07-03-2012, 11:27 AM
Trevor a few points to clarify (I'll refer to each of your points using the numbers you used):
1. To not discuss and seek consensus when originally implementing this code goes against what you say now. My understanding is that there was no consensus sought and it was dictated to leagues and associations. If it is abundantly clear that it does not interfere with the affairs of Associations or Leagues can you quote that part of the code?
2. It does not nullify the code at all it just removes the inconsistency of having two bodies doing the same thing.
4. The first the sponsors of this motion heard from yourself was a night before the last AGM when you submitted several pages of objections to the proposal. Baring in mind prior to that the issue had been rumbling on for two years without any response from yourself.
Your objections were submitted too late to be discussed at the AGM but the ACA didn’t try to oppose them actually being discussed at the AGM. As far as I am aware you have made no such offer to meet anyone from the ACA and if you have it has not reached me in my role as Treasurer and as a member of the Management Committee. So I think you might want to rephrase what you have put as it is untrue. In fact, perhaps I should refer a complaint to the Standards Committee? :\
Phil, I have read every word of the document as have many others. It also doesn't make Trevor's opinion any more important than any other member of Chess Scotland. In fact, it is often true that the person who writes such a document is too bogged down in the detail and cannot see the wood for the trees as they say.
Also, self justification of the standard code by saying nothing has been referred to it is hardly a reasoned justification for its performance or for the code being a well written document.
1. To not discuss and seek consensus when originally implementing this code goes against what you say now. My understanding is that there was no consensus sought and it was dictated to leagues and associations. If it is abundantly clear that it does not interfere with the affairs of Associations or Leagues can you quote that part of the code?
2. It does not nullify the code at all it just removes the inconsistency of having two bodies doing the same thing.
4. The first the sponsors of this motion heard from yourself was a night before the last AGM when you submitted several pages of objections to the proposal. Baring in mind prior to that the issue had been rumbling on for two years without any response from yourself.
Your objections were submitted too late to be discussed at the AGM but the ACA didn’t try to oppose them actually being discussed at the AGM. As far as I am aware you have made no such offer to meet anyone from the ACA and if you have it has not reached me in my role as Treasurer and as a member of the Management Committee. So I think you might want to rephrase what you have put as it is untrue. In fact, perhaps I should refer a complaint to the Standards Committee? :\
Phil, I have read every word of the document as have many others. It also doesn't make Trevor's opinion any more important than any other member of Chess Scotland. In fact, it is often true that the person who writes such a document is too bogged down in the detail and cannot see the wood for the trees as they say.
Also, self justification of the standard code by saying nothing has been referred to it is hardly a reasoned justification for its performance or for the code being a well written document.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!