Thomas unpleasantness generation machine was started up and aimed at me even before my appointment was confirmed at the 2012 AGM. Well, nobody loses any sleep over that but I do feel that various facts should be stated here to avoid misunderstandings amongst the many people who read this forum.
Mr Heathwood,
you know or should have been able to surmise from my private e mails to you last summer that my refusal to rejoin Chess Scotland was a protest about the performance of your predecessor as Standards Committee Chairman. The evidence for my assertion that his performance was lamentably poor is contained in the multiple apologies he sent me by email.
I stated in private mails that I would not become a member of Chess Scotland again until the organisation became fit for purpose again. In my mind CS became sufficiently fit for purpose when Linda McCusker’s report was published (albeit on the notice board) on the evening of Friday June 21st . That report listed around 17 different places where the standards committee investigation in one case (EDITED BY MODERATOR) had seriously procedural malfunctions.
Shortly after that report was published I rejoined Chess Scotland. I did not expect a warm welcome but I did expect that the requirements clearly laid down in the constitution would be followed.
In the weeks after you became chair of the standards committee you had repeatedly told me that you could not re open an old case. Today you have chosen to re open that case in order to launch a vicious personal attack upon me.
This behaviour is not acceptable.
Since you have opened the case to the forum members I will exercise my right to reply and inform the forum members what the cases I brought concerned.
I complained about foul and abusive language that was e mailed to me by a CS official. It was so bad that the official concerned considered the offence to be bad enough to offer his resignation to the executive director of Chess Scotland.
I complained because that offensive e mail was also sent to my wife. That barbarous act was not taken into account by the standards committee in reaching their judgement.
My other complaint concerned a blackmail attempt by a CS official who in my view was attempting to distract attention away from my first complaint.
This too was treated as an genuine complaint – my £10 deposit was returned to me – but only after I reminded last year’s chairmen of the rules he was meant to be following.
I was never even given the result of the second complaint.
Hence I reached the view that a national body delegating responsibility to this type of Standards Committee was unfit for purpose. That view is supported by the 17 recommendations of Linda McCuskers report which once more is not available for the membership of CS to read.