Chairperson statement

reunion

Pat Fitzsimons wrote:

Title: Erroneous Comments on Various Websites and Chess Forums 2015-09-04

Dear Members

I wish to advise you that a number of recent posts on various websites attacking the current ICU Executive are inaccurate and do not in any way reflect the actual position on the issues raised. The recent post on the website of an Ulster Chess Club, for example, about the rating of events is completely untrue and misleading and does not in any way reflect the actual position. The post about the rating system on the ICU sites that was uploaded earlier this week is fully accurate. Any reasonable person who takes the trouble to read it carefully with an open mind is most unlikely to find anything objectionable in it. I would also like to point out that the role of Rating Officer requires a considerable level of ongoing work which is being performed to a high standard by Andrew Kildea. Without his immense input we simply would not have such a well maintained and up to date rating system.

I would also like to comment on other misleading posts that have been put up on Boards.ie. I should say that in my view "misleading" is a very charitable description of the various comments involved as they represent a series of completely unwarranted attacks on the current ICU executive generally and personalised attacks on particular named members.

It does the people making these comments no credit whatsoever to be engaged in such behaviour. I am personally disappointed that some people, who I had thought highly of in the past, have demonstrated by their actions, that my faith in them was entirely misplaced.

We, in the ICU Executive, are working tirelessly in a voluntary capacity to serve the Irish Chess Community. We are not paid employees of the Union and are motivated solely by a desire to serve the Irish Chess Community as best we can. Those who chose to attack us by spreading misinformation and making reprehensible comments about individual members of the executive, are bringing chess in Ireland into disrepute.

We are accountable to the generality of ICU members and will be answerable to them at the forthcoming AGM. I will be seeking a renewed mandate for my team, Paul Cassidy, Andrew Kildea, Darko Polimac, Chris and Tristan Sheridan, Eugene Donohue and Kevin O' Connell.

We are an experienced team with only the best interests of Irish Chess at heart and accordingly, I appeal to all members to turn out to vote on the day and have your say on the future direction of Irish Chess.

Over the coming weeks, I will be addressing the issues the executive have had to deal with, the extensive work we have done on a number of important areas and what we hope to achieve if given the privilege of a fresh mandate at the AGM.

Pat Fitzsimons
Chairperson
Irish Chess Union
4th September 2015

Just in case people haven't seen it. Also a discussion about this statement

reunion

Just to note: it reads to me as "if you don't say good things about us, we will ban you!"

mikhail

It does the people making these comments no credit whatsoever to be engaged in such behaviour. I am personally disappointed that some people, who I had thought highly of in the past, have demonstrated by their actions, that my faith in them was entirely misplaced.

How dare the peasants revolt?

I have known Pat for many years, and he's never done me wrong. I remain satisfied that he has the best of intentions. I just have no confidence he's the right guy for ICU chair any more.

I have sympathy with the guys who've seen their games go unrated. I'm aghast the rating system was used as anything other than a measurement of performance - it is not a carrot to be bestowed on tournaments that bow to the committee's whims. There is no precident or mandate for using it in this way, nor for trying to remove the right of refusal from tournament organisers. Two tournaments are cancelled and the organisers of most of the rest are hopping mad.

The MCU has publically criticised the ICU committee for chucking their delegate out of a meeting he had every right to attend. I don't really know Mark Orr - in my rare interactions with him, he's been occasionally prickly but always competent - but I don't like the air of secrecy around his apparently being disciplined severely. I'm shocked at some of the actions of the PRO - what kind of organisation allows its PRO to publically criticise one of the candidates for its own chairmanship?

I don't think my saying so consitutes a personal attack on anyone. Next time I meet Pat, I hope to shake his hand. But if I can attend I will vote against him at the AGM.

rob51

I wonder how long we will have to wait before the Chairman denounces the hysterical anti-democratic claims on the PRO's private blog or the personal attacks on ICU members by Chess-Coach who is also an Executive member. Or condemns the damage done to the image of Irish chess on the Facebook page where I believe two Executive members are moderators.

Or perhaps in the interests of democracy and Irish chess the ICU Website will provide equal space to John McMorrow and his team.

I find it hard to understand why people declaring themselves as working in the interests of Irish Chess do nothing while at least two of their colleagues run a vicious negative campaign against their opponents for election. Surely this trash should have no place in Irish Chess and is totally unacceptable for anyone who is a member of the ICU Executive.

ovinelover

reunion wrote: »

Just to note: it reads to me as "if you don't say good things about us, we will ban you!"

Weasel words Reunion, weasel words. There is nothing in the statement that can be read as a threat to ban anyone.

Sparks

ovinelover wrote: »

reunion wrote: »

Just to note: it reads to me as "if you don't say good things about us, we will ban you!"

