AGM 2015 Officer Reports

reunion

The Junior Officer report is available online

I expect more to follow shortly.

Tim Harding

reunion wrote: »

The Junior Officer report is available online

Quite impressive report, though I feel very sorry for the young Cork player sent to Siberia for the World Juniors. He is in last place on 1/8 with five rounds still to go and if he doesn't win tomorrow (against a Russian rated lower than him) he is very likely to finish on 1 point and be lost to chess.

He has one win and the rest losses, and has already met most of the few sub-2200 players in the tournament.

Considering that some players in the event are rated over 2600, should we not have sent a higher-rated player with a better chance of a respectable score? Or is the problem that the September date meant nobody of school age could go?
Or that the money wasn't there so it was a case of sending somebody whose family was willing to pay?

Pete Morriss

Tim Harding wrote: »

Quite impressive report, though I feel very sorry for the young Cork player sent to Siberia for the World Juniors. He is in last place on 1/8 with five rounds still to go and if he doesn't win tomorrow (against a Russian rated lower than him) he is very likely to finish on 1 point and be lost to chess.

Actually, his games have been quite close (though not today's). He may learn a lot from the experience, or it may crush his spirit; that's a risk he is taking. There was a discussion on another thread about why he was offered the place. It's a difficult decision on whether we should send nobody rather than a relatively weak player to what is an extremely strong tournament.

brilliantboy

Tim Harding wrote: »

Quite impressive report, though I feel very sorry for the young Cork player sent to Siberia for the World Juniors. He is in last place on 1/8 with five rounds still to go and if he doesn't win tomorrow (against a Russian rated lower than him) he is very likely to finish on 1 point and be lost to chess.

He has one win and the rest losses, and has already met most of the few sub-2200 players in the tournament.

Considering that some players in the event are rated over 2600, should we not have sent a higher-rated player with a better chance of a respectable score? Or is the problem that the September date meant nobody of school age could go?
Or that the money wasn't there so it was a case of sending somebody whose family was willing to pay?

I think it's the case that our other junior players would prefer a comfortable few days in the plush surroundings of Johnstown House lording it over their English/Scottish/Welsh peers over a trek to Eastern Europe or Khanty-Mansiysk to take on the real elite. If only they were all as ambitious as Keegan.

And lets face it, anyone we could have sent would get spanked in that field.

ComDubh

This sneer at the Glorney Cup is unwarranted. It was a very well run event by all accounts, though I agree that since England doesn't send a serious team, it cannot be taken as a serious competition like the World Juniors, where literally the best junior players in the world compete.

Well done to Keegan O'Mahoney for taking part in this event. It's tough facing stronger opposition day in, day out but once he fights every game and avoids disillusionment, it's a great experience.

checknraise

I have followed his games and I have been impressed. He will definitely improve for it.

The games for each round are on chessbomb is anyone wants to take a look.

2bts

"English players were ranked 38th - 50th in ECF grading. We can expect a stronger selection next year as England look to regain the trophy." Junior Officers report 2014/15

reunion

mod note: Any chance we could discuss the content of the Junior Officer report (and other when they are available) rather than the playing ability of children? You can start a new thread to discuss the games from the world youth if you'd like.

eclipsechaser

brilliantboy wrote: »

I think it's the case that our other junior players would prefer a comfortable few days in the plush surroundings of Johnstown House lording it over their English/Scottish/Welsh peers over a trek to Eastern Europe or Khanty-Mansiysk to take on the real elite. If only they were all as ambitious as Keegan.

And lets face it, anyone we could have sent would get spanked in that field.

What a strange comment.

A majority of the Juniors you reference have been selected - and accepted their place - at European and World events.

It's funny. You hold an event in a crap location and people complain. You get a nice location and it's too nice. Lots of juniors playing? The standard isn't high enough. Just our top juniors playing? It's elitist.

Desmond organised literally the best chess event I've ever seen in Ireland and he still gets criticised. You just can't win.

brilliantboy

eclipsechaser wrote: »

What a strange comment.

