Motions/ nominations for ICU agm

Tim Harding

The list of nominations for office and motions for the agm is now available at http://www.icu.ie/articles/621

John Alfred is standing against john McMorrow for chairperson but there will be no other contested elections. Some of the McMorrow team are changing from last year so that it's a broader-based committee.

Most of the motions look fairly technical and unobjectionable to me at first glance, but maybe debate here will iron out some of the details.

Anyway my guess is that it will be a less controversial and shorter meeting than last time - just as well if we are all exhausted from playing the Blitz championship first,

Tychoo

I’d imagine that John Alfred will have a lot of hard questions to answer regarding his activities in over the last number of years. I can’t see him moving chess forward.

Tim Harding

Tychoo wrote: »

I’d imagine that John Alfred will have a lot of hard questions to answer regarding his activities in over the last number of years. I can’t see him moving chess forward.

I don't know the guy but I've been reading about him here.
Maybe it will be a good chance to hear what he has to say as presumably the two candidates will make pitches to the meeting and then answer questions.
So Alfred's critics should have the opportunity to interrogate him as you say.

Tychoo

Perhaps the use of the word “Interrogate” is a bid too strong a word to use in this context. I’d favour a bit of the old Brian Farrell method of interview from “7 days”

Tim Harding

Tychoo wrote: »

Perhaps the use of the word “Interrogate” is a bid too strong a word to use in this context. I’d favour a bit of the old Brian Farrell method of interview from “7 days”

Instead of the Vincent Browne style, yes!

Tychoo

Vincent never allowed anyone time to answer he just pontificated

reunion

Tim Harding wrote: »

I don't know the guy but I've been reading about him here.
Maybe it will be a good chance to hear what he has to say as presumably the two candidates will make pitches to the meeting and then answer questions.
So Alfred's critics should have the opportunity to interrogate him as you say.

I think maybe he wants to shut down another national chess organisation.

Honestly, his application reeks of personal motivation, hate and conflict of interest. My worry would be he would attempt to remove Munster Chess Union recognition for his own personal munster chess (ICO-style flop setup).

tman66

Where is the treasurer's report? Shouldn't that have been made available on the website a minimum 4 weeks before the AGM?

Tychoo

tman66 wrote: »

Where is the treasurer's report? Shouldn't that have been made available on the website a minimum 4 weeks before the AGM?

I can't remember if the year before was put up also.

rob51

Tychoo wrote: »

I can't remember if the year before was put up also.

It was published in advance last year. I recall some issues being raised about it here. Mainly to do with how transactions were recorded. That was a month later of course.

rob51

I see John McMorrow has been proposed by Paul Cassidy which is to be welcomed after last year's.acrimony.

zeitnot

tman66 wrote: »

Where is the treasurer's report? Shouldn't that have been made available on the website a minimum 4 weeks before the AGM?

Why? I don't see any such requirement in the constitution. "Not less than four clear weeks notice shall be given" of the date and venue, the agenda, any motions and any valid nominations (section 7.2). The only mention of reports is in section 7.9 where it says "the annual general meeting shall be held to receive the reports of the Hon. Secretary" etc.

tman66

zeitnot wrote: »

Why? I don't see any such requirement in the constitution. "Not less than four clear weeks notice shall be given" of the date and venue, the agenda, any motions and any valid nominations (section 7.2). The only mention of reports is in section 7.9 where it says "the annual general meeting shall be held to receive the reports of the Hon. Secretary" etc.

Not hard to find, as it has its own section in the constitution, article 12 Accounts.
"Copies of the accounts should be made available to members on the ICU web-site at least 4 weeks in advance of the AGM".

reunion

tman66 wrote: »

Not hard to find, as it has its own section in the constitution, article 12 Accounts.
"Copies of the accounts should be made available to members on the ICU web-site at least 4 weeks in advance of the AGM".

By right I think the minutes of the previous AGM and the EGM should be available too (unless I've missed them!).

zeitnot

tman66 wrote: »

zeitnot wrote: »

Why? I don't see any such requirement in the constitution. "Not less than four clear weeks notice shall be given" of the date and venue, the agenda, any motions and any valid nominations (section 7.2). The only mention of reports is in section 7.9 where it says "the annual general meeting shall be held to receive the reports of the Hon. Secretary" etc.

