An open letter to Pat Fitzsimons

cdeb

Some will know that Pat Fitzsimons replied to an e-mail from the LCU to all league captains with the 2015/16 Leinster League fixtures with an e-mail asking for his manifesto for the coming year (which is linked elsewhere on this forum) to be shared around clubs. This was on 15th Sept. Don't have a problem with that - good for candidates to engage with clubs.

I sent a reply the same day querying a couple of the main issues, and received no reply.

Another person on the mailing list (the name isn't important) sent a reply to all on the 17th Sept to thank Pat for the manifesto, and said they would share; Pat replied in a matter of minutes to say thanks. Again, don't have a problem with this. However, it did mean that my e-mail had clearly been ignored.

On 18th Sept, I resent the e-mail, this time copying in all on the list. I've received no reply. I've now re-sent the e-mail, but I also want to post it here as an open letter. I think the ICU membership should be aware that the incumbent Chair, who has put himself forward for another term, appears to be avoiding some of the most important issues.

My initial two e-mails also suggested Pat join on the debate here to give his side of events.

Hi Pat,

I note I haven't yet received even an acknowledgement, let alone a reply, to my e-mail below.

In your original e-mail, you say "If you have any queries concerning the attached, please feel free to contact me" - perhaps this wasn't meant to be read quite as far as that contacting you would lead to a reply?

However, these are, I believe, fairly serious issues and for me anyway, they are an important part of how my vote will go at the AGM. So to summarise the queries again, could you clarify -

> How you can put your name to the accounts on the ICU website, which, as presented, not only don't make sense (the WYCC item), but indicate that some €27k of ICU funds has vanished? I don't believe that there has been any misappropriation of funds - but this point needs clarifying urgently, and the accounts should be re-issued
> Why do you feel the need to openly target the boards.ie website? Can I take it by assumption that your lack of comment on the Irish Chess facebook page and the IrishChessCogitations page means you condone these pages? And that, by extension, you condone such comments as likening Mark Orr to convicted paedophiles, or describing several ICU election candidates as "Incompetent", "Ignorant", "Pernicious", "Puppet" and the likes?
> Why do you feel the need to use the ICU website and your manifesto to have petty digs at other people in Irish chess, often with no substantiation at all? Not only the above comment re boards, but the idea that the controversies of the past year have been "legacy issues", for example, when many of those on the receiving end of your actions are openly coming together to criticise the way the ICU has been run in the past year?

In light of the possibility of a further lack of response, I've taken the liberty of posting the above as an open letter to you on the boards.ie website.

In the absence of any reply addressing the issues you've created, I unfortunately don't see how you can be a credible candidate for Chairman for the coming year.

Regards

I will post any answer I receive.

VanMorrison

Can you link the accounts?

cdeb

I can't at the moment; on the mobile internet now. Will do later (if someone doesn't beat me to it). Alternatively, they're on the ICU website under officers' reports, and I think they're linked in the corresponding thread here as well

sinbad68

I am surprised with you cdeb, this is not like you. I am Neutral in this quarrel here but in response to your open letter I want say this, 1. If you attend the AGM , can you not discuss copy of accounts and meet Pat face to face and ask any questions you may have there?. 2. There has been a year long attack on executive from this site and they decided to respond, whether using ICU main website to do it was the right thing is yet another discussion . 3. I find it VERY UNFAIR for you to imply that Pat condones comments & material posted on the two sites " Irish cogitations" and " Irish chess face book" by NOT posting comments there !, He doesn't run the sites or has any direct linkage to them and the extension example you have given, I find defamatory. Calm down, AGM is only couple of weeks away.

sinbad68

Personally Speaking, If I was in Pat's position , seeing all this unnecessary grief to myself and others, in the interest of Irish chess, I would have withdrawn my candidacy for the post of chairman before the election.I mean who wants to put up with all these nonsense for another year?, doing a thankless job.

brilliantboy

sinbad68 wrote: »

Personally Speaking, If I was in Pat's position , seeing all this unnecessary grief to myself and others, in the interest of Irish chess, I would have withdrawn my candidacy for the post of chairman before the election.I mean who wants to put up with all these nonsense for another year?, doing a thankless job.

