ICU AGM - 28th of Sept

reunion

Notification from the ICU website (Note: The ICU site is down from the 23rd to the 25th of July).

ICU website wrote:

The AGM will be held at the Kilmainham Hilton Hotel, on Sunday 28 September, starting at 3 p.m. As in the past couple of years, it will be preceded by the Irish Blitz Championship. In a new development, an Irish Rapidplay Championship will be run at the same venue on the day before, Saturday 27 September. Further details of these tournaments will be published shortly.
In order for the motions and nominations to be made available to the membership at least four weeks before the AGM, as required by the Constitution (article 7.2) the closing date for the receipt of motions and nominations will be 20 August. They should be sent to the Secretary. Proposers of motions are reminded to make sure that their wording accurately represents their intentions, and also to ensure that their motion is compatible with the Constitution. Similarly, proposers of Constitutional amendments should ensure that their amendment is compatible with the rest of the Constitution; if it is not, they should propose further amendments to make sure that the Constitution is left consistent if their motion is accepted

historian

@reunion
As you are a moderator, I presume you can change the title of this thread so that it reflects the correct date of the ICU AGM (as properly given in the body of your opening post).

reunion

historian wrote: »

@reunion
As you are a moderator, I presume you can change the title of this thread so that it reflects the correct date of the ICU AGM (as properly given in the body of your opening post).

Done, thank you.

mikhail

Anyone want to lay odds on this year's running time? 10 hours? 12?

Sparks

After last year's debacle, is anyone actually going to show up?

reunion

Well I gather now that motions have to actually do something (and make sense). So hopefully this will reduce the time needed at the meeting.

Plus that and the new rapidplay tournament would give people the chance to meet up and discuss motions with proposers before the AGM to clarify anything prior to the AGM - hopefully anyway.

I hope this year, set time is put in place and people are removed when they are out of order.

cdeb

reunion wrote: »

people are removed when they are out of order.

This is the key to it. There's a remarkably loud minority intent on bullying everyone else. Gas thing is for the main part, they do little or nothing of worth themselves.

Still, I imagine the turnout will be rather lower than last year. Which can't be a good thing unfortunately.

The rapidplay should be good fun though.

Sparks

Might be a good time to introduce postal or proxy votes so. If folk aren't showing up because of (amongst other things) the threat of physical violence (whether in general or in specific), then something needs to change, and while having the hotel provide security might work, most reasonable people will just think "Security? For a fecking CHESS meeting? The feck with that, I've got more fun things I can do on a saturday..." and when that happens, the old adage about how only those who show up get to vote becomes a little darker than originally intended...

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

Might be a good time to introduce postal or proxy votes so. If folk aren't showing up because of (amongst other things) the threat of physical violence (whether in general or in specific), then something needs to change, and while having the hotel provide security might work, most reasonable people will just think "Security? For a fecking CHESS meeting? The feck with that, I've got more fun things I can do on a saturday..." and when that happens, the old adage about how only those who show up get to vote becomes a little darker than originally intended...

Well the problem with postal or proxy votes is because someone has registered a fictional person in the past in an attempt to get more votes (from what I've heard)..

I know people under 18 (or 16?) aren't allowed to vote because someone brought a bunch of kids to the AGM once to get elected. Seems a shame that they lost their votes as people would have to be mindful of what they say/do as there could/would be kids present.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

Well the problem with postal or proxy votes is because someone has registered a fictional person in the past in an attempt to get more votes (from what I've heard)

Can't be that big a problem to solve if every other sport around can manage to have them...

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

Can't be that big a problem to solve if every other sport around can manage to have them...

I'm sure the other sports have solved some of the issues Irish chess currently has...

Sparks

The AGM agenda. motions and nominations are now up on the ICU website.

Sparks

Golly gosh whizz, I wonder what might have prompted this proposal...

No member may publish derogatory or offensive remarks about any other member
of the ICU, or about the ICU in general, the Executive in general, or Irish chess in
general, by any method, including print, web-sites, blogs, and tweets. On a first
such occurrence, the Executive should issue the offender with a warning, and
require him/her to remove the objectionable remarks in so far as that is technically
possible. On a second such occurrence, the disciplinary procedure below shall be
activated. If the offence is found proved, the penalty should be suspension of ICU
membership for a period no greater than 6 months. On each and every subsequent
proven offence, the maximum period of suspension of membership should be
doubled.

cdeb

Now that is interesting.

Unfortunate that something like this is required, but that facebook page, for example, is a disgrace. Threats left, right and centre (in fact, they've received a complaint from facebook over it). Something has to be done to stop the mouths thinking they can just say whatever they feel like. Whether it's this, I don't know - it seems a bit vague; do posters here get a six-month ban for calling Colm up on the tedious troublemaker he is, for example? - but it's interesting alright.