A majority of the Juniors you reference have been selected - and accepted their place - at European and World events.

It's funny. You hold an event in a crap location and people complain. You get a nice location and it's too nice. Lots of juniors playing? The standard isn't high enough. Just our top juniors playing? It's elitist.

Desmond organised literally the best chess event I've ever seen in Ireland and he still gets criticised. You just can't win.

I've mentioned before, and continue to believe, that I don't think the Glorney is the wisest use of ICU funds, but in no way is that a criticism of Desmond. By all accounts it was a great event and he is rightly being congratulated for the job he did in bringing it about.

It's great to hear that some of our leading lights will be representing us in proper international competition, but it begs the question, why weren't any of them interested in the World Junior?

Tim Harding

brilliantboy wrote: »

It's great to hear that some of our leading lights will be representing us in proper international competition, but it begs the question, why weren't any of them interested in the World Junior?

I think that's a question for the Junior officer at the agm, but I suspect his answer will be along the lines I hinted with rhetorical questions in my earlier post, i.e. the timing of the event plus possibly a financial element. The Cork lad put up a fight today and reached move 40 ok but he spent far too long trying to find a way to play for a win, made a couple of very poor moves and lost again.

If we had sent Conor O'Donnell he might well have scored 50 per cent and increased his rating but he would have missed at least the first two weeks of the school year. I don't know whether there were other candidates in the 18-20 age group (i.e. not going back to school) who were available instead.

Apart from this issue, I think the officer concerned is to be congratulated and I certainly don't think the Glorney is a waste of money. Other nations take their turn and we benefit in those years. The English not sending their strongest team is an issue for them but presumably they will try to win it back in 2016.

reunion

Where are the other Officer Reports?

Seems premature to have put up 1 officer report if the others weren't anywhere near being ready....

pawntof4

the treasurer's report is up now

reunion

Few notes about the treasurer's report:

1. The income for last year was 93,812 not 93,813, they will need to amend that.

2. I also note that in Note 1 (why are notes 2 or 3 even there?) it has 23,831 as payments due from stripe but it seems confusing. That number is 89 lower than what is mentioned on the income (25,000) and expenditure (1,080) sheets. Is that money from Stripe ours? why hasn't it been moved?

3. Why is the ICU issuing refunds of memberships?

4. a) For the Glorney note; it should read expenses not exspenses. The expenditure for 2013-14 is incorrect. It is only -5,033 not -5,508 as summed incorrectly in the report. The ICU took a 5k hit to pay for parents meals and accommodation?! Can that line item be seperated? so we know if the ICU covered the food and accommodation costs or if that 5k was for the playing hall?

4. b) Why did David and Colm cost 6 times more in training fees? Did they do 6 times more training sessions (note there were only 6 training sessions)? These training items should not be included under the Glorney and is entirely misleading and misrepresenting the loss associated with the event. The Glorney running costs would have made a loss of 1,045.

4. c) As expected, the extra 6k in funding meant the ICU spent more to host it. Still only 1,045 had to be used from the 3,000 saved for the Glorney. This means there should be 1,955 saved for running future Glorney events.

5. Why does 8d change from 14,906 in the income section to 15,206 in note 8d? Shouldn't note d also note that there will be an expected expenditure (Even an estimate) for this? That would mean this year's 24.6k profit is actually ~9.7k.

6. Note 9 is absolutely useless - what does it say that it didn't already say in the expenditure section? Also what happened the 1,250 from 2013-14!!!!

7. Note 12, this needs to indicate what tournaments received what. Why isn't the Irish Juniors it's own separate note? Why isn't there more detail about the expenses for that event!

8. Can we have a detailed breakdown of the 7,873 expenditure for the Irish Championships? Seems laughable that some of the current executive demanded a breakdown for an expense of 5k for the Irish Champs (which they gave as a grant) but are ok with a single line for nearly 8k (Which they ran themselves)!

