Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AGM Candidates
Mike Scott Wrote:Andy B.,
I guess my fear is that if the AGM (or directors) can refer matters back to SC then it could be used to put pressure on the SC to come to a particular decision or to, in some way, harass people by having instances re-investigated.

If there were a mechanism in place to carefully define what can be referred to the SC and on what grounds then it might be an option to consider.

I agree Mike - I do have a sinking feeling though that even if such a process were in place and incidents were fully investigated/adjudicated on/appealed and then re-raised, it might not be the end of the matter where some people are concerned Sad

Regarding the original incident/SC appeal/ I said in my last post the bad feeling/unhappiness with decisions & process/etc. isn't just going to disappear.

What are CS going to do about it?

Nothing isn't an option - silence before (or possibly during) the AGM isn't going to help appease or resolve matters. Even a statement on here from CS president/director(s) indicating that the matter is under discussion would be a start.

Quote:If you do not like the process of how Chess Scotland manage incidents and feel so strongly about it then you should spend this time instead looking at ways to improve the process. - David Grant
This in part echoes my own post of a few days ago. I was rather hoping that the motion raiser and others involved would find a more positive way of addressing their dissatisfaction - but they have chosen not to and we have to now work from this position towards a resolution. Sad

Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)