Munster Chess Union AGM.

rob51

mikhail wrote: »

How do they define a guest player?

Essentially any player not living in Munster or Connaught. The allowance for Connaught was made because they have no club league and some players have played with Munster clubs for years. The rules are on the MCU website (http://www.munsterchessunion.org/leaguerules_1.php.
It has been a thorny issue over the years.

Chess_Coach

reunion wrote: »

The letter made no difference to the motion or the removal of the officer and was not available to members as it was slander.

The simple truths that were discussed

1. The MCU had a delegate on the ICU executive.
2. The ICU voted to remove the MCU delegate without notice or warning to the MCU.
3. The ICU were told (by the MCU rep and then the MCU chair) that only the MCU can remove their delegate, not the ICU. That if they wished to discipline a member, they are welcome to do so under their rules. However, they have no right to remove the MCU delegate. That would be unconstitutional but they did so anyway.
4. The ICU told the MCU to send a different delegate. Effectively meaning any delegate needs ICU approval first.
5. When the chair of the MCU asked why they weren't notified, Pat (ICU chair) said they were going to do it in the July meeting but the delegate wasn't there (note: not mentioned in the minutes published on the icu site).
6. The chess players of Munster view this as an insult to their organisation. They are affiliated to the ICU and have a sole delegate to express Munster's views on the ICU committee and weren't given any warning or representation at an ICU meeting as a result.

The question is: can the ICU remove provincial delegates without consultation or notice to the province in question?

The answer: No.

2 years ago the MCU delegate was causing hassle and disrupting meetings, the then executive notified the MCU of the individuals behaviour and the MCU decided to replace the individual.


What makes this worse is, with the Ulster Chess Union now outside the ICU and Connaught not having a chess union, the MCU is the only province outside of Leinster that have a chess union affiliated to the ICU. The ICU, by removing the delegate is making the ICU a Leinster only union.


Regarding the letter, 2 out of 3 points were disproven immediately but the letter had nothing to do with the fact that the MCU were not given a voice at an ICU meeting and the executive refuse to permit the MCU to choose their delegate unless approved by the current ICU executive. The capacity of the current MCU rep is not the conversation topic as the MCU has reaffirmed that their delegate was satisfactory.

So the MCU AGM attendees did not see the letter sent to MCU Chairman . Why ? There are the reasons why MCU delegate was expelled from ICU Executive <snip> I just think that MCU members should read the ICU Chairman letter at least for fairness and transparency . Why not ? Why the MCU Chairman would hide this letter from the members? I do hope that this letter will be printed for ICU AGM .

Mod edit - irrelevant personal stuff snipped

Chess_Coach

And yes I do not want hide anything it is me ICU development officer . The one who secured 5000 e for ICU and saved 12 000 e from Junior budget in the past 4 years. The one who promised that all minutes will be published at ICU website and that all accounts have to be strictly controlled . I am as well the one who proposed that no member of he Executive can apply from any HOD or Team Captain position . I wanted as well that members of the Executive should not vote in case that they can some financial gain . For example tournament organizer not to vote for his tournament support .I have started project Junior coaching for the first time ever . When I started project and organized it all then Treasurer did not want to collect money from Parents ??? He said it was not his job . Only one who helped me was Kevin O Flaherty who actually did set the payment on The ICU website . One of the ex Chairman's did not publish the thank to Hotel which gave us free room for junior coaching . Reunion can witness my constant urge for sponsors and development of Irish Chess . I could add that I was the member of the Executive who was present at more then 95% of the meetings . Remember Reunion ?

Sparks

Darco, are you posting on behalf of the ICU?

Chess_Coach

No just in my personal capacity and it is Darko if you dont mind

Sparks

Chess_Coach wrote: »

No just in my personal capacity and it is Darko if you dont mind

Sorry about that, honest mistake.

reunion

Chess_Coach wrote: »

And yes I do not want hide anything it is me ICU development officer . The one who secured 5000 e for ICU and saved 12 000 e from Junior budget in the past 4 years. The one who promised that all minutes will be published at ICU website and that all accounts have to be strictly controlled . I am as well the one who proposed that no member of he Executive can apply from any HOD or Team Captain position . I wanted as well that members of the Executive should not vote in case that they can some financial gain . For example tournament organizer not to vote for his tournament support .I have started project Junior coaching for the first time ever . When I started project and organized it all then Treasurer did not want to collect money from Parents ??? He said it was not his job . Only one who helped me was Kevin O Flaherty who actually did set the payment on The ICU website . One of the ex Chairman's did not publish the thank to Hotel which gave us free room for junior coaching . Reunion can witness my constant urge for sponsors and development of Irish Chess . I could add that I was the member of the Executive who was present at more then 95% of the meetings . Remember Reunion ?

