Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 69
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310

    ACF Administration

    I am actually interested in what the proposal was for the acf commission and its ramifications, so as per firegoat7 request I have moved jammos post to here regarding acf commission debate

    Hi Bill,

    I would not agree with your "best for australian chess" comment, but if you change it to "best for australian chess administration" then I'm forced to plead guilty.

    Perhaps you would agree that I am best qualified to know what is best for Australian chess administration as I have been ACF President, Deputy President, Secretary and Treasurer (plus other office-bearer roles) over the last 30 years so I think that gives me an all round background to claim that I could understand the problems of ACF administration better than most others.

    If you put yourself in my shoes for a moment, perhaps you can appreciate my frustration when the ACF Commission proposal is defeated by NSW voting against it when most of them have little knowledge of ACF administration and their objections to the proposal (in my view) are not a sufficient reason to vote against the proposal if one is taking a national point of view.

    Now you can say that I don't listen to the views of others if you wish. I can say that I have listened to them and they have not convinced me that the commission is not the best model for the ACF.

    It will be interesting to see what happens to the ACF when the current administration retires in Jan 2005. Is their anyone waiting in the wings who is going to run the ACF? Perhaps our new (generational change!) Deputy President will rise to even greater glory? Perhaps no one will put their hand up and the ACF will collapse? If so I'm quite content that I did my best to reform the ACF administration so that it would have continuity and experienced people to run it. If others fail to support my proposal then I can't do much about it and the onus will be on them to find a structure that will attract people to run the ACF. I suggest that the current problems at the prize-giving in Perth are indicitative of the ACF's problems with having the President as the sole decision making authority between 3 monthly meetings. He does what he is interested in and some things may get missed.

    As to my stir about you counting for 5 people in debates; I was echoing Jason Lyon's comments in a previous post. I note from your latest comment that you believe that you do not dominate NSW Council meetings. If so, I'm pleased. Jason and I will have to revise our view of your debating style.

    Maybe you can share your views on how the ACF should be run with others on the BB and we can have a fruitful discussion. Will having 2 VPs make much difference? Does the ACF need more meetings and maybe a return to a face-to-face Council or Executive?

    Cheers
    -Jammo
    Last edited by skip to my lou; 31-01-2004 at 07:04 PM. Reason: Request from "Jammo"

  2. #2
    chmod -x /bin/chmod
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,193
    Please quote the part of the message that you did not write.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeo
    Please quote the part of the message that you did not write.
    better now

  4. #4
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    I am actually interested in what the proposal was for the acf commission and its ramifications, so as per firegoat7 request I have moved jammos post to here regarding acf commission debate
    I don't see jammo's post as relating to the ACF Commission debate.

    If you want to know about the ACF Commision I suggest you read the thread on the old ACF BB.

    It will be more fruitful than starting another slangling match here.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047

  6. #6
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    ggrayggray I think if you copied jammo's post here you should have also copied my response which was as follows:




    Quote Originally Posted by 'bill gletsos"
    Quote Originally Posted by jammo
    Hi Bill,

    I would not agree with your "best for australian chess" comment, but if you change it to "best for australian chess administration" then I'm forced to plead guilty.

    Perhaps you would agree that I am best qualified to know what is best for Australian chess administration as I have been ACF President, Deputy President, Secretary and Treasurer (plus other office-bearer roles) over the last 30 years so I think that gives me an all round background to claim that I could understand the problems of ACF administration better than most others.

    If you put yourself in my shoes for a moment, perhaps you can appreciate my frustration when the ACF Commission proposal is defeated by NSW voting against it when most of them have little knowledge of ACF administration and their objections to the proposal (in my view) are not a sufficient reason to vote against the proposal if one is taking a national point of view.
    Hi Robert,

    I really dont want to get into another slanging match with you over the ACF Commission, because I dont believe it is going to get us anywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by jammo
    Now you can say that I don't listen to the views of others if you wish. I can say that I have listened to them and they have not convinced me that the commission is not the best model for the ACF.
    I think the NSW delegates would same the same thing. They listened to you but were not convinced that the ACF Commission was the best model.