Sparks

The fact that it wasn't around before is something I found more than a little surprising -- I can't think of any other sport where I could sit there on the public web and say the kind of things that have been said about teammates and the NGB volunteers and other players in general, and not wind up facing a sanction over it. That sort of stuff does immense damage in general (ignoring any specific lawsuits or other problems) -- parents of juniors and new adult players see it and think again about taking up the sport, sponsors tend to backpedal in a hurry at the sight of that kind of thing, and the Sports Council (or Sport Ireland as it's due to become) wouldn't even take your phone calls if you didn't have a code of conduct and the ability to sanction people who broke it (and every sport they recognise has exactly that).

Sparks

That motion that all nominations for positions on the executive must go to a vote and that "None of the Above" must always be an option is a pretty solid move. Saves you from the "you can have a horrible choice or find a volunteer in the next ten seconds" scenario quite nicely.

Sparks

The prize for the most innocent-looking-but-incredibly-thorny motion of the lot ought to go to the one talking about restricting photos and videos of chess events because this is the internet age. It sounds terribly innocent for the first ten seconds, and then words like "data protection", "Code of Ethics & Good Practice for Children's Sport", and a dozen others all start to pop up in your head. You'd have to have a waiver signed by entrants or spectators to the ICU and official ICU photographers (by which I don't mean professionals, but people who'd been given permission by the ICU).

And if you think that's silly, go talk to (say) Swim Ireland about how they handle photography at their events (which is a necessity for proper PR, but given their history, a legal and ethical minefield)...

cdeb

That motion will get thrown out because of how badly it's written. There's a serious point behind it, but as it's written, it's not a motion at all really; just a bit of an attention-seeking rant (Oops! Do I get a six-month ICU ban for that?)

What sort of rules are in place in other organisations about slanderous and scurrilous online stuff?

Overall, most of the motions looks like constitution updates rather than personal agendas like last year. Means it should be over within five hours!

Sparks

It might also tie for the prize for most badly phrased, it's true - but it's competing with motions that were drafted with "eg." and "etc" in them, which is every bit as bad because those kind of phrases tend to lead, a year or two down the line, to more hairsplitting over what a rule means than you'd get if Vidal Sassoon had a lovechild with Alberto Gonzales.

The anti-defamation stuff in other sports gets rolled into the code of conduct (or covered by the headings of "bringing the sport into disrepute" or "bullying"); I don't think anyone's had to have a specific national-level rule against defamation so far for the same reason nobody's needed a specific rule against, say, kidnapping. It's just generally assumed by the sport and the police and the courts that what happens in a sport doesn't stay in the sport if it breaks the law It gets included in the club/association rules more to cut the offender loose; actual sanctions become a civil matter for the courts after that and the association escapes liability.

mikhail

Sparks wrote: »

Golly gosh whizz, I wonder what might have prompted this proposal...

We have some of the strongest libel laws on earth, and he wants a bye-law to make it punishable to offend someone?

Would this reply retroactively? If so, can I be the first one suspended for saying Pete Morriss' proposal is surprisingly stupid?

cdeb

I've been hinting at it in fairness!

I guess the issue is that it's easier to ban someone than sue them. Especially if they have nothing to start with. Certainly it's cheaper for the ICU too. But the suggestion is too vague, and very much open to abuse if the loonies every take over the asylum.

Sparks

mikhail wrote: »

We have some of the strongest libel laws on earth, and he wants a bye-law to make it punishable to offend someone?

That's actually the way it is in every other sport. What NGB wants to (a) have someone in the sport who goes about defaming people in the sport; and (b) wants to risk possible liability for not acting, especially when the cost of getting in the front door of the court to present your perfect irrefutable defence is several thousand euros, not all of which is reclaimable if the case is lost?
And in Chess's case in Ireland, it's even worse because the ICU is not a limited liability company -- so there's no backstop, no protection for the members of the executive in case of such a lawsuit being lost. They'd be personally liable for every cent in a judgement against the ICU (hence the imdemnity insurance most of the larger sports NGBs take out for their committees).


(Also, saying someone's stupid isn't defamation, defamation's a bit more serious than that).

Ciaran

Sparks wrote: »

(Also, saying someone's stupid isn't defamation, defamation's a bit more serious than that).

The motion doesn't mention defemation, it says "derogatory" which is ludicrously broad. If I say some ICU member has terrible hair or couldn't play an attacking move to save their life, I could be banned from Irish chess for 6 months?

