AGM nominees

Retd.LoyolaCpt

As the time for entering AGM nominations and motions has passed, I would like to announce that a number of ICU members and I will be running for a range of positions on the ICU committee. Our ticket is listed below:

Chairperson: John McMorrow. Nominated by GM Alex Baburin
Vice Chairperson: GM Alex Baburin. Nominated by Gerry Graham
Secretary: Richard Gould. Nominated by John McMorrow
Treasurer: Shane Sheedy. Nominated by John McMorrow
Ratings Officer: David Murray. Nominated by Gordon Freeman
Development Officer: Rory Delaney. Nominated by Jonathan O'Connor
Public Relations Officer: Carl Jackson. Nominated by Killian Delaney
Tournament Director: Gerry Graham. Nominated by John McMorrow
Membership Officer: John Cassidy. Nominated by Carl Jackson
Women's Officer: Hannah Lowry-O'Reilly Nominated by Jonathan O'Connor

We will not be running against the current Junior Officer or FIDE & ECU Delegate.

We will be issuing a full manifesto and list of policies in the coming weeks but for now I can give a quick summary of what we'd aim to do:

- Support tournaments, organisers and clubs

-Grow the game; with a focus on university and women's chess whilst continuing and expanding upon the work done by previous executives in Junior chess.

- Establish a fundraising committee and put a greater emphasis on finding sponsorship in general; both for ICU and individual tournaments. We feel that we are currently too reliant on subs and should be taking some of the burden off members.

- Develop lasting and strong relationships with the MCU, LCU and UCU as well as the clubs of Connaught.

Ficheall

As a matter of general principle, is it wise to run as a group under some sort of collective banner? A cautious voter might not want to vote in an entire group of people with the same mindset.

Also, most of the positions are largely unnecessary in the sense that even with a completely laissez-faire policy from these committee members, the chess events of Irelnd would run smoothly.. but a notable exception might be the Webmaster - absent from your ticket - a position which, in the wrong hands, could actually be damaging to Irish chess..

Ficheall

Also - you might want to check that Richard is eligible to run, as he is not a 2014/2015 ICU member. I know he's UCU, and also ICU for 2015/2016, etc, but still.

I'm curious about that one, as I suspect that if he's eligible to run (as a 2015/2016 member but not a 2014/2015 one) then I should be eligible to vote at the AGM (as a 2015/2016 member but not a 2014/2015 one). I tried posting a comment on the irishchessunion.net blog to enquire about that, but to no avail.

reunion

Ficheall wrote: »

As a matter of general principle, is it wise to run as a group under some sort of collective banner? A cautious voter might not want to vote in an entire group of people with the same mindset.

Also, most of the positions are largely unnecessary in the sense that even with a completely laissez-faire policy from these committee members, the chess events of Irelnd would run smoothly.. but a notable exception might be the Webmaster - absent from your ticket - a position which, in the wrong hands, could actually be damaging to Irish chess..

I think running under the same banner is significantly better. With clear defined goals you can actually review the executive and know how effective they are. This is what Pat did last year with his team - they promised transparency. We got secrecy so Pat's word is meaningless and his promises lies. If he had run by himself, he could argue others on the executive were holding him up so that's why transparency wasn't implemented.

Some of the positions are unnecessary (at least to attend executive meetings) so if it's a team, you know these positions will run smoothly and you have a good communication and trust.

Webmaster isn't an executive position (after the EGM) so won't be voted in at the AGM.

Ficheall wrote: »

Also - you might want to check that Richard is eligible to run, as he is not a 2014/2015 ICU member. I know he's UCU, and also ICU for 2015/2016, etc, but still.

I'm curious about that one, as I suspect that if he's eligible to run (as a 2015/2016 member but not a 2014/2015 one) then I should be eligible to vote at the AGM (as a 2015/2016 member but not a 2014/2015 one). I tried posting a comment on the irishchessunion.net blog to enquire about that, but to no avail.

Provided you are a member before the list of nominations and motions were published, you would be entitled to vote.

cdeb

I can see Ficheall's point, but I think this is a very positive development. There's some very solid names in there and it seems difficult for for others to hijack the committee and take vacant spots (as last year - though of course they could still get voted on). A group of people coming together to say they're prepared to take the game forward (or at least undo the harm of last year) has to be good. I would have thought there's too many solid names in there for that committee to descend into the debacle of this year.

Tim Harding

It appears that Richard Gould's nomination as ICU Secretary has been disqualified?

cdeb

He's not a current ICU member, and hasn't been since 2004 according to ratings.icu.ie. So presumably that's why?

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

He's not a current ICU member, and hasn't been since 2004 according to ratings.icu.ie. So presumably that's why?

Nope.

He is a member. My guess is he has been a members since before his nomination, probably around the 25th of August.

My guess is they disabled 2014-15 memberships prior to the announcement (of the AGM) and said he isn't a 2014-15 member so the executive said he couldn't run (or something to that effect).

cdeb

Ah right. He wasn't a member at the time of the last ratings list, which was May. So must have joined since then alright.

Is there a requirement to be a member of the ICU for a certain length of time before going on the committee? If not, should there be?

2bts

from icu.ie/icu/constitution#9
9.1 No person shall be eligible to stand for election to membership of the Executive Committee unless that person:
a. Is a fully paid up individual member of the Union; and

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

Ah right. He wasn't a member at the time of the last ratings list, which was May. So must have joined since then alright.

Is there a requirement to be a member of the ICU for a certain length of time before going on the committee? If not, should there be?

Nope no requirement. There shouldn't be either - the AGM can be held in a very big window of time - if it was a set weekend, you could look to introduce something like that.

reunion

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Secretary: Richard Gould. Nominated by John McMorrow

Would you know of any reason he wasn't permitted to stand for election?

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

We will be issuing a full manifesto and list of policies in the coming weeks but for now I can give a quick summary of what we'd aim to do:

Let us know about a full manifesto!

Tim Harding

So is there going to be a battle at the agm to have Gould reinstated as a candidate? Or to reopen nominations? The membership have had no opportunity to vote on the current secretary who has just been parachuted in.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

reunion wrote: »

Would you know of any reason he wasn't permitted to stand for election?



Let us know about a full manifesto!

Hi reunion,

Full manifesto coming today or Monday (as I'm away for the weekend) pending approval from the rest of the ticket.

I received 2 messages from the current secretary about Richard's nomination - Firstly, a receipt of my nomination on 25th of August (which I requested).

The next message I received was on September 1st which stated:
"As you know we have been busy preparing for the EGM and AGM plus various policy matters.
When we went through the list of nominees yesterday to ensure that all candidates were were paid up members for the 2014/15 year
I was informed that Richard Gould was not a member in that year so we cannot accept him as a valid nomination."

Richard is a member for 2015-2016. There had been no option available to sign up for the previous season for quite some time; since July I believe.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

On a side note, last Thursday - Gerry Graham (current Munster delegate - running for Tournament Director as part of our ticket) was kicked out of an executive meeting. Having driven from Limerick to Dublin, the first motion of the meeting was a vote of No Confidence in the Munster delegate. Gerry pointed out that this was unconstitutional, as he can only be removed by a vote by the MCU. This was overlooked.

This issue will be discussed at the MCU committee meeting tonight, as well as at the MCU AGM on Sunday.

Sparks

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Richard is a member for 2015-2016. There had been no option available to sign up for the previous season for quite some time; since July I believe.

From the ICU constitution:

5.1 Membership of the union shall be open to all persons who agree to be bound by the provisions of this constitution and who comply with its bye laws.

If someone can't sign up because the ICU isn't providing an option despite 5.1, then enforcing 9.1 on someone who's signed up for the coming year seems questionable at best.

Given the importance of a Secretary to any team looking to act as the committee in any group (the Chair and the Secretary are pretty much like the right and left wing of an aircraft in terms of their importance in these things), this ought to be addressed before the AGM.

reunion

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Richard is a member for 2015-2016. There had been no option available to sign up for the previous season for quite some time; since July I believe.