    Quote Originally Posted by jammo
    It will be interesting to see what happens to the ACF when the current administration retires in Jan 2005. Is their anyone waiting in the wings who is going to run the ACF? Perhaps our new (generational change!) Deputy President will rise to even greater glory? Perhaps no one will put their hand up and the ACF will collapse? If so I'm quite content that I did my best to reform the ACF administration so that it would have continuity and experienced people to run it. If others fail to support my proposal then I can't do much about it and the onus will be on them to find a structure that will attract people to run the ACF. I suggest that the current problems at the prize-giving in Perth are indicitative of the ACF's problems with having the President as the sole decision making authority between 3 monthly meetings. He does what he is interested in and some things may get missed.
    I think thats a little unfair.
    It sounded like Norbert had been informed by a number of people what was expected with regards play-offs and prize giving but just refused to listen.

    Quote Originally Posted by jammo
    As to my stir about you counting for 5 people in debates; I was echoing Jason Lyon's comments in a previous post. I note from your latest comment that you believe that you do not dominate NSW Council meetings. If so, I'm pleased. Jason and I will have to revise our view of your debating style.
    I wont deny that I can be persistent in trying to get a point across, but when I am chairing the NSW Council meetings I always try and let everyone have their say.

    Quote Originally Posted by jammo
    Maybe you can share your views on how the ACF should be run with others on the BB and we can have a fruitful discussion. Will having 2 VPs make much difference? Does the ACF need more meetings and maybe a return to a face-to-face Council or Executive?
    I think adding the two VP's can help in sharing the load.
    I do believe that recognising email voting in the constitution is important. I believe it means the Council can have more of a hands on approach to ACF issues in between council meetings.

    Prior to Graeme Gardiner becoming ACF president, the ACF Executive resided in the one state. This made it easy for the Executive to meet face to face, however the downside was that the state delegates who make up the majority of the ACF Council were virtually never true representatives of their states.

    E.g. when the ACF was in Melbourne the state delegates for all the states were Victorians, nominated by the respective states to represent them at ACF Council meetings. Those delegates however could not really know what their states views were on issues that came up for discussion at ACF meetings that were not on the agenda but were raised as part of agenda items or general business. This meant they either voted without truly representing their states view or decisions were delayed due to them having to go back to their state associations for instructions.

    When Graeme took over he changed things to replace these council meetings by telephone hookups where the state delegates really were from the states they represented. The WA delegate was an actual WA person. The same was true for the other states.

    I think all the states would say this was a better format.

    Now similar to the ACF, the NSWCA constitution places the power between Council meetings in the hands of the NSWCA executive(Pres, Vice Pres, Sec and Treas). However over the last few years when the advent of email became prevalent decisions by the Eecutive as opposed to the full Council have been few and far between. In fact I'm hard pressed to remember the last time it happened.

    The NSWCA has monthly meetings but we discuss issues in between those meetings. If a decisions needs to be made prior to the next meeting then it happens. If it can wait then although we may discuss it via email we will decide face to face at the next meeting.

    I see no reason why the ACF cannot function in this manner.

  7. #7
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    974
    Hi Bill,

    I too don't like the heading of this thread. I don't want to talk about an ACF Commission. I do want to talk about the ACF administrative structure.
    So here goes:


    ACF Administrative Structure Discussion

    I think most people would agree with the following principles in establishing an administrative structure for a body such as the ACF:

    1. A group should be established to manage the organization.
    2. This group should meet on a regular basis.
    3. This group should have the authority, expertise and resources to effectively manage the organization.
    4. This group should be held accountable by the stakeholders for the success or failure of the organization.

