How many distinct actions of the ICU executive are being objected to?

Tim Harding

I have been asked by a Mod to post this as a new thread rather than under the MCU thread as I did originally. Same wording. NB: this is a serious enquiry, not intended to be ironic.
***
I am losing count of the number of supposed unconstitutional or unreasonable actions taken by the current ICU EC. Is the ejection of Gerry Graham (following the Mark Orr issue and the Galway rapid issue) the third, fourth or even higher number?

Can somebody please post a definitive list of the alleged or proven crimes of the Fitzsimons team so that impartial voters are clear on what exactly are the issues?

anchor4208

In my opinion, these are the main issues, in no particular order

1. The non-rating of the Galway rapid.
2. The publication of an on-line notice postponing the NCC (subsequently withdrawn)
3. The non-rating of the NCC
4. The banning of Mark Orr
4a. The process used to ban him
4b. The lack of information to the members in relation to the ban.
5. The unconstitutional removal of the MCU delegate from the last ICU meeting
6. The extended period for which the old website was down.
7. The fact that there are now two 'official' websites.
8. The use of icu.ie to peddle propaganda when approaching an election, and the general way in which icu.ie increasingly resembles an unprofessional blog, including bad grammar etc.
9. The rejection by the committee of two AGM motions, presumably contrary to the constitution.
10. The controversy with the nations tournament organisers in relation to who they can or cannot admit to their tournaments

Is 10 items enough?

reunion

I suppose I'll add to this comment with the number of actions being objected to and by whom. Possibly a link where available. I'll try to keep this updated.

I'll try to keep it to this format:

Issue - a link to a discussion - response (if available)

1. MCU delegate's removal by the ICU executive - Discussion

2. Mark Orr's disciplinary case - discussion

3. Removal of Mark Orr's HLM - discussion

4. Mark Orr receiving a ban for 3 years as a member of the ICU but 5 years of the executive - discussion

5. Refusal of Richard Gould as a candidate for secretary in the AGM - discussion - response

6. Stating that tournament organisers agree to new rules when they have stated they don't - discussion

7. Cancelation of the 2015 Galway Congress - discussion

8. No FIDE rating of the Galway Rapidplay - discussion

9. No rating (FIDE or ICU) for the National Club Championships - discussion

10. Cancelling the National Club Championships a day or 2 before the event starts - discussion

11. ICU site downtime - discussion

12. Forcing Bunratty to pay membership fees for players - discussion

13. Transparency - no specific discussion started but promised at the AGM last year but hasn't been delivered.

14. Using the ICU website to publicise their re-election campaign - no specific discussion started.

15. Rejection of 2 AGM motions because they didn't like the motions - discussion

16. The close proximity of the 2 general meetings - discussion

reunion

anchor4208 wrote: »

In my opinion, these are the main issues, in no particular order

1. The non-rating of the Galway rapid.
...
10. The controversy with the nations tournament organisers in relation to who they can or cannot admit to their tournaments

Is 10 items enough?

I can count 17... I did take some of your list since I forgot some of them.

Also got a message from Kevin O'Flaherty

email sent to the ICU executive. Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:35 AM wrote:

Hi Eugene and Pat,

Can you provide me with a list of all motions and nominations that were received for the upcoming AGM?

Please also indicate motions that were rejected and there reasoning for being rejected as per the constitution. Also indicate if you attempted to engage with the proposer for further clarity.

Additionally please indicate nominations that were rejected and there reasoning for being rejected as per the constitution.

As these motions and nominations were submitted to be a matter of public record, all motions and nominations should be available for members to see. I will also remind the chair of his election campaign promise of transparency at the last AGM - of which this is a simple transparency request.

Regards,

Kevin

I've been told he didn't get a response but the day after this email was sent, we see the minutes. Glad he sent this email! otherwise would the executive have even published any minutes?

Tim Harding

reunion wrote: »

I suppose I'll add to this comment with the number of actions being objected to and by whom. Possibly a link where available. I'll try to keep this updated.

