EGM what a load of bull

Tychoo

I see an EGM has been called. What a waste of time and money.

Tim Harding

Tychoo wrote: »

I see an EGM has been called. What a waste of time and money.

Even if the meeting had a quorum and the motion were carried, there is hardly time enough to go through a new selection process with the Olympiad starting on 1 September and for new people to get time off work, book travel etc.

As Daly is already on the team, what is he proposing to gain by this? Who does he hope will replace the people already selected?

Pete Morriss

Tychoo wrote: »

I see an EGM has been called. What a waste of time and money.

According to the FIDE website, everybody attending the Olympiad in an official capacity has to register with the organisers by 15 July. Registration is required in order to get a visa, amongst other things. Hence this EGM motion can have no effect whatsoever on who the captains and head of delegation are. I am surprised that the Executive did not rule it out of order.

rob51

Pete Morriss wrote: »

According to the FIDE website, everybody attending the Olympiad in an official capacity has to register with the organisers by 15 July. Registration is required in order to get a visa, amongst other things. Hence this EGM motion can have no effect whatsoever on who the captains and head of delegation are. I am surprised that the Executive did not rule it out of order.

I assume it's because the current chairman feels he has to abide by the constitution unlike last year's chairman. Amazing how someone as disruptive as Daly can still find fifty ICU members to sign such a petition.

Tychoo

I was hoping it would be in Westport.

Tychoo

Should the list of signatures be published?

Tim Harding

Tychoo wrote: »

Should the list of signatures be published?

I think that is a good idea perhaps. Or better still the ICU secretary could contact each signatory to:
a) confirm their signature is genuine;
b) ask them their motivation for signing and do they intend to come to the EGM;
c) to point out the facts mentioned above by Pete Morriss and others, and invite them to withdraw their support for the motion.

I do understand the dilemma of the executive feeling bound to follow the Constitution, but since the aim of the motion, should it succeed, is incapable of being executed they should be able to find grounds to reject the motion and cancel the EGM.

It is indeed puzzling how Mr Daly can sign up rent-a-mob just to disrupt the team he is due to play on. Perhaps he fears that the currently selected captain will "rest" him for every round of the tournament?

cdeb

The petition was at the Bray Rapid. It contained many of the usual names - the core vote at the last AGM I guess. It was being passed around at Drogheda, and I know of one person anyway week was badgered into signing - basically signed to get rid of the badgeree (wasn't Colm)

I think anyone who signed it without really wanting to could do worse than attend the EGM to vote against.

Pete Morriss

cdeb wrote: »

I think anyone who signed it [the EGM petition] without really wanting to could do worse than attend the EGM to vote against.

Or notify the ICU to request that their name be removed from it, perhaps?

Tychoo

A question mark now hangs over the legality of the petition now, if members were harassed into signing it.

Is it valid?

If one name comes forward and says they signed under duress the whole thing should be thrown out along with the people who brought forward that motion.

Ballynafeigh Chess

The signing by unwilling participants does not invalidate the petition unless the signatures were achieved through the threat of violence or blackmail. If neither was used to collect the signatures then it is only a case of hard selling which whilst annoying is not illegal.

Hope the motion falls flat on its rear-end

Tim Harding

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

The signing by unwilling participants does not invalidate the petition unless the signatures were achieved through the threat of violence or blackmail. If neither was used to collect the signatures then it is only a case of hard selling which whilst annoying is not illegal.

Hope the motion falls flat on its rear-end

I would hope so but I would not bet on it.

I am assuming the Executive Committee do not propose to rule the motion out of order at the outset as they wish to be democratic.

So (given human nature, warm Sunday morning, rent-a-crowd booked, etc.) it is likely that there will be a greater attendance in favour of the motion than against it.
There then seem to be several outcomes of the EGM.

1) It could be inquorate if less than nine ICU members entitled to vote are present at the hour when the meeting is scheduled to convene. (So most ICU executive committee members should keep out of sight until it is evident there will be a quorum.) However this is most unlikely unless those calling for the meeting just wanted to waste everyone's time.

2. A quorum is present and the meeting is called to order. The chair calls for a seconder for the proposal. (Article 7.7 of the Constitution.) If there is no seconder everyone can go home but presumably those calling for the meeting will not have overlooked this detail.

3. A seconder having been found, the motion is open for discussion:

"The Irish Chess Union shall nullify the outcome of the recent selections for the Irish team captain and head of delegation positions for the 2016 Baku Olympiad, and shall re-open the availability of these positions with a duly posted notice on their website, with all the correct information, and criteria for applying with an invite for all previous, or new candidates to apply for these positions."

So presumably then the Chair calls on the proposer and seconder to give their arguments in favour of the motion.
This having been done, the EC can present their evidence from FIDE regulations and correspondence with FIDE showing why it is too late to make any change of personnel, and rule the motion out of order on the grounds that it is too late to add anyone else to the delegation.
Therefore the motion falls as incapable of execution and the meeting is closed.

However this may not be so easy as those in favour of the motion may argue that a new team captain and head of delegation could be selected from among those already going to Azerbaijan.

4. The likelihood therefore is that (if too many of the 50 signatories turn up) the stupid motion could go to a vote and be carried. Yet there is insufficient time for the process the motion calls for to be completed, especially if all members of the selection committee promptly resign so that a new committee would need to be selected before any new selection process could take place.