If you can't accept that there are legitimate questions to be answered then I don't know what to say. You must be living in a fantasy land.

We haven't had answers until now. What makes you so confident that they'll be forthcoming? Perhaps they don't exist.
I'm a paid up ICU member unable to attend the AGM. I shouldn't have to piece together information about serious issues from whispers and hints in blog posts and facebook arguments.

Forget about the executive, it's the ICU membership that should be questioning whether they're willing to put up with all the grief and nonsense for another year.

pawntof4

sinbad68 wrote: »

1. If you attend the AGM , can you not discuss copy of accounts and meet Pat face to face and ask any questions you may have there?.

Are we not being asked to vote before the officers present their reports and before we are allowed to ask questions?

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

1. If you attend the AGM , can you not discuss copy of accounts and meet Pat face to face and ask any questions you may have there?

As pawntof4 has noted, it'll be too late at the AGM - it's elections first, and only then do the officers have to give an account of themselves. These issues need to be addressed in advance of the AGM.

sinbad68 wrote: »

2. There has been a year long attack on executive from this site

Has there? An "attack" implies the comments have been unfair. There's been criticism, definitely - but almost entirely warranted. Two very different things. An "attack" would be something like calling people incompetent, pernicious, puppets, and so on. Like we can see on Colm's site, strangely.

sinbad68 wrote: »

3. I find it VERY UNFAIR for you to imply that Pat condones comments & material posted on the two sites " Irish cogitations" and " Irish chess face book" by NOT posting comments there !, He doesn't run the sites or has any direct linkage to them and the extension example you have given, I find defamatory.

He doesn't run this site or have any direct link to it. So why single this one out? The obvious answer is you have a problem with this site, but not with the other two sites. Is there another answer? Maybe - that's why I've asked the question.

VanMorrison - the accounts are here (pdf download).

UpTheJunction

The reports are going to be all published in advance of the agm so how is that a problem? People can and presumably will have read the reports of the various officers and then at the meeting can ask questions. What is this rush to judgment about everything. Frankly I had been having some doubts about certain issues but thankfully the above post by cdeb and this thread plus others has made up my mind for me.

You see,as someone perhaps a little bit too old-fashioned and out of touch with the modern ways of having a debate, I must confess to being appalled and astounded by what I have heard and tonight witnessed on this blog. It seems to all about pouring scorn on people. I was thinking that a fresh new group might be what was needed to shake things up. But on account of this thread and the words of cdeb alone I am now determined to turn up at this agm and make sure I vote number one for Pat Fitzsimons and then vote for each and every one of the people on his side.

The audacity of this open letter has completely opened my eyes. No personal disrespect intended cdeb but your understanding of things is so strange and incomprehensible to me that I am lost for words. Whatever mistakes may have been made by this current executive or some of the people who have served on it, based on just my scan of the posts in here I think they must be saints or mad to still want anything to do with Irish chess or the ICU.

The amount and level of real hate directed at it seems all the people on the ICU is something which I have never seen the like of. Pat Fitzsimons is a good man, and honest man. He will get my vote for sure now.

We don't need elections so much as a root and branch clean out within Irish chess. An open letter on a blog asked for my an unnamed person, be that a man or a woman or else? Why would it ever be right to even consider that appropriate for the head of an national body that is made up of amateurs and volunteers.

Sorry I may just be a dinosaur and not understand all aspects to what seems to be going on, but decency and moral courage are all on the Pat Fitzsimons side as far as anyone could possibly make out.

cdeb

UpTheJunction wrote: »

The reports are going to be all published in advance of the agm so how is that a problem?

I think it's fundamentally important to understand ASAP why accounts have been published which show €27k having vanished. Bear in mind - as mentioned already in this thread - voting at the AGM will occur before the officers report.