Weasel words Reunion, weasel words. There is nothing in the statement that can be read as a threat to ban anyone.

Accurate words, in that he's saying what it read like to him. And he's being very direct about that. One clear sentence, no wiggling about, no excessive adjectives, no self-aggrandising, just "here's what I think" (which is the exact opposite of what the phrase "weasel words" means, in case you were confused).

And actually, that ICU statement read to me the same way. Mind you, that might not have been helped by being told I was to be kicked out of the ICU under the heading of "Bringing Irish Chess into disrepute" because of posts other people had made here.

ovinelover

Sparks wrote: »

Accurate words, in that he's saying what it read like to him. And he's being very direct about that. One clear sentence, no wiggling about, no excessive adjectives, no self-aggrandising, just "here's what I think" (which is the exact opposite of what the phrase "weasel words" means, in case you were confused).

And actually, that ICU statement read to me the same way. Mind you, that might not have been helped by being told I was to be kicked out of the ICU under the heading of "Bringing Irish Chess into disrepute" because of posts other people had made here.

If that is the case I could say that your statement reads like a call to " hang the current executive " an extreme and stupid argument but as there was nothing in the statement about banning dissident voices,only a fool could draw that inference.

Sparks

ovinelover wrote: »

If that is the case I could say that your statement reads like a call to " hang the current executive " an extreme and stupid argument but as there was nothing in the statement about banning dissident voices,only a fool could draw that inference.

Not only could you say that, you just have.
I mean, you're wrong, but you were perfectly able to say it.
Welcome to boards.ie.



But I believe reunion's reading is still correct given that that statement explicitly says that statements on here "represent a series of completely unwarranted attacks on the current ICU executive generally and personalised attacks on particular named members" and that was followed up by saying that people doing that "are bringing chess in Ireland into disrepute", and given what's written in Section 13 of the ICU constitution:

ICU Constitution, section 13 wrote:

The Executive Committee may discipline by means of a fine or any other suitable penalty and/or suspend from membership of the Union any individual member or organisation who contravenes any of these rules or any of the bye-laws made by the Executive Committee or who in the opinion of the Executive Committee is guilty of unacceptable behaviour or has brought the Union into disrepute.

Note there that all that is required is the opinion of the Executive Committee, the chair of which has just explicitly made the accusation of bringing chess into disrepute.

I don't think you can reasonably say reunion is making an erroneous argument here, and off-the-forum communications have basically stated that this is the plan anyway, so...

Lecale

death threats slid by unnoticed, but talk of voting the other way - my oh my

brianhere

The chairman incidentally has also distributed a six page manifesto type document for his re-election campaign while his opponent for the chairmanship, John McMorrow, has released a short document available here: https://icu2016.wordpress.com

Personally I was pleased to read that there is nothing very personalised or negative about the present ICU Executive in McMorrow's account but in contrast the current chairman's missive is somewhat harsh on his predecessors I thought:

"I can assure you that I will not allow this to happen [a long AGM] by managing the meeting more effectively than my predecessors."

"certain self serving elements within Irish chess."

"Do we want to go back to the past to a dysfunctional organisation where political chicanery gets in the way of real action to improve Irish Chess? Where anything positive that happens is in spite of the ICU rather than because of its work?"

"Please use your votes to put Irish Chess on a sound path into the future rather than onto a slippery slope back to the past where the self-interest of the few will inevitably outweigh the interests of the many."

Then the last section heading is entitled 'fraud' and refers to action they took to stop some unnamed person from receiving a FIDE Arbiter norm. They claimed that he was not present for all of a given tournament, that he was getting the norm for, and not carrying out the full arbiter duties at the time anyway. But this sounds like a nominalish bureaucratic type of thing that there is no need to be so exact about? I presume it is what Pete Morris has referred to already on this site and if so it seems very harsh to so prominently describe this as 'fraud' and could come again under the category of being too hard on his predecessors.

Meanwhile, as has been pointed out above, if its a bad idea to launch so many personalised attacks on volunteer chess officials, and you'd have to say it is, then how come at least two members of his own executive are very prominent at doing just that? Boards.ie is mentioned personally where he says that contributors are "beneath contempt and completely misguided in their relentlessly negative attacks on the Executive," but in contrast has nothing to say about the, frequently very personalised and nasty, attacks on former officials on chess cogitations and the facebook page?

Anyway I wish all the candidates going up for election at the AGM the best of luck, because its always good to see people being prepared to put in such work in a voluntary capacity, and it doubtless will be exciting anyway!

cdeb

Pat's statement is attached btw.

I might invite Pat on here to engage in some open discussion about the document actually.