I would strongly recommend the Executive Committee to find a way NOT to have the motion put to a vote.
Probably the best way is to let the proposer have his say but then declare that they have fulfilled their constitutional obligations by calling the egm. Since the proposal is time-barred, they now rule it out of order and close the meeting without a vote.

I would also suggest they call the next agm for a date when Colm Daly is away in Azerbaijan.

CafollasCat

Tim Harding wrote: »

I would hope so but I would not bet on it.

I am assuming the Executive Committee do not propose to rule the motion out of order at the outset as they wish to be democratic.

So (given human nature, warm Sunday morning, rent-a-crowd booked, etc.) it is likely that there will be a greater attendance in favour of the motion than against it.
There then seem to be several outcomes of the EGM.

1) It could be inquorate if less than nine ICU members entitled to vote are present at the hour when the meeting is scheduled to convene. (So most ICU executive committee members should keep out of sight until it is evident there will be a quorum.) However this is most unlikely unless those calling for the meeting just wanted to waste everyone's time.

2. A quorum is present and the meeting is called to order. The chair calls for a seconder for the proposal. (Article 7.7 of the Constitution.) If there is no seconder everyone can go home but presumably those calling for the meeting will not have overlooked this detail.

3. A seconder having been found, the motion is open for discussion:


So presumably then the Chair calls on the proposer and seconder to give their arguments in favour of the motion.
This having been done, the EC can present their evidence from FIDE regulations and correspondence with FIDE showing why it is too late to make any change of personnel, and rule the motion out of order on the grounds that it is too late to add anyone else to the delegation.
Therefore the motion falls as incapable of execution and the meeting is closed.

However this may not be so easy as those in favour of the motion may argue that a new team captain and head of delegation could be selected from among those already going to Azerbaijan.

4. The likelihood therefore is that (if too many of the 50 signatories turn up) the stupid motion could go to a vote and be carried. Yet there is insufficient time for the process the motion calls for to be completed, especially if all members of the selection committee promptly resign so that a new committee would need to be selected before any new selection process could take place.

I would strongly recommend the Executive Committee to find a way NOT to have the motion put to a vote.
Probably the best way is to let the proposer have his say but then declare that they have fulfilled their constitutional obligations by calling the egm. Since the proposal is time-barred, they now rule it out of order and close the meeting without a vote.

I would also suggest they call the next agm for a date when Colm Daly is away in Azerbaijan.

<snip> You are taking an amazing interest in everything except the motion and make so many assumptions that it is comical. You are wrong on just about every point you have tried to make.

Then you suggest some odd thing about a player representing the ICU and Ireland at an Olympiad in Baku is somehow a good reason and time to have an AGM?

Myopic indeed.

<snip>Presuming to know the motivations and reasons why so many people signed a request for an EGM which is perfectly logical and simple and could have been avoided if things had been done properly and so many improper things not allowed to occur.

In all likelihood there is so much apathy and disaffection with the ICU that you just might be right about virtually nobody turning up. But your rent a crowd and rent a mob as long as you ave the numbers is of course totally democratic, ethical and good for Irish chess.

Pull the other one Tim

Mod edit - attack the post, not the poster

CafollasCat

Tim Harding wrote: »

I think that is a good idea perhaps. Or better still the ICU secretary could contact each signatory to:
a) confirm their signature is genuine;
b) ask them their motivation for signing and do they intend to come to the EGM;
c) to point out the facts mentioned above by Pete Morriss and others, and invite them to withdraw their support for the motion.

I do understand the dilemma of the executive feeling bound to follow the Constitution, but since the aim of the motion, should it succeed, is incapable of being executed they should be able to find grounds to reject the motion and cancel the EGM.

It is indeed puzzling how Mr Daly can sign up rent-a-mob just to disrupt the team he is due to play on. Perhaps he fears that the currently selected captain will "rest" him for every round of the tournament?

All the same, it will be very embarrassing if it turns out that it is simply not remotely true that

“the required number of signatures were collected by Colm Daly"

This does seem very odd to begin with as surely the idea of anyone collecting 50 plus signatures of this nature seems fanciful to begin with?

Oh but wait, the ICU website has removed the references to

“the required number of signatures were collected by Colm Daly"

and there is no mention of Colm Daly anymore, none!

So I guess this means we were all misled and that perhaps the role played, or interest here, was minimal, or and peripheral to begin with.

Maybe (Almost certainly) there are other untruths here and we actually can't trust that a particular spin is trying to be put out to confuse obfuscate and distract people from a very clear and simple motion which the ICU would have been aware of for months and instead of using some common sense that would have avoided a need for any EGM at all, instead try to delay long enough to be able to have some people (cheerleaders) argue that it would be too late to make changes? Really this is rather comical and so disingenuous.

50 people signing a request for an EGM is very telling surely. Hardly about any individual and more about the fact of the way things were done by the ICU and have had to admit and apologize for. How many mistakes and bad choices do the ICU have to make for it to be ok for some people to say enough is enough, we need not just apologies but some actual action which are more about the broader interest than keeping some buddy or other happy.

Just how long did the ICU sit on this, and what was going on behind the scenes during these past few months? What problems are there that people are not aware of? This stuff about registration and it being too late for this or that? Red Herrings galore. Worse case scenario a 200 Euro late registration/ change fee which probably would not have to be paid if the ICU advise and request from the event organizers directly a dispensation on account of this very EGM.