UpTheJunction wrote: »

The audacity of this open letter has completely opened my eyes. No personal disrespect intended cdeb but your understanding of things is so strange and incomprehensible to me that I am lost for words.

UpTheJunction wrote: »

Sorry I may just be a dinosaur and not understand all aspects to what seems to be going on, but decency and moral courage are all on the Pat Fitzsimons side as far as anyone could possibly make out.

Can you give a single example of why you have those opinions?

UpTheJunction wrote: »

An open letter on a blog asked for my an unnamed person, be that a man or a woman or else? Why would it ever be right to even consider that appropriate for the head of an national body that is made up of amateurs and volunteers.

You'll have seen that I've e-mailed these queries to him three times now - in direct response to an e-mail I received from Pat asking him to contact him with any queries.

The open letter is to highlight what's going on to the general membership.

I'm not entirely sure you've actually read my post. I don't see any evidence of your having done so in your post.

brilliantboy

appalled and astounded, beneath contempt, decency and moral courage

yawn heard it all before

UpTheJunction

27k has vanished? You really believe that for one moment? Come on, you know that is codswallop. I am sure there will be a perfectly sound explanation offered before the agm, or at the agm and if not then I will take back nearly all I have said and eat my hat.

Excuse me but this is all just too depressing and sad. I have such a strong impression that any old excuse or pretext that can be found to attack Pat and his committee will be. I just don't see the balance or sense of fairness at all.

UpTheJunction

brilliantboy wrote: »

appalled and astounded, beneath contempt, decency and moral courage

yawn heard it all before

Indeed, so have I and I was very skeptical, but not anymore.

cdeb

UpTheJunction wrote: »

27k has vanished? You really believe that for one moment?

Again, had you bothered to read my post, you'd see that no, I don't believe it.

But it's what the accounts say. It seems reasonably clear proper accounts have not been kept, which is a fairly major issue.

UpTheJunction

There is a few weeks before the agm right? So all the reports and accounts will be presented IN FULL by then? If you don't think the 27 k has really vanished then why say that? You don't believe anything untoward is going on so what is the big deal then?

cdeb

Because the accounts show €27k has vanished.

Because Pat's manifesto mentions his prudent financial running of the ICU as one of his strong points from the year gone by - but I think the accounts only show prudence because they're erroneous. This needs to be challenged ahead of the AGM.

Note the Treasurer's Report is already published IN FULL (caps if you wish) - yet it's raising these queries.

I want to make my mind up as to the competency of the various candidates.

NubieOne

Am I reading this correctly, the accounts are showing a "hole" of 27K, there are only 2 reports on the website so far and, most important of all, the ICU members are being asked to vote for that various officer posts before the current executive officers give their reports? I am a member of another national organisation (much larger than the ICU) and have been involved in a few other bodies too and I have never come across an AGM agenda like this before.

On top of that, the current Chairman advises in his manifesto that, through his better management of the AGM, it will be over in plenty of time for the Blitz at 2:30? Will that leave time for the members to ask the questions they wish to get answers to?

cdeb

Yup.

Add to that the fact that the chair hasn't replied to two emails posing these questions (let's leave a few days to see if a response is received to the third email)

And this from a chair who emphasises transparency in his manifesto.

UpTheJunction

There is a few weeks before the agm right? So all the reports and accounts will be presented IN FULL by then? Then everyone can be happy and ask away at the agm.

Don't see the problem at all here. Amazed there are already reports up so far ahead of the agm.

Sparks

UpTheJunction wrote: »

Then everyone can be happy and ask away at the agm.

Except that, as has already been pointed out on this thread, the proposed agenda for the AGM says that they cannot because the elections will be held before those reports are presented and questions taken.

Amazed there are already reports up so far ahead of the agm.

That's pretty much normal with most NGBs.

UpTheJunction

cdeb wrote: »

Yup.

Add to that the fact that the chair hasn't replied to two emails posing these questions (let's leave a few days to see if a response is received to the third email)

And this from a chair who emphasises transparency in his manifesto.

