Why Jonathan O Connor Should Be ICU Chairman

Zugszwang

In times of strife, the silent ICU majority need only look to see what the noisy <snip> are recommending, and vote the opposite way:
http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/blog

Sparks

cdeb

Tagged "Jonathan O Connor Bad ICU Chairman, Jonathan O Connor One of the worst ICU Chairmans"

I think that one link shows why Colm needs to be voted off the ICU exec for the good of Irish chess to be honest. I can only imagine how many sensible people he'd put off volunteering with that sort of attitude.

He's genuinely insufferable.

cdeb

So Colm's latest problem with Jonathan appears to be that Jonathan phoned the gardaí after the Cork incident to report an incident of assault.

How could anyone have a problem with this?

Given Gabi Mirza has basically admitted assault of a minor ("I forced the cubical door and I pulled this guy out from the toilet"), he's getting off remarkably lightly.

I think this is a point to emphasise at the AGM on Sunday given the remarkable bias of the responses (form the noisy few) towards the cheating and away from the apparent assault.

Sparks

cdeb wrote: »

How could anyone have a problem with this?

Because they didn't get to decide whether or not to make the call?
To be honest, (a) I don't trust Colm's account of it as being completely accurate because he wasn't there, and (b) I'd be more surprised if Jonathon was the first person to pick up the phone - I'd have expected that the tournament organisers or the arbiter to have made the call before that point.

Given Gabi Mirza has basically admitted assault of a minor ("I forced the cubical door and I pulled this guy out from the toilet"), he's getting off remarkably lightly.

Well, that's more the Limerick Leader saying he admitted it to be scrupulous about things - and I'd trust a newspaper account slightly less than I'd trust the fish and chips it comes wrapped around the next day If there was a case of assault, then really the best thing for the ICU to do is what every other sport does in cases like that - the disciplinary committee suspends itself and the Gardai do their job without the NGB tripping over them and getting in the way; and if the Gardai uphold the charge, then the NGB responds to the Garda findings to decide on any sports sanction on top of the judgement of the court system. Seriously, assault's a criminal charge, what the heck would any sports NGB be doing trying to get involved in that?

I think this is a point to emphasise at the AGM on Sunday given the remarkable bias of the responses (form the noisy few) towards the cheating and away from the apparent assault.

To be honest, I'd rather see someone ask whether or not this kind of thing doesn't violate section 9 of the ICU code of conduct. I know it's not a chess event, but it's a member of the ICU committee criticising another member of the ICU committee in public and making some rather nasty statements (if not outright accusations) about them in the lead-up to an AGM in an attempt to get that person to quit the chair of the committee,instead of doing things the right way, which would at this point have been to run for the chair himself and to explain his position at the AGM in person (a course of action that Colm has specifically stated he won't do, preferring to "keep an eye on things and where possible have an active and or positive influence on the committee in order to avoid some crazy decisions" or as we would put it in the target shooting world, "do no shagging work and get in everyone's way while acting the maggot" (We use technical jargon like that a lot I'm afraid). How that doesn't reflect badly on Irish Chess (unnecessarily to boot) I don't know...

cdeb

Sparks wrote: »

Well, that's more the Limerick Leader saying he admitted it to be scrupulous about things - and I'd trust a newspaper account slightly less than I'd trust the fish and chips it comes wrapped around the next day

I don't know if that's true. It's a paper quoting Mirza as saying he assaulted someone. Big difference surely?

Sparks wrote: »

If there was a case of assault, then really the best thing for the ICU to do is what every other sport does in cases like that - the disciplinary committee suspends itself and the Gardai do their job without the NGB tripping over them and getting in the way; and if the Gardai uphold the charge, then the NGB responds to the Garda findings to decide on any sports sanction on top of the judgement of the court system. Seriously, assault's a criminal charge, what the heck would any sports NGB be doing trying to get involved in that?

There was a post on the Irish Chess facebook page to the effect that that was roughly what was happening.

Still doesn't excuse the complete bias towards one side of this story - and then we have a motion complaining about the bias, but from the wrong side! Amazing stuff.

reunion

Colm has managed to count to 5 now but seems to only be able to do it once (he hasn't gotten to 5 reasons why Jonathan should still be chairman). There was only 1 reason when the thread started. Maybe he might be able to count to 10 by the AGM.