I don't see how the ICU could be held liable for something one member says about another online either btw.

Sparks

Ciaran wrote: »

The motion doesn't mention defemation, it says "derogatory" which is ludicrously broad.

Welp, I actually read that as defamatory for some reason. Yeah, that's a point. Mind you, if it had read defamatory... can motions be tweaked on the floor? (I thought that someone tried that last year, but after the fourth hour of a meeting my brain is usually fried...). Something does need doing, it's not a made-up problem...

I don't see how the ICU could be held liable for something one member says about another online either btw.

Depends on which ICU member says it. If that member's on the executive at the time and the ICU doesn't condemn it, you could include them in the suit and it'd cost a chunk of change to mount even a successful defence. A few sports NGBs have had just ooodles of fun over similarly-merited cases over the years; a threatened case might not have much merit, but the NGB just doesn't have the funds to mount a defence. It's a really ***** piece of Irish law

EnPassant

Regarding photography, it probably won't be long before all digital cameras fall under rule 11.3b :

FIDE wrote:

During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game.

A lot of modern digital cameras are wifi enabled and can communicate with the internet, run apps, etc. eg: http://www.gizmag.com/nikon-s800c-android/23866/

Chess_Coach

Regarding the Irish Chess Facebook page everything is ok thanks very much. So pleased with number of views all over the world which is not really the case here as far as I can see .

The complaints are mostly regulated by admin not FB and all was sorted . Here we had full blast of the names and accusations as well but at the end all was fine . It is shame that still I cant see any good ideas regarding chess sponsorship etc. I have some good news for you all . The ECU will financially support Glorney and Faber Cup n next 4 years . It was the result of good cooperation between one ICU officer and ECU President. It goes that far that Glorney and Faber will be in in ECU Calendar .
On another side the FIDE will help as well . I hope that new Committee will establish closer cooperation with FIDE. What I can see here is OK for local ( Leinster Chess ) .
I hope that you will be helpful to Irish Chess and popular as FB Irish Chess page . Keep the good work

Sparks

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Regarding the Irish Chess Facebook page everything is ok thanks very much. So pleased with number of views all over the world which is not really the case here as far as I can see .

Bwahahaha.
/points to the Views column on the right hand side of the screen.
/points to certain blogs swiping content from here verbatim, right down to faking usernames to post using the boards.ie usernames

Yes... nobody's looking at all, at all

The complaints are mostly regulated by admin not FB and all was sorted

"mostly"

It is shame that still I cant see any good ideas regarding chess sponsorship etc. I have some good news for you all . The ECU will financially support Glorney and Faber Cup n next 4 years . It was the result of good cooperation between one ICU officer and ECU President. It goes that far that Glorney and Faber will be in in ECU Calendar .

Excellent, that's been confirmed then? Because according to the now-deleted thread on the facebook page, that was still at the status of a promise of future money, not an actual cheque...

Chess_Coach

At least you are reading it . You are very active here and there ! Good to have you on board . Will I see you again at the Blitz tournament . That would be fun.
The Glorney and Faber will be supported 100 % . So many things are done already but you have to wait . BTW in one year average chess player can make some progress how about you ? Last year you were not doing well ? Some coaching perhaps ? It is not that expensive for beginners you know LOL

cdeb

Mod note - no need to make things personal, Chess Coach.

That facebook page is a disgrace; the sheer number of threats and intimidating posts. Simply indefensible from the mods to allow it, in clear breach of the charter at the top of the page. And of course, when complaints are made to facebook, the first issue on the page is to out the coward who dared complain. Farcical.

Incidentally, the ECU guy came on to outline the grant the ICU were to receive. He said it was €144k...over four years...for European chess in general. So maybe a few hundred towards Irish chess? That's where the matter was left on the facebook anyway. Better than a kick of the arse, to be sure, but nothing really game-changing. And given it's a general European grant, I think a certain ICU exec member may be taking rather more credit than he's due.

Chess_Coach

Yes

cdeb

Deep

Sparks

It's just gone eight, and they were due to start at three - is five hours too soon to wonder if they're done yet?

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

It's just gone eight, and they were due to start at three - is five hours too soon to wonder if they're done yet?

And... it's done.




12 motions (9 to 21) had to be rejected without being considered as the meeting lasted way too long. It wasn't until about 8:35 until the meeting concluded.

The Officer reports took about 2 hours with the ex-PRO's report being abuse and lashing out at people (and with a racist comment).