Why would he reply to you. Are you some kind of a big shot? Or a very important person or something. Why the top man has to explain things to you when it seems obvious you are only interested in making trouble and stirring things up. Or is that not true. Are you really being respectful to everyone and have no axe to grind?

ComDubh

Any Irish politician running in a general election would return a call or email from a constituent. Cdeb is simply pointing out that Pat's offer to answer questions seems not to have been genuine. I welcomed Pat's election in the first place, and am very disappointed at his conduct. He should respond to the many issues raised by ICU members.

UpTheJunction

ComDubh wrote: »

Any Irish politician running in a general election would return a call or email from a constituent. Cdeb is simply pointing out that Pat's offer to answer questions seems not to have been genuine. I welcomed Pat's election in the first place, and am very disappointed at his conduct. He should respond to the many issues raised by ICU members.

What many issues and which ICU members? You mean some unidentified unhappy people on a blog? Does the ICU not have a secretary and people with contact details to ask about specifics things. I wonder what would happen if people had been discretely and politely addressing concerns in a civilized and proper manner to the ICU.

Instead what seem to happen is that somebody just blurts out something, people react and before you know it there is mayhem.

UpTheJunction

Is it being suggested that Irish politics and politicians are to be seen as an example of some sort?

rob51

UpTheJunction wrote: »

Why would he reply to you. Are you some kind of a big shot? Or a very important person or something. Why the top man has to explain things to you when it seems obvious you are only interested in making trouble and stirring things up. Or is that not true. Are you really being respectful to everyone and have no axe to grind?

If an ICU member with accountancy competence has raised a valid question, privately by email, on the presentation of the accounts I think it would be prudent of the chairman to acknowledge that email and have the issue checked. Why leave it to the AGM?

I think you should also bear in mind that the ICU Executive is elected to run the ICU on behalf of the membership for the year. So yes, the top man should be answerable to the ordinary members even when they are not big shots or VIPs.
The fundamental problem with this Executive is that too many of them seem to think they were elected to run the ICU in the way they want rather than in the interests of the membership.

UpTheJunction

"Because the accounts show €27k has vanished"

This is really what makes me think that so much of what is wrote here is absolutely pointless and serves no useful purpose. 27K VANISHED?

No that is not at all misleading or suggestive then.

I actually know a guy who says he seen a guy who sold a guy about 27 k worth of sweets to a guy who bought about 27 k worth of apples only recently.

UpTheJunction

rob51 wrote: »

If an ICU member with accountancy competence has raised a valid question, privately by email, on the presentation of the accounts I think it would be prudent of the chairman to acknowledge that email and have the issue checked. Why leave it to the AGM?

I think you should also bear in mind that the ICU Executive is elected to run the ICU on behalf of the membership for the year. So yes, the top man should be answerable to the ordinary members even when they are not big shots or VIPs.
The fundamental problem with this Executive is that too many of them seem to think they were elected to run the ICU in the way they want rather than in the interests of the membership.

Strange I actually might be very naive but I had the impression that the problem with this executive was that they were trying to run the ICU in the interests of the ICU membership and not other more vocal or vested interests who seem to have their own ideas about how the ICU should serve them first?

pawntof4

UpTheJunction wrote: »

Strange I actually might be very naive but I had the impression that the problem with this executive was that they were trying to run the ICU in the interests of the ICU membership and not other more vocal or vested interests who seem to have their own ideas about how the ICU should serve them first?

Who are these people with vested interested? I might be more inclined to stick with Pat if someone could shed some light on this? I've heard rumours of it before but they were just that unfortunately...

checknraise

[I actually know a guy who says he seen a guy who sold a guy about 27 k worth of sweets to a guy who bought about 27 k worth of apples only recently.[/QUOTE]

How many apples do you get with 27k?

cdeb

UpTheJunction wrote: »

"Because the accounts show €27k has vanished"

This is really what makes me think that so much of what is wrote here is absolutely pointless and serves no useful purpose. 27K VANISHED?