Not hard to find, as it has its own section in the constitution, article 12 Accounts.
"Copies of the accounts should be made available to members on the ICU web-site at least 4 weeks in advance of the AGM".

Thanks. Though strictly speaking that's still optional: the accounts "shall" be prepared, etc., (requirements) but "should" be made available to members four weeks in advance (recommendation).

reunion

zeitnot wrote: »

Thanks. Though strictly speaking that's still optional: the accounts "shall" be prepared, etc., (requirements) but "should" be made available to members four weeks in advance (recommendation).

I went looking for the motions to last year's AGM and the minutes as there was a motion regarding accounts (I remember seeing both before!) however they seem to have disappeared

I found this on boards though:

Tim Harding wrote: »

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

Link no longer works on the ICU.ie site, however, on the ICU/Colm Daly's other site, the draft minutes are there.


The accounts no longer have to be audited but should be available 4 weeks before the AGM (which would have been last weekend).

reunion

zeitnot wrote: »

Thanks. Though strictly speaking that's still optional: the accounts "shall" be prepared, etc., (requirements) but "should" be made available to members four weeks in advance (recommendation).

Are you saying Article 16 is entirely redundant because it says should? (also the word "time" should change to "the")

Considering at previous AGMs (not to mention a motion last year) the understanding was that the accounts were required to be produced at least 4 weeks before the AGM. As the executive were elected at last year's AGM, it would be stretch to say they were unaware of the intent and understanding of this paragraph.

zeitnot

reunion wrote: »

zeitnot wrote: »

Thanks. Though strictly speaking that's still optional: the accounts "shall" be prepared, etc., (requirements) but "should" be made available to members four weeks in advance (recommendation).

Are you saying Article 16 is entirely redundant because it says should? (also the word "time" should change to "the")

Considering at previous AGMs (not to mention a motion last year) the understanding was that the accounts were required to be produced at least 4 weeks before the AGM. As the executive were elected at last year's AGM, it would be stretch to say they were unaware of the intent and understanding of this paragraph.

The point of a written constitution (I thought) is that people can read what's actually written, rather than have to argue "oh, I thought you meant X" or "my recollection is that people meant Y".

sodacat11

I sent in a motion proposing that the Irish Championship only accept entries of players rated over 1900 ICU or 2000 FIDE but I don't see any mention of it anywhere.
I think another worthwhile proposal would be a life ban for anyone declared to be "persona non grata" by the ICU executive. I think we could trust the executive not to use this measure except in the case of extreme or persistent bad behaviour.

cdeb

Maybe this executive. But imagine the last executive with such powers?

I don't think that's a good proposal.

reunion

zeitnot wrote: »

The point of a written constitution (I thought) is that people can read what's actually written, rather than have to argue "oh, I thought you meant X" or "my recollection is that people meant Y".

Note: I didn't do law

My understanding was that if you were a new member and you read the rules, you couldn't be punished for mis-interpreting them. However, if you are aware of what a specific clause means (i.e. were there for it's creation or for it's amendment), you would know the point is to have unaudited accounts be made available 4 weeks before the AGM with any substantial change from that point and when they are audited requiring an EGM.

It's why you see some motions (particularly this year) which clear up some old items (changing pounds to euros).

sodacat11 wrote: »

I sent in a motion proposing that the Irish Championship only accept entries of players rated over 1900 ICU or 2000 FIDE but I don't see any mention of it anywhere.
I think another worthwhile proposal would be a life ban for anyone declared to be "persona non grata" by the ICU executive. I think we could trust the executive not to use this measure except in the case of extreme or persistent bad behaviour.

Life ban - no. That's just extreme and benefits nobody.

Refusal to accept someone's membership application - yes. At present everyone and anyone can join the ICU so long as they agree to the bye-laws. Which is bizarre because if someone is causing grief (say threatening to murder anyone standing on a disciplinary committee against them - you'd have a hard time finding people risking their life (extreme I know but it's an example)), they would be permitted to re-enter the ICU non-stop without being punished.

reunion

On another note, I would be against motions 3, 5 and 6. Not because I disagree with the proposals but I disagree that bye-laws are changed at AGMs.

These are bye-laws which can be changed by the executive without the need for an AGM. If this change is made at an AGM, it can't be undone unless at an AGM. If the executive feel the bye-laws shouldn't be changed unless at AGMs, then it should form part of the constitution.