I'll try to keep it to this format:

Issue - a link to a discussion - response (if available)


12. Ignoring Sam's potential for the GM title - discussion

Sorry I don't understand point 12 as expressed by reunion here. Sam's disappointing result in the Bunratty classic (understandable as he is a lawyer in employment) is not something to hold against the ICU executive, surely?
Maybe the point (from the other side) is that the P.R.O. and maybe others think that instead of hosting a closed GM event the Bunratty team (which includes Gerry Graham) should have hosted a tournament giving IM norm chances for one or two other Irish players, especially the son of the Chairperson? And this could be something the current EC hold against GG?

To which the answer might be that the EC could have bestirred itself and organised a norm tournament instead of expecting Bunratty to do it?

Can you clarify please? Point 12 just doesn't seem to be on the same level as the ten points listed by anchor4208 ...

reunion

Tim Harding wrote: »

Can you clarify please? Point 12 just doesn't seem to be on the same level as the ten points listed by anchor4208 ...

Point 12 refers to the fact the ICU did not publish or publicise the fact that Sam could get a GM norm. They effectively ignored the event. The PRO did publish material bad mouthing the event prior to it starting.

Sam's results are irrelevant. The ICU could have had it's first home-grown GM and the potential should have been welcomed with fanfare.

mikhail

Tim Harding wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand point 12 as expressed by reunion here. Sam's disappointing result in the Bunratty classic (understandable as he is a lawyer in employment) is not something to hold against the ICU executive, surely?

I'm also unclear what is meant here.

Maybe the point (from the other side) is that the P.R.O. and maybe others think that instead of hosting a closed GM event the Bunratty team (which includes Gerry Graham) should have hosted a tournament giving IM norm chances for one or two other Irish players, especially the son of the Chairperson? And this could be something the current EC hold against GG?

I'm sure most of us would happily see an IM norm event, but mainly I wanted to say that I haven't read any such suggestion here.

reunion

I removed the point 12. If people don't think the response by the ICU to Sam potentially getting his GM norm (I mean the build up to the event and media coverage of the event by the ICU) was poor, I'll remove it. I feel differently, I feel there should have been much more media coverage and publicity about it, but c'est la vie.

Pete Morriss

11 (or 18): Failing to appoint the only qualified applicant for webmaster after Mark Orr resigned.

Actually, although these are distinct actions (as asked for by Tim in the heading) there is a pattern to most of them: they are not merely down to incompetence, although there has been a lot of that, but what seems to motivate this executive more than anything else is vindictiveness towards people they seem to regard as their opponents. That includes me, of course: hence the treatment of the Galway Rapidplay (imposing conditions not applied to any other tournament), the pathetic announcement on the website inviting someone else to run the Galway Congress after we had cancelled it, and (not yet aired) the refusal by Pat Fitzsimons to allow the ICU to support an application of mine to FIDE for a FIDE Arbiter title. Others - more noteworthy - on their hit list are Mark Orr, of course, Gerry Graham (remember that the first attack on tournaments was issued in late January, immediately before Bunratty and to apply to it - though they had to back down on that one) and Jonathan O'Connor: they preferred to take the website down rather than appoint him to run it. (I have been told also that one of Jonathan's perceived 'crimes' was arranging for a piece to go on the website congratulating me when I beat an eminent GM at the World Seniors last November). Apologies if I have left anybody out; I am sure there are more who have suffered, including, of course, all ICU members who have got caught in the crossfire, about whom the executive have had no concern whatsoever.

I think that is why the Chairperson's claim to have "only the best interests of Irish chess at heart" has been met by so much annoyance by those of us who know what has actually been motivating him.

Pete Morriss

12 (or 19): What the executive have failed to do.

In a non-Olympiad year, there are only two things that the executive are required to organize for adult chess: to run a national team tournament and an individual tournament. On the team tournament, it has become clear from the discussion on this forum that the executive washed their hands of it, and did absolutely nothing to organize or support it - indeed, they did a great deal to undermine it. On the individual tournament, we have seen the worst-run Irish Championships for years, with the numbers in the Senior Championships dropping from 30 to 19. Part of the reason we got so many entrants last year is that we obtained some sponsorship for the event. The sponsor was happy with how the event went, and willing to continue sponsorship in some form for Irish chess, subject to further negotiations. However, this executive succeeded in driving him away. It will take quite a while to repair the damage to Irish chess which this has executive has managed to inflict.

Chess_Coach

Pete what have you done for ICU as Chairman please ?

Tim Harding

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Pete what have you done for ICU as Chairman please ?

