07-03-2012, 11:43 AM
Some comments. Though I am a member of the Standards Committee (SC) these are my own comments.
SC membership: I am the only member of the SC who is also a Director of Chess Scotland (CS). However, I am not a member of the Board. No Board member is on the SC.
Need for a Standards Committee: I think you will find that current best practice requires such a body. In particular, groups in receipt of public funds would be expected by government auditors to have such an arrangement. See also the first post of this thread.
History: The SC was set up by an overwhelming majority at the AGM of 2009 – in what way is that ‘dictating’? The proposals had previously been discussed at length at Council. It is true that since then ACA have proposed amendments, but it is hardly true to say that CS (the Board?, the AGM?) has been ‘stalling’. Had the ACA motion been passed at the last AGM then ACA would have been responsible for setting up its own PVG arrangements – no simple task. See also Trevor’s comments.
Quality of Standards Document: I don’t think anyone is claiming that the document is perfect. Such things can always be improved. However, sweeping assertions about ‘badly written and not fit for purpose’ are not very helpful in themselves. The constructive procedure is to put forward improved wording to the SC. Changing the meaning of the document, which is what the proposal to change Section 1 does, is a different matter entirely. The use of ‘normally’ is, I think, intended to avoid injustice by barring complaints on a technicality.
Section 1 paragraph 2: This is the key part of the ACA proposal. Two comments –
(a) The wording removes the interest of the SC from any body which has its own procedure, whether or not it wishes this. As far as I’m aware, most such bodies don’t want this.
(b) Who is to determine whether the alternative standards code is valid?
CS interest: CS necessarily has an interest in local events where grading, arbiters, etc , are involved. Section 6 of the code makes it very clear that all local procedures would have to be exhausted before the SC could consider the matter. I doubt if the SC would then consider any matter which did not have implications for the national body.
SC meetings: It is true that the SC has not held a formal meeting. There has, however, been a good deal of discussion by email at different times. The rules should perhaps be amended to allow electronic meetings where there is no need for a physical meeting. Not many people wish to attend a meeting with zero agenda. As Phil says, it is a good thing that meetings have not been required.
SC membership: I am the only member of the SC who is also a Director of Chess Scotland (CS). However, I am not a member of the Board. No Board member is on the SC.
Need for a Standards Committee: I think you will find that current best practice requires such a body. In particular, groups in receipt of public funds would be expected by government auditors to have such an arrangement. See also the first post of this thread.
History: The SC was set up by an overwhelming majority at the AGM of 2009 – in what way is that ‘dictating’? The proposals had previously been discussed at length at Council. It is true that since then ACA have proposed amendments, but it is hardly true to say that CS (the Board?, the AGM?) has been ‘stalling’. Had the ACA motion been passed at the last AGM then ACA would have been responsible for setting up its own PVG arrangements – no simple task. See also Trevor’s comments.
Quality of Standards Document: I don’t think anyone is claiming that the document is perfect. Such things can always be improved. However, sweeping assertions about ‘badly written and not fit for purpose’ are not very helpful in themselves. The constructive procedure is to put forward improved wording to the SC. Changing the meaning of the document, which is what the proposal to change Section 1 does, is a different matter entirely. The use of ‘normally’ is, I think, intended to avoid injustice by barring complaints on a technicality.
Section 1 paragraph 2: This is the key part of the ACA proposal. Two comments –
(a) The wording removes the interest of the SC from any body which has its own procedure, whether or not it wishes this. As far as I’m aware, most such bodies don’t want this.
(b) Who is to determine whether the alternative standards code is valid?
CS interest: CS necessarily has an interest in local events where grading, arbiters, etc , are involved. Section 6 of the code makes it very clear that all local procedures would have to be exhausted before the SC could consider the matter. I doubt if the SC would then consider any matter which did not have implications for the national body.
SC meetings: It is true that the SC has not held a formal meeting. There has, however, been a good deal of discussion by email at different times. The rules should perhaps be amended to allow electronic meetings where there is no need for a physical meeting. Not many people wish to attend a meeting with zero agenda. As Phil says, it is a good thing that meetings have not been required.