ICU agm and egm minutes

Tim Harding

The draft minutes of the October 2015 ICU agm are now available in PDF at:
http://www.icu.ie/system/downloads/000/000/266/2015_AGM_minutes.pdf?1451436756

and the minutes of the preceding egm are at:

http://www.icu.ie/system/downloads/000/000/265/Minutes_of_Extraordinary_General_Meeting_(EGM)_4th_October_2015_(2).pdf?1451436687

LorcanOToole

From the AGM minutes:

Andrew Kildea presented his report to the meeting. In response to a query from Rory
Quinn about why the Galway Rapid play event had not been rated, Andrew explained
that the two ICU members who had been refused entry to it had complained to FIDE. As
a result the organisers had been found by FIDE to have breached their ethics rules, so
they refused to rate the event.

Is this credible? My understanding is that any such complaint can only be submitted via the national body (ICU). If FIDE was asked to intercede should the deposit for such an investigation appear in the treasurers report? I don't see it there. Did FIDE get a report from the tournament organiser? And what specific ethics rules were breached? Surely any feedback from FIDE that we paid for should be disseminated. Being investigated with a breach of FIDE Code Of Ethics is a serious matter so I think the reporting on this should be accurate.

Tim Harding

LorcanOToole wrote: »

From the AGM minutes:

Is this credible? My understanding is that any such complaint can only be submitted via the national body (ICU). If FIDE was asked to intercede should the deposit for such an investigation appear in the treasurers report? I don't see it there. Did FIDE get a report from the tournament organiser? And what specific ethics rules were breached? Surely any feedback from FIDE that we paid for should be disseminated. Being investigated with a breach of FIDE Code Of Ethics is a serious matter so I think the reporting on this should be accurate.

I am supposing (but confirmation would be good) that the minutes posted on icu.ie were either written by the retiring interim Hon. Sec. or based on notes he took at the time. As such I think they should be described as Draft Minutes and debate such as this should take place before a final draft appears which would be the one put to the next agm for approval.

Minutes should be an objective and accurate report of the formal business of the meeting so while your queries are relevant, I am not sure they belong in the minutes as I don't recall much discussion taking place on this point. I agree, though, that the minutes should clarify who actually complained to FIDE and if a fee was paid this should have been in the accounts. (Or perhaps the fee, if any, only fell payable later.)

I had not read the minutes when I started this thread. Then I noticed the paragraph in which my name is mentioned and I have already written to the ICU executive to request that the paragraph be amended or preferably deleted, since nothing was said from the top table on the matter. So the events mentioned (inaccurately) in that paragraph did not form part of the business of the meeting.

What actually happened was that I was taking a few still photos but Colm Daly from the floor accused me of taking video recordings, which I was not doing and immediately denied. The draft minutes don't mention my denial and also imply I had to be told to stop, which did not happen. Once the objection was made, I stopped taking photos immediately. Several people sitting near me were aware I was taking photos and none of them said I shouldn't be doing it.

The minutes should also reflect something that did NOT happen, i.e. that the retiring P.R.O. (Colm Daly) did not present a report and did not submit himself to questioning from the floor about his actions while in office.

Pete Morriss

Thanks Lorcan for pointing out the passage in the minutes about the Galway Rapidplay. (I hadn't looked at the minutes, as I couldn't attend either meeting, being in hospital at the time.) Tim is right that minutes should try to be a true record of the meeting, but they should also correct statements that were made at the meeting that were false - particularly when those statements are libellous. I can state as fact that no FIDE rules were broken at the Galway Rapidplay, and no FIDE investigation of the tournament took place. The decision not to submit it to FIDE for rating was taken solely by the previous ICU executive. A note to that effect should be added to the minutes. I would also expect Andrew Kildea to publicly set the record straight, and apologize to Galway Club and myself, as organizers of the tournament, and ICU members in general for knowingly misleading them at the AGM.

sinbad68

If No Fide laws were broken, Why doesn't ICU contact Fide and explain that there was misunderstanding and players who paid and attended Galway Rapid should have had their games rated?, and ICU will play any administrative costs?, the chance of it working is remote, but Fide loves $$ and Nothing lost by asking.

Pete Morriss

sinbad68 wrote: »

If No Fide laws were broken, Why doesn't ICU contact Fide and explain that there was misunderstanding and players who paid and attended Galway Rapid should have had their games rated?, and ICU will play any administrative costs?, the chance of it working is remote, but Fide loves $$ and Nothing lost by asking.

Unfortunately, some people who played in Galway have subsequently played in other FIDE-rated rapidplays, which would then need to be rerated - with a knock-on effect on yet other tournaments. That's one of the drawbacks of publishing monthly rating lists. I can see why FIDE might not want to change rating lists from many months ago.

sinbad68

@Pete

No Fide rated Rapid games were held in Ireland since Galway Rapid, if someone did play, it would've been overseas and would effect very few.Obviously as soon as the current executive took over would have been the best time to make your move. As I said, you've got nothing to lose by firing an email to Fide with a supportive email from the executive asking if Galway Rapid could be rated, explaining this competition was fide registered well in advance and ask how much is the administration costs . Tournaments in Ireland have been fide rated even though they were registered after the start of the tournament !!, also explain you want to run annual fide rated Rapid tournaments in the future bringing fide $$'s, If they don't want re-rate other rapid tournaments if anyone played in rapid tournament after galway, what about rating vast majority who did not enter any fide rapids after Galway. Even though it is unlikely to work , it is worth a try.You should see possibilities & opportunities instead of seeing obstacles all the time.

