Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 130
  1. #61
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian_Jones
    ...................

    My comment about the relevance of ACF concerns was in reference to the OCC statutes now clearly stating the automatic membership procedures, that OCC Executive members are appointed by me (they are not elected!), are legally absolved by me (as the Official of FIDE) and that appeals against OCC decisions can be referred to FIDE.
    _________________________________
    You sound exactly like the Pope
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  2. #62
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian_Jones
    Receipt of the email and attachment was noted at the OCC Meeting but was not able to be considered properly because it was submitted very late and with no official ACF standing.
    Firstly you said that the OCC does not accept our position and now you say that the OCC was not able to properly consider our position. These statements are verging on contradictory.

    Either your first statement was false and the OCC has not decided it does not accept our view at all, or else your first statement was true, meaning that your failure to accept our view was based on a level of consideration that by your own admission is not proper.

    Furthermore, you give two reasons for the submission not being considered properly, namely the time of submission and the lack of formal standing.

    If the lack of formal standing is a conclusive objection to proper consideration of the document then the time of submission is irrelevant since you aren't going to consider it anyway.

    If the lack of formal standing was not a conclusive objection then there was nothing to stop you initiating a process to consider it further following the meeting. Indeed you will note that my email said in part "I hope this draft will assist the OCC in considering how to proceed on the issue of its Statutes over time, especially assuming the OCC wishes the ACF to eventually join and become actively involved." [bolding for emphasis, not in original email.]

    Especially given that a formal ACF position didn't eventuate at the time I was proposing, I wasn't expecting that our suggestions would be ratified immediately. But to formally press on with this silly charade about declaring us members when we are not is hardly a promising response.

    The email you published of mine was published without my consent and I have therefore removed it pursuant to CC rules which prevent the publication of emails not clearly in the public domain without permission. If you disagree with this action you may appeal it to another moderator. Failing that, I am happy for you to publish the email here after asking for and receiving my permission and without undocumented alterations, however minor!

    By the way, the email in question was in fact sent to seven OCC contacts including you at 1:44 am on 18 Jan, three days prior to the meeting.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 07-03-2012 at 08:44 PM.

  3. #63
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,722

    question

    A question for clarification purposes.
    I understand that ACF has to abide by Australian law in terms of its constitutional (and/or other) function.
    What is the situation in regards to similar functioning of an international body such as OCC?
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  4. #64
    CC FIDE Master Keong Ang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by JaK
    A question for clarification purposes.
    I understand that ACF has to abide by Australian law in terms of its constitutional (and/or other) function.
    What is the situation in regards to similar functioning of an international body such as OCC?
    From a non-lawyer's perspective, about the same as FIDE has to abide by Australian law...
    IA Keong Ang



    "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Abraham Lincoln

  5. #65
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,735
    Quote Originally Posted by JaK
    A question for clarification purposes.
    I understand that ACF has to abide by Australian law in terms of its constitutional (and/or other) function.
    What is the situation in regards to similar functioning of an international body such as OCC?
    As far as I can tell the nearest thing to a law governing the OCC is that it is now accountable to FIDE (at least, if it wants to stay affiliated to FIDE) which is in turn currently governed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. That said FIDE is considering withdrawing from the CAS because of the costs damage inflicted in the Karpov 2010 lawsuits (which FIDE won but at huge cost) and another lawsuit about the number of FIDE vice-presidents.

    Before the OCC was accepted by FIDE it was anyone's guess what law it was accountable to, if any.

  6. #66
    CC FIDE Master Keong Ang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    You sound exactly like the Pope
    NO!
    That is not how the Pope sounds like.
    Those are the sounds of a Bishop!!
    IA Keong Ang



    "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Abraham Lincoln

  7. #67
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,735
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    What does KB mean ""it does not make them members anyway""? Just like we are Australian by birth whether we apply for it or not.
    As we all know, analogies posted by antichrist are always useless and this one is no exception. The OCC is, according to FIDE, an organisation which represents the interests of a region. The best general political analogy would be a trade union. Thankfully in this country the membership of trade unions is now generally voluntary.

