An open letter to Pat Fitzsimons

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.

cdeb

Have you had a reply yet?

My first e-mail was much more cordial. But when a query as to where my money has gone (among other issues) is ignored, then where to next?

reunion

phnompenhchess wrote: »

having a go at decent people who are giving their time and working hard on a voluntary basis to improve things.

The problem with some individuals in the ICU, they believe a criticism is an attack and they take criticism personally.

cdeb

I received a reply of sorts from Pat yesterday evening. The last e-mail in the exchange is mine, but the reply is largely tangential - it doesn't acknowledge my e-mail at all, for example. But maybe, as other posters here noted, that is my fault for being a bit aggressive in tone. If queries are answered, I can get over not being personally acknowledged.

The e-mail is addressed to all club secretaries (of the LCU only), with the explicit request that it be brought to the attention of all club members (by extension, I suppose, of the LCU only). So I don't see any issue with posting it here.

Dear Club Secretaries

Further to my earlier email to you, I am attaching, for your information, an exchange of correspondence I have had with the Munster Chess Union concerning the Munster Delegate on the ICU Executive.

As Chairperson of the ICU, I have a responsibility to keep members informed about issues that may be of interest to them. Mr Gerry Graham indicated to me that he had no objection to my letter of 30th August 2015 being made available on the Munster Chess Union (MCU) website, and that he had advised the MCU Chairperson, Mr Alan Salsac accordingly. The posts on the MCU website quote selectively from my letter of 30th August 2015 and this has the effect of creating an inaccurate reflection of the ICU's position.

Accordingly, I attach for your information, exchanges of correspondence I have had with the MCU Chairperson, Mr Alan Salsac about the Munster representative on the ICU Executive.

Please bring this email to the attention of your club's members so that they are more fully aware of the circumstances that had given rise to the vote of no confidence in the Munster representative that was passed at the most recent meeting of the ICU executive on 27th August 2015.

I hope this correspondence also serves to illustrate the challenges the executive has had to deal with over the last year.

If you require clarification on any aspect of the attached correspondence, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

In relation to issues raised about the draft accounts for 2014/15, a revised report has been prepared and will be posted on the website very shortly. The revised report addresses issues raised about the earlier draft.

I would also like to add that the Executive has at all times worked within the Constitution in exercising our responsibilities.

Your sincerely


Pat Fitzsimons
Chairperson
Irish Chess Union

The accounts are to be re-done, which is good.

My query as to why this website has been singled out for "vile and virulent attacks" on ICU.ie (but not the other two websites, which contain far more vile and virulent posts about ICU exec candidates) has been ignored.

And my query as to why Pat - who I have genuinely always seen as a quite respectable person in Irish chess in the 10+ years that I know him - has seen fit to continuously engage in petty mud-slinging throughout the past year and in his manifesto has been ignored...but more mud-slinging has ensued.

Overall, if I'm honest, it's a disappointing reply. More of the same really,

reunion

Pat's Letter number 1 wrote:

I then asked him to leave the meeting

Pat's Letter number 2 wrote:

The MCU have never been denied a right of representation on the ICU Executive. Following the vote of no confidence, Gerry left the meeting of his own accord. He was not ejected from the meeting and when asked to leave he could have refused. I am therefore fully satisfied that there was no breach of Article 6 of the Constitution.

...

In the circumstances, I do not believe that any apology from the ICU is warranted. I would also call upon you to nominate another person to be the MCU Delegate on the ICU Executive.

The MCU shouldn't have to nominate someone (or invited to nominate someone else) if they weren't removed from office.

The MCU rep shouldn't have been asked to leave if there was no basis to do so. A vote shouldn't have taken place if it was unconstitutional. This would also mean Gerry did NOT leave on his own accord, being asked to leave AND having a vote for your removal. He did leave without requiring Gardai to be called and without throwing items at the chairperson.

RQ_ennis_chess

My query as to why this website has been singled out for "vile and virulent attacks" on ICU.ie (but not the other two websites, which contain far more vile and virulent posts about ICU exec candidates) has been ignored.

I too find that strange

Re the letters between the ICU and MCU, I can see at least two factual errors in Pats letter to Alan Salsac. Wherever Pat has got his information from its definitely not fully correct.

wine and final destination

We all know where Pat gets his information from and unfortunately who he listens to and I imagine it's the same source in this instance.

RQ_ennis_chess

wine and final destination wrote: »

We all know where Pat gets his information from and unfortunately who he listens to and I imagine it's the same source in this instance.

I'm not going to assume anything re where he got his information but I do know at least two things he claimed in the letter aren't actually true. Irrespective of that, even if it were all true, the current committee still acted unconstitutionally in how they removed the MCU rep.

pawntof4

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

I too find that strange

Re the letters between the ICU and MCU, I can see at least two factual errors in Pats letter to Alan Salsac. Wherever Pat has got his information from its definitely not fully correct.

Would you mind pointing out the two factual errors?

VanMorrison

Is Mr Fitzsimons asking the MCU delegate to leave in the first letter, then saying he could have stayed in his next letter?

I recommend The Clash's 'Should I stay or should I go' for your ears when reading the above correspondence.

NubieOne

My son is a member of a chess club that was recently circulated with some correspondence directly from the chairman of the ICU. There were 4 letters attached, one from Pat Fitzsimons to Alan Salsac ( chairman of the MCU ), one reply from Alan Salsac, a further reply from Pat Fitzsimons and a copy of Pat Fitzsimons manifesto. Let's leave aside the obvious question of why he's circulating these documents to clubs, a better question is what possessed him to think that the correspondence reflected him in a good light? In my view, having read them ( and just based on what these contain and nothing else ) Pat's position is far from consistent and seems to be motivated by concerns other than those he's expressing.

One clear example of what I'm saying is the central issue of the treatment of the MCU delegate, Gerry Graham. In his manifesto, Pat says, and I quote "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". Then, in his reply to Alan Salsac, he claims, and again I quote "Gerry left the meeting of his own accord". This is just one of many inconsistencies that the set of documents distributed contain.

The action of sending what should have been private correspondence to clubs in questionable in itself, but to do so when the documents themselves show the sender in a very bad light, shows to me, a serious lack of judgement on behalf of the chairman of the Irish Chess Union.

I have no vote in the upcoming AGM, and my son, though a member, is too young to vote, but, if I had a vote, it certainly wouldn't be going to Pat Fitzsimons.