Ah, the Empire strikes back!

Answer the question, please Pete!

Chess_Coach

Tim

I write here in my personal capacity. Please make sure that you understand this in future posts. I am one here against all of those writing posts full of hate and frustration .

*snip*

reunion

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Tim

I write here in my personal capacity. Please make sure that you understand this in future posts. I am one here against all of those writing posts full of hate and frustration .

*snip*

Mod note: Let's keep this to the actions of the ICU executive that people object to.

You are welcome to start a thread congratulating the ICU on what they have accomplished this year (running the Glorney for one). But don't derail this thread.

Additionally attack a post, not the poster. That is a serious offence - consider this your first warning.

pawntof4

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Pete what have you done for ICU as Chairman please ?

As far as I am aware Pete isn't running this time around.

Would you be able to address any of the issues raised?

Chess_Coach

I will at the AGM . Thanks and all the best all

Sparks

Chess_Coach wrote: »

How could I add some links here please about corruption in ECU .
I would like as well publish the letter from Police sent to ICU Executive week before FIDE and ECU vote ?
How can I do this please ?
I will try to print the letter and explain this letter from Police to all members of the ICU AGM

First of all you'd get permission from those who sent and received the letter, then you'd post it.

Rocket science it ain't.

pawntof4

Chess_Coach wrote: »

I will at the AGM . Thanks and all the best all

But you've already told us how great you are. Why not actually answer some questions?

Chess_Coach

Ask me at the meeting I ll answer you all . Who are you btw? Are you member of the ICU ? You know who I am who are you

pawntof4

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Ask me at the meeting I ll answer you all . Who are you btw? Are you member of the ICU ? You know who I am who are you

Why won't you comment on any of the issues raised here? I'd love to have all the facts before going into the AGM.

It would be much easier to parse through the information over a few weeks instead over a few hours at the AGM. It would help everyone make a levelheaded informed decision.

reunion

pawntof4 wrote: »

Why won't you comment on any of the issues raised here? I'd love to have all the facts before going into the AGM.

It would be much easier to parse through the information over a few weeks instead over a few hours at the AGM. It would help everyone make a levelheaded informed decision.

It would also get the AGM finished on time for the Blitz.

Something tells me that blitz will be delayed....

Chess_Coach

Interesting read at Irish Chess Cogitations

Sparks

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Who are you btw?

CMod note: This question isn't on. See the Terms and Conditions of boards.ie that you agreed to before posting. As we mentioned in the last few days, you agreed not to speculate on the identity of those who do not choose to reveal their identity.

Sparks

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Interesting read at Irish Chess Cogitations

Yes. The word "defamation" and the phrase "suffering cats, are you kidding me?" jumped to mind. I mean, I'm used to that site's posts undermining their own argument in the same paragraph that puts the argument forward, but this sets a new bar. That email he's quoted saying it was sent to Mark Orr is the most passive-aggressive piece of dross I've seen in a long time.

Mind you, it hasn't got a damn thing to do with the topic of this thread...

Chess_Coach

Sparks
At least you will let all people write against ICU Executive that is something

Tim Harding

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Interesting read at Irish Chess Cogitations

To quote that poisonous blog:
"...those desperate to seize the national governing body as a vehicle for their own ambitions, plans, and interests, so indicative of a certain rotten selfish and dysfunctional streak within Irish chess that has for too long been able to hold Irish chess back and frustrate the efforts of such decent and hard working people.."

To my mind the person who by far most meets that description is the blogger himself.

Sparks

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Sparks
At least you will let all people write against ICU Executive that is something

That's not what's being done here, and I'm getting rather tired of this notion being bandied about as if it was sensible or factual when it's just bull****.

People disagree with things that have been done by the ICU and have said so here. Nothing breaking the defamation act has been published here - which you cannot say about the ICU PRO's blog or the "Irish Chess" facebook page. Yet the moderators here and myself have been told by the ICU executive that we're to be banned from the ICU because we didn't delete comments made here by other people which were not positive about the ICU. We've seen this site itself being called all manner of names despite the site being a lot larger than just this forum and despite the people who run it providing a facility that we wouldn't otherwise have, for free. And despite this being the largest and most active chess forum in the country right now, and potentially a very positive and useful thing for chess in general given the sheer number of new people it could bring in, the efforts of the ICU executive appear to be directed not towards utilising that positive potential to grow the sport and unify clubs into one cohesive national community, but instead to try to destroy the forum or defame the people posting here.

