PDA

View Full Version : Can Members Attend Meetings Nswca?



antichrist
26-05-2005, 11:22 PM
The constitution of the NSWCA (according to Bill Gletsos, president) states that ordinary members cannot sit in silently on the monthly meetings of council. Bill claims that this is the standard operating procedure of all organisations and even in the model rules for running organisations.

My experience of being a member of about a dozen voluntary associations has been exactly the opposite. Members are welcome to sit in silence and observe procedures and can request from the chairman the right to address the meeting on a particular issue.

I have been president and secretary of a few organisations and found it was in the their constitutions to allow in ordinary members and was my duty to apply this rule. I never came across any problem applying this rule, and if I had felt I could easily handle the situation. I have chaired very contentious meetings where members were being expelled, allegations of violence etc etc.

It is an important element of freedom, democracy and the open society that decisions can be seen to be transparent and to have a fully informed membership.

Inclusion is also used as recruitment ground for finding new committee members who can also learn from observing meeting procedures and can feel part of the organisation. In local, state and federal government as well, the ordinary population can sit in and observe procedures.

It is the AUSTRALIAN way to be open, inclusive, non-elitist and transparent, therefore I ask you to vote accordingly.

jay_vee
27-05-2005, 12:08 AM
My (non-NSWCA-)experience has been, that meetings in general are open to the members, but can be declared closed by council vote at any time; non-council members would then have to leave the room until the meeting was declared open again.

I think that is a good compromise between the desirable (open, inclusive, etc.) and the occasional need for confidence.

Kevin Bonham
27-05-2005, 12:13 AM
This is a rather silly poll because whether members can or cannot attend the meetings in question is surely a matter of fact stated under the NSWCA's rules rather than something that anyone who has not read those rules will have a useful opinion on. Maybe the poll should have been "should the NSWCA allow members ..."

Some organisations I've been in allow members to attend council meetings (with speaking rights to be determined by the chair) because of a desire to demonstrate political openness or because they see no reason not to. Others generally do not allow this but will invite specific members to attend for specific reasons from time to time.

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2005, 12:15 AM
This is a rather silly poll.A/C and a silly poll. Surely not. ;) :whistle:

antichrist
27-05-2005, 12:19 AM
This is a rather silly poll because whether members can or cannot attend the meetings in question is surely a matter of fact stated under the NSWCA's rules rather than something that anyone who has not read those rules will have a useful opinion on. Maybe the poll should have been "should the NSWCA allow members ..."

A/C
You would not know but there is a severe limit on number of characters allowed in all facets of these polls. So in no way can put perfect questions.

KB
Some organisations I've been in allow members to attend council meetings (with speaking rights to be determined by the chair) because of a desire to demonstrate political openness or because they see no reason not to. Others generally do not allow this but will invite specific members to attend for specific reasons from time to time.

A/C
I don't see why your and jay_vee's position does not fit into option 1.

The purpose of this poll is to get an ideas of opinon before submitting such a change of the constitution as already touched on earlier debate in different thread.

In this case it is not silly. So Bill face the issue, don't fillibuster!

Non voting opinion so far I would put as 3-1 in favour on option 1.

antichrist
27-05-2005, 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
What is the position in Tassie re chess assoc and my poll question?


KB:
TCA ideally meets twice a year, one meeting being an AGM (by definition open to all) and the other being an executive meeting (the exec consists of Pres, Sec, Treas, Vice-Pres, Ratings Officer, Junior Chess Officer and one delegate from each club). Other matters are resolved by email. Because we are such a small scene with so few people involved in admin and because we do not have anyone here who goes to meetings just to make a nuisance of themselves, we are happy to have observers at the exec meetings (which are probably our parallel of NSWCA council meetings). Observers have speaking rights but cannot vote.

I give permission for this post to be quoted to the main board provided it is quoted in full.
__________________

A/C
thanks very much

Ian Rout
27-05-2005, 09:31 AM
I'm not voting in this one as it's none of my business; however in ACT anyone who wants to be invited to ACTCA committee meetings can ensure that it happens by volunteering for a position or some other work.