It would make sense if they were looking for feedback or opinions for the membership on an unbinding (but they'll implement anyway) vote. They should be placed under AOB.

zeitnot

reunion wrote: »

... if you are aware of what a specific clause means (i.e. were there for it's creation or for it's amendment),

"I.e." indeed! Sorry, this is just unworkable. One of the points of having motions available four weeks in advance is so that people can decide whether to show up or not. At that point people only have the wording available, not any extra discussion or debate at the AGM itself. If discussion and debate at the AGM itself shows that something different was intended, then the proper course is either to amend the motion (if it's a small change) or withdraw it and submit a revised version to some future AGM or EGM. Otherwise why bother having written motions at all?

reunion

zeitnot wrote: »

"I.e." indeed! Sorry, this is just unworkable. One of the points of having motions available four weeks in advance is so that people can decide whether to show up or not. At that point people only have the wording available, not any extra discussion or debate at the AGM itself. If discussion and debate at the AGM itself shows that something different was intended, then the proper course is either to amend the motion (if it's a small change) or withdraw it and submit a revised version to some future AGM or EGM. Otherwise why bother having written motions at all?

No motion has one side and that's it. People can speak for or against a motion (so yes discussion and debate) and propose to change it but not it's original intention or substantially.

The executive with a handover document and a well established procedure of producing accounts 4 weeks prior to an AGM is entirely different to a general member and a typical motion.

zeitnot

reunion wrote: »

No motion has one side and that's it. People can speak for or against a motion (so yes discussion and debate) and propose to change it but not it's original intention or substantially.

??? Fine as far as it goes but it clarifies nothing. The question is what happens when there is discussion and debate, and a vote, and the motion is approved, but later it turns out that the motion people actually voted on and approved isn't the one the proposer meant. In that case what the motion "actually means" is (of course) what it actually says.

reunion

zeitnot wrote: »

??? Fine as far as it goes but it clarifies nothing. The question is what happens when there is discussion and debate, and a vote, and the motion is approved, but later it turns out that the motion people actually voted on and approved isn't the one the proposer meant. In that case what the motion "actually means" is (of course) what it actually says.

So the executive have to produce accounts 4 weeks in advance of the AGM (see my last post which is what this discussion was originally about).

A typical member reading a poorly worded motion could not be punished for breaching that motion.

Like I said, an executive with handover documents and established procedures are entirely different to a general member. So in this case that we were discussing (accounts for the AGM) this must be produced 4 weeks before the AGM. Granted the Olympiad is on and it makes sense to wait until this is finished so an EGM doesn't have to be called (as the budget should change from the start of the Olympiad to the end of it). A note on the website saying why the accounts and minutes aren't available would be nice.

zeitnot

reunion wrote: »

So the executive have to produce accounts 4 weeks in advance of the AGM (see my last post which is what this discussion was originally about).

A typical member reading a poorly worded motion could not be punished for breaching that motion.

Like I said, an executive with handover documents and established procedures are entirely different to a general member. So in this case that we were discussing (accounts for the AGM) this must be produced 4 weeks before the AGM.

(emphasis added).

*tchoh* No, the executive don't "have to" produce accounts 4 weeks in advance. There's nothing in the constitution that says they have to. This is indeed what the original discussion was about. They *should* produce the accounts, but that's a recommendation, not a command, and as such gives them more flexibility.

Whatever the differences between executive committees with handover documents and general members, they are subject to the same written constitution.

Joedryan

sodacat11 wrote: »

I sent in a motion proposing that the Irish Championship only accept entries of players rated over 1900 ICU or 2000 FIDE but I don't see any mention of it anywhere.
I think another worthwhile proposal would be a life ban for anyone declared to be "persona non grata" by the ICU executive. I think we could trust the executive not to use this measure except in the case of extreme or persistent bad behaviour.

banning players from playing chess is one of the more absurd and non-productive actions which have been taken in the past.

Hopefully it will not happen going forward.

sodacat11

Joedryan wrote: »

banning players from playing chess is one of the more absurd and non-productive actions which have been taken in the past.

Hopefully it will not happen going forward.

The only problem with that ban is that it wasn't for long enough!!