The accounts show a surplus for the year of €24k, but the balance sheet shows a reduction of assets of €2.5k

So yes, €27k (allow for a bit of rounding) has vanished.

When I get an e-mail to me saying "Please contact me with any queries", I take that as an invitation to send in queries.

When the accounts are suggesting the money I paid to join the ICU is unaccounted for, then I definitely have a right to expect an answer.

Sparks

UpTheJunction wrote: »

Why would he reply to you. Are you some kind of a big shot? Or a very important person or something.

He's a member of the ICU who paid his membership fee and has a vote in the AGM.

Anyone who doesn't think that's sufficiently important to deserve a response shouldn't be on the ICU board - or any board of any NGB for that matter. The officers of an NGB are there for the sake of the members, at the behest of the members, and forgetting that is a recipe for disaster. Forgetting that leads to the officers thinking that because they act as officers this year, the entire history of the NGB and its prestige and so forth are in some way their own personal virtues. This is not the case. The board is supposed to view themselves as custodians. The members are the ones who should concern themselves with the prestige and history of the group, not the board.

And that's before we get to the not very minor point that the chair of the ICU asked for those with questions to ask the chair directly by email...

Sparks

UpTheJunction wrote: »

"Because the accounts show €27k has vanished"
This is really what makes me think that so much of what is wrote here is absolutely pointless and serves no useful purpose. 27K VANISHED?
No that is not at all misleading or suggestive then.

It's not misleading or suggestive at all because it was immediately followed by the statement that cdeb does not believe someone pocketed money illicitly, but that the accounts have an error in them and that needs to be addressed.

The irony here is truly outstanding - two years ago, we had the ICU demanding accounts off a club (despite not having a legal leg to stand on in their rules or in statute law itself when doing so) and ICU board members were freely accusing people of perfidy even when the accounts were all in order; now we have the accounts of the ICU not balancing on paper by an enormous margin - a full order of magnitude more than the amount that was being argued about two years ago - and yet asking for properly prepared accounts is somehow something to be criticised?

rob51

pawntof4 wrote: »

Who are these people with vested interested? I might be more inclined to stick with Pat if someone could shed some light on this? I've heard rumours of it before but they were just that unfortunately...

As an ordinary chess player and ICU Member I will admit that I have a vested interest in seeing the ICU run properly on behalf of the members. I don't even want to get (democratically) elected to the ICU Executive so I'm not sure what exactly Up The Junction's problem is. Does he not have a vested interest in seeing the ICU run properly?

pawntof4

rob51 wrote: »

As an ordinary chess player and ICU Member I will admit that I have a vested interest in seeing the ICU run properly on behalf of the members. I don't even want to get (democratically) elected to the ICU Executive so I'm not sure what exactly Up The Junction's problem is. Does he not have a vested interest in seeing the ICU run properly?

You got me. I also have a vested interest... I want to play in more chess tournaments

reunion

UpTheJunction wrote: »

"Because the accounts show €27k has vanished"

Income - expenditure = 24,656 profit

Balance sheet Aug-2015
Aug-2015 = 20,124
Aug-2014 = 22,770

Profit on balance sheet from Aug-2014 to Aug-2015 = -2,646

24,656 profit to a 2,646 loss = 27,302 swing.

27,302 is missing from the balance sheet.



No doubt the 27,302 is paying for the WYCC2015; 15,206 received from parents but nothing paid out? or even a note to say how much to be paid out? For previous WYCC, the ICU has paid out 1.33 (2013) - 1.76 (2014) for every 1 received. This would mean roughly 20,268 (2013) - 26,769.84 (2014) has to be paid out. Which would seem to account for a large chunk of this missing 27,302.

cdeb

I think most of the difference is actually the money sitting in Stripe - there should be a debtor for €25k on the balance sheet to match the income noted as not transferred across to the bank yet.

But that still leaves a couple of grand unaccounted for.

The WYCC expenditure should be accrued, in which case, the ICU made far less than €24k surplus in the year. Which is a concern as Pat's manifesto highlights his prudent running of the ICU in the past year, and his plans for the next year based on our now-healthy financial position.