9. Note 14 should include the 600 expenditure item too.

10. Where is the notice on the ICU website about giving sets and boards to Blanchardstown?

11. The balance sheet?! Where has the 24,655 profit from this year disappeared to? Why does 1 sheet (page 1 and 2 the income and expenditure pages) tell me we made 24,655 profit and the final sheet say we made a loss of 2,646 for the year? That's a 27k swing!

Sharkey47

Hi Reunion, I would have thought that the forum for a discussion on the Treasurer's Report was at the AGM. I would think it inappropriate for the Treasurer to comment here in advance of the AGM. I would share some of your concerns regarding the accounts presented btw.

reunion

Sharkey47 wrote: »

Hi Reunion, I would have thought that the forum for a discussion on the Treasurer's Report was at the AGM. I would think it inappropriate for the Treasurer to comment here in advance of the AGM. I would share some of your concerns regarding the accounts presented btw.

The AGM is when you make amendments, reject it or pass it - there is a discussion but it really should not be the first time people see the document and discuss it.

You can discuss it once they are available, I would not be expecting the treasurer to reply here at all! If I wanted an official reply, I would contact the ICU executive. However, the executive could consider reviewing and amending the accounts at the AGM.

Honestly, these accounts seem rushed.

reunion

Also noticed they have removed the sponsorship for the Irish Championships last year in note 13

It made a loss of 2,350 last year (As it had 3,000 in sponsorship). Yet in the accounts they have removed that and said it made a loss of 5,350?!!

Why was the sponsorship removed from the budget? It was passed at the AGM! it can't (and shouldn't be changed!)

What happened the sponsorship this year?

cdeb

Sharkey47 wrote: »

Hi Reunion, I would have thought that the forum for a discussion on the Treasurer's Report was at the AGM. I would think it inappropriate for the Treasurer to comment here in advance of the AGM. I would share some of your concerns regarding the accounts presented btw.

Just on this - I think given that the Chairperson's manifesto indicates voting will take place immediately at the start of the meeting, and only then will officers' reports be discussed, it seems almost necessary that a discussion on the reports (here, or on some similar platform) will have to take place in advance of the AGM if views are to be formed on who to vote for.

Chessrookie

I think the accounts in their current form cannot be presented at the AGM.

Once of the first rules of accountancy is that the books must balance. There is currently a E27k hole in the account when comparing the retained earnings to the balance sheet.
Two other obvious mistakes are the fact that the WYCC costs have not been accrued back in against the income, whilst if the ICU have funds in their stripe account, waiting to transfer back into their BOI account, then these funds should be included in the balance sheet.
I am sure I could pick plenty of holes in the accounts, but I think it would be fairer to give the treasurer an opportunity to present a revised, balanced set of accounts to the AGM rather than this set.
It does also look that the treasurer had gone into great detail in the information he presented which is appreciated.

reunion

2010 AGM wrote:

Anyone who has ever served on any public body or the ICU will know that despite the importance for transparency in the running of the Union, it is not always in the interests of Chess to release the full details and background to every decision. This is one of the many responsibilities that anyone seeking a position on the ICU or any public body for that matter will soon realise. As such it is my opinion that many of the personal attacks on ICU members were both ill-advised and uninformed. The forthcoming executive will have to address this issue as a matter of urgency

Things haven't changed in 5 years! The chair should really just rehash this in his officer's report. He seems to be taking his time with what to write, so here is a little help.

reunion

It's now been 11 days and we only have the Treasurer's and Junior Officer's reports. When are we going to see the other officer reports?

With some seeking re-election, they really should have completed their reports before they started campaigning for re-election (Pat has published a 6 page manifesto but no report?).

Those that aren't campaigning really should have reports published already...

reunion

Treasurer's ACcounts wrote:

ICU Treasurer Report 2015

The ICU finances are in a reasonably healthy state with a surplus of €7151 for the 2014/15 financial year compared to a surplus of €2667 for the previous financial year. This is mostly due to the grants totalling €6000 towards the cost of hosting the Glorney Cup competitions in July 2015. This resulted in the allocation that had been set aside for this purpose being for the most part unused. The executive also made savings on general operations and a reduction of grants to tournaments.