What happens if say the two current ICU officials suddenly can't go. Or how about if we learned one of them was a mass murderer. We carry on how exactly? Oh we would replace them right? Or the one who was a mass murderer surely. Or perhaps some of the cheerleaders would still defend this imagined mass murderer and have us believe that because they personally like him/her that he/she is beyond reproach in all matters and can literally does as he/she likes.

So how about if we work back from an extreme and unimaginably bad case and one was not a mass murderer but had just failed to carry out his duties and even abused his position, and one of the Irish players.

What if the same official done a solo run and tried to bully and harass one of our players. Tried to threaten our player and was abusive, misleading and belligerent instead of constructive, cooperative. What would it take to call a halt and decide that such an official had blew it, and should no longer be in such a delicate and even powerful position, and was not suitable to be involved with this particular team and certainly not in the same capacity heretofore.

Tim mentions a player being afraid of being rested all the time? But honestly Tim how do you think that might play out in real life? You know in the real world. Do you seriously think it would be fine and dandy and nothing would happen if someone was to try abuse their position further?

There would be no consequences? Tempers would not fray and potentially explode and really bad things might happen? The atmosphere and contentment of the Irish delegation would not be adversely affected, and a toxic and tense environment would not prevail within the Irish camp? All the while the ICU has been made aware of these issues and has several options to have for example a previous team captain

I am not so sure as you seem to be about things you are hardly well placed to know much about, let alone comment on. I could foresee many bad scenarios, none of which would be good for anybody connected with Irish chess, Then again Tim maybe you probably have more experience of these kind of nasty awkward situations and things from your own vast experience. So perhaps you know best.

Of course I am rather concerned that you are not at all objective here and not only have an axe to grind but are hell bent on assuming the worst of certain people and too quick in making false allegations and assumptions. Evidently because your own personal feelings and agenda are getting very much in the way of any chance of rational views being offered by you.

CafollasCat

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

Hope the motion falls flat on its rear-end

Why? What is wrong with this motion? It seems very tame, matter of fact and merely forces the ICU to do things properly. The fact that there is an EGM at all is a failure of the ICU to begin with. Compounded by the delay in dealing with this and then this comical trick of trying to present a fait accompli and say it is too late?

Not too late at all, bearing in mind the last Olympiad saw a captain replaced two weeks before the event and one replaced within 24 hours half way during the event!

Did you not know that or are you just indifferent to facts? At worse the ICU would have to pay 200 Euros late reg fee.

Id say now that you would have no problem replacing one of our players under ANY circumstances and for ANY (fabricated or otherwise) reason. While if someone who done a truly terrible job as a team captain before was already screwing things up and failing big time in carrying out duties a second time you would argue he should never be replaced because you like him and are a fan.

In reality nobody hardly gives a flying fiddle about the personalities so much as the way things are improperly done for improper reasons. Birds of a feather stick together and this EGM is just going through the motions in a vain attempt to merely remind people of the improper way things are done. It won't make a jot of a difference anyway and if 5 of the people who signed this EGM request turned up it would be a shock.

People have better things to do on a Sunday afternoon, and you strike me as the sort who would be the complete opposite of say Voltaire, when he says:

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It".

Seems for you it is all about numbers, playing politics and winning these little skirmishes rather than the moral or ethical value of any arguments. Rest easy. You will surely get what you wish. Thing is it often pays to be very mindful of getting what you wish. Because you just might get it!

sodacat11

I would like to point out that Cafolla'scat has nothing whatsoever to do with any chessplayer named Cafolla. It is in fact a handle used by someone who has been slaughtered by Cafolla over the board and seems to harbour some sort of grudge because of this. It really is quite sad that a grown adult can behave in such a childish way but there ya go.

CafollasCat

sodacat11 wrote: »

I would like to point out that Cafolla'scat has nothing whatsoever to do with any chessplayer named Cafolla. It is in fact a handle used by someone who has been slaughtered by Cafolla over the board and seems to harbour some sort of grudge because of this. It really is quite sad that a grown adult can behave in such a childish way but there ya go.

Calm down. So what if you have a good score against me? Who cares, I never complained about you being a stronger player than me (marginally) and I often agree with many of the things you post about. I just happen to also disagree with many things too, and feel you write totally mad or disingenuous things too.

My handle here was paying homage to your handle and meant to be funny not disrespectful or insulting/ I can't help it if you can't see the funny side of things and be able to have a laugh too. I am also sure it s very clear that I am not a Cat and not someone with a surname of Cafolla either, though I am rather partial to a Cafollas Fish N Chip when in Dublin.

CafollasCat

sodacat11 wrote: »

I would like to point out that Cafolla'scat has nothing whatsoever to do with any chessplayer named Cafolla. It is in fact a handle used by someone who has been slaughtered by Cafolla over the board and seems to harbour some sort of grudge because of this. It really is quite sad that a grown adult can behave in such a childish way but there ya go.

Us "Cats" need to stick together

Ballynafeigh Chess

CafollasCat wrote: »

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

Hope the motion falls flat on its rear-end

Why? What is wrong with this motion? It seems very tame, matter of fact and merely forces the ICU to do things properly. The fact that there is an EGM at all is a failure of the ICU to begin with. Compounded by the delay in dealing with this and then this comical trick of trying to present a fait accompli and say it is too late?

