AGM Candidates

[amuir]

In 1974 a fifteen-year old boy was in the successful Giffnock team which won the Glasgow League. After gaining excellent support from CS officials, he played in the Glorney Cup that year and is still playing for Scotland 40 years later.

In 2013 a fifteen-year old boy was in the successful Hamilton team which won the Glasgow League. After gaining abysmal support from CS officials, he did not play in the Glorney Cup that year and has given up chess. The matter is raised by two of his clubmates at the AGM but is deemed not worthy of discussion.

Where did it all go wrong ?

[Mike Scott]

When I took the Gillespies team to Belfast in the UK schools competition I was shocked by just how economically poor the bits we saw appeared to be. It made me wonder at what they were fighting over and whether the 'winners' would simply inherit a ghost town, from which all the young talent will have emigrated.

It sometimes seems to me that that the less there is the more we fight over the crumbs.

Seems to apply our chess world as well.

Walter made the point that the 'judiciary' (standards committee) should be wholly independent of the executive by not having any members in common. I would totally agree, that is a no brainer except for the problem that there are rarely enough volunteers to fill all positions and the wearing of two hats is a common solution. It has occurred frequently in the past - be it within selection committees or when organizers from one body become directors while still representing the other organization. Without enough volunteers such situations are bound to arise and generally most people have enough good sense to know which hat they are wearing.

I think we must learn to trust the judgement of those that have look at the facts whatever the situation. In most cases not to do so simply does not standup to close scrutiny; driven not by the facts rather by a desire to match the facts to a particular conspiracy theory. It may be you do not have all the facts and those that you do have only come from one source. Be honest with yourself and ask what exactly do I know rather then what is it that I believe.

I am sure people have made mistakes but that is what people do do - especially when put under pressure. So rather than issue abuse and then shout "aha" when they slip up - politely point out the error of their ways and either volunteer to help or step back.

[Kevin Mayo]

Well said/written Duncan Grassie.
Those of you to whom he has directed his comments, please read his post, think, then take action.
I have been truly stunned at some of the senseless, destructive behaviour on here over the last year or so. There are some adults who persistently post on here with the maturity of vitriolic 5 year olds.

I have just one point to make in addition to Duncan's synopsis.
A notice board forum is no way to attempt a discussion. By its very construct, dialogue can be ignored.
It is also very easy for written words to be misinterpreted or taken in a spirit in which they were not intended. Intentional or otherwise, it is remarkably easy to upset and offend people.

You could remove this forum. On balance it (or more accurately some of the people who use it) causes more problems than it solves.

Proper constructive debate can only happen face to to face.

[Duncan Grassie]

HOW you plan to deal with this issue.

I'm not standing for election but in my opinion the only way unfortunately for this situation to be resolved is for all the people responsible for the politics and the bickering on both sides to realise that they are perpetuating the problem, step back voluntarily and sort out their personal differences with fellow chess players outside the umbrella of Chess Scotland and let other people who are 'clean' that they trust fill in the voids. I am already 'dirtying' myself just being involved in this debate.

Chess 'politics' should be about chess rather than politics. What I mean by that is decisions need to be made on the basis of what will improve the standard and participation of chess at all levels rather than point scoring between 2-5% of the officials at the top.

I do emphasise it has to be done voluntarily rather than them being picked out individually and told since it will only continue the chain of resentment into the future.

[Andrew McHarg]

Just to note, I have PM'ed both Alex G. and Walter B. about this matter but the messages seem to be taking forever to leave my outbox!

I wouldn't worry about this Andy. I'm not sure if it's like that by design, but I'm pretty sure the PMs do get sent before the disappear from the "Outbox". I've sent some in the past and received a response before the PM was in my "Sent" folder.

[Derek Howie]

Expanding on it slightly, cause that sounds awfully high-handed: I'm sure the Standards Committee will be discussed at the AGM, but as mentioned up-thread, motions which try to bind the committee to take certain actions are not necessarily competent.

Surely it's up to the AGM to decide whether they are competent, and it should not be up to individual members at any level to make that decision and not give the AGM its place?

I can't say I'm in favour of either of the motions in question, but it's wrong for CS directors to prevent them from being raised and continues the censorship that seems to be prevalent within CS at the moment.

