A Selection Issue

[Patrick McGovern]

I might remind you that a Standards Committee report was, disturbingly, rejected or more accurately referred back for revision at that meeting

The report was rejected simply because the members of the standards committee, that were present at the AGM, were unaware of the content of the report. Everything else followed from that.

[Patrick McGovern]

I am led to believe that revised version is now published

where? =|

[David G Congalton]

Chris

It is extremely difficult to have an open and transparent debate on this subject, when the nature of the "disturbing allegations" are not clear.

What exactly is the "sharp practice" you are referring to?

Pat

There's a link on the CS Home page to the revised report.

Chris

I think you should have read the revised report before commenting.

[Donald Wilson]

Can I comment on this question from a different angle?

I am in charge of the party going down to Liverpool, but I was not involved in the selection of the players (on that matter, the only thing I disagree with is that four players have been moved up into a higher age group than the one appropriate to their age, but I can see why it has been done, the selectors have the right to do that, and I accept their decision).

I can't see any sign of impropriety in the selections, but I don't have perfect knowledge so I can't state categorically that there is absolutely no cause for even the slightest bit of concern.

And if somebody has concerns, even if mistaken, it is right that those concerns should be expressed openly - suppression of unwelcome views is part of the road to dictatorship, and must be opposed.

But maybe the question should have waited till after Liverpool. The danger now is that players, their parents and their friends will be looking at the squad and wondering: who doesn't belong here, who isn't here on merit, whose place has been bought? And that is no basis on which to build team morale. Every member of the squad must be welcome, and must be made to feel welcome, as friends, comrades and companions on the adventure that is the Liverpool Quadrangular.

I really hope nobody is trying to poison the atmosphere for the kids who are going to Liverpool.

[Andy Howie]

Hi Donald

I don't have any issue with people debating this. I do have a problem with people making allegations against other people when they are out of the country with a Junior squad. I think we are thinking alike as you suggested that you would like to see it wait until after the event so as not to poison it for the juniors who are going.

Andy

[Andy McCulloch]

Having read the 'Report' I would suggest that the whole process is as clear as, and about as much use as, mud.

[Patrick McGovern]

disturbing allegations passed to me by the originator of them

how does this sit with the following?

the case ended when the complainant received an apology

perhaps the answer is in this

In view of the complainant’s subsequent actions, the Committee proposes that the Standards
Code and/or the Operating Procedures should be amended to ensure that no complainant (or
any other party) shall in future be able to breach the confidentiality of the Committee’s
communications (or misrepresent them) with impunity in the future

perhaps the mischief making is not from Mr Laidlaw but from someone who is not satisfied with his pound of flesh?

[Andy Howie]

What if I was to say that it is not and is someone whom I don't actually know. I do know your assertion is incorrect.

[Patrick McGovern]

The Chair and Members of the Standards Committee shall be appointed, normally for a three- year (renewable) term, by a General Meeting.

Mr Hampton/Laidlaw may wish to revise his comment of

Robin will presumably have to meet with this unelected body on his return from Slovenia.

Mr Hampton/Laidlaw's comments are so full of holes as to be worth withdrawing completely.

I would also suggest that Mr Hampton/Laidlaw attend AGM/EGM etc in order to contribute in a more positive way to debates and discussions for the benefit of junior chess in Scotland.

[Alan Jelfs]

[

In view of the complainant’s subsequent actions, the Committee proposes that the Standards
Code and/or the Operating Procedures should be amended to ensure that no complainant (or
any other party) shall in future be able to breach the confidentiality of the Committee’s
communications (or misrepresent them) with impunity in the future

But how is the Standards Committee going to improve standards if they don't communicate clearly the nature of the behaviour which fell short of the standards they aspire to?