EGM and AGM notices

rob51

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

The question now is whether members of 2014-2015 will be allowed to vote or just 2015-2016 members. a total of 12 players apparently signed up through 2016 - 6 on the executive

Since it is the 2014 - 2015 AGM at which the outgoing committee accounts for the year then the 2014 - 2015 membership must be valid. This was confirmed by the then Chairman two years ago at the AGM.

reunion

tedjennings wrote: »

"Here is what I believe happened at the 2013-14 AGM - link to a web page..."

The above while close is incorrect on a number of issues.

I still say that only 3 weeks notice is required for motions to be lodged with the Secretary to be valid. I have e-mailed the Secretary on this matter but not received a reply.

Ted.

I believe if you had a recording of the AGM you wouldn't find anything incorrect. I see the draft minutes are available on the ICU site.

rob51 wrote: »

Since it is the 2014 - 2015 AGM at which the outgoing committee accounts for the year then the 2014 - 2015 membership must be valid. This was confirmed by the then Chairman two years ago at the AGM.

They have (for all the time I've known) accepted both the same season AGM (2014-15 for the 2015 AGM) and the next year's membership (2015-16) for the 2015 AGM. However, this is when the AGM occurred during the summer months (i.e. in the middle of 2 seasons). Currently the AGM can only be in the 2015-16 season only. Odd scenario of a fully paid up member proposing a motion and then when the AGM occurs, the member mightn't be valid anymore. They need to clear this up immediately.

I think, logically, it's the 2015-16 AGM as any motions effect the 2015-16 season (2015-16 Irish Championships). And nominees need to be ICU members for both the 2014-15 (nominated in the 2014 season) and 2015-16 (elected) seasons to stand for election. Though this would be in an ideal world....

rob51 wrote: »

I agree completely and there is no reason nominations should be any different. I questioned the notice period on the second official website yesterday but the comment or a response haven't appeared yet. Suggesting such a short response time during holiday time for ICU members to submit nominations and motions is ridiculous and in the case of motions clearly contradicts the Constitution.

The notice period is a minimum, not a maximum unfortunately. The short notice for what could be an extended deadline and the planned short AGM, just make it feel like the executive don't want people at the AGM.

sinbad68

I don't understand this, people come on to this website, moan and ask questions about ICU actions, where there are No ICU executive ( couple of active boards.ie members who were ICU executive and provided info here were either banned or bullied out of here), Why don't they go to ICU's own "comment & question abled" site of http://www.irishchessunion.net/ where if you ask a question, I'm confident you will get a response from one of the executive, instead of asking it here, which is like a blind asking another blind for direction ?.

reunion wrote: »

They need to clear this up immediately.

I'm afraid the extent of your empire is the moderation of this little corner ( chess section ) of this website and you CAN'T order ICU around.

cdeb

Mod note - people are entitled to comment on relevant items (such as AGM protocol) without being told they shouldn't. Nobody has been bullied off this site, and those who were banned deserved it, having gone through the relevant documented procedures. Infraction added, and any more stirring like this will result in further infractions. If anyone has a problem with that, go to the facebook page or the comments section noted above. It's getting more than a little tiresome at this stage.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

I think there was a misunderstanding here. I don't believe Sinbad was attacking anyone - except his usual back and forth with reunion. He was suggesting that reunion approach the executive themselves. Sinbad, knowing reunion as I (believe I) do, I'm certain he'd have no problem approaching the current board for answers. Also, he has run and been elected to positions in the past and done admirable work.

I can understand that the language is sometimes grating on the nerves, and possibly crosses the line at times but we won't get anywhere if we are here talking to ourselves. From my knowledge of previous bans, sinbad is not on that level.

Reunion (and anyone else who wishes to guarantee their say in October), I'd recommend you just sign up early as I've just done. We'll end up paying the membership anyway, and you won't be gaining anything by paying later. It does pain me to have my 35 euro in the hands of this executive and not the next one (for the time being I hope).. but what can you do.

cdeb

Rrydlny wrote: »

Is there a reason the secretary is no longer listed on the ICU website?

Note on the ICU website about it now - Eugene Donohoe has stepped in.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

I've emailed the executive to get clarification on who is entitled to vote at the upcoming meetings; 2014-2015 members, 2015-2016 member or both. I'll update when i get a reply

reunion

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I think there was a misunderstanding here. I don't believe Sinbad was attacking anyone - except his usual back and forth with reunion.

I can understand that the language is sometimes grating on the nerves, and possibly crosses the line at times but we won't get anywhere if we are here talking to ourselves. From my knowledge of previous bans, sinbad is not on that level.

