15-08-2013, 11:42 AM
Here are some thoughts I have been sent from my colleagues:
1. If the motion was deemed to be libellous why do we have to wait till AGM to find out why the motions were blocked? Can these motions be reworded and resubmitted or can they be submitted under AOCB
2. Can the president rule any business under AOCB as being out of order
3. Was it the President alone that blocked these motions or was it the executive or other council. Does the President and/or the council have the power to block motions
4. If Chess Scotland (CS) AGM created the Standards Committee (SC) why is the SC not answerable to AGM and/or CS?
5. If the SC does something that has legal consequences (i.e. criminal prosecution) who is liable CS OR the standards committee?
6. What if any is the procedure to amend or administrate the Standards committee
7. Will the standards committee submit a report to the AGM in relation to the assault or anything else
8. Was the Chess Scotland official concerned with the complaint suspended or did he resign and what was the punishment when the complaint was upheld. Why weren’t the Police informed when the complaint was upheld. What future role can this person have particularly in the Junior Chess Community. Who is legally liable if an incident was repeated within the sphere of Chess Scotland
9. One CS official is hounding another (by email) to resign, what is the best way in stamping out this outrageous behaviour
10. Why is one CS official secretly asking one presidential candidate questions while helping to organise the other candidate’s campaign?
11. If the standards committee proves to be unpopular, what is the procedure to replace or dissolve it
12. Why does there seem to be a fixation on having a go at present and past members (e.g Micharl Hanley and Phil Thomas, who have more for Junior Chess than any committee put together)
13. If chess Scotland is the sum of all, why are all doubts and dissention treated aggressively and with unbelievable vitriol and anger
1. If the motion was deemed to be libellous why do we have to wait till AGM to find out why the motions were blocked? Can these motions be reworded and resubmitted or can they be submitted under AOCB
2. Can the president rule any business under AOCB as being out of order
3. Was it the President alone that blocked these motions or was it the executive or other council. Does the President and/or the council have the power to block motions
4. If Chess Scotland (CS) AGM created the Standards Committee (SC) why is the SC not answerable to AGM and/or CS?
5. If the SC does something that has legal consequences (i.e. criminal prosecution) who is liable CS OR the standards committee?
6. What if any is the procedure to amend or administrate the Standards committee
7. Will the standards committee submit a report to the AGM in relation to the assault or anything else
8. Was the Chess Scotland official concerned with the complaint suspended or did he resign and what was the punishment when the complaint was upheld. Why weren’t the Police informed when the complaint was upheld. What future role can this person have particularly in the Junior Chess Community. Who is legally liable if an incident was repeated within the sphere of Chess Scotland
9. One CS official is hounding another (by email) to resign, what is the best way in stamping out this outrageous behaviour
10. Why is one CS official secretly asking one presidential candidate questions while helping to organise the other candidate’s campaign?
11. If the standards committee proves to be unpopular, what is the procedure to replace or dissolve it
12. Why does there seem to be a fixation on having a go at present and past members (e.g Micharl Hanley and Phil Thomas, who have more for Junior Chess than any committee put together)
13. If chess Scotland is the sum of all, why are all doubts and dissention treated aggressively and with unbelievable vitriol and anger