Not too late at all, bearing in mind the last Olympiad saw a captain replaced two weeks before the event and one replaced within 24 hours half way during the event!

Did you not know that or are you just indifferent to facts? At worse the ICU would have to pay 200 Euros late reg fee.

Id say now that you would have no problem replacing one of our players under ANY circumstances and for ANY (fabricated or otherwise) reason. While if someone who done a truly terrible job as a team captain before was already screwing things up and failing big time in carrying out duties a second time you would argue he should never be replaced because you like him and are a fan.

In reality nobody hardly gives a flying fiddle about the personalities so much as the way things are improperly done for improper reasons. Birds of a feather stick together and this EGM is just going through the motions in a vain attempt to merely remind people of the improper way things are done. It won't make a jot of a difference anyway and if 5 of the people who signed this EGM request turned up it would be a shock.

People have better things to do on a Sunday afternoon, and you strike me as the sort who would be the complete opposite of say Voltaire, when he says:

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It".

Seems for you it is all about numbers, playing politics and winning these little skirmishes rather than the moral or ethical value of any arguments. Rest easy. You will surely get what you wish. Thing is it often pays to be very mindful of getting what you wish. Because you just might get it!

Why? What is wrong with this motion? It seems very tame, matter of fact and merely forces the ICU to do things properly. The fact that there is an EGM at all is a failure of the ICU to begin with. Compounded by the delay in dealing with this and then this comical trick of trying to present a fait accompli and say it is too late?



My problem is with the late timing of the motion not the motion itself. I adhere to and have always adhered to the philosophy "Ban nothing challenge everything! If there has been a delay in dealing with this issue then those that propose this motion at such a late hour need to explain exactly how it took them so long to call it and if they're claiming now that they have been the victims of a delaying tactic they would need to explain exactly on what date did they come to that conclusion to ensure that they themselves are free from the charge of ineptitude.


Id say now that you would have no problem replacing one of our players under ANY circumstances and for ANY (fabricated or otherwise) reason. While if someone who done a truly terrible job as a team captain before was already screwing things up and failing big time in carrying out duties a second time you would argue he should never be replaced because you like him and are a fan.

You d say this and you d say that .. I'd say per usual you are completely and utterly wrong!

Unquestionably I do like the selected captain; he is a man I hold the utmost respect for. He has in all of the dealings I have had with him demonstrated his intellect, understanding, diplomacy, charm and warmth. As team captain and head of the delegation the candidate chosen will need to demonstrate the following . Intellect, understanding, diplomacy, charm, warmth and some experience.

However if you believe you have a more suitable candidate and can prove so put your name forward to the selection committee. I believe the best candidate should go every time without fail or favouritism because they are there representing Ireland not themselves and the wrong candidate may not do that.


In reality nobody hardly gives a flying fiddle about the personalities so much as the way things are improperly done for improper reasons. Birds of a feather stick together and this EGM is just going through the motions in a vain attempt to merely remind people of the improper way things are done. It won't make a jot of a difference anyway and if 5 of the people who signed this EGM request turned up it would be a shock.

I have read this excerpt several times now and honestly do not understand what you re trying to say. To be fair you kinda lost me at hello.

People have better things to do on a Sunday afternoon, and you strike me as the sort who would be the complete opposite of say Voltaire, when he says:

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It".

I have already stated that I firmly believe in the philosophy ban nothing, challenge everything and earlier I argued that the motion should not be denied because some of its signatories felt compelled to sign through the choice of ease. So again your understanding of other peoples views are laid bare for what they are, preconceived and ill informed.


Seems for you it is all about numbers, playing politics and winning these little skirmishes rather than the moral or ethical value of any arguments.

Please refer to the answer to the quote above

CafollasCat

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

My problem is with the late timing of the motion not the motion itself. I adhere to and have always adhered to the philosophy "Ban nothing challenge everything! If there has been a delay in dealing with this issue then those that propose this motion at such a late hour need to explain exactly how it took them so long to call it and if they're claiming now that they have been the victims of a delaying tactic they would need to explain exactly on what date did they come to that conclusion to ensure that they themselves are free from the charge of ineptitude.

You d say this and you d say that .. I'd say per usual you are completely and utterly wrong!

Unquestionably I do like the selected captain; he is a man I hold the utmost respect for. He has in all of the dealings I have had with him demonstrated his intellect, understanding, diplomacy, charm and warmth. As team captain and head of the delegation the candidate chosen will need to demonstrate the following . Intellect, understanding, diplomacy, charm, warmth and some experience.

However if you believe you have a more suitable candidate and can prove so put your name forward to the selection committee. I believe the best candidate should go every time without fail or favouritism because they are there representing Ireland not themselves and the wrong candidate may not do that.

So you have it all figured out then and you know better than anyone, but oddly enough, you seem oblivious to so much. Enjoy the EGM. I am sure you will shine at it. Thanks for the laughs.

ovinelover

The motion was submitted on June 26th and the chairman said he would call a meeting at "our convenience". I myself wrote to the chairman raising my concerns on this matter, in his reply he declined to address my points and resorted to management doublespeak. So much for the honest, professional and fair regime he promised in his manifesto last year.

