+- 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: going forward.... (/thread-680.html)
Pages:
1
2
going forward.... - Ianbrownlee - 17-08-2013
Guys
I've thought long and hard on thisI think we may be missing a trick here to stop the bickering and other such negativity. Insteading of putting this on the president or executive commitee, couldnt we have a director, e.g the customer services director try to handle these minor grievances informally (as a primary remit for him/her) and then have the grievance escalated (possibly to the executive committee) if the grievance is unresolved. This would allow the president and others to perform his/her duties more effectively and not worry about accusations of bias etc and would hopefully reduce the vitriol on the forums. Members on all sides are obviously not happy with the present setup and feel they do not have a voice. Moderators having to step down in this environment is just not good enough. Within Chess Scotland we have a wide wealth of talent at our disposal, so let's use it productivity. We all love chess to the point sometimes it blinkers our rationale =)
Re: going forward.... - Matthew Turner - 17-08-2013
Ian,
I start out like this. The Standards Committee was designed/instigated to resolve disputes/problems/potential problems. I think we need to ask a very simple question, has it reduced problems or created them? If (as I believe) it is the latter then do we need more 'formal' mechanisms of conflict resolution or less?
We have heard on other threads high principles about the separation of the executive and the judiciary. I think you have to be realistic about the remit and scope of ChessScotland - really it has to be about 'promoting chess' these abstract concepts simply weaken CS's core offering.
In my opinion we need to let the new young directors get on with promoting chess and if we introduce more bureaucracy which either stifles them or dispirits them to the extent that they walk away, that could have a more negative impact on Chess in Scotland in the long term than anything we have seen so far.
Re: going forward.... - Hugh Brechin - 17-08-2013
Agree entirely with Matthew. What we need is keen, committed directors with good ideas about how to promote chess, and volunteers who are willing to give up their time to help them do this. I hope we have both of these. Someone with conflict resolution as their primary remit... I mean, we're organising chess tournaments here, not trying to keep the Northern Irish peace process on the rails. This shouldn't be difficult.
I think it's a good idea to have a Standards Committee, or at least to have some kind of avenue independent of the CS council for complaints to be raised, but using it should be seen as a last resort. I worry that increasing the amount of measures aimed at dealing with conflict could further normalise conflict, which we don't want.
Re: going forward.... - Ianbrownlee - 17-08-2013
Hi Guys
:\ I hear what you're saying but there underneath all the potshots there are genuine people not happy with the current state of affairs and I believe the standards committe have dealt with only one case. I'm new to all this but something fundamental is not right and until that's fixed it will continue. Instead of blaming guys on all sides and pinning hopes on the younger generation I would personally like to see mediation ( and knocking heads together) as a means of going forward. Using superlatives by some individuals wont help either. irnically for a forum , it may well be a case of increased communication and transparancy which may be part of the solution. I have spoken to members (and non members) and gathered several distinct insights but a similar ing through (amongst others) is a perceived lack of accountability to Chess Scotland AGM by the standards comittee. Again as I'm new to this I'm loathe to comment on this but I'm sure the AGM will have a lot to say on this :\
Re: going forward.... - KMcGeoch - 17-08-2013
I could be from but from what I can gather there are two main aspects to Chess Scotland
1. Administering Chess - This is basically day to day running of things like grading, accounts, membership lists etc. If I understand correctly there are purely administrative tasks that should in theory have no personal bias/input whatsoever since person running it is simply following procedures. For example if a match result is submitted grader enters correct result and when organisor of tournament gets an invoice he is billed for amount depending on games. There is nothing controversial about this (I hope!).
2. Promoting Chess - This from my understanding is basically two fold. Firstly it's about improving image of chess in media and getting message out to encourage new people to take up chess. Secondly it's also about allowing players to improve and progress in their chess. I suspect it's this one that is causing problems. Now question I would ask is if two people want to promote chess in different ways does allowing one method automatically exclude the other? If not then I would suggest that Chess Scotland can provide general guidelines and then leave it to individuals running it to find implementation they consider most appropriate as in all likelyhood they will complement each other. If different paradigms exist then just let both of them operate and compare results. Ideally both can learn from each other and improve. I'm unsure what constraints apply that could potentially cause friction although if things like funding is a problem allocating it on a regional level could be an idea. If looking for rough regions I would suggest 10 leagues we currently have in Scotland could be a start. If it's about selection choices I would say just to decide it at the chessboard since if juniors want to represent their country surely an event in a central location that would be an opportunity for them to play head to head to decide entrants.
Having written all this I'm a bit baffled how we've ended up in this situation although I think what I've written makes sense!
Re: going forward.... - Ianbrownlee - 17-08-2013
"If it's about selection choices I would say just to decide it at the chessboard since if juniors want to represent their country surely an event in a central location that would be an opportunity for them to play head to head to decide entrants."
not just the juniors we could maybe do it with the adults and at the same time raise some money for chess Scotland say for expenses
Re: going forward.... - WBuchanan - 17-08-2013
I’d just like to clarify that my comments on the separation of the executive and the judiciary were of a general nature, and did not refer in any way to the actual case that was brought. It only just occurred to me to look, and I have just done so and discovered that on that occasion, officials did comprise the CS committee; however while I think this is something to be avoided, I don’t think for one minute that this led to a biased outcome in this case.
Matthew Turner Wrote:We have heard on other threads high principles about the separation of the executive and the judiciary. I think you have to be realistic about the remit and scope of ChessScotland - really it has to be about 'promoting chess' these abstract concepts simply weaken CS's core offering.
Has any attempt been made to resource the SC with a supply of ordinary members? Lack of resources wouldn’t normally be an excuse for a choosing a potentially unfair practice if a more clearly fair practice could equally be chosen; we may be seeing the results of this false ‘economy’ playing out, in a way that is far from abstract, with the complainants perceiving the outcome as biased (I understand the accusation was put more strongly). Had the SC been comprised of ordinary members, such accusations would, I feel, have been much less likely to have been made..
Re: going forward.... - Ken_Stewart - 19-08-2013
Can we be clear about definitions? What is meant by “Executive”? I would suggest it is the CS Management Board as defined in the Constitution.
There is no member of the SC who is a member of the Management Board.
The SC was elected at last year’s AGM where any member of CS was free to offer him/herself for membership of the committee. The AGM appeared to be content with its choice.
Re: going forward.... - WBuchanan - 21-08-2013
Can we be clear about definitions?
No =) Thanks for the clarification and info. I expect you are technically right about the Management Board Ken, but according to the news item on the CS site the case recently ruled on by the Standards Committee was decided in a panel of three including the President and Chairman. Isn’t that like having the prime minster on a jury!? Not that I’d query the verdict they reached in that case, I hasten to add – but if a case occurred in which CS itself happened to have a direct involvement, or was even the defendant/complainant (as has nearly happened, I read somewhere), you wouldn’t expect CS office bearers to have a neutral prior view. In that kind of case, whatever definitions were used wouldn’t change the appearance that CS was in reality judge/jury in its own cases.
Re: going forward.... - Andy Howie - 21-08-2013
My understanding (and I may be completely wrong here) is that the committee of three was separate from the Standards Committee and formed to execute the findings from the Standards Committee. Judgement at that time had been formed by the Standards Committee and had been handed back to Chess Scotland to hand down that judgement.
I could be completely wrong and if that is the case I apologize