The emphasis on the length of the meeting, and the fact that the blitz tournament is scheduled for after rather than before it, concerns me. The easiest way to shorten a meeting like this is to cut down on debate, which is really, badly needed here...

The comments on boards.ie is actually nastier than brianhere has outlined -

The virulent attacks on the current Executive and some of its individual members on Boards.ie are designed to impugn the reputations and integrity of the victims of such attacks. The people who post such vile drivel on a public forum are beneath contempt and completely misguided in their relentlessly negative attacks on the Executive. Some of the regular contributors to this forum actually aspire to holding positions on the executive! Their behaviour is completely inconsistent with being allowed to have any position of influence within the ICU

Lecale

No mention of banning Mark Orr

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

Pat's statement is attached btw.

I might invite Pat on here to engage in some open discussion about the document actually.

If pat accepts your offer of walking in here for the baying lynch mob, then I strongly recommend you buy a lottery ticket.

reunion

Pat Fitzsimons wrote:

I also decided, at an early stage, that I would endeavour to do what I considered to be the right thing when issues presented themselves, regardless of the consequences

Sometimes his view of the right thing and the actual right thing (i.e. from a neutral persons point of view) are entirely different. I note that he doesn't mention the executive's view. The mess he has created has backed up his statement of regardless of the consequences. I also note he hasn't ever given his reasons for his actions - he has just done them.

Pat wrote:

Some of the regular contributors to this forum actually aspire to holding positions on the executive!

Wow he couldn't be more wrong! But let's assume he is right, so what if some people do? How is that a bad thing that other people want to run for office? Is that not good for Irish Chess that other people are interested in helping out? Maybe he should try to make friends, not enemies.

Pat wrote:

where the self-interest of the few will inevitably outweigh the interests of the many

Sounds like a spoke quote "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Pat wrote:

twin objectives of improving playing standards and overall participation in the game

No Pat, you single objective last year was transparency - that was your campaign promise and you didn't deliver. No need to do a U-turn and say improve playing standards and participation. Cancelling tournaments, not rating events and visiting titled players have to join the ICU are all working against these aims!

Pat wrote:

The recent vote of no confidence in the Munster delegate on the ICU Executive was the culmination of a number of issues that required the removal of the delegate from the executive. The Chairperson of the Munster Chess Union has been advised, in writing, of the issues of concern and has been asked to nominate a replacement for the current incumbent. I understand that the matter was discussed at a poorly attended AGM of the Munster Chess Union but that my letter to the Chairperson was not circulated to those attending. No response has been received to date from the MCU.

The meeting was well attended but I guess different view points. Just an update from the MCU. Also to note, John Alfred has emailed the letter to a few people insinuating that Pat gave him the letter! This is a sensitive letter addressed from Pat to Alan Salsac (the MCU Chair). I should note, John isn't even a member of the MCU!




It honestly sounds like he is running a campaign of "the other guys are bad but we aren't as bad, vote for us". Does he honestly expect people to vote for him based on that? His campaign is shameful, if he has something positive to bring to Irish Chess, say that. All this document is - is more mud-slinging and echos his current development officer and PRO's comments.

ComDubh

@brianhere, I think you're one of the newcomers to the Irish chess scene here, so I was happy to see that a relative outsider like yourself is also puzzled by how the ICU chair attacks posters here while seems happy for his exec to post very unpleasant, personal material elsewhere. I've been involved in chess for decades, almost never attend an ICU AGM but I will be there this year to make my vote count. I hope you and other get there too.

As regards the alternative ticket, the people I know are sound characters and I'm not surprised to see a positive, forward-looking manifesto from John McMorrow. That's the kind of people they are, the the type of people we need to bring the ICU back to normality.

reunion

The opposition manifesto is here.

It doesn't attack anybody.

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

If pat accepts your offer of walking in here for the baying lynch mob, then I strongly recommend you buy a lottery ticket.

There's no lynch mob. There's a fair few Irish chess players looking for proper answers to reasonable questions.

If that's too much for a Chairperson candidate to deal with, I don't think they should go for the position tbh.

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

There's no lynch mob. There's a fair few Irish chess players looking for proper answers to reasonable questions.

If that's too much for a Chairperson candidate to deal with, I don't think they should go for the position tbh.

Well he doesn't have to come on here, he can do an AMA on reddit if he wants, I think members would appreciate some response or reasons for his (and the executive) actions.

Even a member only published Q&A - it would save the AGM so much time...

Or ask the candidates questions before the AGM! Again, saving time!

cdeb

reunion wrote: »

Well he doesn't have to come on here

Doesn't have to of course - but no harm in giving the invite.