Joedryan

sodacat11 wrote: »

The only problem with that ban is that it wasn't for long enough!!

which ban? I am not talking about any particular case. No doubt there could be extreme cases where it is warranted, and certainly for cheating. But in general it should be avoided.

anchor4208

Joedryan wrote: »

banning players from playing chess is one of the more absurd and non-productive actions which have been taken in the past.

Hopefully it will not happen going forward.

Its important for organisations to have clear, fair and reasonable disciplinary processes. However, within that context, its not absurd or non-productive to ban people. On the contrary, it is completely sensible to do so, as the ICU has no other mechanism to discourage bad behaviour.
It would be nice to think that the ICU would never actually end up banning anyone. However, the members have a duty too in this regard. Unfortunately, at some point in the future, we will see members misbehaving. When that happens, as long as the ICU is following its disciplinary processes, a ban may well be a reasonable outcome.

reunion

anchor4208 wrote: »

Its important for organisations to have clear, fair and reasonable disciplinary processes. However, within that context, its not absurd or non-productive to ban people. On the contrary, it is completely sensible to do so, as the ICU has no other mechanism to discourage bad behaviour.
It would be nice to think that the ICU would never actually end up banning anyone. However, the members have a duty too in this regard. Unfortunately, at some point in the future, we will see members misbehaving. When that happens, as long as the ICU is following its disciplinary processes, a ban may well be a reasonable outcome.

I think a distinction should be made between banning someone and refusing membership/entry to someone. One must be applied after disciplinary committees (and guilt) whereas the other (refusing membership) could just be in the best interests of Irish Chess. You can refuse membership and give a course of action as to how to obtain it again (for instance sending the secretary an email confirming you agree to the code of conduct).

Joedryan wrote: »

banning players from playing chess is one of the more absurd and non-productive actions which have been taken in the past.

Hopefully it will not happen going forward.

Banning players is a productive course of actions for repeat offenders. It should NEVER be used unless other options are explored (or in extreme cases).

zeitnot wrote: »

(emphasis added).

*tchoh* No, the executive don't "have to" produce accounts 4 weeks in advance. There's nothing in the constitution that says they have to. This is indeed what the original discussion was about. They *should* produce the accounts, but that's a recommendation, not a command, and as such gives them more flexibility.

Whatever the differences between executive committees with handover documents and general members, they are subject to the same written constitution.

You are technically right that they don't have to produce accounts. However, the motions intention was to produce accounts at least 4 weeks prior to the AGM and to hold an EGM if they change substantially from that point to the AGM. The minutes aren't approved (or draft version on the ICU site (last time I checked)) so they could be amended to reflect this wording. So they could have an EGM (instead of producing it at the AGM) but it's rather pointless since A. they should have accounts already and B. EGMs are costly which wastes ICU money (and time).

Joedryan

anchor4208 wrote: »

Its important for organisations to have clear, fair and reasonable disciplinary processes. However, within that context, its not absurd or non-productive to ban people. On the contrary, it is completely sensible to do so, as the ICU has no other mechanism to discourage bad behaviour.
It would be nice to think that the ICU would never actually end up banning anyone. However, the members have a duty too in this regard. Unfortunately, at some point in the future, we will see members misbehaving. When that happens, as long as the ICU is following its disciplinary processes, a ban may well be a reasonable outcome.

It would be sensible in extreme cases and for cheating, otherwise it is not a very reasonable outcome at all. To sum up - its a last resort. Chess differs from other sports is that it is also an artistic and creative game so banning people from playing must always be the last possible thing on the list.

sodacat11

Joedryan wrote: »

It would be sensible in extreme cases and for cheating, otherwise it is not a very reasonable outcome at all. To sum up - its a last resort. Chess differs from other sports is that it is also an artistic and creative game so banning people from playing must always be the last possible thing on the list.

Using that logic then a musician, a painter , a sculptor or even a hairdresser could expect a lesser sentence in the case of a serious crime like murder or rape. "It was my artistic and creative inclinations that made me do it M'Lord"
If someone persistently behaves in a manner deemed to be seriously socially unacceptable by most reasonable people then a ban is perfectly appropriate whether or not that person has played a few nice games of chess or has painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Joedryan

sodacat11 wrote: »

Using that logic then a musician, a painter , a sculptor or even a hairdresser could expect a lesser sentence in the case of a serious crime like murder or rape. "It was my artistic and creative inclinations that made me do it M'Lord"
If someone persistently behaves in a manner deemed to be seriously socially unacceptable by most reasonable people then a ban is perfectly appropriate whether or not that person has played a few nice games of chess or has painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

thats an absurd comparison, criminal behaviour is a separate matter.

