EGM

[David G Congalton]

Please note:

As fellow posters have been sniping at me on other topics.
I am not stating the position of the Ayrshire Chess Association just what my own personal opinion is.

The Association's view on this is still to come. I have also tried to answer as many points as I can (although many questions I ask don't seem to be afforded the courtesy). I did not propose this motion or have a hand in drating it and have contributed to this topic as much as I can. So I won't be posting on it again as I am exhausted by looking at constitutions, procedures, policies, minutes of meeting etc. and not being able to provide anymore clarity.

I'm out (off to a darkened room I go) =)

David,

I may not always (should that be ever) agree with you when you post on the forum but I do enjoy reading your posts and do value your opinions and contributions.

Ayrshire Individual Championship should be good tonight!

[Ken_Stewart]

First, Steve is indeed right that there are now two directors on the SC – I hadn’t picked up on Donald’s relatively recent position.

Second, the minutes of the 2009 AGM may be read by anyone who wishes; it’s better to read them than speculate on what they might say. On numbers, the minutes state that there were 40 but give 41 names – a large attendance, anyway. The meeting was far too long (5h30m) so it’s hardly surprising that full counts were not taken on every vote. The SC proposal was agreed in outline at the March 2009 Council and the document was available from May.

Regarding audits, etc, I can’t give detail on this as I’ve not been closely involved; Mac McKenzie and Steve Mannion would know the details. A grant application is a tedious process for Mac as the forms (to which I have on occasion contributed) ask for a great amount of detail.

[Donald Wilson]

Just to clarify one thing, about the number of Chess Scotland directors on the Standards Committee: at the 2011 AGM I was elected as Junior Home Director, at a time when I was a member of the Standards Committee. At that meeting, it was my intention to support the Ayrshire motion amending the Standards Code / Operating Procedures and then to resign from the Standards Committee (I'm not going into reasons on the Noticeboard). In the event, the motion was not debated or voted on, as the Ayrshire representatives agreed to wait until an SGM, so I did not resign from the SC. As Steve Hilton has pointed out, I should have resigned (to avoid any conflict of interest) - I just didn't think about it at the time. Subsequently (at the end of October 2011) I realised that I was not going to be able to carry out the duties of the Junior Home Director, so I informed the President and the Executive Director that I wished to resign as JH Director. I have not submitted a formal written resignation, but I confirmed my wish verbally at the beginning of 2012, and it is my understanding that my resignation has been accepted and the duties of the JHD have been re-allocated to other people.
So de facto, if not de jure, there is only one CS Director on the Standards Committee.
And to tidy things up further, at the SGM I will resign from the Standards Committee, regardless of the fate of the Ayrshire motion.

[George Murphy]

So, Donald was a sleeper. I suppose he realised he’d given the game away by demonstrating his skills at secret writing (see Sreeves v Burnett), so he might as well own up before being rumbled. “It’s a fair cop, guv”.

The following comes with apologies as appropriate:

The Spy who stayed in the Fold, Graham Greene

Coldfinger, Ian Fleming

I’m the Quietest, Cassius Clay aka Muhammad Ali
It’s Witchcraft, Frank Sinatra

Spysong, Sebastian Faulks

Captain Oates, ?? [No, he went out into the cold]

Et Tu, Donald, (Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar)

The Standards Committee is all about ethics, Donald. Why wait for the SGM to resign?

[Phil Thomas]

My personal recollection as to why Donald and Ken were chosen for the Standards committee is that they were the two most respected men in the room at the time. Absolutely nobody of the crowd present had any reservations about their honesty and integrity.


It is of course arbiters that are chosen by quotations from Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar.
"Yon Cassius has than lean and hungry look".

Anyone care to supply the previous line or two?

[George Murphy]

Sir Antony Blunt? His distinction and status made him all the more effective as an Agent of Influence.

Read Trevor's post again. Then ask yourself why did Donald - having been copied into all the Standard Committee's deliberations - opted to remain mum?

I have a heavy day ahead and am off to Blackpool tomorrow. So, don't think I am dropping out.

[Donald Wilson]

In answer to George's question a few posts up . . .

OK, I resign from the Standards Committee now, with immediate effect.

It has long been clear to me that I was in a minority of one within the Committee in thinking that the Ayrshire proposals (as presented at the 2011 AGM) were not harmful and were certainly not intended to be destructive. I support the principle of having a Standards Code, and was very keen to have it voted into place at the 2009 AGM; but I took it for granted that the Code and Operating Procedures were not perfect and would need to be amended in the light of experience or of unhurried reflection.

I'll probably still be at the SGM, but I've grown weary of politics in all its forms.

[Andy Howie]

My personal recollection as to why Donald and Ken were chosen for the Standards committee is that they were the two most respected men in the room at the time. Absolutely nobody of the crowd present had any reservations about their honesty and integrity.


It is of course arbiters that are chosen by quotations from Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar.
"Yon Cassius has than lean and hungry look".

Anyone care to supply the previous line or two?

"Let me have men about me that are fat . . Yon Cassius has lean and hungry look. He thinks too much Such men are dangerous." Julius Caesar

[Craig Pritchett]

I also can't understand the logic behind the proposed amendment (the up-front suggested additional para being the main culprit ... although I guess some of the various "normals" might go without affecting much); and I am concerned that it might undermine the whole point about having a last-stop appeal to a Standards Cee. The SC at present is already clearly required to act only when (any) independent local arbitration in Ayrshire, or elsewhere for that matter, has failed. So I wouldn't vote for this amendment, certainly as it stands. And if it affects CS's legal standing in regard to child protection, as it seems to do, according to Steve Mannion, who is answerable to the relevant public bodies on behalf of CS on this, I get very, very cold feet indeed.

I may be able to throw some light on the chance of independent audit and report to the Scottish Parliament on such matters (as I have occasionally managed such audits). The answer? Yes, financially the issue is very small fry and may ordinarily never attract the attention of the auditor unless there is some obvious public controversy on the policy issues involved. But, these things might nevertheless still come up occasionally as a small part of the annual audit plan, which changes annually, and is driven by wider policy issues rather than simply cost. The effective delivery of public policy, which is what the audit is ultimately about, isn't always linked to the expenditure of great wadges of £s. Indeed if such issues do come up, they are investigated very carefully, and if there is any doubt that a body in receipt of public funds is not acting in full accordance with the requirements of policy and the law, there will be stiff action.

Having said that, I'd add that in the normal course of events CS's main link remains with the specifc department in the Scottish Govt that disperse the grants. Here, keeping on the right side of these people, by ensuring that your body acts as squeekily clean as possible is very, very important. That has been done to date quietly in the background by the CS treasurer, in particular, who has acted with the utmost professionalism and tact for decades on this. My own gut feeling is that the grant-givers would not particularly like to see CS adopt the Ayrshire amendment, if only because it is very cloudy. Generally, in my experience, such grant-givers truly want to support "their" bodies (they have to fight for "you", and they mostly do, to maintain their budgets from annual attacks that all budget-holders face internally, as resorces are always scarce), but their patience can be snapped. It's difficult enough at the moment fighting to retain any grant at all. CS must be very careful here.

[Patrick McGovern]

be careful of disregarding the Ayrshire motion. this has been carefully thought out at many meetings and in consultation with representatives of all Ayrshire clubs. a little cooperation in this matter will see it resolved to everyone's satisfaction. however if Ayrshire are ignored or fobbed off again then please note that Ayrshire will not just go away. if we are to be under the jurisdiction of a higher authority then that authority should be responsive to the needs and wishes of a strong and well established, well run association.
:\