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2005, 09:59 AM
A more relevant question is:
"If you were on the NSWCA Council, would you want the likes of Antichrist just turning up uninvited to Council meetings."

antichrist
27-05-2005, 03:18 PM
BG
A more relevant question is:
"If you were on the NSWCA Council, would you want the likes of Antichrist just turning up uninvited to Council meetings."

A/C
Well if you go on my record one would not have any complaints at all and it is rude and ingenious to hear that said from the president of NSWCA, whose attitude has put many members off side.

My record is that I attended one meeting uninvited because on leaving home very early that day, approx. 6 am, I was under the impression that NSWCA was like any other voluntary, open organisation in Australia (incl the ALP) was open for ordinary memebers to attend their committee meetings.

More importantly is my behaviour or arriving there. I was always courteous and obeyed standing orders, having been secretary and presidents of a few organisations it is what one would expect from such a person.

My behaviour at NSWJCL meetings was also courteous and obeyance of standing orders.

So what are you on about you insult for a public officer of OUR organisation. It is the member's organisation not the committee's and the constitution should reflect this, otherwise we have one dozen faceless men of ALP nation conference infamity.

I was there for the purpose of expanding chess which is what I am still about now - can't you handle it.

I was told by an ex-officer of high standing that when kicking off the Sydney CBD chess club I should have been given a loan of equipment on a semi-permanent basis by NSWCA to help the struggling new club out. Instead I always had to drag equipment everywhere and had to bother people who not always want to be bothered.

You did answer if you would have matched my donation of $10,000 in that building fund idea. So get a life and stop being negative and rude as it is very unbecoming for our public face.

antichrist
27-05-2005, 03:21 PM
I'm not voting in this one as it's none of my business; however in ACT anyone who wants to be invited to ACTCA committee meetings can ensure that it happens by volunteering for a position or some other work.
Thanks Ian, that makes the sentiment about 4 in favour to 1 against. Of course because we are in Australia, and that is how Australians do business -- in an open, transparent manner.

Thunderspirit
27-05-2005, 03:32 PM
The constitution of the NSWCA (according to Bill Gletsos, president) states that ordinary members cannot sit in silently on the monthly meetings of council. Bill claims that this is the standard operating procedure of all organisations and even in the model rules for running organisations.

My experience of being a member of about a dozen voluntary associations has been exactly the opposite. Members are welcome to sit in silence and observe procedures and can request from the chairman the right to address the meeting on a particular issue.

I have been president and secretary of a few organisations and found it was in the their constitutions to allow in ordinary members and was my duty to apply this rule. I never came across any problem applying this rule, and if I had felt I could easily handle the situation. I have chaired very contentious meetings where members were being expelled, allegations of violence etc etc.

It is an important element of freedom, democracy and the open society that decisions can be seen to be transparent and to have a fully informed membership.

Inclusion is also used as recruitment ground for finding new committee members who can also learn from observing meeting procedures and can feel part of the organisation. In local, state and federal government as well, the ordinary population can sit in and observe procedures.

It is the AUSTRALIAN way to be open, inclusive, non-elitist and transparent, therefore I ask you to vote accordingly.


A/C, 2 things here. One is why would you want to sit through an NSWCA meeting anyway? Secondly, if you are so keen to get invloved volunteer and do some work on council. I'm sure Bill would love that... ;)

antichrist
27-05-2005, 03:53 PM
A/C, 2 things here. One is why would you want to sit through an NSWCA meeting anyway?

A/C
Sometimes business comes up which one has a particular interest in and there may be council members (as in my case) who carry personal vendettas into committee. In the long run I think it is irresponsible to just attend the AGM and not monitor issues through the year. Bill's attitude makes it a must that if one has business in there that they be represented. Just because he does not want us there we should make a point of going there, even if otherwise we would not. As chairman and secretary I always welcomed outsiders.

Lib:
Secondly, if you are so keen to get invloved volunteer and do some work on council. I'm sure Bill would love that... ;)

A/C
I would do so but currently impossible for other reasons. And my attitude is that there is one big issue which needs attention, and that is a chess centre, and if I am not going to do that well I am not going to do anything. No one ever discussed purchasing the building and renting out most of it if not all until we pay it off. So simple. At least the price would be pegged and we would have an incentive to raise funds, and the incentive would be there for people to donate.