I can't wait for when Colm is up for election at the AGM and he has to inform everyone of what he actually has done in the last year. I can't think of anything except promote his own personal blog....

7 reasons why Colm shouldn't be on the ICU executive (similar to what Colm is saying about Jonathan)

1. Time for change
2. Colm is soft on cheating (the entire executive approved the disciplinary committee decision (see here))
3. Colm has abused his position on the executive (published the name of the minor (see here))
4. Colm has used his position on the ICU executive to push his personal blog (publishing ICU executive emails/information that isn't public knowledge/etc (not linking his blog))
5. Incompetence and mismanagement (I'm sure that applies to every member of the executive to a varying degree)
6. Colm puts his chess 'career' before the ICU

colm daly wrote:

The last one was an actual physical meeting held the night before the last round of the Irish ch, which for obvious reasons meant that I did not attend. I had actually forgotten all about the meeting and was out having a meal and relaxing the night before the last round, but I would not have attended anyway, as with a big game to play in the last round I would not want any distractions, agitation, or irritation the night before such a big game, with so much at stake.

7. Colm has no desire to be chairman - (the vice chairman should be preparing and learning from the previous chairman to act as chairman; Colm doesn't seem to have this ambition or drive)

I will give 7 reasons why Jonathan is a good chairman

0. The only person for the job - (no one wants to run against him - a sign of respect others have for the job he is doing - not a great reason; but it's one colm lists; hence the 0)
1. He has always said he was only going to do 1 more year before passing it on (at the Irish Championships - no link)
2. He is friendly and good public figure for chess - (When someone thinks of chairman of a national chess federation; they think of this - I don't know anyone who doesn't get on with Jonathan)
3. He has fulfilled his role as chairman (as set out here)
4. He has plenty of experience on the ICU executive - (who else knows how to deal with the crazy, the in fighting, the sane, the liars, etc in Irish chess?)
5. He is calm and rational - (others aren't)
6. He does work - (see any of these articles he has written)
7. He puts the ICU before his chess 'career' - (went to this during the Irish Chess Championships)

Sparks

cdeb wrote: »

I don't know if that's true. It's a paper quoting Mirza as saying he assaulted someone. Big difference surely?

I'm a bit mistrustful of papers and the media in general - I've had half-hour interviews hacked by an editor until they got three words in sequence that said exactly the opposite of what I'd been saying for the full half-hour and then they printed that as the entirety of my statement...

Still doesn't excuse the complete bias towards one side of this story - and then we have a motion complaining about the bias, but from the wrong side! Amazing stuff.

Well, Amazing is definitely a word. I don't think I'd have chosen that one exactly, but it's a lot more polite than the ones I would have chosen

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

I don't know if that's true. It's a paper quoting Mirza as saying he assaulted someone. Big difference surely?

Actually Gabriel circulated an email from the organisors of the tournament which said (also included in the link cdeb gave)

Gerry Graham wrote:

As I witnessed you assaulting another player, a junior player, only 16 years old, I would site that you certainly took an action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute

Additionally Gabriel has confessed to

Gabriel Mirza wrote:

I just grabbed him and then I was stopped by the people behind me.

Limerick Leader wrote:

But Mr Mirza feels that while he over-reacted he did little wrong.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

Colm has managed to count to 5 now but seems to only be able to do it once (he hasn't gotten to 5 reasons why Jonathan should still be chairman). There was only 1 reason when the thread started. Maybe he might be able to count to 10 by the AGM.

Did you miss the bit where he said he'd release one reason every day until Jonathon resigned?

Honestly, I thought he was being played by Gary Oldman on a 747 there for a moment...

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

Actually Gabriel circulated an email from the organisors of the tournament

See, here's my worry - assault, the criminal charge, is not what 99% of people think it is. Most people, for example, don't realise you can be charged with assault without even touching the other person. So if most people don't know what it is; and especially here since english isn't Gabriel's first language and lawyer isn't anyone's first language; and since assault is a criminal charge; and since we're talking in public rather than in a pub: well, people have to be far more circumspect and qualified about what they say and the words they use.

