Plea to the CS Directors

[Andrew McHarg]

I don't agree that in-fighting as an excuse is a cop-out. Having received many emails myself from people talking complete trash about other people (and in some cases talking complete trash about me pesonally), you quite frankly lose the will to respond in a timely fashion and really question the point in doing anything to help out at all.

So in-fighting knocks the confidence of those who really do put in a lot of work to help out. And we will never know how many more people might have volunteered to help out had they not been put off by everything that has gone on. Who in their right mind would want to let themselves in for that? In-fighting creates barriers to teamwork, and - therefore - creates serious obstacles to progress. With respect Derek , I think you're underestimating the profound effect it has had (and will continue to have) on Chess Scotland.

So I actually think Andy is correct when he asserts that if you resolve that you will resolve everything else. The process of actually getting everyone talking constructively will encourage a new breed of volunteers; and the continued success of Chess in Scotland. As such, the knock-on effect of solving the current (and historical) conflicts will be substantial and hopefully lasting.

[Andy Howie]

Derek,

The problem with the forum is it is but a small part of the membership. That's why it should never be used as a sole means of communication.

Yes I am blaming the infighting for a lot of the problems I am seeing at the moment. I am seeing the effect it is having on people who are quite frankly sick of it and ready to walk away. That is nothing to do with communication.

I think people forget that Chess in Scotland is run by volunteers, be it TD's, Arbiters, Coaches and so on. Mistakes are made and they are constantly criticized for them. Lets think on that point for a minutes. Volunteers who can walk away at any moment in time. That is our biggest problem at the moment and until that is resolved, everything else, in my opinion is incidental. When Hamish publishes the names of who is on the committee are we going to see hand wringing from all sides about how it is blatantly unfair or why so and so is missed off or are we going to accept that these people are going to make the changes needed and support them. I know what side I will be taking as change is both inevitable, needed and welcome! Maybe part of that change can cover Director communications laying down guidelines as you have suggested. It is not a bad idea at all!

[Derek Howie]

Derek,

The problem with the forum is it is but a small part of the membership. That's why it should never be used as a sole means of communication.

I wasn't suggesting that it should be the sole means. It's just an additional means, and one of the best ways of directors interacting with members.

Yes I am blaming the infighting for a lot of the problems I am seeing at the moment. I am seeing the effect it is having on people who are quite frankly sick of it and ready to walk away. That is nothing to do with communication.

I accept what you and Andrew say about it being demoralising (been there). However I've tried to be positive post-AGM, (this thread was meant to be a positive one!) and I thought things had improved significantly (although obviously not completely), a few forum threads notwithstanding. If it is just as bad then things are a lot worse than are coming across.

When Hamish publishes the names of who is on the committee are we going to see hand wringing from all sides about how it is blatantly unfair or why so and so is missed off or are we going to accept that these people are going to make the changes needed and support them.

I don't see that as being a "sides" issue. Surely it's something that doesn't involve that? I'm certainly not aware of different views when it comes to amending the Constitution. I would have thought nobody would have an issue as long as the best or most appropriate people were picked.

I know what side I will be taking as change is both inevitable, needed and welcome! Maybe part of that change can cover Director communications laying down guidelines as you have suggested. It is not a bad idea at all!

Agreed. =)

[Matthew Turner]

I'll venture into this thread with a few observations/thoughts.

1. Don't underestimate the impact on this forum. There may be a relative small number of regular contributors, but in my experience postings diffuse more widely within the chess community than you would expect. As a corollary of this I think Directors should be encouraged to post.

2. E-mailing is a very good way of contacting Directors, you can be concise and thoughtful. The vast majority of the time there is no reason why a Director shouldn't respond in timely fashion (see below for clarification), four days is plenty as a guideline.

3. It is impossible to respond to some E-mails because of legal issues. There is no point sending an E-mail if it is impossible for the respondent to respond, think about what you actually want in reply before sending (controversial) E-mails.

4. 2014 is a very important year for Chess Scotland with the Commonwealth Championships and the Glorney, personally I would have thought those events need to take priority over Constitutional Reform. That said the AGM approved the setting up of a Committee on Constitutional Reform, there is really no reason not to get on with that and the prevarication is annoying people.

Matt