Full Version: AGM Candidates
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
The Standards Committee effectively backed by the Chess Scotland Board obviously feel that the Chess Scotland official involved in the Slovenia incident was guilty of a relatively minor trangression. The penalty imposed, removal from the list of accredited coaches for six months reflects this. This obviously isn't a huge penalty, but nor should we run away with the idea that it is completely meaningless. It casts a certain shadow over the individual which will last for a number of years.
Well some people clearly feel this isn't enough and the 'motions' are effectively an attempt to increase this penalty. The official involved may have deserved a greater penalty (or indeed a lesser one) I simply don't know. However, I am at a bit of a loss as to how Council will know either. I cannot see how there will be a reasoned debate if it is carried out on vague speculation, oblivious to the facts.
How do we get out of this impasse?
I think the Standards Committee should publish their findings, referring to he Chess Official, not by name, but by their official title (head of delegation, or whatever) and the child as Child X. I think this would reassure people that a due process had been carried out and I hope this would lead people to accept their conclusions. As hard as it might be, it would be good if someone (Andy Muir possibly) was brought into the 'publication process' to establish a quid pro quo, so greater transparency on one side was met by greater acceptance of the decisions on the other side.
It's Groundhog Day on this forum! I agree with David Grant's and Alan Tate's comments and personally think Robert Montgomery's posts on this topic are a lot of drivel ;P
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20