Tim Harding

I think this debate should end.

"Joedryan" (whom if I am right has been living abroad for many years) is writing about abstract principles but other people replying to him have a specific repeat offender in mind.
That individual may not be criminal but he has been lucky not to receive some kind of sanction for certain actions in the past 12-15 months of which Joedryan may not be aware.

It would be better if moderators close this thread and we start a new one about the upcoming agm?

sodacat11

Tim Harding wrote: »

I think this debate should end.

"Joedryan" (whom if I am right has been living abroad for many years) is writing about abstract principles but other people replying to him have a specific repeat offender in mind.
That individual may not be criminal but he has been lucky not to receive some kind of sanction for certain actions in the past 12-15 months of which Joedryan may not be aware.

It would be better if moderators close this thread and we start a new one about the upcoming agm?

Good points!!

Joedryan

Oops, I confirm I am not aware of any individual case ongoing. I'll stand by my general points though.

Tychoo

Yes it has wandered from the topic

Pete Morriss

Has anybody seen any supporting documentation for the AGM: minutes of the last AGM or the EGMs, accounts for the last year, or reports from any of the officers? I can't find any of these on the ICU website.

checknraise

Reports are available on the ICU website, appears to be every report bar the treasurers. Which I imagine will be made in the near future.

Best presented reports from what I can remember.

Some ambitious plans for the next few years ahead which hopefully will come to fruition.

Pete Morriss

checknraise wrote: »

Reports are available on the ICU website, appears to be every report bar the treasurers. Which I imagine will be made in the near future.

Best presented reports from what I can remember.

Some ambitious plans for the next few years ahead which hopefully will come to fruition.

Thanks; they weren't there when I posted a few hours ago. But still no minutes or accounts.

reunion

Pete Morriss wrote: »

Thanks; they weren't there when I posted a few hours ago. But still no minutes or accounts.

The treasurer's report says they will be published shortly.

Minutes-wise they have disappeared. They were online (months ago) but have since been removed.

I provided a link earlier in the thread to what was originally published.

Tychoo

Very impressive Chairman’s report published on the I.C.U website. Full marks to John McMorrow and his team.

pawntof4

Fair play.. it's great to see a professional looking report that reflects well on all the hard word the guys have put in over the year.

ComDubh

Absolutely. Best ICU annual report I ever recall seeing. It's not just the report -- I think it's been a great year for the ICU and I'm happy to see that the committee are (all?) running for election again.

Tychoo

The standard has been raised to a new level even begrudging praise:mad: for it on other forums.

tman66

The format of having the reports in one document is better (if not a little long) although I'm not sure if all the pictures and graphs were necessary.

I have not looked at the goals they had published before the last AGM, but I do remember a proposal by the former chairman to hold norm tournaments. This was dismissed as not being cost effective by this exec (I think they had a website at the time). I am glad to see they have changed their mind on this.

What I find odd is the 6000 in sponsorship for a tournament with only 8 players, when the Irish Championship had no sponsor at all and prizes had to be reduced.

I was also a little surprised that the secretary, Treasurer and Tournament director had at some stage over the term to leave their duties to others on the committee (this mostly fell on the chairman). Perhaps the reason they are not standing again, and the reason we don't have the published accounts.

The Blitz/Rapid rating will be a lot of fun.

must have a jest

The previous chairman's plan was to run a series of major open events at which norms might be obtained. That is not the same as what is usually meant by a norm tournament, which is an all-play-all designed specifically to create a norm opportunity at minimal expense. They are two very different things, so I think there is a genuine difference in approach. Who is right and which is more achievable are separate questions.

Tim Harding

tman66 wrote: »

What I find odd is the 6000 in sponsorship for a tournament with only 8 players, when the Irish Championship had no sponsor at all and prizes had to be reduced.

This sponsorship was not sought by the ICU executive in preference for getting support for a different event. It happened because the American sponsor (who had done a similar thing for the Welsh Chess Union) hoped to play in it himself, having some Irish ancestry, but he was prevented by a recurrence of illness.

Tychoo

Any feedback from the AGM?