So basically, his manifesto has big plans for spending the money we owe on the WYCC.

reunion

UpTheJunction wrote: »

Why would he reply to you. Are you some kind of a big shot? Or a very important person or something.

Sparks wrote: »

He's a member of the ICU who paid his membership fee and has a vote in the AGM.

cdeb wrote: »

in direct response to an e-mail I received from Pat asking him to contact him with any queries.

The question should be why wouldn't he respond to an email from a concerned member?

checknraise

Another thing to highlight is that there should be an accrual against the Scarry Cup of €1,800. The top 3 teams of 6 were awarded a €100 voucher for future tournaments.

pawntof4

cdeb wrote: »

How you can put your name to the accounts on the ICU website, which, as presented, not only don't make sense (the WYCC item), but indicate that some €27k of ICU funds has vanished? I don't believe that there has been any misappropriation of funds - but this point needs clarifying urgently, and the accounts should be re-issued
> Why do you feel the need to openly target the boards.ie website? Can I take it by assumption that your lack of comment on the Irish Chess facebook page and the IrishChessCogitations page means you condone these pages? And that, by extension, you condone such comments as likening Mark Orr to convicted paedophiles, or describing several ICU election candidates as "Incompetent", "Ignorant", "Pernicious", "Puppet" and the likes?
> Why do you feel the need to use the ICU website and your manifesto to have petty digs at other people in Irish chess, often with no substantiation at all? Not only the above comment re boards, but the idea that the controversies of the past year have been "legacy issues", for example, when many of those on the receiving end of your actions are openly coming together to criticise the way the ICU has been run in the past year?

The only criticism I'd have of your email is that you could have been a little bit more diplomatic. I agree that your questions are valid but IMHO it comes across as aggressive.

I have only once felt the need to contact the ICU and it was regarding the rating of the Galway rapid play and they responded promptly to my polite enquiry - I don't agree with their position on the matter but that's beside the point.

cdeb

pawntof4 wrote: »

The only criticism I'd have of your email is that you could have been a little bit more diplomatic. I agree that your questions are valid but IMHO it comes across as aggressive.

You're probably right.

I guess it was frustration borne of the fact that I'd already had two e-mails ignored, and another player had replied to the same e-mail and received a reply within minutes.

The other e-mails were more diplomatic, as you say.

I should note I've not received a reply as yet.

pawntof4

Did you email the author of the report? It would be interesting to get his take on it. I assume he'll just put his hand up and say mea culpa and that will be the end of it.

TBH I'm not too worried about the accounts as they can easily be corrected. The minute the corrected accounts are published this will be forgotten about.

What I disagree with is the way the ICU page has been used this year. Has the ICU page ever been used for electioneering before?

On a side note I'm a bit disappointed that not too many people have contributed to HaraldSchmidt's thread on how to improve the website.

cdeb

pawntof4 wrote: »

Did you email the author of the report? It would be interesting to get his take on it. I assume he'll just put his hand up and say mea culpa and that will be the end of it.

To be honest, I just replied to the e-mail I received from the Chair.

I might drop the Treasurer a line later as you suggest - but I would have liked if the Chair had been able to address the matter. He should address these matters, not hide from them. Especially as I've been in touch with him before on other matters and I've never had a problem getting a quick reply.

pawntof4 wrote: »

TBH I'm not too worried about the accounts as they can easily be corrected.

I hope you're right - it's why I highlighted the problem.

It should be a simple problem to remedy, but the lack of a reply - or even revised accounts - is a bit concerning.

reunion

pawntof4 wrote: »

The only criticism I'd have of your email is that you could have been a little bit more diplomatic. I agree that your questions are valid but IMHO it comes across as aggressive.

I was reading that quote and thinking, I don't remember writing any of this...

pawntof4

cdeb wrote: »

might drop the Treasurer a line later as you suggest....
....Especially as I've been in touch with him before on other matters and I've never had a problem getting a quick reply.

