15-08-2013, 02:10 PM
A couple of points on the standards committee discussion.
1) From the document entitled 1.3StandardsOperatingProcedures (home page, then the AGM stuff at the top, then ‘Motions’), right at the top:
“The Standards Committee (the “Committee”) shall endeavour to uphold the highest standards of sportsmanship, fairness, integrity and transparency, as exemplified by the conduct of its own affairs”
Later in the ‘rationale’ it says
“Like all these organisations, Chess Scotland has a vital interest in ensuring that appropriate standards are upheld. For example, Chess Scotland events depend heavily on the selfless work of volunteers. Further, crucial financial support is received from the Scottish Government and other sponsors. Thus, actions which directly or indirectly damage events or discourage sponsors, volunteers and other parties from supporting chess activities can not be tolerated.”
I acknowledge that if you are trying do some kind of 'good' it can be difficult when you are asked to specify exactly what 'good', and why - and people then say but what about this, or that.... Still, I found the heavy emphasis here on not ‘damaging events’ or ‘discouraging sponsors’ grated along with the stated intent to uphold standards of “sportsmanship, fairness, integrity and transparency”, as the two aims are in general different things. Perhaps by ‘actions’ it is intended to mean those that represent breaches in the expected standards of sportsmanship (etc) that also might IN ADDITION happen to discourage sponsors?
Suppose a sponsor (company or government) is vigorously criticized on the board or at a tournament on ethical grounds, or political grounds perhaps. This could discourage sponsors, and could conceivably damage an event – while not lowering (or perhaps even raising) any standard of e.g. integrity and transparency.
If by ‘standards’ is meant means standards of sportsmanship, fairness, integrity and transparency, then affecting sponsors and tournaments shouldn’t come into it, or should at most play a minor role (a bit like a crime being aggravated by additional factors). On the other hand, if in reality affecting sponsors or tournaments is one of the most important considerations, then surely that’s what it should say at the top of the blurb?
In my example above if the criticism of govt/sponsors was prominent enough, conceivably this could be (mis)construed as a breach of standards. In the wider world the misuse of 'standards' for political ends is a common enough tool of 'establishments' after all – I’m not suggesting this would happen, but I think it would be better for the scope to be more clearly defined.
2) Just to draw on Mike Scott’s post on the previous page
“This I assume is similar to the separation of government from the judiciary in the 'real' world”
But in the real world, government ministers don’t get to be jury members in trials. It seems CS director(s) can be part of the standards committee, so long as they are not in a majority. This suggests the committee will not be independent of the parent organization. Of course with some issues where CS officials might have an obvious interest, a CS director might in practice declare a conflict of interest and stand down. They might not, though. I’m just not sure why any directors should be involved at all? Justice is supposed to be judgement by your peers and all that - not by people wearing two hats.
Even with government ministers not being routinely sent to appear on juries, it seems that the UK government can often manage to influence results in courts when it really wants to (sorry for the comparison with politics, definitely lowering the standard there…).
Cheers
PS - good post by Duncan Grassie, food for thought.
1) From the document entitled 1.3StandardsOperatingProcedures (home page, then the AGM stuff at the top, then ‘Motions’), right at the top:
“The Standards Committee (the “Committee”) shall endeavour to uphold the highest standards of sportsmanship, fairness, integrity and transparency, as exemplified by the conduct of its own affairs”
Later in the ‘rationale’ it says
“Like all these organisations, Chess Scotland has a vital interest in ensuring that appropriate standards are upheld. For example, Chess Scotland events depend heavily on the selfless work of volunteers. Further, crucial financial support is received from the Scottish Government and other sponsors. Thus, actions which directly or indirectly damage events or discourage sponsors, volunteers and other parties from supporting chess activities can not be tolerated.”
I acknowledge that if you are trying do some kind of 'good' it can be difficult when you are asked to specify exactly what 'good', and why - and people then say but what about this, or that.... Still, I found the heavy emphasis here on not ‘damaging events’ or ‘discouraging sponsors’ grated along with the stated intent to uphold standards of “sportsmanship, fairness, integrity and transparency”, as the two aims are in general different things. Perhaps by ‘actions’ it is intended to mean those that represent breaches in the expected standards of sportsmanship (etc) that also might IN ADDITION happen to discourage sponsors?
Suppose a sponsor (company or government) is vigorously criticized on the board or at a tournament on ethical grounds, or political grounds perhaps. This could discourage sponsors, and could conceivably damage an event – while not lowering (or perhaps even raising) any standard of e.g. integrity and transparency.
If by ‘standards’ is meant means standards of sportsmanship, fairness, integrity and transparency, then affecting sponsors and tournaments shouldn’t come into it, or should at most play a minor role (a bit like a crime being aggravated by additional factors). On the other hand, if in reality affecting sponsors or tournaments is one of the most important considerations, then surely that’s what it should say at the top of the blurb?
In my example above if the criticism of govt/sponsors was prominent enough, conceivably this could be (mis)construed as a breach of standards. In the wider world the misuse of 'standards' for political ends is a common enough tool of 'establishments' after all – I’m not suggesting this would happen, but I think it would be better for the scope to be more clearly defined.
2) Just to draw on Mike Scott’s post on the previous page
“This I assume is similar to the separation of government from the judiciary in the 'real' world”
But in the real world, government ministers don’t get to be jury members in trials. It seems CS director(s) can be part of the standards committee, so long as they are not in a majority. This suggests the committee will not be independent of the parent organization. Of course with some issues where CS officials might have an obvious interest, a CS director might in practice declare a conflict of interest and stand down. They might not, though. I’m just not sure why any directors should be involved at all? Justice is supposed to be judgement by your peers and all that - not by people wearing two hats.
Even with government ministers not being routinely sent to appear on juries, it seems that the UK government can often manage to influence results in courts when it really wants to (sorry for the comparison with politics, definitely lowering the standard there…).
Cheers
PS - good post by Duncan Grassie, food for thought.