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

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.