If you wish to know why the infraction was applied, just give a mod a PM or if you think it was unfair report the post.

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

He was suggesting that reunion approach the executive themselves. Sinbad, knowing reunion as I (believe I) do, I'm certain he'd have no problem approaching the current board for answers. Also, he has run and been elected to positions in the past and done admirable work.

Reunion (and anyone else who wishes to guarantee their say in October), I'd recommend you just sign up early as I've just done. We'll end up paying the membership anyway, and you won't be gaining anything by paying later. It does pain me to have my 35 euro in the hands of this executive and not the next one (for the time being I hope).. but what can you do.

I have engaged with the current executive on a number of occasions this year, asking questions that were posted here. I actually wanted to pay my ICU fee for 2015/16 in May but the feature was unavailable (the note Desmond Beatty made about subscription based membership is a good one). I won't be able to attend the AGM or EGM (tickets to the rugby world cup) - but I would be proposing a motion or 2. It's sad to see that my submissions (however valid (or invalid)) will be rejected immediately because I am unable to attend the event.

sinbad68 wrote: »

instead of asking it here, which is like a blind asking another blind for direction ?.

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I've emailed the executive to get clarification on who is entitled to vote at the upcoming meetings; 2014-2015 members, 2015-2016 member or both. I'll update when i get a reply

See, it doesn't have to me constantly emailing the executive about queries. Other users here engage with the ICU. Sometimes a discussion about a point before emailing the executive can help.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Response from the Chairperson. I can't attached a screen shot but I'll give you the summary:

the reason they want everything in 6 weeks early (according to this email) is so that they can confirm nominations before the end of the current membership year, August 31st. They want the 26th-31st to consider these nominations and motions so that they can announce these prior to the new membership year.

This would mean that 2014-2015 alone would be eligible to vote.

However, this also leaves open the possibility that if they issue after August 31st, then only 2015-2016 members will be eligible.

Like I said before, I'd still urge anyone who plans on attending to sign up for 2015-2016 just in case although this seems to have cleared everything up.

I've asked the chairperson to publish this on ICU site on the date he announces these motions and nominations

Ficheall

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Response from the Chairperson. I can't attached a screen shot but I'll give you the summary:

the reason they want everything in 6 weeks early (according to this email) is so that they can confirm nominations before the end of the current membership year, August 31st. They want the 26th-31st to consider these nominations and motions so that they can announce these prior to the new membership year.

This would mean that 2014-2015 alone would be eligible to vote.

However, this also leaves open the possibility that if they issue after August 31st, then only 2015-2016 members will be eligible.

Like I said before, I'd still urge anyone who plans on attending to sign up for 2015-2016 just in case although this seems to have cleared everything up.

I've asked the chairperson to publish this on ICU site on the date he announces these motions and nominations

Has it??

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Ficheall wrote: »

Has it??

Well no

But at least I can see the logic in why they want nominations 6 weeks early. Either way they'll be breaking the constitution - they'll either get nominations and motions 6 weeks in advance (when it should be 3 or 4 depending on the draft you read) or they'll be denying 2014-2015 members the chance to vote at an AGM

tedjennings

The Ex ccte have not thought through things:
They ask for nominations for “Membership Officer”, “FIDE Delegate” &
“Women's Officer” for the AGM ( that what the constitution says at the moment)

However they propose to remove these positions a week before the AGM!!

cdeb

I guess if the positions don't get scrapped, they'd then end up with no nominations - so damned if you do, etc.

tedjennings

Hi, Reunion

I proposed 3 motions at that meeting.

Below is an extract from the minutes which seems to show 3 motions proposed by me.

However these were one motion and accepted. (this had to be the case as if one was accepted and another not it would cause a conflict so all 3 or nothing)
If you contention is correct then paragraph 3.2(f) refers to a non-existent Appendix.

The second motion was (now that Appendix A exists) to put the “Code of Conduct” in it. This was rejected.
The third motion was to put in the “Rules for Disciplining a Members”, however as this document refers to the “Code of Conduct” it could not be reasonably accepted so I withdrew it.
I have a number of e-mails from the then Secretary K O’F to substantiate this.

BTW Appendix A can contain other rules etc.

It is proposed to amend the constitution of the ICU as follows to incorporate the new Code of Conduct and Rules for disciplining a member of the ICU.