    In my view the ACF is not currently managed by a group but is run by the President and individual office-bearers doing their own roles in isolation. If the President is able to be aware of all current and potential issues and to act to resolve them then the ACF can probably get by. I think Graeme Gardiner was such a President. If on the other hand the President is heavily involved in some project, such as the Chess Olympiad or the Australian Championships, then other less important matters may not get done.

    As an example I suggest that the confusion in Perth about play-offs could have been avoided had the ACF ensured that the organiser understood the requirements of the ACF by-laws before the tournament. It would help also if the current by-laws were on the web site.

    In my view a three monthly Council meetings are not frequent enough to manage the ACF. In previous years when the ACF had face-to-face Council meetings they were generally monthly. Phone Council meetings (often including State Presidents as delegates) also tend to be largely office-bearers reporting to the stakeholders (the states) rather than a day-to-day management group running the organization.

    CONCLUSION

    In my view they ACF desperately needs a group that can meet on a regular basis and run the organization. Whether that group is called the Executive, the Council or the Commission I don’t think matters much. Whether they meet in person, by phone or by email I don’t think matters much. But we do need a group that can sit down and say to itself “what do we need to do to run the ACF (this month)?” Do we need to update stuff on the website; do we need to get bids for our events; do we need to ensure that the next ACF event will be run correctly; do we need to get the minutes out to everyone so that they will know what they have to do; do we need to revise our by-laws in the light of recent experiences; etc. etc.?


    So, dear BB readers.

    Do you agree with my analysis of the ACF’s administrative problems?
    If so, what are your solutions?

    BG has suggested that in the past I have not listened to the views of others as well as I might have.

    So, I’m listening now.

    I await your ideas with interest.

    -Jammo

  8. #8
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Do most delegates think 3 monthly is too infrequent?

    If so why can't the ACF council simply meet every two months instead of every 3? If after 6 months this is still insufficient then look to moving it to monthly.

    I assume it is not that easy or else it would have been decided at a council meeting and not started as a thread on the BB.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by jammo
    Hi Bill,
    ACF Administrative Structure Discussion

    I think most people would agree with the following principles in establishing an administrative structure for a body such as the ACF:

    1. A group should be established to manage the organization.
    2. This group should meet on a regular basis.
    3. This group should have the authority, expertise and resources to effectively manage the organization.
    4. This group should be held accountable by the stakeholders for the success or failure of the organization.

    So, dear BB readers.

    Do you agree with my analysis of the ACF’s administrative problems?
    If so, what are your solutions?

    BG has suggested that in the past I have not listened to the views of others as well as I might have.

    So, I’m listening now.

    I await your ideas with interest.

    -Jammo
    Thanks for the ideas Jammo. Your experience and expertise in chess admin is appreciated, as does your ideas.

    In the previous threads you have had clashes regarding the ACF commision with some posters, inlcuding me, who think that the state chess associations will be adversely affected by the ACF commission proposal.

    What is the limitations and scope of this ACF group? will it have the power to overide the wishes of any of the state chess associations that disagree with it's day to day decisions? what will it's relationship be to the state chess associations like the NSWCA? How will the efforts of organisations like the NSWCA, that manage the day to day affairs of NSW chess be integrated into your proposed new ACF admin?
    Always do your Best

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    Thanks for the ideas Jammo. Your experience and expertise in chess admin is appreciated, as does your ideas.

    In the previous threads you have had clashes regarding the ACF commision with some posters, inlcuding me, who think that the state chess associations will be adversely affected by the ACF commission proposal.

    What is the limitations and scope of this ACF group? will it have the power to overide the wishes of any of the state chess associations that disagree with it's day to day decisions? what will it's relationship be to the state chess associations like the NSWCA? How will the efforts of organisations like the NSWCA, that manage the day to day affairs of NSW chess be integrated into your proposed new ACF admin?
    It is my understanding that under the present constitution that nswca has enough delegates to stop any changes to the constitution. Even if every delegate of every other state or territory votes for the changes. So with this situation, the mission would be to convince nswca of the advantages of your idea.