There's your solution right there

cdeb wrote: »

but I would have liked if the Chair had been able to address the matter.

Sure... ideal world and all that I think I'm right in assuming that Pat feels he's doing what is best for the ICU and all he is getting for this is a lot of flak from the different contributors/mods on here(myself included... he lost my vote over the Galway rapid play incident). So I can kinda see why he's no interest in replying to you. He's not obliged to so why would he.

pawntof4

reunion wrote: »

I was reading that quote and thinking, I don't remember writing any of this...

Apologies, I have fixed it now.

cdeb

pawntof4 wrote: »

There's your solution right there

I should note Pat is the one I've had a fair bit of dealings with, not the Treasurer. Which is why I contacted him, not the Treasurer.

Just the way you quoted it made it look like I've had previous dealings with the Treasurer, which I haven't.

Sure, Pat's not obliged to reply - but I think if he sends an e-mail to people and says "Please contact me with queries", then he at least should reply. It's not as if I contacted him apropos of nothing with an unreasonable query. I replied to his e-mail inviting queries with a query.

pawntof4

cdeb wrote: »

I should note Pat is the one I've had a fair bit of dealings with, not the Treasurer. Which is why I contacted him, not the Treasurer.

Just the way you quoted it made it look like I've had previous dealings with the Treasurer, which I haven't.

mea culpa

reunion

pawntof4 wrote: »

So I can kinda see why he's no interest in replying to you. He's not obliged to so why would he.

He isn't obliged but if he wants votes he should reply. At least sending an email saying - contact the secretary for queries or information about the ICU, the executive or policies.

I think it's insulting to any fully paid member to ignore their genuine email. Maybe the language is a bit aggressive (I think the points are a bit unclear and could be read as sarcastic) but Pat should still send a generic response - particularly if this was a reply to his email and cdeb has sent a further email for answers.

I will also note, the secretary from last year emailed Pat directly (with others on cc) on a few occasions and each time he has not replied. To me, it seems he replies to certain people and ignores others.

pawntof4

reunion wrote: »

He isn't obliged but if he wants votes he should reply. At least sending an email saying - contact the secretary for queries or information about the ICU, the executive or policies.

but in fairness you're not going to vote for him and I'm not sure contacting the secretary would do much good either...

reunion wrote: »

I think it's insulting to any fully paid member to ignore their genuine email. Maybe the language is a bit aggressive (I think the points are a bit unclear and could be read as sarcastic) but Pat should still send a generic response - particularly if this was a reply to his email and cdeb has sent a further email for answers.

It could be that he doesn't have time to reply to you with a detailed answer your queries deserve(the EGM and AGM are very close!!) and replying with a generic answer could be interpreted as dodging the issues that were raised.

cdeb

pawntof4 wrote: »

It could be that he doesn't have time to reply to you with a detailed answer your queries deserve(the EGM and AGM are very close!!) and replying with a generic answer could be interpreted as dodging the issues that were raised.

It's possible alright. Though it's been two weeks now since my initial contact - and nothing.

And I know Pat and have worked with him on stuff recently. You'll see from the ICU minutes that St Benildus are hosting the Irish Junior Championships next year - I spoke with Pat a number of times to agree a bid here. I always received prompt replies. But now, when querying him on documents he's put his name to (the accounts, statements on the ICU website, his manifesto) - nothing.

I would have been much happier with a reply saying "Thanks for your mail; there's a bit there to look into, but will get a reply to you in the next week if that's ok". The logical (not necessarily correct - but certainly logical) conclusion as things stand now is that the Chair can't/won't answer the questions being posed, which is a worry.

phnompenhchess

I also noticed the issues in the accounts and emailed Pat about them. My email took a different tone, offering to help out with the accounts as someone who has a passion for chess.

I think it's a pity the OP couldn't have taken that tone. Too many keyboard warriors, some of whom do literally nothing for the game (not suggesting the OP is one of these), having a go at decent people who are giving their time and working hard on a voluntary basis to improve things.