Someone takes a swing at you in a pub on a friday night, you go to the gardai and you make a complaint (assuming the bouncers haven't dragged him outside by the nipples and sat on him until the gardai get there, which is a slight variation on the process); then you go to court and the judge says guilty or not; and only then can you say "He assaulted me" without risking a defamation lawsuit.

If it was just us having a natter over a pint, it's a private conversation and all the above is just overkill on a massive scale; but if you're making statements on the web it counts as publishing and we're in a whole other territory there (and the ICU is in the same boat if for slightly different reasons). So I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that we state as a fact that anyone assaulted anyone else. I'd much rather we say absolutely nothing and leave it to the authorities and only talk about it after the courts are done with it.

cdeb

I know what you mean - and feel free to report my (or reunion's) posts - but for example, wiki defines assault as -

an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact

Breaking down a toilet door and grabbing the person inside to drag him out - none of which words I imagine is outside anyone's vocab - surely comes under that definition.

And don't forget the tournament controller's comments. Again, removes the understanding issue.

And if it's not assault, surely it's battery, with the same bottom line about the bias in focus towards the cheat.

berettaman

What I just can't get my head around is that all this is about chess??:eek:

Gotta start playing again..

reunion

I think lets not merge a different thread with this one.

Lets just concentrate on Why Jonathan should be chair as was the original intention of this thread and not the finer points of the definition of assault

Pete Morriss

reunion wrote: »

2. Colm is soft on cheating (the entire executive approved the disciplinary committee decision (see here))

I don't want to get involved in this spat, as I am standing for the office Colm currently holds (Vice Chair), but I'll just say that I don't understand this point. The link says (in part) "the ICU Executive want to state that we regard this sanction [the one imposed by the Disciplinary Committee] as excessively lenient". I cannot see how that can be interpreted as approving the disciplinary committee decision. I don't think it is breaching confidentiality too much to say that Colm was dissatisfied with this statement (which I drafted) because he thought it was too weak. I think there is no reason to believe that Colm is soft on cheating, and this comment is not fair to Colm.

Zugszwang

Chess in Ireland would simply fall to bits if people like Colm Daly were running it. You can see this from his rant linked to in my original post and the accurate hatchet-job performed by Reunion a few posts up. Jonathan O'Connor has been an excellent chairman, his fumbling of the tough toiletgate nut notwithstanding. There is a risk that the coming AGM will get hijacked by the 'agin-the-government' set, so I hope the regular ICU membership turns up in droves to make its vote count.

Pete Morriss

Now I come to look at it again, this point:

reunion wrote: »

6. Colm puts his chess 'career' before the ICU

is also unfair to Colm. The meeting referred to was held on the evening before the last round of the Irish Championship, which Colm was then leading. I don't think anybody expected Colm to attend the meeting; if Colm had attended and then lost his last game, I am sure he would have been accused of not treating the Championship with sufficient respect.

Sparks

Pete Morriss wrote: »

The link says (in part) "the ICU Executive want to state that we regard this sanction [the one imposed by the Disciplinary Committee] as excessively lenient". I cannot see how that can be interpreted as approving the disciplinary committee decision.

I read that as approving as in "accepted that the process was followed correctly" rather than "liked the outcome".

Sparks

Pete Morriss wrote: »

Now I come to look at it again, this point:

reunion wrote:

6. Colm puts his chess 'career' before the ICU

is also unfair to Colm. The meeting referred to was held on the evening before the last round of the Irish Championship, which Colm was then leading. I don't think anybody expected Colm to attend the meeting; if Colm had attended and then lost his last game, I am sure he would have been accused of not treating the Championship with sufficient respect.

It's not really unfair though, is it? You can either compete at the top level in a sport or you can do a good job administering the sport. I've done both myself (yes, not in chess; but the point does hold as the anecdote above demonstrates) and I've watched others try it for years; and you just can't do both at the same time or you wind up doing both badly.

So if Colm's off competing for a week in the championships, well, actions speak to priorities so it is fair to say he's put the ICU admin work in second place to his competing. That's not a bad thing in itself, it's just the way of the world. Some years you put the shoulder to the wheel and help the sport; other years you go stand on the line and compete, and that's fine (hell, sports are supposed to be built around the assumption that that's what everyone will do and those who are competing get supported by those who aren't).