Since the publication of the report on 12th of September a number of changes have been made. The majority of these relate to how the accounts are presented as the template previously used was from 2014 and a number of notes and entries no longer applied.

One key change is the removal of the €14,906 from income (WYCC 2015) to
liabilities as it will be going out in October for the WYCC. The €14,906
represents payments from parents of children representing Ireland at the
tournament which have to be paid to the event organisers after the end of the financial year on 31 August 2015.

Another is to show the payments pending in the stripe account (other than a
note). They cannot be shown in the current account as at the end of the
financial year they were still pending (but went through after 31st August).

Hon. Treasurer.

So the Treasurer's accounts have been changed? I don't think the executive realise that the original accounts presented need to have an amendment at the AGM. They missed the deadline so they would need an amendment at the AGM to amend them. They certainly should not be changed with no notice on the website to members that they have changed.

Does anyone have a copy of the original document? the one that should be presented to the members at the AGM and amended at the AGM?






Still waiting for the other officer reports.

pawntof4

Fair play to them for fixing the report. I have a copy of the older version

reunion

http://www.icu.ie/articles?title=AGM+2015

Still waiting on officer reports....

We have 2... will we actually see the other officers reports before the agm?

pawntof4

Is there a requirement for the reports to be published before the AGM?

checknraise

I would have assumed so especially if you are planning on being reelected, less than 2 days until the AGM and no sign of the chairman's report. 2 other officers are regularly blogging so lack of time cannot be an excuse.

reunion

pawntof4 wrote: »

Is there a requirement for the reports to be published before the AGM?

No, but now they are required to read them out verbatim and explain the report which would work against the current executive's hope of finishing the AGM quickly. So not publishing them is counter productive.

Also if they wish to be re-elected, they really should have a report to reflect their achievements in office. No report gives the impression they didn't achieve anything worth mentioning or recording. They also have to record the report (again verbatim) in the minutes if they aren't available online prior to the meeting. As they don't have a secretary, putting them online alleviates a significant amount of work for whomever they have as a temporary secretary.

cdeb

Can the vote constitutionally be held before the officers' reports are received?

Conscious of a scenario where people arrive, vote and are only then given reports of what happened in the past year - which would of course colour how people would vote.

reunion

Here is how it should play out:

Meeting starts.

Someone proposes a change to the order of the meeting (reports before election) - Chair says yes, happy days. Chair says no - motion to have someone else act as chair. After the chair is removed there is another requests to change the order of the meeting - Chair says yes, happy days.

I will also point out if there is a tie, the current chair gets the deciding vote... so depending on numbers, it might make sense to remove the chair.

cdeb

And if the Chair refuses to hear or accept the motion to have him removed? Or even if the motion is defeated?

(Sorry for being picky - but I've seen how well the ICU have followed correct procedure the past while...)

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

And if the Chair refuses to hear or accept the motion to have him removed? Or even if the motion is defeated?

(Sorry for being picky - but I've seen how well the ICU have followed correct procedure the past while...)

The chair can not reject a motion for his removal. There are 2 different chairpersons: 1. for that meeting (the AGM) and 2. of the ICU. Just by default, the chair of the ICU is the chair of the AGM, but the meeting have a right to determine who the chair of the meeting should be.

If the chair refuses to hear the motion for his removal as chair of the AGM, well he would be disrupting the meeting which would be grounds for removal from the meeting or if continued disciplinary process by the ICU.

If the motion was his removal as chair of the ICU, he would be within his right to reject that motion (not on the agenda).

If the motion is defeated, the chair would be the chair of the meeting and any further requests for his removal as chair of the meeting could be rejected (you could request that the vice-chair or a different individual step in on a temporary basis if the chair was biased).




Honestly though, Pat should accept Officer reports before the election. Removing the chair of the AGM is a bit of an insult and it should only be used as a last resort IMHO (if the chair is being unreasonable). I think people can agree/disagree with the current executive but there is no need to burn bridges and insult individuals.