AGM Candidates

[amuir]

Andy Burnett, fellow campaigner, if you send me an email, I will send you the motions, and you can post them.
Andy

[Patrick McGovern]

Steve Hilton,

am currently the Secretary General of the International Braille Chess Association (IBCA). I have completed 5 years in this post which is a very senior one on the international stage. I am now in my second term as I was re-elected unanimously in Chennai in 2012.........World team Braille championships in Spain in 2013
World Braille Championships for Women and also the Junior World Braille Championships due to start in Belgrade, Serbia on the 21/8-1/9 2013

given all of the above and your extensive playing commitments Steve do you think you can devote the time necessary to be President?

[Hugh Brechin]

Well, it's nice to see we're all back to hating each other.

Look, seriously. These rejected motions are seeking to do something people who know more about these things than me are saying that the AGM is not competent to do. They are also both bringing up a specific past case which came before the Standards Committee, and about which there has been considerable controversy, in the past year. I can see why people feel strongly about the issues involved, but I would feel more comfortable if, given their personal and specific nature, they were not aired in public.

I don't think there is any reason to post them at all. At the very least, they do not belong in this thread, which is for the discussion of AGM candidacies.

[amuir]

"Well, it's nice to see we're all back to hating each other."

If fellow honest person Andy Burnett backs me on this he goes entirely up in my estimation from what I have said before.

[andyburnett]

Well, it's nice to see we're all back to hating each other.

Look, seriously. These rejected motions are seeking to do something people who know more about these things than me are saying that the AGM is not competent to do. They are also both bringing up a specific past case which came before the Standards Committee, and about which there has been considerable controversy, in the past year. I can see why people feel strongly about the issues involved, but I would feel more comfortable if, given their personal and specific nature, they were not aired in public.

I don't think there is any reason to post them at all. At the very least, they do not belong in this thread, which is for the discussion of AGM candidacies.

All well and good Hugh, but why then are these people who 'know more about these things than you do' not publicly addressing (in the way you have) what has become a contentious issue?

If it is just Andy Muir banging his drum about it then that's one thing - if it's Andy, Robert M. and a host of others (not given, but implied - Andy M's longer posting was unnaturally well constructed!)

Aside from this, the motions will no doubt be discussed at the AGM in some form or another (raised under AOCB and declared incompetent!) and if details are then 'omitted' from the minutes, which seems at least possible given previous examples, where do we stand then?

'Personal and specific' is one thing - defamatory or otherwise legally dubious is another. In any event, my journalism background compels me to at least read the damn motions and decide for myself if they ought to be publically posted!

[andyburnett]

"Well, it's nice to see we're all back to hating each other."

If fellow honest person Andy Burnett backs me on this he goes entirely up in my estimation from what I have said before.

Let's not get confused here Andy - I'm not supporting the motions - it could well be that I find them absurd, pointless and/or out of order.

I'm seeking a bit more transparency within CS as the murky fug of the last year has been interminable, and now that decisions have to be made at the AGM, some clarity is required. It could be that the CS decisions have all been proper and correct, but so far it's impossible to tell for 'outsiders' like myself.

[StevieHilton]

Pat,
Yes I have time.

[Hugh Brechin]

All well and good Hugh, but why then are these people who 'know more about these things than you do' not publicly addressing (in the way you have) what has become a contentious issue?

Fair point Andy. I understand that things must be very confusing for people outside of the loop, and the last year certainly hasn't ideal. I've asked Andy Howie, as Executive Director, if he could address your issues, because I'm kind of flying blind here (I'm only a bit in the loop myself). Hopefully he will be able to do that one way or the other before too long, though I know he's busy. If he thinks that the motions can be posted then that's fine by me. I'd appreciate it if people could hold off on publication until he's weighed in though.

[WBuchanan]

On whether to post the contentious motion.

The Rules:

1. No personal attacks or inflammatory behaviour
2. Post in the correct forum and stay on topic
3. No unauthorised advertising or inappropriate links
4. Respect the privacy of other users

Number 1 should suffice.

[Patrick McGovern]

Thanks Steve