Official CS Complaints procedure questions?

[andyburnett]

Now I know what this is about, as opposed to speaking generally

The Arbiters' Committee is in the preliminary stages of investigating a complaint. The first step in any such investigation is to establish exactly what happened. Surely it is in the best interests of chess and your club that the facts are known.

Unless your club has done something wrong then it should have nothing to fear in telling the truth.

If as a result of the fact finding process there would appear to be a case to answer then those involved are likely to be informed.

Those investigating are unlikely to answer your questions until the matter is resolved.

I understand where you're coming from Andy, and it's probably how things are normally handled. Workplace complaints are handled similarly from my experience. Our club has nothing to worry about, that's not my concern, but I personally feel that we should be told what specifically the complaint is - perhaps that's just my journalism training kicking in; I'm a nosey b...arker!

The problem is, I guess, if the decision is made not to proceed with the complaint beyond the initial investigation, then no-one outside of Hamilton/arbiters/CS officials knows what the hell's going on :\ Perhaps that's the way it should be, but it does leave things open to gossip and conjecture which in my experience is often worse than the reality of a situation!

[andyburnett]

I have now seen a copy of the complaint from Hamilton and I'm glad that I did.

I had information (unknown to any of my fellow team members) which is relevant, but would otherwise most likely not have seen the light of day until after the complaint was dealt with.

Perhaps the Committee dealing with the complaint can also have a think (and provide recommendations)about the actual process for any future issues which might be raised?!