The election between Pete and Pat looked like 2 good candidates but they both reflected poorly, honestly, Pat looked worse. Pat ignored executive decisions during his time on the executive and was publishing material online as he thought the ICU should be transparent. Then when the election came, he said he would be transparent but wouldn't say how. Pat won the vote, but the room was populated with members from his club. This seemed to ruined a bit of Pat's credibility as it seemed like instead of proper campaigning, he took his club and his club won him the election.

There was confusion about Ted and Pete's disciplinary proposals which few people had read but everyone had an opinion on so that took 40 minutes just to figure out what the proposals were. As a result we now have an Appendix A in the constitution with nothing in it (except the heading Appendix A). It really was so stupid, Ted certainly didn't help saying his proposals were straight-forward, when they weren't.

The old Chair and the new Chair had a disagreement regarding coaches for the glorney which got quite personal and reflected quite poorly on both parties (especially as both had prepared email time stamps to try to make there point which many people had no clue to what they were talking about). The motion was to repay parents for paying to bring over the proposer and his son in a private capacity to the Glorney as coaches. This motion didn't make sense to me, as now people can now ask AGMs for money for past expenditure that people take on in a private capacity.

Alcoholic drinks were banned at the meeting.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

It wasn't until about 8:35 until the meeting concluded.

Ah for feck's sakes, "are they done yet" was supposed to be funny, not serious. Five and a half hours for an AGM? That's about five hours more than is needed!

proposals which few people had read but everyone had an opinion on

Ah, so that's where the time goes...

we now have an Appendix A in the constitution with nothing in it (except the heading Appendix A)

Wow. On the other hand, the ICU is an unincorporated association so it's rules are at best a bit like the Pirates Code - mostly guidelines
(Unincorporated associations cannot be forced to follow their own rules if they choose not to do so)

Alcoholic drinks were banned at the meeting.

I know that's a step forward given last year, but feck me, when something like that is genuinely a step forward instead of just being the basic norm...


Also, did Colm Daly really get elected as PRO? Good fecking christ, was Jeffrey Dalmer not available?

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

Also, did Colm Daly really get elected as PRO? Good fecking christ, was Jeffrey Dalmer not available?

Do you mean Jeffrey Dahmer?

In fairness he hasn't been posting abusive comments in a while or posting negative comments on other national federation forums about the ICU. So if he keeps this current behaviour up, he might do a good job.

I'm guessing his application being rejected by the last executive for the PRO position was a wake up call.

Hopefully the ICU can start getting some good publicity.

Ciaran

In terms of motions that people might actually care about, the Irish Championship time control is now 1:40 for the first 40 moves (10 more than before) with 30 seconds added per move and the winners of the Intermediate, Open, Veterans and Women's championships will be allowed enter the following year's Senior championship along with various people chosen by provincial delegates, Junior officer, etc. Look out for the motion to rescind that next year!

cdeb

I like that idea in fairness.

Is there anything for junior title winners? Like the Irish underage winners getting an invite?

Edit - I guess the Junior Officer's invite would cover that.

Ciaran

cdeb wrote: »

I like that idea in fairness.

Is there anything for junior title winners? Like the Irish underage winners getting an invite?

Edit - I guess the Junior Officer's invite would cover that.

That was the idea, yeah. They ended up merging two motions about this which wasn't a great idea I thought, there's a lot of potential extra places now. I'd have preferred the tournament winners I mentioned plus the Irish under-19 champion but it's not the end of the world and it's sure to be up for discussion again at the next AGM anyway.

reunion

Ciaran wrote: »

That was the idea, yeah. They ended up merging two motions about this which wasn't a great idea I thought, there's a lot of potential extra places now. I'd have preferred the tournament winners I mentioned plus the Irish under-19 champion but it's not the end of the world and it's sure to be up for discussion again at the next AGM anyway.

Yeah well the places don't have to be used. They are open to be used however the people see fit, however, the provincial unions and tournament director probably won't nominate anyone, nor would the executive really. The Junior officer is probably the only realistic person to have invites that can (and should) use them.

checknraise

I am sorry but it is a terrible motion.

There is a certain level that players should have to get to before they are eligible to play. The big problem I have with the motion is that players can be nominated and you could potentially have players rated 1200 playing in the Irish Championships.

I fully support allowing junior's play up by being more lenient with the rating bands by a 100 points or so but there has to be a limit. Potentially this rule could turn the Irish championships into a shambles. I cannot believe it got passed but I am assuming there was nobody around who would be eligible to play in the Irish championships.

Ciaran

checknraise wrote: »

I cannot believe it got passed but I am assuming there was nobody around who would be eligible to play in the Irish championships.

There were at least 4 that I was aware of. All of them that spoke were in favour as far as I remember.

reunion

checknraise wrote: »

I am sorry but it is a terrible motion.