Ballynafeigh Chess

CafollasCat wrote: »

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

My problem is with the late timing of the motion not the motion itself. I adhere to and have always adhered to the philosophy "Ban nothing challenge everything! If there has been a delay in dealing with this issue then those that propose this motion at such a late hour need to explain exactly how it took them so long to call it and if they're claiming now that they have been the victims of a delaying tactic they would need to explain exactly on what date did they come to that conclusion to ensure that they themselves are free from the charge of ineptitude.

You d say this and you d say that .. I'd say per usual you are completely and utterly wrong!

Unquestionably I do like the selected captain; he is a man I hold the utmost respect for. He has in all of the dealings I have had with him demonstrated his intellect, understanding, diplomacy, charm and warmth. As team captain and head of the delegation the candidate chosen will need to demonstrate the following . Intellect, understanding, diplomacy, charm, warmth and some experience.

However if you believe you have a more suitable candidate and can prove so put your name forward to the selection committee. I believe the best candidate should go every time without fail or favouritism because they are there representing Ireland not themselves and the wrong candidate may not do that.

So you have it all figured out then and you know better than anyone, but oddly enough, you seem oblivious to so much. Enjoy the EGM. I am sure you will shine at it. Thanks for the laughs.

You never addressed any of my counter points which makes your original post and this reply look quite feeble

CafollasCat

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

You never adressed any of my counter points which makes your original post and this reply look quite feeble

You are correct! I won't be addressing anything you have to write, there would be really no point at all. You know best!

CafollasCat

ovinelover wrote: »

The motion was submitted on June 26th and the chairman said he would call a meeting at "our convenience". I myself wrote to the chairman raising my concerns on this matter, in his reply he declined to address my points and resorted to management doublespeak. So much for the honest, professional and fair regime he promised in his manifesto last year.

But he knew about the EGM request and ever increasing amount of signatures since early June? That long ago right? And he was aware of a complaint about the abuse of a player by the men's team captain and his failure and refusal to carry out his duties while making threats to one of the Irish players. To such an extent that he had to intervene and do many of the tasks supposed to be done by the team captain who has conducted himself in a fashion that has been so belligerent and aggressive that he could not and would not carry out his duties, and instead of resigning, as would be the case in most other properly functioning bodies, carries on as if he has got away with his attempts to abuse and bullying. Am I wrong in any of what I have just wrote here?

I also understand that If the ICU had

1 Done things properly to begin with as regards the team captain positions.

Simple enough really/ Tell the truth, don' lie and mislead and pretend there is a selection process when there was no such thing.

2 Nipped in the bud the then escalation of problems with regard to the conduct of the team captain and set him straight about having to put aside personal feelings and act properly in his position and work to make things work rather than trying to make problems where there need be none.

Then at least the greater good and consideration of the other people involved with the Irish teams would have been taken into account and the abuse of position that has occurred would not have created considerable potential problems for the delegation.

It is not uncommon for people to be on the same team who do not like each other or even get along and this not be a problem, Because for one thing there is no power imbalance and this not the scope or temptation for abuse, or one individual to try it on with another and try provoke, bully and abuse by virtue of just being in a responsible position of trust that reflects also on the ICU as a body.

Abuse of this trust should be an automatic reason for someone to be relieved of their duties and replaced with someone who can make a team work and get the best out of everybody.

While this was not by any means the reason for the EGM request initially it did become a compelling reason more than 6 weeks ago. Hiding behind the innocence of the general memberships lack of awareness of what has been gong on is no way to operate and proceed with an Irish Olympiad team.

A problem recognized is a problem on the way to being solved. An EGM should never have been the outcome here but it seems there was such unwillingness to just do things properly, that this could not be avoided to fix and address problems which should never have arisen and are the fault entirely of the ICU and people acting on behalf of the ICU.

Ballynafeigh Chess

ovinelover wrote: »

The motion was submitted on June 26th and the chairman said he would call a meeting at "our convenience". I myself wrote to the chairman raising my concerns on this matter, in his reply he declined to address my points and resorted to management doublespeak. So much for the honest, professional and fair regime he promised in his manifesto last year.

Hi ovinelover

But from what I can see and correct me if I am wrong neither the chairman nor the executive have done anything wrong in this matter, a quick read of 8.2 of the constitution would have seen they fulfilled all aspects required of them.

8.2 An extraordinary General Meeting must be convened by the Hon. Secretary of the Union within 60 days of the receipt by him or her of the request or requisition mentioned above. At least three clear weeks notice of the date, time and venue of the meeting and of motions for consideration at that meeting shall be given.

CafollasCat

Tychoo wrote: »

I see an EGM has been called. What a waste of time and money.

I could hardly agree more. Pity then that thing were not done properly and means to avoid an EGM were not pursued as they so easily could have been.

Cant be blaming people - and there was more than 50 at least for wanting an EGM, and the failure of the ICU to address the issues and concerns many weeks ago and without the need for an EGM.

Responsibility for this EGM is with the fully with the ICU executive. The problem with having them explain themselves is that other than making apologies for doing things wrong, which is to be commended, there is a serious issue of trust now.

Look at what just happened when a clearly misleading and untrue post was made and within hours or a day, they had to remove a totally false assertions and pernicious insinuations about an individual who went on FB and declared that he had done nothing of the sort as was claimed on the ICU website.