  8. #68
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Keong Ang
    NO!
    That is not how the Pope sounds like.
    Those are the sounds of a Bishop!!
    a good or bad Bishop though?
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  9. #69
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian_Jones
    My comment about the relevance of ACF concerns was in reference to [..] that OCC Executive members are appointed by me (they are not elected!)
    So supposing an officebearer was incompetent or corrupt but the President refused to sack them and FIDE wasn't interested, what could the PB do? Change the statutes to give it the right to sack the officebearer?

    Can the statutes be changed by email vote? I can see no clear indication that they can't.

    The changes we suggested to the procedure for electing officebearers were on the assumption that they would be elected. Appointing them instead does in its own way clarify matters relating to officebearers, but it raises new problems including a reduction in accountability to the PB.

  10. #70
    CC FIDE Master Keong Ang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    Certainly what Keong has told us is much more informative than what is to be found in the Minutes and also gives a different picture as you say. What Brian is now saying to us is quite the opposite - perhaps he speaks with forked tongue.

    I am not suggesting any antagonism on NZ's part nor is there any on my part towards NZ..

    As for AC's latest effort, there is no suggestion of replacing Brian. It's just that he seems to be quite out of his depth when trying to be involved in chess administration rather than event organisation at which he is very good, I believe.
    As a mere observer (who arrived late) I could not accurately differentiate between what was "official" and what was not. Now that the minutes have been published, we know how things officially stand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    As a result the constitutional basics of the OCC are a considerable mess and its ability to function properly is questionable at best. He would benefit from advice from someone who knows the basics. I've given him some (from a long history of organisational administration and administrative law) but he has rejected it. Keong's statement that it was said that the constitutional changes were suggested to meet some of the ACF's concerns is interesting because in fact the changes make the position worse, not better. You can't dragoon a body into another one without its consent. That applies to all the federations of Oceania. Moreover, it's a silly way to go about things just from a commonsense point of view.

    DJ
    The OCC constitution seems similar to that of a cut down version of the Asian Chess Federation constitution.
    As far as membership goes, the AsianCF doesn't bother about whether a national federation consents to membership or not. The AsianCF also splits the federations into zones, of which Oceania (zone3.6) is one zone. It is not unprecedented to dragoon a body into another one without its consent. Seems to be the "normal" FIDE way. I keep getting the feeling that what we consider commonsense is not very common at all.

    Admittedly, nobody at the meeting knows exactly what the ozzies wanted. There was nothing officially from the ACF to consider. Submissions from private individuals cannot be considered to be from the ACF. There was also nobody who could speak on behalf of the ACF. Observers have no "voice" beyond that of private individuals who are not members (got to be a zone3.6 federation to be a member). All this in the context of the length of time the ACF had to prepare.
    IA Keong Ang



    "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Abraham Lincoln

  11. #71
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Keong Ang
    Now that the minutes have been published, we know how things officially stand.
    Actually that applies only once the minutes are confirmed by motion. Until then they are draft minutes.

    Admittedly, nobody at the meeting knows exactly what the ozzies wanted. There was nothing officially from the ACF to consider. Submissions from private individuals cannot be considered to be from the ACF. There was also nobody who could speak on behalf of the ACF. Observers have no "voice" beyond that of private individuals who are not members (got to be a zone3.6 federation to be a member). All this in the context of the length of time the ACF had to prepare.
    If Brian was really interested in getting the ACF to voluntarily join he'd realise that a position that is supported by both Denis and me and that was not objected to by any other Exec member (bearing in mind the Exec is six votes on a council of, on the best of days, thirteen) is extraordinarily likely to be approved and is a good basis for thinking about how to go about convincing the ACF to join.

    We were initially looking at getting a list of proposed changes in order to ensure the ACF would join to Brian by the end of the year, giving a timeframe of just over two months from the Congress. The problem is that the OCC statutes and governance have been such a basket-case that the more you look in terms of problems the more you find, and redesigning the thing from the ground up to fix the problems is a complex drafting process that would take a long time.

    While Denis had a draft containing numerous proposed changes as early as 9 Nov, only a few days after the discussion of the matter at an ACF Council meeting, it was never going to cover everything that might need exploring.