Dunno about you, but this is not what I would call adult behaviour. Or even smart behaviour. And I'm getting rather sick of it to be honest.

reunion

All very good point being raised here except

*mod note* This topic relates to the distinct actions of the ICU executive that members object to. This is not a public trial or defence Darko or any other executive member must produce. As I have said previously, you can make a new thread about the actions of the ICU executive that members agree to. Equally, you can make a new thread discussing a chess blog or a different chess forum.

You can NOT however, hijack this thread. I have already given a warning to Chess_coach. I am now giving everyone else a warning. People need to calm down and relax - use your time and think. The ICU/blog/forum will be here in the morning. Keep posts on topic or I will have to start giving some people a break from this forum.

Pete Morriss

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Pete what have you done for ICU as Chairman please ?

Tim Harding wrote: »

Ah, the Empire strikes back!

Answer the question, please Pete!

Sorry, I won't let Chess_Coach sidetrack this discussion. For the last AGM I wrote a statement about what I did (and we did), which should still be up on the ICU website somewhere (unless it's been taken down) and it was discussed at some length last September. Of course there were lots of things I didn't do, such as managing not to alienate most of the organizers of major Irish tournaments. Now back to what has been happening since the last AGM.

LorcanOToole

From a Galway perspective (other than Petes):


1. Ultimatums placed on the Ennis Congress.
2. Creating guidelines for tournament organisers without a sign-off from any organiser of Irelands top 4 events.
3. Subjectively creating guidelines for tournament organisers. They seem to defend every stance the Chairman has made this year. Why no objective sub-committee?
4. The act of denouncing an Irish chess event (Galway Rapidplay) before it has started, from the official ICU website, is in my view bringing the game into disrepute.
5. Drafting NCC laws without consultation with the provinces.
6. Adding unnecessary NCC laws to make it almost impossible for Galway (specifically) to field a team.

pawnpusher

Sparks wrote: »

CMod note: This question isn't on. See the Terms and Conditions of boards.ie that you agreed to before posting. As we mentioned in the last few days, you agreed not to speculate on the identity of those who do not choose to reveal their identity.

but its another rule for mods like reunion...on the Mark Orr Perspective thread

pawntof4

ok... so far we have seen 22 "distinct actions"

reunion wrote: »

1. MCU delegate's removal by the ICU executive - Discussion

2. Mark Orr's disciplinary case - discussion

3. Removal of Mark Orr's HLM - discussion

4. Mark Orr receiving a ban for 3 years as a member of the ICU but 5 years of the executive - discussion

5. Refusal of Richard Gould as a candidate for secretary in the AGM - discussion - response

6. Stating that tournament organisers agree to new rules when they have stated they don't - discussion

7. Cancelation of the 2015 Galway Congress - discussion

8. No FIDE rating of the Galway Rapidplay - discussion

9. No rating (FIDE or ICU) for the National Club Championships - discussion

10. Cancelling the National Club Championships a day or 2 before the event starts - discussion

11. ICU site downtime - discussion

12. Forcing Bunratty to pay membership fees for players - discussion

13. Transparency - no specific discussion started but promised at the AGM last year but hasn't been delivered.

14. Using the ICU website to publicise their re-election campaign - no specific discussion started.

15. Rejection of 2 AGM motions because they didn't like the motions - discussion

16. The close proximity of the 2 general meetings - discussion

LorcanOToole wrote: »

1. Ultimatums placed on the Ennis Congress.
2. Creating guidelines for tournament organisers without a sign-off from any organiser of Irelands top 4 events.
3. Subjectively creating guidelines for tournament organisers. They seem to defend every stance the Chairman has made this year. Why no objective sub-committee?
4. The act of denouncing an Irish chess event (Galway Rapidplay) before it has started, from the official ICU website, is in my view bringing the game into disrepute.
5. Drafting NCC laws without consultation with the provinces.
6. Adding unnecessary NCC laws to make it almost impossible for Galway (specifically) to field a team.

reunion

pawnpusher wrote: »

but its another rule for mods like reunion...on the Mark Orr Perspective thread

mod note: I have explained on that thread why proof was needed - do not derail this thread. You have been given instructions by a mod so follow it. Again if you object you can report the post, it will be reviewed by different mods.