What you don't do, however, what's just messing everyone about, is to say you'll do one (by running for an office) and then do the other.

reunion

Pete Morriss wrote: »

is unfair to Colm. The meeting referred to was held on the evening before the last round of the Irish Championship, which Colm was then leading. I don't think anybody expected Colm to attend the meeting; if Colm had attended and then lost his last game, I am sure he would have been accused of not treating the Championship with sufficient respect.

Maybe it's a little unfair, but not inaccurate. His priority is playing chess; while Jonathan's is administrating chess; that was made clear on his blog.

I meant that Colm approved the procedure and people for the disciplinary committee.

But yet in his personal blog starts saying procedure wasn't followed, which is contrary to what the executive agreed to. If Colm did think the executive made the wrong choice picking individuals or didn't follow procedure; he should have resigned or threatened to resign if procedure was not being properly followed. Strangely, when procedure was going to be thrown out the window; Jonathan threatens to resign and he is suddenly soft on cheaters?

Any reasoning Colm has for calling Jonathan soft on cheaters can be applied to himself. Childish, I know; but so is compiling a list of "why I think you're smelly"

reunion

Actually, honestly, this whole thing just shows a complete lack of harmony within the ICU executive (the vice chair attacking the chair?).

As a result, it's rather suprising that most of the executive want to reprise their roles...

The AGM should give the executive a mandate for the next year rather than people getting tied down with personal vandettas.

cdeb

reunion wrote: »

Actually, honestly, this whole thing just shows a complete lack of harmony within the ICU executive (the vice chair attacking the chair?).

Maybe a little harsh on the exec? Is this not just a problem with one member (Colm)?

Would the exec function better without him on it?

I think all this is arising from the cheating issue too; I don't see any real suggestions as to what extra the ICU could be doing above and beyond what it is doing. You could say they haven't grown the game they way they could, but I'd say that's more the responsibility of the clubs rather than the ICU exec.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

The AGM should give the executive a mandate for the next year rather than people getting tied down with personal vandettas.

Beyond opposing the election of all the langers (which would require someone to hold two posts, albeit not incompatible ones), is there actually a mechanism for proposing such a mandate?

cdeb

And what would be on the mandate?

What should the ICU exec be doing?

Sparks

cdeb wrote: »

And what would be on the mandate?

What should the ICU exec be doing?

Y'see, I was going to ask if we had enough time to draft such a mandate and then I ran those two questions through in my head and realised we didn't have enough time to get an agreeable-to-everyone answer before the heat death of the universe.

But it'd be a moot point if there's no mechanism to even propose the unicorn perfect mandate at the AGM...

reunion

There is a mechanism to propose a mandate to the executive at the AGM.

I just have this feeling, that another year of the same people, might mean a lot of infighting which would be counter productive.

With the Junior Officer and a potential candidate for membership officer (via facebook) and Colm (on his blog) attacking the chairman (or other committee members); it really doesn't paint a pretty picture. I wouldn't start trying to pin everything on Colm; I'm certain Jonathan has had his share of mistakes (along with others on the executive!) and some points Colm raise are valid. However the valid ones get lost in a wall of text and Colm just happens to be the most vocal.

phnompenhchess

reunion wrote: »

I will give 7 reasons why Jonathan is a good chairman

0. The only person for the job - (no one wants to run against him - a sign of respect others have for the job he is doing - not a great reason; but it's one colm lists; hence the 0)
1. He has always said he was only going to do 1 more year before passing it on (at the Irish Championships - no link)
2. He is friendly and good public figure for chess - (When someone thinks of chairman of a national chess federation; they think of this - I don't know anyone who doesn't get on with Jonathan)
3. He has fulfilled his role as chairman (as set out here)
4. He has plenty of experience on the ICU executive - (who else knows how to deal with the crazy, the in fighting, the sane, the liars, etc in Irish chess?)
5. He is calm and rational - (others aren't)
6. He does work - (see any of these articles he has written)
7. He puts the ICU before his chess 'career' - (went to this during the Irish Chess Championships)

Agreed, election campaigns should be about the positives not the negatives. The potential O'Connor-Morris linkup as Chair and Vice-Chair is exciting for Irish chess. Pete is an exceptionally strong administrator and that is what the ICU needs badly at the moment.

reunion

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Agreed, election campaigns should be about the positives not the negatives. The potential O'Connor-Morris linkup as Chair and Vice-Chair is exciting for Irish chess. Pete is an exceptionally strong administrator and that is what the ICU needs badly at the moment.