But there's been more talk about this election than any other - and I don't think the issues can really be properly explored by biased, one-way communications such as Pat's statement.

brilliantboy

cdeb wrote: »

The comments on boards.ie is actually nastier than brianhere has outlined -

...
The people who post such vile drivel on a public forum are beneath contempt and completely misguided in their relentlessly negative attacks on the Executive. Some of the regular contributors to this forum actually aspire to holding positions on the executive! Their behaviour is completely inconsistent with being allowed to have any position of influence within the ICU

Sounds familiar. Does Pat employ a speechwriter?

cdeb

reunion wrote: »

No Pat, you single objective last year was transparency - that was your campaign promise and you didn't deliver.

Actually, that's not true.

His manifesto for last year is attached.

The main aims are -

I am now seeking the opportunity to lead the Irish Chess Union as Chairperson and to apply my experience and skills to further the twin aims of increasing participation in chess and improving playing standards in Ireland.

All it has to say on transparency is -

If elected, I also pledge to operate in a more transparent and open manner. I will ensure that the minutes and agendas for all ICU meetings are published on the open part of the ICU website so that they are readily available to all members. Such information will not be confined to the ICU Executive only as is currently the case.

And technically, this has been done (albeit that the minutes are draft and with queries from the chair marked on them)

Not that that should take away from the criticism of the past year.

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

There's no lynch mob. There's a fair few Irish chess players looking for proper answers to reasonable questions.

If that's too much for a Chairperson candidate to deal with, I don't think they should go for the position tbh.

Why not put a few questions together and send it to him via email or other means and paste his response here ?, or you could post those question on ICU's official site ?

http://www.irishchessunion.net/

If he comes here, by the time you are finished with him it will be like " taking a shirt from charlie ".

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

If he comes here, by the time you are finished with him...

That's the second time you've said that, but honestly, looking at the moderation rules here and the state of places like the facebook group, I don't think you've got much of a case.
Lynch mobs are rather against the site ethos, the T&Cs, the basic site rules and the forum charter, and wouldn't be tolerated by mods, Cmods or the admins.

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

Why not put a few questions together and send it to him via email or other means and paste his response here ?

I have e-mailed him as well.

If I can push his towards an interview/Q&A for here, I will.

Your comments on "taking a shirt from charlie" are ridiculous. If Pat is going to stand over the sort of stuff his exec have been carrying out the past year, and wants our mandate to go again, I don't see why he shouldn't account for his actions to the membership he's supposed to represent.

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

I have e-mailed him as well.

If I can push his towards an interview/Q&A for here, I will.

Yes, you could interview him one on one, post response here, but interview should be recorded on a video or written response, rather than your interpretation.

rob51

sinbad68 wrote: »

Why not put a few questions together and send it to him via email or other means and paste his response here ?, or you could post those question on ICU's official site ?

http://www.irishchessunion.net/

If he comes here, by the time you are finished with him it will be like " taking a shirt from charlie ".

I've always been a little surprised at the ratio of congratulatory comments versus real questions on that site. I did raise a valid question there and it was answered. However when I questioned the answer that did not appear. Just wondering if there could be any selectivity going on.

Barno

I don't think much questions will be answered before the elections:

"All members eligible to vote will be provided with ballot papers on arrival and the election of Officers will be dealt with immediately after my opening address to the meeting. The counting of votes will take place while officers’ reports and other business is being attended to. Also there are only a couple of very brief motions to be considered."

rob51

Barno wrote: »

I don't think much questions will be answered before the elections:

"All members eligible to vote will be provided with ballot papers on arrival and the election of Officers will be dealt with immediately after my opening address to the meeting. The counting of votes will take place while officers’ reports and other business is being attended to. Also there are only a couple of very brief motions to be considered."

Certainly doesn't come across as the AGM where they will answer ALL the members questions. As has been pointed out before answering a few straight questions here would be one way to make the AGM more efficient. Of course that assumes that there are straight answers available.

Barno

The FIDE arbiters comm on the PT case:

"The President of the Irish Chess Union refused to sign a FA norm from the Irish Chess Championship 2014 for Pete Morriss. Chairman Takis Nikolopoulos informed that the meeting of the Councillors in Dubai discussed the case and it was decided that since Mr. Morriss was present only for the five out of the nine rounds of the event, his FA norm cannot be accepted. In the meantime another valid norm was sent by Mr. Morriss. The federation didn’t submit the FA title application and it was submitted by the applicant himself to FIDE (according to the article 5.4 of the regulations for the titles of Arbiters). The recommendation is currently on “hold”, in order the Commission to get more clarification and information regarding the case. The final decision will be forwarded to the next FIDE Presidential Board."

cdeb

Where did you see this?

RoundTower

Nice to hear that Pat has now taken the title President. By universal acclaim, I expect. Next step, Glorious Leader and Defender of the Fatherland?