7A.1.1.
Add this paragraph to Article 3.2
f) To lay before the membership rules for the orderly running of the Union. These
rules shall form Appendix A of this constitution and shall be adopted and/or
amended by a General Meeting by simple majority and shall be binding on all
members.
7A.1.2.
Add Appendix A to this constitution.
7A.1.3
Add the following to Article 13
“The Executive Committee shall be bound by any rules contained in Appendix A.

rob51

tedjennings wrote: »

The Ex ccte have not thought through things:
They ask for nominations for “Membership Officer”, “FIDE Delegate” &
“Women's Officer” for the AGM ( that what the constitution says at the moment)

However they propose to remove these positions a week before the AGM!!

Those positions are still in the current constitution (although as has been pointed out the actual current constitution as amended in 2014 doesn't seem to be available anywhere) and the executive can't assume they will be removed by the EGM. Therefore they must have candidates nominated.
On the other hand it does raise the question of why the EGM couldn't happen several weeks before the AGM so that these issues were clear.

Sparks

Where in any constitution does it state that positions must be filled?
They could just have left it so that nominations wouldn't be refused, but by the time the AGM rolled round, they would have been irrelevant.

rob51

reunion wrote: »

They have (for all the time I've known) accepted both the same season AGM (2014-15 for the 2015 AGM) and the next year's membership (2015-16) for the 2015 AGM. However, this is when the AGM occurred during the summer months (i.e. in the middle of 2 seasons). Currently the AGM can only be in the 2015-16 season only. Odd scenario of a fully paid up member proposing a motion and then when the AGM occurs, the member mightn't be valid anymore. They need to clear this up immediately.

I think, logically, it's the 2015-16 AGM as any motions effect the 2015-16 season (2015-16 Irish Championships). And nominees need to be ICU members for both the 2014-15 (nominated in the 2014 season) and 2015-16 (elected) seasons to stand for election. Though this would be in an ideal world....


The notice period is a minimum, not a maximum unfortunately. The short notice for what could be an extended deadline and the planned short AGM, just make it feel like the executive don't want people at the AGM.

Actually I think an AGM has three functions:
1) The Executive account for their stewardship (or perhaps Bossiness) over the previous year;

2) The membership consider motions and proposals for changes for the coming year;

3) The Executive is elected for the coming year.

Since the AGM marks the beginning of the new year and committee it is normally clear that members for the year just completed may attend and vote. In many cases the AGM actually approves the fees for the coming year so you can't rejoin until after the AGM.

We now have a muddle where the new Executive is effectively elected two months into the new year!! Has anyone considered the potential for confusion with membership fees and accounting when the next treasurer is responsible for two months before they are elected!

The Constitution should be changed back to having the AGM in early September before the season starts and after probably the quietest month August financially.

tedjennings

Sparks wrote: »

Where in any constitution does it state that positions must be filled?
They could just have left it so that nominations wouldn't be refused, but by the time the AGM rolled round, they would have been irrelevant.

Rule 9.2 uses the word "shall consist of...."

Sparks

tedjennings wrote: »

Rule 9.2 uses the word "shall consist of...."

But that's creating the office rather than saying that a person must be appointed to it. Empty seats are an unfortunately normal part of Irish sports admin because of the 2% rule.

sinbad68

tedjennings wrote: »

Rule 9.2 uses the word "shall consist of...."

Me thinking........ some times, some rules in icu constitution are taken far too seriously, after all icu constitution was written by a few grey haired men sitting around a table sipping C2H5OH, Not by some one going up a mountain and coming down with it on stone tablets !.

tedjennings

Sparks wrote: »

But that's creating the office rather than saying that a person must be appointed to it. Empty seats are an unfortunately normal part of Irish sports admin because of....... link here.....


I guess I forgot to mention rule 9.3 which includes the word "shall"


9.3 At each Annual General Meeting of the Union, one person shall be elected to each of the officer positions mentioned in Article 9.2. If the number of candidates qualified to stand for a position exceeds one, a ballot shall be held using the system of proportional representation (single transferable vote). In the event of a tie, the presiding Chairman shall have a casting vote.

tedjennings

sinbad68 wrote: »

Me thinking........ some times, some rules in icu constitution are taken far too seriously, after all icu constitution was written by a few grey haired men sitting around a table sipping C2H5OH, Not by some one going up a mountain and coming down with it on stone tablets !.

I did not write the ICU Constitution, but I support the principles of appropiate rules etc.

BTW while my hair is white/grey my preferred tipple is Sauvignon blanc

Sparks

tedjennings wrote: »

9.3 At each Annual General Meeting of the Union, one person shall be elected to each of the officer positions mentioned in Article 9.2. If the number of candidates qualified to stand for a position exceeds one, a ballot shall be held using the system of proportional representation (single transferable vote). In the event of a tie, the presiding Chairman shall have a casting vote.