    It's also important to note that on 27 Nov there were email discussions involving Denis, Brian and me, during which Brian was informed that a draft existed and Denis advised Brian of some issues on which his input might be necessary for further progress to be made. As of 22 Dec no further comment from Brian had been received.

    I would have preferred that we got something to the OCC (i) officially and (ii) by the end of the year as originally intended (and as I still advised was our schedule in late November). Some matters can be slow to deal with by email when multiple people are involved. But we're not actually in any hurry on this anyway - it's the OCC that wants us to join, so anytime the OCC wants that to happen it has been given a fair idea of what sort of things the ACF officebearers with the strongest concerns about the matter want fixed.

    Perhaps there would be value in a meeting between Brian and the ACF rather than expecting us to send exec members to a meeting of an organisation we don't actually belong to. But if the OCC is really determined to push ahead with declaring us to be members anyway then the whole thing is pointless.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 07-03-2012 at 11:00 PM.

  12. #72
    CC FIDE Master Keong Ang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    So supposing an officebearer was incompetent or corrupt but the President refused to sack them and FIDE wasn't interested, what could the PB do? Change the statutes to give it the right to sack the officebearer?

    Can the statutes be changed by email vote? I can see no clear indication that they can't.

    The changes we suggested to the procedure for electing officebearers were on the assumption that they would be elected. Appointing them instead does in its own way clarify matters relating to officebearers, but it raises new problems including a reduction in accountability to the PB.
    Maybe Denis could clarify this for me.
    What kind of liability under Australian law would officebearers have in carrying out their OCC activities?
    Are they personally liable?
    My gut feeling is that it generally depends on where the OCC is domiciled and where the activities were carried out.

    Regarding membership, I don't think those at the meeting were concerned about OCC membership being automatic to all Oceania zone federations. A realistic point of view since it is more a question of who were excluded and who were included. If a federation so desires to leave, it should simply be a matter of not paying the fees, that would lead to the federation's membership being excluded and membership rights being suspended.

    What is the issue with the ACF anyway?
    If OCC statutes are of concern, then the ACF obviously needs to send a delegate and get the other federations delegates to change things. You cannot accomplish much by complaining from outside.
    If the ACF does not consider itself to be a member, communicating a simple "no thanks" should be sufficient to stop the OCC from bugging it.
    At present it is hard for other Oceania federations to not perceive that the ACF is dysfunctional because it; (1) cannot decide if it is an OCC member, (2) cannot send a representative/delegate, (3) cannot decide what changes it wants.
    Such a perception is hard to avoid when we consider the size and resources available to the ACF compared to the other federations. In the context of Queenstown, it is quite perplexing to be told that the ACF could not even appoint someone to be the official representative/delegate to act on it's behalf when there are so many ozzies in town.
    IA Keong Ang



    "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Abraham Lincoln

  13. #73
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Keong Ang
    If a federation so desires to leave, it should simply be a matter of not paying the fees, that would lead to the federation's membership being excluded and membership rights being suspended.
    That's not really an adequate solution. It takes too long to take effect, and even then the impression that is given is not that the federation deliberately left but that it was simply too slack to pay its dues.

    What is the issue with the ACF anyway?
    If OCC statutes are of concern, then the ACF obviously needs to send a delegate and get the other federations delegates to change things. You cannot accomplish much by complaining from outside.
    Now, I took advice on this one from a locally successful political colleague (NB not my mother!) and her advice was absolutely the opposite - it was that joining an organisation you have issues with in the hope of changing it is futile, because the establishment within that organisation will always be able to take decisions within its existing structures that prevent you from achieving that change.

    This is all especially an issue in a one nation, one vote structure. Australia makes up a very large proportion of chess activity in the region but the association representing the majority of active Oceania players would get no more say on the Policy Board than any very small Pacific federation that "joined". And with the latest statutes change in practice likely to increase the power of officeholders appointed directly by the President, and decrease the power of the Policy Board, the difference we could make is still further reduced.

    The current situation is that the OCC, supposedly at least, wants the ACF involved. The ACF is willing to be involved but not without substantial statute change before we join. It's therefore not us who needs to work for anything. It is up to the OCC to make its structures satisfactory to us.