ICU constitution wrote:

No person shall be eligible to stand for election to membership of the Executive Committee unless that person:

Is a fully paid up individual member of the Union;

Being a member for the 2015-16 season means he was a member at time of nomination. Once they opened 2015-16 and closed 2014-15, he was valid - if they left 2014-15 open, they could argue that 2015 doesn't start until a certain date (though they never provided a date so this would mean both membership would be valid at the same time). However, by closing memberships for 2014-15 they effectively closed the 2014-15 season and opened the 2015-16 season meaning new memberships for 2015-16 would be valid for nomination at the AGM (And voting). I will note: there is nothing in the constitution that states the season ends 31-Aug and the new one starts in 1-Sep.

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

On a side note, last Thursday - Gerry Graham (current Munster delegate - running for Tournament Director as part of our ticket) was kicked out of an executive meeting. Having driven from Limerick to Dublin, the first motion of the meeting was a vote of No Confidence in the Munster delegate. Gerry pointed out that this was unconstitutional, as he can only be removed by a vote by the MCU. This was overlooked.

This issue will be discussed at the MCU committee meeting tonight, as well as at the MCU AGM on Sunday.

So the current executive have targeted Galway CC i.e. Connaught; now they target Munster?

They do realise that the minutes of this meeting will be made public? it's mandated from the AGM last year!

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Full manifesto coming today or Monday (as I'm away for the weekend) pending approval from the rest of the ticket.

If it said "we aren't the current executive" it's already better than the current executive.

rob51

reunion wrote: »

If it said "we aren't the current executive" it's already better than the current executive.

Just don't promise openness and transparency!!!!

pawntof4

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

On a side note, last Thursday - Gerry Graham (current Munster delegate - running for Tournament Director as part of our ticket) was kicked out of an executive meeting.

Was there a reason given for this? Who tabled the motion?

Danville

Sparks wrote: »

From the ICU constitution:

If someone can't sign up because the ICU isn't providing an option despite 5.1, then enforcing 9.1 on someone who's signed up for the coming year seems questionable at best.

Given the importance of a Secretary to any team looking to act as the committee in any group (the Chair and the Secretary are pretty much like the right and left wing of an aircraft in terms of their importance in these things), this ought to be addressed before the AGM.

We could have a monumental row about this at tha AGM or.......

The new executive(expecting that it will be the John Mc Morrow team) could hint to Eugene that they would like his resignation forthwith, and replace him with Richard.
Should the resignation not be forthcoming, a vote of no confidence would do the trick.
Problem solved with no row!

Sparks

Problem solved with no row!

Yup. On the other hand, the current committee could just accept the nomination given the arguments against it are shaky at best, and let it go to a vote.
That would be the problem solved with no row and without any embarrassment to Eugene or anyone else and without the inevitable mutterings about unfair conduct.

wine and final destination

I'd imagine Gerry Grahams no confidence vote stems from the fact that he is running with this new ticket and they suspect he would leak details of the icu meeting, which is pretty disrespectful to the MCU delegate as he is still a part to the current icu committee. Making him drive from limerick to Dublin for 5 minutes to kick him out is outright boorish and I'd imagine the icu have now lost any support from another whole province. Surely there was a better way to handle this matter? Just yet another poor decision, hard to keep track of them all at this point!

Ficheall

Danville wrote: »

We could have a monumental row about this at tha AGM or.......

The new executive(expecting that it will be the John Mc Morrow team) could hint to Eugene that they would like his resignation forthwith, and replace him with Richard.
Should the resignation not be forthcoming, a vote of no confidence would do the trick.
Problem solved with no row!

Ah now, we can't go throwing votes of no confidence around willy-nilly.

We'd need some evidence to suggest the secretary were as 'inefficient' as the rest of this year's exec.

pawntof4

wine and final destination wrote: »

I'd imagine Gerry Grahams no confidence vote stems from the fact that he is running with this new ticket and they suspect he would leak details of the icu meeting

What could he possibly leak.... what is with all the secrecy surrounding the ICU!

Sparks

Ficheall wrote: »

Ah now, we can't go throwing votes of no confidence around willy-nilly.

