Tromso Olympiad 2014

[harrymarron]

Who needs Trip Advisor when we have Robin eh? Totally absurd! As is this whole situation! The present Chess Scotland Council are giving the word "Amateur" a bad name allowing this state of affairs to develop and I'm embarrassed to think that any potential funders would be reading this thread. Yes, the director should be allowed to direct, however when there is a clear conflict of interest the person involved should be instructed to stop. I'd advise Council to read George Neave's post again and put the suggested protocol into place and for goodness sake get a grip!

[WBuchanan]

Some pages back Hugh Brechin suggested forming a committee to select the captain. In general, I don't think this is necessary, but perhaps it would be appropriate to do this with Tromso. I suggest Andy Howie, Dougie Bryson and myself, assuming we all ruled ourselves out of the captaincy role. We'd take submissions from the players and from Andy Muir and possibly others (Jonathan Grant for example) and then make a decision. If we chose Andy Muir then the players would have had their say and they would have to accept it. If we chose someone else then Andy Muir could hopefully feel that the right person had been selected in the end and that his International Directorship was continuing to operate successfully.

I think that’s a very good suggestion Matthew. It raises some issues though; firstly that the problem is that in the absence of a major happening, the decision appears to be Andy M’s to take - so the fairness that you trying to build in may not be there if you pre-choose people whose views as officials are already known to Andy M (and indeed the players). The second issue is that membership representation is missing; not that the membership should actually select the captain, but that views on eligibility criteria have been expressed. Therefore I think it would be a good idea to precede any such process by a quick, ad hoc canvass of members on the eligibility criteria. I’ve no fixed views on those myself – I think the captain should be agreeable to the team (though the team might accept Andy M if chosen by a fair process) but on the other hand, I am also slightly uncomfortable with the idea of selecting a captain responsible for picking the team every day who is unable to make much of a judgement himself on the form of his GM players. People have also raised the issue of nationality and costs with regard to the captaincy and some members have expressed a view on effectively paying for travelling computer skills. As against that the players' endorsement should not be taken lightly. So quite a lot would emerge from this ad hoc exercise; the captain (by what is becoming your trademark compromise ) to resolve the immediate problem, and the feedback obtained could be firmed up to determine future eligibility criteria and selection processes at the AGM – processes that seem to be badly needed.

[andyburnett]

Interesting suggestions from Matthew and Walter.

However, I think the first thing which needs to be done is for CS council to decide whether they as a body

a) support Andy Muir and accept his decisions and actions regarding his own captaincy, or
b) decide that alternative solutions be investigated.

The worrying aspect of this is that certain council members have allegedly discussed this and given Andrew Muir support (according to Andrew Muir) but that there is no record of this from the council meeting minutes, and several directors are completely in the dark about such discussions and support.

[PRoberts]

Maybe those still to book flights for the olympiad could consider visiting the World Championship match between Carlsen and Anand at an intriguing venue...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.chessbase.com/post/breaking-news-world-championship-2014-in-norway">http://en.chessbase.com/post/breaking-n ... -in-norway</a><!-- m -->

[D-Oswald]

haha think you might have fallen for an April Fool Paul (or are trying to catch others out!)

[WBuchanan]

Damn, I booked my flight

[Jim Webster]

I did a quick statistic on this thread yesterday

193 Posts/33 posters

# Posts / # Posters
20+ / 2
10+ / 2
5+ / 7
<5 / 22

While it may well, and justifiably so, be a "hot" topic - it hardly accounts for the majority of CS members.

Should the council act on such a small vocal minority - I don't know, but I doubt it.
One thing is reasonably sure -postings on the noticeboard is hardly sufficient cause.

You really need to make a case, get the required support and formally submit it it to the council.

Then it can be looked at again

[andyburnett]

I did a quick statistic on this thread yesterday

193 Posts/33 posters

# Posts / # Posters
20+ / 2
10+ / 2
5+ / 7
<5 / 22

While it may well, and justifiably so, be a "hot" topic - it hardly accounts for the majority of CS members.

Should the council act on such a small vocal minority - I don't know, but I doubt it.
One thing is reasonably sure -postings on the noticeboard is hardly sufficient cause.

You really need to make a case, get the required support and formally submit it it to the council.

Then it can be looked at again

As the majority of CS members never post on this forum, 33 separate posters shows that there is considerable interest in the topic.