    But i ask why would nswca want to change anything when they are the strongest and largest state as it stands at the moment.

    I think it is reprehensible that any one state can have enough delegates to sink a constitution change. That was the first thing I remember about the acf commission when i went back and re read almost all of the posts .

    I think that would be the first area of the constitution that should be changed. But to change that you have to convince the current nswca state delegates to vote to reduce their ability to vote as a block to sink a constitution change

  11. #11
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    It is my understanding that under the present constitution that nswca has enough delegates to stop any changes to the constitution. Even if every delegate of every other state or territory votes for the changes. So with this situation, the mission would be to convince nswca of the advantages of your idea.

    I think it is reprehensible that any one state can have enough delegates to sink a constitution change. That was the first thing I remember about the acf commission when i went back and re read almost all of the posts .

    I think that would be the first area of the constitution that should be changed. But to change that you have to convince the current nswca state delegates to vote to reduce their ability to vote as a block to sink a constitution change
    I beg to differ with you here

    There is NOTHING wrong with NSWCA having the most votes, as we are the biggest state in population by far in Australia. Indeed Sydney alone has more people than all states except Victoria

    As teh most populas state, it is only just and right that we have more votes in the ACF. In the House of Reps, one third of all memebers come from NSW - you do not hear bleatings that this is unfair do you?

    If you reduce the number of NSW members in the ACF, then what you are essentially doing is to make the vote of a person in NSW, worth less than the vote of a person in other states. This is undemocratic, and fundamentally unfair and unjust.

    Coming from Queensland, which was famous for the gerrymandering under your Sir Joh, where one vote in the countryside was worth far more than a vote in the city, such an idea coming from you does not surprise me. However down here, the "one person, one vote" democratic principle is held in high regard, and any moves to dilute NSW representaion on the ACF will run counter to this most cherished and sacred democratic principle.
    Last edited by chesslover; 28-01-2004 at 09:18 PM.
    Always do your Best

  12. #12
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Do most delegates think 3 monthly is too infrequent?

    If so why can't the ACF council simply meet every two months instead of every 3? If after 6 months this is still insufficient then look to moving it to monthly.

    I assume it is not that easy or else it would have been decided at a council meeting and not started as a thread on the BB.
    Hi Barry,

    Most current Council meetings are by phone and hence very expensive. Maybe $500 - $750 per meeting?

    -Jammo

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    there is nothing wrong with nswca having the most votes, as we are the biggest state in population by far in australia. Indeed sydney alone has more ppl than all states except victoria
    this point is irrelevant as i was never talking about populations or even chess populations. I was saying that one state having enough delegates to block a change of constitution motion is reprehensible in my opinion.

    If you reduce the number of NSW members in the ACF, then what you are essentially doing is to make the vote of a person in NSW, worth less than the vote of a person in other states. This is undemocratic, and fundamentally unfair and unjust.
    Id love to see the stats that prove that currently the delegates to members ratio is equal in all states.


    Coming from Queensland, which was famous for the gerrymandering under your Sir Joh, where one vote in the countryside was worth far more than a vote in the city, such an idea coming from you does not surprise me. However down here, the "one person, one vote" democratic principle is held in high regard, and any moves to dilute NSW representaion on the ACF will run counter to this most cherished and sacred democratic principle
    .

    thats a bit rich and completely missed the point, you keep bleating on about the australian government constitution, when it is rather irrelevant here.

    But just to smash you again, the sir joh years were gerrymandered and were eliminated by the fitzgerald inquiry(are you aware of that). Now we have a fair system as far as politics go(well as fair as any other state).

    Back to the point at hand cl, i never said that nsw should not have the most amount of delegates. I was saying that no state should have enough delegates to be able to veto a constitution on its own.

  14. #14
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    this point is irrelevant as i was never talking about populations or even chess populations. I was saying that one state having enough delegates to block a change of constitution motion is reprehensible in my opinion.