Wow, that's pretty badly written. Did nobody ever think to ask what would happen if nobody stood for office? (And it bans the NOTA option as well, which is a bit limiting from the members' point of view)

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

Me thinking........ some times, some rules in icu constitution are taken far too seriously

Hmmm.

sinbad68 wrote: »

ICU ... should launch an investigation into how this, one and only unqualified player got in while many much higher rated juniors ended up playing in the lower section

And you have quite a few other quotes over the last year or so taking ICU rules about ratings floors very seriously.
A little consistency wouldn't go amiss...

sinbad68

Sparks wrote: »

Hmmm.


And you have quite a few other quotes over the last year or so taking ICU rules about ratings floors very seriously.
A little consistency wouldn't go amiss...

Comparing rating bands to rule 9.2 is comparing apples with oranges, Let me give you an example: You have an avatar of someone firing in a shooting range, to him, The rule of never pointing your gun at anyone & to pick up the brass after you're done are very different and can not be compared . Having taken a second look at the avatar again, why the chosen photo is taken from behind and Not a side face photo?, is the shooter shy or lacks confidence?, <snip>

P.S I'm taking couple of weeks off from this boring website , maybe more ( unless something dramatic occurs ).

Mod edit - you can have a week off the forum seeing as you've been threatening it anyway - personal attacks like the one cut from this post are not welcome.

reunion

tedjennings wrote: »

Hi, Reunion

...

“The Executive Committee shall be bound by any rules contained in Appendix A.

I get what you are saying Ted, but having been at the meeting, it was made explicitly clear by you that these were 3 separate proposals and you corrected the vice-chair (the chair for that part) of that meeting when he said you had 1 proposal. It lasted well over 20 minutes and confused everyone there (maybe even the then secretary). I believe the then secretary even asked you if passing the first proposal and rejecting the others would create a non-existent Appendix to which you said yes (I'm going from memory here).

Maybe the minutes weren't exactly what you meant and you can propose changes to them at the AGM. If you don't believe they accurately reflect what happened at the meeting.

reunion

rob51 wrote: »

Since the AGM marks the beginning of the new year and committee it is normally clear that members for the year just completed may attend and vote. In many cases the AGM actually approves the fees for the coming year so you can't rejoin until after the AGM.

The Constitution should be changed back to having the AGM in early September before the season starts and after probably the quietest month August financially.

The problem with that is that you can't have audited accounts for an AGM if you go that route - which was the reason for the change.

I'm sure there will be a motion to fix this issue (or at least should be).

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

Comparing rating bands to rule 9.2 is comparing apples with oranges

Hm. Hand-held, edible fruit of the same shape and size which grow on trees and which are often cooked as part of dessert or juiced to form a beverage, which contain juicy flesh and a rind which has little nutritional value and seeds at the core. How would you ever compare them?

Let me give you an example: You have an avatar of someone firing in a shooting range, to him, The rule of never pointing your gun at anyone & to pick up the brass after you're done are very different and can not be compared

So first off, those rules are not very different, both are part of the ethos that provides gun safety and so anyone who doesn't care about either worries people. Secondly, the rule is never to point a loaded gun at anyone (there are many, many photos taken for coaching and PR purposes which involve the firearm being pointed at the camera; in these the firearm is unloaded and usually has a safety flag in the breech). Thirdly, that particular rifle doesn't eject brass.

Having taken a second look at the avatar again, why the chosen photo is taken from behind and Not a side face photo?, is the shooter shy or lacks confidence?, <snip>

Because the rifle is loaded, the shooter is looking downrange at the target, and the Olympic coach who took the photo was trying to show the shooting posture from the back (other photos show the posture from other angles) because he thought the shooter wasn't leaning backwards far enough to compensate for the weight of the rifle.

But this is the chess forum, so you'll forgive me if I stop digressing now. The shooting forum is right over there if you want to go learn more.

cdeb

Mod note - seeing as sinbad can't reply for a week due to his previous comments, can we not elaborate on his tangents and just get back to the AGM/EGM issue? Thanks!

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Getting back to the AGM, and in particular - the sexy issue of constitutional amendments; I think we should have a (small, 3 person) committee to recommend changes. Ideally, this committee would be made up with a member or two who has/have experience in recommending changes with a member who has experience with the law - to make our constitution understandable, clear and, most importantly, not as open to interpretation as the current document.