There is a certain level that players should have to get to before they are eligible to play. The big problem I have with the motion is that players can be nominated and you could potentially have players rated 1200 playing in the Irish Championships.

I fully support allowing junior's play up by being more lenient with the rating bands by a 100 points or so but there has to be a limit. Potentially this rule could turn the Irish championships into a shambles. I cannot believe it got passed but I am assuming there was nobody around who would be eligible to play in the Irish championships.

David Fitzsimons, Jonathan O'Connor, John Delaney and Kevin O'Connell were there from memory with David, John and Kevin in favour and Jonathan O'Connor indifferent. Again from memory, everything that was said was positive about these 2 motions.

It is worth noting that the average rating has dropped by 150 points in 10 years and being an Irish Champion (women's veterans (or seniors as it should be called)) isn't something to belittle. The nominated positions are open to abuse and that was mentioned at the meeting and the proposer offered to withdraw the nominated individuals part of the motion. However the floor liked the idea and I imagine the second it is abused (or at the next AGM), it will be refined/removed.

cdeb

checknraise wrote: »

I am sorry but it is a terrible motion.

There is a certain level that players should have to get to before they are eligible to play. The big problem I have with the motion is that players can be nominated and you could potentially have players rated 1200 playing in the Irish Championships.

Does this rule apply immediately? So, do this year's intermediate, senior, etc, champion get to play next year?

If so, then there's invites for Gearóidín (Women's champion), Carl Jackson (Intermediate champion), John Joyce (open champion) and the Veterans' championship hasn't been played yet but for comparison, last year's winner was Jack Killane.

I don't think any of those players would turn the tournament into a shambles. Carl and John will qualify on merit anyway. Jack's FIDE rating is above 1900, so he qualifies at the moment. Gearóidín is the weakest, but has played several Olympiads and I'm sure that experience would stand her against higher-rated players.

Is the invite for the champion only? Or can it pass down to runner-up, etc, if not taken up by the champion? Then it could get weak.

The open invites could cause problems alright, but I guess we've got to trust the exec to use the wild cards responsibly. Would a 1200 want to play a 1900+ tournament anyway? By contrast, I could see a 1700-rated junior getting a lot of benefit from a wild card to play in the Irish.

Sparks

How is having invitational places - which do not have to be used - more of a shambles than, say, the top ten rated players in the country not playing in the championships at all?

eclipsechaser

Who is on the committee?

cdeb

There was only one election - Pat beat Pete for Chairman. So I presume everyone else who stood was elected by default.

So that'd be Paul Cassidy (Vice), Bryan Tobin (Secretary), Chris Sheridan (Treasurer), Darko (Development), Kevin O'Connell (FIDE), Desmond Beatty (Junior), Mark Orr (Ratings) and Peter Scott (Tournament controller). Colm Daly was co-opted as PRO for some reason. The membership officer I think was to be scrapped (makes sense), but the motion to do so seems to be have itself been scrapped as per above.

Sparks

Full committee list is now up on the ICU website:

Officer |Name |Email
President* |president@icu.ie
Chairperson |Pat Fitzsimons |chairperson@icu.ie
Secretary |Bryan Tobin |secretary@icu.ie
Treasurer |Chris Sheridan |treasurer@icu.ie
Development Officer |Darko Polimac |development@icu.ie
FIDE & ECU Delegate |Kevin J. O'Connell |ecu@icu.ie, fide@icu.ie
Public Relations Officer |Colm Daly |publicrelations@icu.ie
Rating Officer |Mark Orr |ratings@icu.ie
Tournament Officer |Peter Scott |tournaments@icu.ie
Vice Chairperson |Paul Cassidy |vicechairperson@icu.ie
Women's Officer |Gary P. O'Grady |women@icu.ie
Connaught Delegate |Colm O'Muireagain |connaught@icu.ie
Leinster Delegate |Pat Fitzsimons |leinster@icu.ie
Munster Delegate |Gerry Graham |munster@icu.ie
Ulster Delegate ||ulster@icu.ie
Arbitration Officer* |Herbert Scarry |arbitration@icu.ie
Selection Committee Chairperson* |John McKenna |selections@icu.ie
Webmaster* |Mark Orr |webmaster@icu.ie

* Non-Executive Officer

mikhail

cdeb wrote: »

... By contrast, I could see a 1700-rated junior getting a lot of benefit from a wild card to play in the Irish.

It depends on the player, and on their form. Off form, or if they've made a big jump recently and are slightly overrated, they could get thumped. There's little point in that. But that's where the judgement of the player and officers should come into play.