    Back to the point at hand cl, i never said that nsw should not have the most amount of delegates. I was saying that no state should have enough delegates to be able to veto a constitution on its own.
    but that is the point

    because we have the most population (about a third of australians live in NSW), we have the most delegates. This is similar to California in the US electoral votes having more votes than a small state than Delaware, becuase California has a far biggrer population, and is thus entitled to more delegates. Pretty fair huh?

    Also because the ACF constitution requires a 75% change, so if the NSWCA votes as a block that is enough to block any unsound and wrong changes. I

    t is a huge responsibility, but one which under the enligtened under inspired leadership of Bill, the NSWCA is particularly well equipped to handle - nto wanting to be provacative, but if any state had to have this awesome responsibility it is better that be NSWCA (due to our population) than some other state :p

    Also why focus on the negative - NSW can also vote for the changes if deemed to be in the interest of NSWCA members and australian chess. It must also be remembered that that the last time the ACF constitution was defeated Victoria was split as well - so it was not just NSW that was against the ACF commision proposal
    Always do your Best

  15. #15
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by jammo
    Hi Bill,

    I too don't like the heading of this thread. I don't want to talk about an ACF Commission. I do want to talk about the ACF administrative structure.
    So here goes:

    ACF Administrative Structure Discussion

    I think most people would agree with the following principles in establishing an administrative structure for a body such as the ACF:

    1. A group should be established to manage the organization.
    2. This group should meet on a regular basis.
    3. This group should have the authority, expertise and resources to effectively manage the organization.
    4. This group should be held accountable by the stakeholders for the success or failure of the organization.

    In my view the ACF is not currently managed by a group but is run by the President and individual office-bearers doing their own roles in isolation. If the President is able to be aware of all current and potential issues and to act to resolve them then the ACF can probably get by. I think Graeme Gardiner was such a President. If on the other hand the President is heavily involved in some project, such as the Chess Olympiad or the Australian Championships, then other less important matters may not get done.

    As an example I suggest that the confusion in Perth about play-offs could have been avoided had the ACF ensured that the organiser understood the requirements of the ACF by-laws before the tournament. It would help also if the current by-laws were on the web site.

    In my view a three monthly Council meetings are not frequent enough to manage the ACF. In previous years when the ACF had face-to-face Council meetings they were generally monthly. Phone Council meetings (often including State Presidents as delegates) also tend to be largely office-bearers reporting to the stakeholders (the states) rather than a day-to-day management group running the organization.

    CONCLUSION

    In my view they ACF desperately needs a group that can meet on a regular basis and run the organization. Whether that group is called the Executive, the Council or the Commission I don’t think matters much. Whether they meet in person, by phone or by email I don’t think matters much. But we do need a group that can sit down and say to itself “what do we need to do to run the ACF (this month)?” Do we need to update stuff on the website; do we need to get bids for our events; do we need to ensure that the next ACF event will be run correctly; do we need to get the minutes out to everyone so that they will know what they have to do; do we need to revise our by-laws in the light of recent experiences; etc. etc.?
    I'm not convinced that more face to face is required.

    After all even the ACF Commission was not suggesting the Commissioners all be from the same state or that there be more face to face meetings.

    If I recal one of the arguments for a ACF Commission was that there could be more email discussion and decisions.

    I agree that what is required is more discussion between meetings and more email decisions made(Just not by Commissoners).

    The ACF Council can do this. I see no reason why any ACF Council member whether they be an Executive member or a State delegate cannot start a discussion about any subject between the Council members and if need be request that a vote be taken and decision made.

    We just passed the email voting amendement to the ACF Constitution at the National Conference.

    I therefore believe we should see how email discussion and voting works out over the next 12 mths.

    It has worked well for the NSWCA I see no reason why it shouldnt work equally well for the ACF.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 28-01-2004 at 10:27 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. VCA Nazis suspend MCC
    By firegoat7 in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 250
    Last Post: 24-11-2005, 08:43 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
  •