What is more important here? Protecting the interests of an individual and acting improperly on so many fronts or coming clean and simply doing things right and not giving anybody cause to want to add their signature to the 50 something who want the ICU to address certain issues and have wanted this to be done months ago.

All along the ICU knew there was an urgency to addressing this issue and it could have been sorted to the betterment of Irish chess and the image and reputation of this union.

it can't be always about this borderline tribal impulse to rush to defend or attack based on emotive and usually very very ill informed or biased perceptions and perspectives. What is best for the Irish teams is surely the most important thing?

Getting it right now lays the path for getting it right again, and again and avoiding such wastes of time and energy, not to mention expense too.

CafollasCat

Tychoo wrote: »

I see an EGM has been called. What a waste of time and money.

I could hardly agree more. Pity then that things were not done properly and means to avoid an EGM were not pursued as they so easily could have been.

Cant be blaming people - and there was more than 50 at least for wanting an EGM, and the failure of the ICU to address the issues and concerns many weeks ago and without the need for an EGM.

Responsibility for this EGM is fully with the ICU executive. The problem with having them explain themselves is that, other than making apologies for doing things wrong, which is to be commended, there is a serious issue of trust now.

Look at what just happened when a clearly misleading and untrue post was made and within hours, or a day, they had to remove a totally false assertion and pernicious insinuations about an individual who went on FB and declared that he had done nothing of the sort as was claimed on the ICU website.

What is more important here? Protecting the interests of an individual and acting improperly on so many fronts or coming clean and simply doing things right and not giving anybody cause to want to add their signature to the 50 something who want the ICU to address certain issues, and have wanted this to be done months ago.

All along the ICU knew there was an urgency to addressing this issue and it could have been sorted to the betterment of Irish chess and the image and reputation of this union.

it can't be always about this borderline tribal impulse to rush to defend or attack based on emotive and usually very very ill informed or biased perceptions and perspectives. What is best for the Irish teams is surely the most important thing?

Getting it right now lays the path for getting it right again, and again and avoiding such wastes of time and energy, not to mention expense too in future.

ovinelover

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

Hi ovinelover

But from what I can see and correct me if I am wrong neither the chairman nor the executive have done anything wrong in this matter, a quick read of 8.2 of the constitution would have seen they fulfilled all aspects required of them.

8.2 An extraordinary General Meeting must be convened by the Hon. Secretary of the Union within 60 days of the receipt by him or her of the request or requisition mentioned above. At least three clear weeks notice of the date, time and venue of the meeting and of motions for consideration at that meeting shall be given.

Hi Ballynafeigh
My point was addressing your having a problem with the delay "My problem is with the late timing of the motion....." - your words - had the exec acted promptly the EGM could be this Sunday or Sunday next. Also had the chairman taken notice of the concerns raised rather than fob then off with empty flannel there might be no need for an EGM, the same could be said if the selection committee had followed the published criteria.

reunion

If the proposer of the EGM wanted this motion to be discussed immediately it should have been included in the motion along with explicitly why the process should be reopen.

I don't know how the process shown on the ICU website was wrong if someone could describe?

I believe the executive should reopen applications for 1 day only to those who must demonstrate that they were seriously inconvienced by the improper information on the ICU website. Also only candidates qualifications at the time of the original sunmission should be permitted. It should not be open to anybody or someones to resubmit a better application. Any new application must also be significantly better than the currently chosen candidate. If not, the original candidate should be chosen

rob51

reunion wrote: »

If the proposer of the EGM wanted this motion to be discussed immediately it should have been included in the motion along with explicitly why the process should be reopen.

I don't know how the process shown on the ICU website was wrong if someone could describe?

A very good point. Surely for an EGM to invalidate a selection committee decision the proposer should include specific reasons that the selection was invalid.

Apart from tons of waffle, innuendo and invective the cat, who seems to know everything, has given no evidence that the currently selection is not valid. Just because you don't like the result and can round up fifty signatures isn't a reason.

CafollasCat

reunion wrote: »

If the proposer of the EGM wanted this motion to be discussed immediately it should have been included in the motion along with explicitly why the process should be reopen.

"We the undersigned, being fully paid up members of the ICU wish to have the motion below, discussed and voted upon at an EGM of the ICU at the soonest possible date.

We further note that the ICU being in receipt of, and aware of this request for a speedy EGM should advise that the duties of the positions can continue to be performed by the current position holders (assuming they are still willing to do so} or by someone appointed by the ICU as is deemed best by the ICU"

Is what was above and on the same page as what I was asked to sign. You might want to start asking questions of the ICU. They have a great many things to explain, and apologize for.

As for the other things you write about, sorry but I disagree with just about everything you suggest and with all due respect I don't think you have much of a clue about the issues involved here.

The fact is, the ICU made a complete and total mess of the tasks involved with this issue and if they had done things properly, then contrary to the notion put about by the likes of Robo, that people are now unhappy because they don't like the result?

That is not the issue and never was originally. It was the series of mistakes and total failure to do thing properly from the outset that prompted many people to discuss and consult with each other with a view to forcing the ICU to do things properly and rectify a wrong, or series of wrongs. If that need be by having an EGM (Ultimate choice of the ICU as there were many ways to avoid having an EGM) then so be it.