Agreed, dragging it into throwing mud isn't pretty and leaves no one happy; regardless of the outcome. The ICU needs to be run correctly and everyone on the executive acting professional for anyone to take the ICU seriously. We have amateur players; lets not have amateur administrators.

It's one thing people don't seem to get; the ICU doesn't play or organise any tournament; but players and organisors do. Pete and Jonathan both have quite a high respect of every chess player for playing, running events and administrating chess. Colm has the respect as a chess player only. This is where the O'Connor-Morris chair/vice-chair makes sense.

cdeb

Just got a text from Bray chess club -

ICU AGM on Sun 29/09/13 @ 3pm in Alexander Hotel, Merrion Square, D2. Please come and support Colm Daly FM and Brian Gaines in their bit to be elected to the committee of ICU and secure the future of the ICU, for all of us

I replied back suggesting that, this once, Bray consider the bigger picture here. But it seems Irish chess may be going to same way as politics in general - vote for who you know, because you know them, and not because they're any good for the job.

reunion

Bad reflection on whoever sent it out; an abuse of a text list they had access to; unless of course, the entire bray club agreed that they would support colm and brian (who isn't standing for a position) at a recent Bray general meeting (which I highly doubt).

Bad future for Irish chess if frightening people is how people get votes.

Celtic What?

If the motion of no confidence in the chair and the secretary were to be carried (I hope its not BTW)...as there are no competing candidates, what would happen?
Surely the vice chair wouldn't be imposed as chair?

Sparks

A motion of no confidence doesn't evict someone from the office they hold in the ICU (or in any other NGB I know of).

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

A motion of no confidence doesn't evict someone from the office they hold in the ICU (or in any other NGB I know of).

Actually it's not a motion to remove them but rather a motion that the meeting expresses they have no confidence in them. It would only affect their 2012/13 term (which ends after the meeting).

Celtic What?

I see, so its purely a protest statement and doesn't force resignation or anything.

Thanks for that

checknraise

Is anybody able clarify for me this statement on the ICU website

Only fully paid members will be allowed to attend the AGM this Sunday; while those registered before the 1st of September will be eligible to vote (article 7.6 of the constitution).

I have been a paid up member of the ICU for 15+ years however my membership is paid through my club fees each year. I am a member for 2012-13 however not yet for 2013-14. Does this mean that I will not be able to attend the AGM? If so who in the ICU decided this was the case as this is the first time I have seen such a decision taken.

cdeb

AFAIK, if you are paid up for last year or this year (where the "year" is 1 September to 31 August), then you can attend and vote.

The bit about 1 September relates to new members registering for the first time in 2013/14 (or returning after a year or years away) also being allowed to vote - provided they've paid up before 1st September.

AFAIK.

checknraise

So basically anyone who was a member for 2012-13 is able to attend the AGM and vote? If so what is the point in the statement?

I suspect it is stop someone getting a group of people signing up to the ICU on the day? At the same time I dont agree with the ICU's stance, I would have voted for the majority of the existing ICU committee and nobody should be so afraid that they will be replaced as at the end of the day they are volunteers voted in by the members nobody has a right to be on the committee.

reunion

checknraise wrote: »

So basically anyone who was a member for 2012-13 is able to attend the AGM and vote? If so what is the point in the statement?

I suspect it is stop someone getting a group of people signing up to the ICU on the day? At the same time I dont agree with the ICU's stance, I would have voted for the majority of the existing ICU committee and nobody should be so afraid that they will be replaced as at the end of the day they are volunteers voted in by the members nobody has a right to be on the committee.

Actually Sparks is incorrect here; Only people signed up before the 1st of September can vote (renew or new). Members for the 2012/13 season can vote and attend; but members who signed up for the 2013/14 season after the 1st of September aren't allowed to vote.

I don't know why it was brought in; but everyone agrees to the constitution and bye-laws when they sign up so can't really complain when it's enforced. I imagine it was brought in to combat a rush of randomers to signup to get motions passed. I do remember a previous AGM where a potential junior officer brought 30 juniors to the event; signed them all up and they all voted. The next season a rule was passed that people have to be over 16 to vote.