Actually, that's pretty much true. If the current secretary accepts the nomination, he does so knowing that he may have to work with someone other than who he's currently working with, and with all that that entails given the context. If he thinks he can do that job properly, and agrees to do that, in public, as he's done by accepting the nomination; and the very first thing the new committee did was to say "nope, we think you can't, get lost"; that's not just a slap in the face to him but it's also a bit of a slap in the faces of the membership for not sorting this out at the AGM in the open. It wouldn't be a great way to set the tone for the coming year.

cdeb

Worth noting the secretary's barely in the job a fortnight; bit much to be throwing votes of no confidence about!

reunion

wine and final destination wrote: »

I'd imagine Gerry Grahams no confidence vote stems from the fact that he is running with this new ticket and they suspect he would leak details of the icu meeting, which is pretty disrespectful to the MCU delegate as he is still a part to the current icu committee. Making him drive from limerick to Dublin for 5 minutes to kick him out is outright boorish and I'd imagine the icu have now lost any support from another whole province. Surely there was a better way to handle this matter? Just yet another poor decision, hard to keep track of them all at this point!

Do they not issue agenda's in advance of the meeting? Surely they would have said the motion of no confidence was on the agenda? Typically providing some evidence? or feedback to the MCU? Surely a better course is notifying the MCU committee of their opinions?

pawntof4 wrote: »

What could he possibly leak.... what is with all the secrecy surrounding the ICU!

Funny... Pat and Colm had the same opinion. Amazing how that opinion ceased to exist when they were on the executive....

But I do believe only relevant information should be given out to members - not an overload of pointless drivel.

Ficheall wrote: »

Ah now, we can't go throwing votes of no confidence around willy-nilly.

We'd need some evidence to suggest the secretary were as 'inefficient' as the rest of this year's exec.

Agreed. Eugene could be amazing at the job! However, it'd make more sense for him to withdraw his nomination at the AGM so it's open to the floor. That way himself and Richard could apply and members could decide who they want. If he gets voted in, he gets to stay as the process was fair.

If he doesn't do this of course, (and provided John McMorrow's team wins), they would be within their right to reopen the nominations for the secretary position (not necessarily picking Richard or Eugene).

Of course the slap in the face to someone who can stand for election being denied to run (Richard) could also be reason for him to say: "screw it, the ICU can burn for all I care." So he mightn't actually want to be secretary anymore.

RoundTower

Ficheall wrote: »

We'd need some evidence to suggest the secretary were as 'inefficient' as the rest of this year's exec.

Announcing the agm agenda is part of the secretary's job. If he refused to announce the motions that were sent in by members, that's pretty bad.

Knowing the rules is also important in that job and denying Munster their representation at an executive meeting because their representative doesn't favour the current regime is unquestionably at odds with the constitution.

I expect he'd do an excellent job with different colleagues.

Disclaimer: I'm running on the McMorrow ticket

cdeb

RoundTower wrote: »

Since snipped by the poster

That's really harsh (maybe even approaching the level of stuff previously removed from here)

I don't know what happened with the previous secretary, but the incumbent took up the spot only a couple of weeks ago and to suggest that because - at worst - he's failed to control an out-of-control exec is really unfair I think.

EnPassant

..snip..

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Hi all,

Before I post our manifesto, I just wanted to reply to a few queries/messages above. (Sorry rob51, it will include a section on transparency, although we hope to take the unusual step of abiding by it).

First off, although I wasn't delighted with how the AGM was officially announced only 10 minutes before the end of the 2014-2015 season (which was affectingly toying with the electorates of 14-15 and 15-16 as to which would get to vote), I do not blame Eugene. I have absolutely no problem working with Eugene if that reflects the wishes of the attendees at the AGM.

I nominated Richard with the understanding that he was a member of the ICU at the time, and as such could be elected - my view has not changed and I think that the members of the ICU have a right to vote for him. I will try to resolve this before the election to save time, for now I have taken him off our ticket pending a resolution.

Some other notes: Pat Fitzsimons nominated Colm Daly for PRO. However, it appears that Colm has declined the nomination. Gearoidin Ui Laighleis Nominated herself for Women's Officer but she didn't appear on the list of nominees - she may have pulled out.

Lastly, I can see that some people have had their issues with the current executive but - aside from personal attacks from the PRO which should have no place in Irish chess - I'm sure they are working toward their vision of how Irish chess should be run. I may not share this vision overall but if our campaign is successful, I hope they'd be willing to work with us to improve Irish chess as prominent icu members; as I will be, should their campaign win.

I hope our manifesto is received well - please contact me with any thoughts or concerns