It only underscores the way some people are content to see all manner of improper things done in improper ways and with very bad outcomes which are very very bad for the Irish delegation and teams due to represent Ireland in Baku at the highest levels.

CafollasCat

rob51 wrote: »

A very good point. Surely for an EGM to invalidate a selection committee decision the proposer should include specific reasons that the selection was invalid.

Apart from tons of waffle, innuendo and invective the cat, who seems to know everything, has given no evidence that the currently selection is not valid. Just because you don't like the result and can round up fifty signatures isn't a reason.

No Robo you know so much more Robo and you are so much more impartial, objective, informed, involved and perceptive.

Your grasp of the issues and what is involved is truly amazing.

CafollasCat

What I really think is that

.............

Snip

---

Snip

Sodcat is right.....

reunion

Just because something was done wrong doesn't mean the selection is invalid or should be reopened in its entirety. We should be working to make sure it doesnt happen again.

Still I've yet to hear the actual reason to invalidate a selection committee decison. What happened? I remember reading that the team captain had to have an fide trainer title but wasn't on the list of requirements on the ICU site.

If that is the reason.... Was it done maliciously? I doubt it. Human error. It happens, move on.

boy98

If the Selection Committee have nothing to hide then they shouldn't fear an EGM. But the selection committee either wittingly or unwittingly were led aside and started to introduce the Training Officer (TRG) requirement when it was never needed. The Selection Committee excluded applicants for the 2016 Olympiad positions based on just erroneous tests.

All members of the Irish Chess Union who wish for a Fair, Inclusive and Accountable organization should welcome the discussion of an EGM on the specifics of excluded candidates.

ICU members can repair some of the damage and minimize their adverse results.

boy98

reunion wrote: »

Just because something was done wrong doesn't mean the selection is invalid or should be reopened in its entirety. We should be working to make sure it doesnt happen again.

Still I've yet to hear the actual reason to invalidate a selection committee decison. What happened? I remember reading that the team captain had to have an fide trainer title but wasn't on the list of requirements on the ICU site.

If that is the reason.... Was it done maliciously? I doubt it. Human error. It happens, move on.

"Just because something was done wrong....." that's a wonderful first step, admitting mistakes.
The mistake is excluding valid applications for the different roles at the 2016 Olympiad, the Executive Committee was a fail safe to repair the damage of the Selection Committee. They chose not to but dig a bigger hole for themselves.

The calling of an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) by over 50 members of the Irish Chess Union is the members failsafe in repairing the erroneous decisions of the Select. Comm. and Exec. Comm.

reunion

That doesn't explain why nominations should be reopened.

Or why the men's team captain appointment needs to be overturned. They just gave more weighting to the trg title.

The women's captain maybe as this wasn't any of the original applicants.

boy98

reunion wrote: »

That doesn't explain why nominations should be reopened.

Or why the men's team captain appointment needs to be overturned. They just gave more weighting to the trg title.

The women's captain maybe as this wasn't any of the original applicants.

Your tying yourself up in knots. 'They shouldn't overturn.... ok ...maybe the Womens Captain'.

This is why there is one of the reasons for an EGM. The Executive Committee had a chance to clarify the Selection Committees inconsistency, they chose not to and instead run with inconsistent decisions.

Members are now putting in the resources to first understand and then rectify the decision-making process of the Selection Committee and the Executive Committee.

reunion

So to be clear the motion should only be for the women's team captain then? As the men's team captain selection is fine.

Chessrookie

I don't see a issue with the women's captain. Due process was followed for the three candidates who met the initial criteria and the selection committee came to a consensus agreement. If anything one of the two unsuccessful eligible candidates may have been ineligible anyway due to past transgressions.
For the men's role there was only one eligible candidate. If people had an issue, they should have proposed other eligible, suitable candidates back in March.

ovinelover

The nub of this is as follows
The position of captain of the womens team was advertised, criteria were laid down.
People applied for the job.
The committee met, viewed the applications and for some perverse reason decided to award the job to the applicant who scored lowest
against the criteria.
One team member remarked that she doubted the person chosen "understood the en passent rule".
Can anybody tell me - as a fully paid up member of the ICU - why I should be happy when a selection committee ignores the guidelines it has been given and wanders so far off the reservation that it selects a person who in the past has shown hostility to any girl who plays better chess than her daughter?

reunion

ovinelover wrote: »

wanders so far off the reservation that it selects a person who in the past has shown hostility to any girl who plays better chess than her daughter?

Sounds better than someone who physically assaulted a child.

ovinelover

reunion wrote: »

Sounds better than someone who physically assaulted a child.

Where is your proof of that? Did the Gardai prosecute? Did the child's father fabricate evidence? Did you Reunion find the "child's" cheating to be justified?

<snip>

Mod edit - throwing out unfounded accusations like that isn't welcome here.

reunion

Chessrookie wrote: »

I don't see a issue with the women's captain

I don't either. But 50 icu members think it's worth wasting money

Steve

Folks, I think you need to sleep on this.

Seriously.

Mods, you can re-open this at 12:00 17/7/16.

cdeb

I think we need to come back to the core issue here. There was an omission in the required criteria when captains were sought - unfortunate; possibly even unprofessional.

The relevant criterion was that captaincy candidates needed to have a FIDE/TRG title if they were to be allowed into the hall. Arguably, an unqualified candidate could still have been selected, but it's probably for the best that a qualified candidate was picked. Colm Daly and Herbert Scarry were ruled out as Women's team captain (and Carl Jackson as Open captain) for this reason.

