17-08-2013, 10:52 AM
Ian,
I start out like this. The Standards Committee was designed/instigated to resolve disputes/problems/potential problems. I think we need to ask a very simple question, has it reduced problems or created them? If (as I believe) it is the latter then do we need more 'formal' mechanisms of conflict resolution or less?
We have heard on other threads high principles about the separation of the executive and the judiciary. I think you have to be realistic about the remit and scope of ChessScotland - really it has to be about 'promoting chess' these abstract concepts simply weaken CS's core offering.
In my opinion we need to let the new young directors get on with promoting chess and if we introduce more bureaucracy which either stifles them or dispirits them to the extent that they walk away, that could have a more negative impact on Chess in Scotland in the long term than anything we have seen so far.
I start out like this. The Standards Committee was designed/instigated to resolve disputes/problems/potential problems. I think we need to ask a very simple question, has it reduced problems or created them? If (as I believe) it is the latter then do we need more 'formal' mechanisms of conflict resolution or less?
We have heard on other threads high principles about the separation of the executive and the judiciary. I think you have to be realistic about the remit and scope of ChessScotland - really it has to be about 'promoting chess' these abstract concepts simply weaken CS's core offering.
In my opinion we need to let the new young directors get on with promoting chess and if we introduce more bureaucracy which either stifles them or dispirits them to the extent that they walk away, that could have a more negative impact on Chess in Scotland in the long term than anything we have seen so far.