[Jacqui Thomas]

I honestly believe that 95% of the Chess Scotland community who read this stuff react in the same manner as Kenny McGeoch's post above. There was also a post from Kevin Campbell a few months ago that i saw which summarised it nicely. Get on with the organising and stop the bickering, then we can finally work out how to bring all the footsoldiers back!

I have only just recently started reading the board after the disgusting treatment I got at the council meeting. All I have ever done on this board & in emails is tell the truth & point out facts. It seems its time for me to do that again.

95% of the community need to take their blinkers off & find out what is really going on.

Where did it all go wrong ?

the question is more like when? which was just over a year ago.

There is nothing Historical - all historical disagreements were put to bed during Donald's presidency. If the truth wasn’t censored & was told to the membership instead of hoping the facts would go away or the constant cover ups & distractions made by a small minority by telling lies & twisted tales on this board & outside. The rest of you might actually pause for thought & reconsider how unfairly you are being treated but at the moment with the denials & making out certain people are glory hunting or deliberately causing problems, most of you don’t even realise you are being deceived. I am so looking forward to the day you realise that those that are being made out to be the baddies are in fact the good guys.

[WBuchanan]

Interesting perspective re Belfast, Mike. Though it struck me as being from a viewpoint that is a little establishmentarian, in that perhaps the fight wasn’t just over the crumbs, but things like pride, identity, history, that can resonate deep within the souls of communities –things that barely register with those who see things only from their own viewpoint and as a result can only ask things like Why can’t they stop fighting? Although it is also true that much of the fighting was over the day before’s fighting..relevant to the chess world? Perhaps..

“I think we must learn to trust the judgement of those that have look at the facts whatever the situation. In most cases not to do so simply does not standup to close scrutiny; driven not by the facts rather by a desire to match the facts to a particular conspiracy theory. It may be you do not have all the facts and those that you do have only come from one source. Be honest with yourself and ask what exactly do I know rather then what is it that I believe.”

The person admonished will always think of the flaws in the process. Have you considered that your view of good guys doing their objective best versus critics that are driven emotionally or by an agenda might be a little unconsciously biased? I think what we need to have trust in is the process - and that to me starts with the composition.

Just to elaborate, bias is what needs to be avoided - you don’t need ‘conspiracy’ when you have bias, and conflict of interest is a good substitute for bias. Even in the less than perfect world of politics, it’s accepted that conflicts of interest are to be avoided. When one comes up, you step down - you don’t say trust my judgement, I always know what hat I’m wearing. Justice is the same.

I might be being a bit too idealist – as the people volunteer to run things in chess tend to be the kind of trustworthy, pillar-of-the-community type of person you seem to have in mind, what you suggest might just about work in a culture of openness. But I'd say no-one is immune from bias - it won’t work if the scrutiny which you say not trusting the judgement doesn’t stand up to, or the facts on which it would be based, are actually missing.

But why do we need to do it this way? I’ve never seen a call put out for volunteers on a ‘potential’ basis. As there have been hardy any cases, I think many people would take a chance! Cheers for your thoughts.

[David G Congalton]

the question is more like when? which was just over a year ago.

Jacqui

What was the cause?

If it was just over a year ago, this would mean the catalyst for the whole aftermath was prior to last year's AGM and way before anything else that may be being debated.

I do appreciate though that perhaps your assessment of when things went wrong may not be completely accurate but I think it would be helpful to have a starting point. If other issues have occurred as a result of the initial cause then they will continue to occur until the primary concern is addressed.

Kind Regards

David

[Duncan Grassie]

Jacqui,

I'm not arguing that whatever treatment you got at the council meeting is not important to and should be pursued by you. But you are also right that it doesn't register with a fair % of us (I don't know if my 95% is a fair representation), not because we are apathetic as you have mentioned but because we don't want to be party to creating a chasm in Scottish chess. We just want chess to be organised and played through our chess politics, we don't care about personal politics.

If you think your treatment has an effect on the amount or quality of the chess that the 95% (or whatever) of us play then your input should be flagged up here or to standards committees etc. If however it will have no tangible effect on the amount or quality of the chess that the 95% of us will play and involves your personal relationships with other people then really it is none of our business to comment.

People from all sides need to recognise that they have been part of the problem and we need people in that don't carry the baggage. That includes those that may have antagonised you and your family in the past. But as ive said before they have to recognise they've been part of the problem themselves without being told.