I would have thought though that, had the criterion been announced at the start, they wouldn't have had the time to get it anyway? Yet this seems to be the crux of the EGM motion ("The Irish Chess Union shall [...] re-open the availability of these positions with [...] all the correct information")

So I would have thought the previously ineligible candidates would still be inelegible if the EGM passed?

In that case, I'm struggling to see what's to be gained from the EGM.

CafollasCat

cdeb wrote: »

I think we need to come back to the core issue here. There was an omission in the required criteria when captains were sought - unfortunate; possibly even unprofessional.

The relevant criterion was that captaincy candidates needed to have a FIDE/TRG title if they were to be allowed into the hall. Arguably, an unqualified candidate could still have been selected, but it's probably for the best that a qualified candidate was picked. Colm Daly and Herbert Scarry were ruled out as Women's team captain (and Carl Jackson as Open captain) for this reason.

I would have thought though that, had the criterion been announced at the start, they wouldn't have had the time to get it anyway? Yet this seems to be the crux of the EGM motion ("The Irish Chess Union shall [...] re-open the availability of these positions with [...] all the correct information")

So I would have thought the previously ineligible candidates would still be inelegible if the EGM passed?

In that case, I'm struggling to see what's to be gained from the EGM.

You are struggling alright, because you are wrong about so much it is comical.

There was no selection for the men’s team captain position. Only a fake claim that someone else had gone for the position but was disqualified because he did not have a TRG licence, which it was falsely claimed was a requirement, and this bogus claim was used as a means to exclude some people , mostly for the women’s position but also one person for the men’s team.

Turns out, that not only was it not a requirement but that Fide even sent out emails to federations explaining that while they are keen to implement a policy of requiring coaches and captains to have a TRG licence in order TO AVAIL OF THE FREE ACCOMODTAION but at the discretion entirely of the organizers too.

The question as to whether or not they ( The event organizers) would try to charge for accommodation would be rendered moot by virtue of the fact that FIDE explained that anybody who did not have a TRG licence WOULD BE EXCEMPT IF THEY SIGN UP TO DO A COURSE DURING THE OLYMPIAD!

But everyone knew that right?

The EGM will bring forward a lot of information that will expose the whole farce for what it was.

CafollasCat

The so called criteria supposedly used, even IF we play along with the lie about the TRG nonsense there is literally no way that the women's team captain could have been ahead of Darko Polimac, simply no way the points would have added up.

DalysNo1Fan

CafollasCat wrote: »

there is literally no way that the women's team captain could have been ahead of Darko Polimac, simply no way the points would have added up.

You must be kidding. Given the bile he spews on his Facebook page no half-sane committee could possibly pick him for any role like this. No offence to the guy, or anyone, but you can't carry on like that and expect to be selected as Irish Team Captain.

CafollasCat

DalysNo1Fan wrote: »

You must be kidding. Given the bile he spews on his Facebook page no half-sane committee could possibly pick him for any role like this. No offence to the guy, or anyone, but you can't carry on like that and expect to be selected as Irish Team Captain.

Only one kidding seems to be you, and you clearly have an agenda based on personal issues or dislikes.

This is a all rather curious

1 If it was felt that the views and posts of someone on a fb page were, as you say, so objectionable to render him a bad candidate then that should have seen him notified that this view precluded him from applying and he was going to be disqualified. Simple as that, let the person know and either stand by that or give him a chance to address such concerns.

2 Alternatively one could argue that it matters not that he expressed what you and others too probably regard as objectionable views on a FB page and that in the specific role involved here he is well capable of putting aside his strong views and doing the things he needs to do with ease. Ironic that he would get a request for coaching by one of the players on the team long after he was not offered the position and has more experience and coaching experience and chess strength than the person who got the position and whom has the clear potential conflict of interests that is being offered the position with her own daughter making her Olympiad debut.

Nothing to say that this can't be done and maybe even a good idea, but then having an incompetent or very partial selection committee make a mess of things does little to inspire confidence in the process or the integrity of how and why things were done in certain ways.

In terms of how it looks to any outsider, having the mother of a minor making her Olympiad debut gifted the position is fishy looking to say the least. Especially when there is this dishonest nonsense about people needing a TRG license when this was not the case and this technicality sees people with vast experience. Knowledge and skills disqualified, on account of claim that a TRG piece of paper, which a ten year old girl has, outweighs everything. Total con job and not remotely believable.

This ten year old girl who got the TRG would also be liable to a better job than the person also gifted the men's captain position. He already got a try out in 2014 and was pretty bad, but has been really really bad so far this time around too and the teams have not even left for Baku yet.

One can only imagine the chaos, carnage or generally awful vibe within the camp with this current choice of HOD and men's team captain left unchanged. Simple solution is for the ICU to ask for resignations and just appoint people to the positions.

Carl Jackson who applied (so they say) or others would transform the situation positively and keep far more people happy, and do more good than the way things are being dragged out as it is.

EGM will be a flop though and this is all just a show really.

DalysNo1Fan

You spend your time shouting abuse out your window at your neighbours and they're not going to want you to be the lollipop man, no matter how well qualified you are. That's the way the world works, it's nothing personal. Wise up!