Ficheall

sinbad68 wrote: »

@Pete

No Fide rated Rapid games were held in Ireland since Galway Rapid, if someone did play, it would've been overseas and would effect very few.Obviously as soon as the current executive took over would have been the best time to make your move. As I said, you've got nothing to lose by firing an email to Fide with a supportive email from the executive asking if Galway Rapid could be rated, explaining this competition was fide registered well in advance and ask how much is the administration costs . Tournaments in Ireland have been fide rated even though they were registered after the start of the tournament !!

Well, I, for one, played in another Fide rapid - in the UK, in August. I played 11 people in that. 4 of those have played in 1 more FIDE-rated rapid since then, another one of my opponents has played in 2, another in 3, and another has played in an impressive FIVE rapids since that tournament!
Assuming a conservative six opponents per rapidplay, that's already maybe 95 more people who would have to be re-rated, and doesn't include their opponents in later tournaments, and their opponents, and so on. How many more people would have to be affected before it would become too stupid an idea to propose to FIDE?

sinbad68 wrote: »

Even though it is unlikely to work , it is worth a try.You should see possibilities & opportunities instead of seeing obstacles all the time.

This is why you should never, ever resign a game of chess, for example, right?

Pete Morriss

sinbad68 wrote: »

@Pete

No Fide rated Rapid games were held in Ireland since Galway Rapid, if someone did play, it would've been overseas and would effect very few.Obviously as soon as the current executive took over would have been the best time to make your move. As I said, you've got nothing to lose by firing an email to Fide with a supportive email from the executive asking if Galway Rapid could be rated, explaining this competition was fide registered well in advance and ask how much is the administration costs . Tournaments in Ireland have been fide rated even though they were registered after the start of the tournament !!, also explain you want to run annual fide rated Rapid tournaments in the future bringing fide $$'s, If they don't want re-rate other rapid tournaments if anyone played in rapid tournament after galway, what about rating vast majority who did not enter any fide rapids after Galway. Even though it is unlikely to work , it is worth a try.You should see possibilities & opportunities instead of seeing obstacles all the time.

As Ficheall has pointed out, there would have been a considerable knock-on effect were FIDE to have rated the Galway Rapidplay late - which, believe it or not, I knew when making my previous post. Also, FYI Sinbad68, FIDE refuse categorically to rate some games in a tournament whilst not rating others, for obvious and excellent reasons. Further FYI, FIDE will only rate tournaments on the request of Federations, which is how the last Executive managed to prevent this tournament being rated. When I came out of hospital last November, and could turn my mind to such minor matters, I asked the current chairperson if it would be possible to ask FIDE to rate the tournament this late, and he replied - reasonably - that it would not be. Now perhaps you will stop pontificating about matters on which you are clearly supremely ignorant, and allow this thread to get back to its proper topic of discussing the ICU draft Minutes?

sinbad68

@ Pete . I said the possibility of Fide accepting it is unlikely, But It is technically possible , I have seen re- rating with it's knock on effect several times with ICU rating system. my own rating was slightly changed couple of times without playing any games because of late rating of tournaments my opponents played in, prior to playing with me. If ICU does it then why not fide ? .Late rating of Drogheda veterans is a good example.

As being supremely ignorant.

I don't think suggesting a way of righting a wrong, is being ignorant even if the possibility of it working is remote.
But
I do think when someone volunteers to become an organiser and instead of his task being, what is best for the competition & players, lets his personal feeling take over and bring a world of trouble on himself and dozens of entrants is being supremely ignorant.

I leave this thread, so you can get back to your minutes which like your galway Rapid is just water under the bridge, hope you made a full recovery, bye

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

No Fide rated Rapid games were held in Ireland since Galway Rapid, if someone did play, it would've been overseas and would effect very few.

FIDE don't want to encourage late submissions of tournaments. So regardless of how many people it would affect, FIDE simply will not rate a tournament submitted so late.

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ Pete . I said the possibility of Fide accepting it is unlikely, But It is technically possible , I have seen re- rating with it's knock on effect several times with ICU rating system.

...

I don't think suggesting a way of righting a wrong, is being ignorant even if the possibility of it working is remote.

1. ICU rating system is different to FIDE. The ICU rating system is more lenient (And flexible as it affects less players).

2. When the organiser of the event tells you why but you still ignore the organisers comments - yes you are being ignorant. The possibility of working goes from remote to zero.

Minutes wrote:

The Chairperson pointed out that he did see a need to respond to emails from Kevin Burke given their hectoring tone and

should that be didn't?

cdeb

It should - I presume that's just a typo.