Sparks

pawnpusher wrote: »

but its another rule for mods like reunion...on the Mark Orr Perspective thread

No, it isn't. He's not tried to identify anyone who doesn't wish to be identified.

reunion

WOAH!!!!

How have people missed that this current executive have pardoned someone who has been found to use force on a child?

They have no right or authority to reduce the ban on this individual! The disciplinary matter was closed after his unsuccessful appeal.

That's another item to add to the list!

Also the March 2015 minutes seems to have the Glorney budget which has 750 Misc?! what is misc?

Can we get an actual budget for this?

cdeb

In a budget, "misc" can just be a catch-all to provide for an unexpected event. I think it's ok. If it's in the final accounts, it should come with an explanation.

For the record, the pardon is covered in item 4 in the July minutes (pdf link). I think the pardon is just in relation to the three-year ban serving on the ICU exec? The ICU ban has expired (not that it had any effect anyway), and the ICU have confirmed that the person will not be selected as a Head of Delegation for a junior team any time soon.

Still, as the person has never - I think? - served on the ICU exec, I don't see the reason to reduce that ban.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

he served as secretary in the past I believe.

cdeb

That's right actually - wasn't it his secretary report to the ICU AGM that basically consisted of a huge rant?

Edit - here we go.

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

That's right actually - wasn't it his secretary report to the ICU AGM that basically consisted of a huge rant?

Edit - here we go.

His minutes from the 2012 AGM were rejected and had to be redone too.

He wasn't banned from being on the ICU executive, he was banned from being appointed by the ICU to any position of authority over players i.e. serving as Head of Delegation, coach, etc.

Members vote in the exec, they are not appointed by the ICU and members have authority over the exec, not the other way around.

So by permitting him to be HOD or coach now, they have overturned his ban which they are not permitted to do.

cdeb

reunion wrote: »

So by permitting him to be HOD or coach now, they have overturned his ban which they are not permitted to do.

It was also decided that the ICU would not be appointing ..…….(name redacted) as a HOD unless the only children for whom he would be responsible were his own.

I read that as he's still not allowed be HOD?

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

I read that as he's still not allowed be HOD?

Nope that reads as permitted to be HOD. In only the case where it is his child, yes, but still he is permitted to be HOD which is overturning the ban.

What they have done is overturned the previous ban (which they can't do) and reissued a different ban (for no reason).

They are essentially another appeal process which isn't permitted. People were explicitly told this at the AGM last year! So the executive can't claim ignorance.

They have also made every further disciplinary action meaningless as now the executive can overturn independent decisions on a whim.

cdeb

What were the terms of the original ban?

I don't see that the ICU can realistically ban him from family activity (i.e where there's only one person the Irish contingent, and they're family) - that kind of becomes HoD by default surely?

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

What were the terms of the original ban?

I don't see that the ICU can realistically ban him from family activity (i.e where there's only one person the Irish contingent, and they're family) - that kind of becomes HoD by default surely?

Nope because the HoD does not act as a parent. He can attend as a parent all he likes, but he can not be the ICU representative at that tournament. The HoD has responsibilities (varies per tournament) but it can include resolving disputes. One of which could be an opponent of a player using an electronic device. And should his behaviour repeat (even if his child is the only player playing from Ireland), he is still a representative of the ICU.

He was banned from being appointed by the ICU to any position of authority over players (including but not limited to) serving as Head of Delegation, coach, etc.

This ban included if the players happen to be his own children.

Pete Morriss

cdeb wrote: »

What were the terms of the original ban?

They are on the ICU website (accessible only by members), article 422. This article also includes a detailed account of the process used, and reasons for the decision.

cdeb wrote: »

I don't see that the ICU can realistically ban him from family activity (i.e where there's only one person the Irish contingent, and they're family) - that kind of becomes HoD by default surely?

No. The Head of Delegation is a specific position in most international tournaments, quite distinct from being an accompanying parent. The committee's reasoning (following advice from a child protection expert) was that it would be reckless for any national organization to appoint someone to a position of authority who has been found to have used forced on a minor. As a Head of Delegation he would be representing the ICU; as an accompanying parent he would not.