Besides this, there has been much private debate and disagreement on this issue which has included directors, players, possible players, ordinary CS members and even non-members. so postings on this forum are hardly the only 'sufficient cause' for it to be raised further within CS.

I'm curious about the phrase "Then it can be looked at again". Was it looked at before?
We still have no answer to the 'council meeting discussions/support/etc' issue. I would be interested to know what was discussed, by whom and on whose 'proposal'. If nothing has been formally discussed, I would be interested to hear from Andy Muir as to why he claims support from this quarter; surely an important point given the situation?

[Phil Thomas]

I did a quick statistic on this thread yesterday

193 Posts/33 posters

# Posts / # Posters
20+ / 2
10+ / 2
5+ / 7
<5 / 22

While it may well, and justifiably so, be a "hot" topic - it hardly accounts for the majority of CS members.

Should the council act on such a small vocal minority - I don't know, but I doubt it.
One thing is reasonably sure -postings on the noticeboard is hardly sufficient cause.

You really need to make a case, get the required support and formally submit it it to the council.

Then it can be looked at again

Jim and many others,

why all this talk about Council taking action? - a body which according to the constitution normally meets just once per year and which does not appear to have such a decision as part of its regular remit - constitution section 8 is your reference.

More to the point is the International board - constitution section 11 the relevant parts of which I have copied below.



It does seems strange to wait for or call an extra council meeting in order to create a committee to do the job of a body that already exists in the written constitution.

***********************************************************************************************************

International Director - International Director (Open), International Director (Junior), Event organisers and other personnel appointed by the International Director (Open) and International Director (Junior), FIDE Delegate and at least two people appointed as decided by the International Board

11.2.4 Boards may also invite any other Chess Scotland Office Bearers to attend Board meetings

11.3 The powers and duties of the Boards are:

11.3.1 To govern their area of activity in Chess Scotland on behalf of the membership between General Meetings.

11.3.2 To input to an annual business plan and budget, or longer period as determined by the Management Board.

11.3.3 May appoint ad hoc committees that may co-opt Individual members

11.3.4 To fill any vacancy among Board Members by appointment.


8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Post Script The second word of the extract "Director" appears to be a typo for "Board"

[Hugh Brechin]

In response to Jim's point: we haven't heard from the majority of the membership, but we have heard from a rather high proportion of the people affected by the question of the Olympiad captaincy. I would certainly say that John Shaw's views on such an issue should carry more weight than, for instance, mine (as indeed should Andy Muir's.) A majority of the Scottish team unhappy with the captaincy situation sounds at the very least like grounds for concern.

More to the point is the International board - constitution section 11 the relevant parts of which I have copied below.



It does seems strange to wait for or call an extra council meeting in order to create a committee to do the job of a body that already exists in the written constitution.

***********************************************************************************************************

International Director - International Director (Open), International Director (Junior), Event organisers and other personnel appointed by the International Director (Open) and International Director (Junior), FIDE Delegate and at least two people appointed as decided by the International Board

11.2.4 Boards may also invite any other Chess Scotland Office Bearers to attend Board meetings

11.3 The powers and duties of the Boards are:

11.3.1 To govern their area of activity in Chess Scotland on behalf of the membership between General Meetings.

11.3.2 To input to an annual business plan and budget, or longer period as determined by the Management Board.

11.3.3 May appoint ad hoc committees that may co-opt Individual members

11.3.4 To fill any vacancy among Board Members by appointment.


8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Post Script The second word of the extract "Director" appears to be a typo for "Board"

So that's Andy Howie and Calum MacQueen sitting in judgement? Might be interesting.

Seriously, I know that there is provision for such a board in the constitution, but does anyone know when it was last convened? If there aren't any helpful precedents, an attempt to put it together at this late stage might be difficult, not least given that one of the two directors with the power to appoint board members is certainly an interested party. I think Matthew Turner's idea is probably the best yet suggested: I haven't seen any other reasonably detailed proposals which manage to seem fair, workable and at least potentially acceptable to everyone. There's a good amount of scope to debate the details (and the idea of convening the international board definitely has its points; it's probably theoretically the right thing to do). I do strongly believe that at this stage the outcome that would hopefully lead to the least ill feeling would be one in which both sides submit the matter to someone else's judgement and agree to abide by it.