    At present it is hard for other Oceania federations to not perceive that the ACF is dysfunctional because it; (1) cannot decide if it is an OCC member,
    The view that there is indecision on this point stems solely from one ACF official at one stage mistakenly believing we had decided to join. Aside from that isolated incident we have been clear all along that we are not members and therefore any perception of the kind above is grossly unconnected to the facts.

    (2) cannot send a representative/delegate,
    Why should we always pay to send delegates to meetings of associations that we are not part of and that don't seem to be serious about encouraging us to join? We may do so sometime, but it shouldn't be assumed we will go out of our way to ensure we can attend.

    Such a perception is hard to avoid when we consider the size and resources available to the ACF compared to the other federations. In the context of Queenstown, it is quite perplexing to be told that the ACF could not even appoint someone to be the official representative/delegate to act on it's behalf when there are so many ozzies in town.
    Yeah right, pluck a random Australian off a Queenstown street corner, give them a quick refresher in Oceania chess politics and instruct them to sign away our rights.

    At the ACF meeting in January it was mentioned that Brian wanted us to send an Executive member, to avoid the previous situation in which the only ACF person present was a non-Exec member with no power to approve anything and not in the Exec loop. We therefore approved a motion that if the ACF was to be represented at Queenstown it would be by an Executive member only (acting as a representative observer only). Between that meeting and the OCC meeting it transpired that there was no Exec member who was actually able to attend.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 08-03-2012 at 01:30 AM.

  14. #74
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Keong Ang
    Maybe Denis could clarify this for me.
    What kind of liability under Australian law would officebearers have in carrying out their OCC activities?
    Are they personally liable?
    My gut feeling is that it generally depends on where the OCC is domiciled and where the activities were carried out.

    Regarding membership, I don't think those at the meeting were concerned about OCC membership being automatic to all Oceania zone federations. A realistic point of view since it is more a question of who were excluded and who were included. If a federation so desires to leave, it should simply be a matter of not paying the fees, that would lead to the federation's membership being excluded and membership rights being suspended.

    What is the issue with the ACF anyway?
    If OCC statutes are of concern, then the ACF obviously needs to send a delegate and get the other federations delegates to change things. You cannot accomplish much by complaining from outside.
    If the ACF does not consider itself to be a member, communicating a simple "no thanks" should be sufficient to stop the OCC from bugging it.
    At present it is hard for other Oceania federations to not perceive that the ACF is dysfunctional because it; (1) cannot decide if it is an OCC member, (2) cannot send a representative/delegate, (3) cannot decide what changes it wants.
    Such a perception is hard to avoid when we consider the size and resources available to the ACF compared to the other federations. In the context of Queenstown, it is quite perplexing to be told that the ACF could not even appoint someone to be the official representative/delegate to act on it's behalf when there are so many ozzies in town.
    Well Keong, maybe they were looking at the budget of ACF and considering how much a delegates trip would cost and whose turn it is.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  15. #75
    CC International Master Brian_Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Keong Ang
    The OCC constitution seems similar to that of a cut down version of the Asian Chess Federation constitution. As far as membership goes, the AsianCF doesn't bother about whether a national federation consents to membership or not. The AsianCF also splits the federations into zones, of which Oceania (zone3.6) is one zone.
    Exactly.

    It is a matter of priorities. OCC has decided that its main priorities are the development and promotion of chess in Oceania. ACF's main priorities appear to be legal and constitutional correctness.

    Remember this is not a Brian Jones v Denis Jessop/Kevin Bonham show. There are other people (not on this bulletin board) who have strong opinions.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Comings and Goings.
    By PHAT in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 1041
    Last Post: 29-09-2017, 03:59 PM
  2. Good books for social players
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Coaching Clinic
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-11-2011, 05:57 PM
  3. Stinginess of Chess Players
    By Paul S in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 24-04-2008, 09:48 PM
  4. Thanks Jenni
    By JohnH in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-07-2006, 01:59 PM
  5. Live at the BBQ (slow loading)
    By jeffrei in forum Games and Analysis
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 18-09-2004, 07:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •