15-08-2013, 09:49 PM
I’m not sure this is so simple. I think account needs to be taken of (a) the Main Policy Document governing PVG, which it seems was updated in April 2013, and gives very significant powers to the Chess Scotland PVG Lead Signatory and the President of Chess Scotland; and how this relates to (b) the draft Standards Committee Operating Procedures, Para. 1 of which declares that PVG(PVG Lead Signatory) is one of those ‘national level’ functions/matters (?) which ‘require to be reported to, and addressed at, national level in order to ensure consistency and, where relevant, legal compliance.’
How are (a) and (b) to be reconciled in light of the following extract from the Section in (a) titled Confidentiality and Appeal process: ‘ … the decision of the Chess Scotland PVG Lead Signatory is final and can only be challenged by an individual who has either been deleted from the registered lists of volunteers or has been denied admission thereto. The individual in such circumstance can appeal direct to the Chess Scotland President to have the Lead Signatory’s decision reviewed. The President and Lead Signatory will then discuss jointly the appropriate action to be taken in order to protect both junior chess players and Chess Scotland as a whole. The President’s decision on the course of action to be taken is final.’
Is there any need for (b)? If yes, then why?
PS I wrote this before noticing the above two posts from WAlter and Andy Muir. My post is not intended to refer to theirs.
How are (a) and (b) to be reconciled in light of the following extract from the Section in (a) titled Confidentiality and Appeal process: ‘ … the decision of the Chess Scotland PVG Lead Signatory is final and can only be challenged by an individual who has either been deleted from the registered lists of volunteers or has been denied admission thereto. The individual in such circumstance can appeal direct to the Chess Scotland President to have the Lead Signatory’s decision reviewed. The President and Lead Signatory will then discuss jointly the appropriate action to be taken in order to protect both junior chess players and Chess Scotland as a whole. The President’s decision on the course of action to be taken is final.’
Is there any need for (b)? If yes, then why?
PS I wrote this before noticing the above two posts from WAlter and Andy Muir. My post is not intended to refer to theirs.