Mod note: Keep your post relevant to the MCU. See my last mod note.

rob51

Chess_Coach wrote: »

And yes I do not want hide anything it is me ICU development officer . The one who secured 5000 e for ICU and saved 12 000 e from Junior budget in the past 4 years. The one who promised that all minutes will be published at ICU website and that all accounts have to be strictly controlled . I am as well the one who proposed that no member of he Executive can apply from any HOD or Team Captain position . I wanted as well that members of the Executive should not vote in case that they can some financial gain . For example tournament organizer not to vote for his tournament support .I have started project Junior coaching for the first time ever . When I started project and organized it all then Treasurer did not want to collect money from Parents ??? He said it was not his job . Only one who helped me was Kevin O Flaherty who actually did set the payment on The ICU website . One of the ex Chairman's did not publish the thank to Hotel which gave us free room for junior coaching . Reunion can witness my constant urge for sponsors and development of Irish Chess . I could add that I was the member of the Executive who was present at more then 95% of the meetings . Remember Reunion ?

Do I hear an election coming? I certainly don't see any relevance to the topic.

rob51

Chess_Coach wrote: »

So the MCU AGM attendees did not see the letter sent to MCU Chairman . Why ? There are the reasons why MCU delegate was expelled from ICU Executive <snip> I just think that MCU members should read the ICU Chairman letter at least for fairness and transparency . Why not ? Why the MCU Chairman would hide this letter from the members? I do hope that this letter will be printed for ICU AGM .

Mod edit - irrelevant personal stuff snipped

I see the reasons the MCU committee did not publish the letter have been explained on the MCU Website http://www.munsterchessunion.org. I wonder when the ICU Executive will explain why they ignored the Constitution.

ComDubh

Even if there had been grounds for a no-confidence vote, and even if it was a legitimate vote to take, having anyone travel across the country to attend an ICU meeting only to boot them out arrival was a simply rotten thing to do.

Lecale

What is the point of publishing the letter to the MCU and not to the ICU?

cdeb

MCU delegate's response

reunion

Lecale wrote: »

What is the point of publishing the letter to the MCU and not to the ICU?

The MCU's letter to the ICU complaining about the unconstitutional actions of the current ICU executive should be public.

members of the MCU were unhappy with the disregard for the Munster Chess Union. The letter should be public to show that it's not just chair of MCU to chair of ICU (i.e. that the MCU committee are writing on behalf of the entire MCU membership to the entire ICU membership through the chair/the executive of the ICU) and that the apology should be public to all MCU members.

Lecale

I was talking there about why send a letter about GG only to the MCU membership and not to the ICU membership. If you're going to transparently run the ICU and explain why you've ejected an executive member, wouldn't you want to explain that to everyone?

cdeb

They'd probably argue they were being nice to the guy not putting it out in the open I guess.

Regardless, you can work out what the letter from the ICU said by what Gerry is refuting in his post on the MCU site.

Assuming it's correct, then more ICU shenanigans.

reunion

Lecale wrote: »

I was talking there about why send a letter about GG only to the MCU membership and not to the ICU membership. If you're going to transparently run the ICU and explain why you've ejected an executive member, wouldn't you want to explain that to everyone?

The letter wasn't addressed to the MCU membership nor was it to be made public. It was sent from the ICU chair to the chair of the MCU. The chair of the MCU hasn't made the letter public (or given it to others). Some people have the letter though... since it was sent from the ICU chair to the MCU chair and the MCU chair didn't give it to people, I wonder who did?

This letter should not be made public - particularly as:

1. it doesn't relate to the individual's record as MCU rep.
2. No disciplinary action was taken against the individual in question.
3. None of the letter's contents gave any proof (so are just allegations). 2 out of 3 were disproven immediately by the MCU committee.
4. It was addressed to the MCU chair privately.
5. The MCU AGM agreed that the letter is not to be made public.


The MCU notice/letter/email/message to the ICU should be public, at least to MCU members anyway. Considering the MCU members voted for an apology for removing their rep without warning or consultation.

Let's not confuse the letter, the bad treatment of the individual and the breach of the ICU constitution. The letter is irrelevant (if it's so damning, the ICU can have their own disciplinary process to determine the appropriate punishment) and the treatment (making the individual drive 3 hours to the meeting to be turned away) is not the issue the MCU and it's members voted on.

The individual can be on the executive (as his nomination was accepted to run for the 2015-16 executive) so there is no basis to remove this individual as the MCU rep. This removed Munster's voice from the executive so the ICU need to apologise for this. Removal of the Munster's voice is a serious insult to the entire chess playing population of Munster and the entire organisation of the MCU.

I'm certain the LCU wouldn't tolerate their rep being removed without notice or consultation (and in breach of the ICU constitution). While this doesn't directly affect them, they should realise the insult and potential precedent that this sets where the ICU can determine who any provincial delegate should be.

LorcanOToole

So according to Gerry's rebuttal he has been accused of forging (photocopying I think) the rating officers signature in a document only sent to the same rating officer for submission to FIDE.

So is this technically an offence or not? Well I don't see anything in the ICU laws about it so I searched Irish civil law. From the "Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001" we have a definition:

"A person is guilty of forgery if he or she makes a false instrument with the intention that it shall be used to induce another person to accept it as genuine and, by reason of so accepting it, to do some act, or to make some omission, to the prejudice of that person or any other person."

Seems to me the last bit clears Gerry completely. There has to be intent to prejudice someone. And as he never submitted it himself, and highlighted the liberty he took, he can't be guilty of that. So here (using Gerry's testimony only) I think he is simply acting as a secretary.

Any legal eagles out there who see this differently?