Repeating: my grandfather who noa speaka da inglish except for counting money and barely educated managed to buy many houses and shops in OZ. So why can't the NSWCA who is full hundreds of intelligent and educated people. Is there something special about Greeks, Italians and Lebos.

The atheist groups own their own premises. You could fit them in a phone box.

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2005, 04:04 PM
BG
A more relevant question is:
"If you were on the NSWCA Council, would you want the likes of Antichrist just turning up uninvited to Council meetings."

A/C
Well if you go on my record one would not have any complaints at all and it is rude and ingenious to hear that said from the president of NSWCA, whose attitude has put many members off side.

My record is that I attended one meeting uninvited because on leaving home very early that day, approx. 6 am, I was under the impression that NSWCA was like any other voluntary, open organisation in Australia (incl the ALP) was open for ordinary memebers to attend their committee meetings.You should have checked rather than just assumed.


More importantly is my behaviour or arriving there. I was always courteous and obeyed standing orders, having been secretary and presidents of a few organisations it is what one would expect from such a person.

My behaviour at NSWJCL meetings was also courteous and obeyance of standing orders.According to Eric you slept through it. As such its a bit hard to describe that as courteous behaviour.

So what are you on about you insult for a public officer of OUR organisation. It is the member's organisation not the committee's and the constitution should reflect this, otherwise we have one dozen faceless men of ALP nation conference infamity.The committee meetings are there for the NSWCA Council to conduct council business. If Committee meetings were intended to be open to general members the Model Rules for Incorporated Associations would say so. The model rules however have no such requirment. In fact it is clear from a reading of the model rules that the committee meetings are for committee members only.

I was there for the purpose of expanding chess which is what I am still about now - can't you handle it.You had made a request to council for use of its equipment. There was no need for you to be personally at the meeting.
However as jase pointed out you walked away from the Sydney CBD club you started. It seems your purpose of expanding chess wasnt really much of a committment back then.

I was told by an ex-officer of high standing that when kicking off the Sydney CBD chess club I should have been given a loan of equipment on a semi-permanent basis by NSWCA to help the struggling new club out. Instead I always had to drag equipment everywhere and had to bother people who not always want to be bothered.What some ex-officer may have told you is irrelevant. There is no automatic right to the use of NSWCA equipment.

You did answer if you would have matched my donation of $10,000 in that building fund idea. So get a life and stop being negative and rude as it is very unbecoming for our public face.It would appear my opinion of you is matched by Paul S, kegless and a number of others.

antichrist
27-05-2005, 04:19 PM
You should have checked rather than just assumed.

According to Eric you slept through it. As such its a bit hard to describe that as courteous behaviour.
The committee meetings are there for the NSWCA Council to conduct council business. If Committee meetings were intended to be open to general members the Model Rules for Incorporated Associations would say so. The model rules however have no such requirment. In fact it is clear from a reading of the model rules that the committee meetings are for committee members only.
You had made a request to council for use of its equipment. There was no need for you to be personally at the meeting.
However as jase pointed out you walked away from the Sydney CBD club you started. It seems your purpose of expanding chess wasnt really much of a committment back then.
What some ex-officer may have told you is irrelevant. There is no automatic right to the use of NSWCA equipment.
It would appear my opinion of you is matched by Paul S, kegless and a number of others.

Bill, almost every statement you make is either a distortion or outright lie which I am not going to bother arguing about, because only a chess centre is important. You are NOT IMPORTANT, you are part of the problem.

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2005, 04:27 PM
Bill, almost every statement you make is either a distortion or outright lie which I am not going to bother arguing about, because only a chess centre is important. You are NOT IMPORTANT, you are part of the problem.As usual you are just a waste of space.

antichrist
27-05-2005, 04:32 PM
As usual you are just a waste of space.

How juvenile for about a 50 year old man and president of NSWCA to repeat this statement and others.

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2005, 04:37 PM
How juvenile for about a 50 year old man and president of NSWCA to repeat this statement and others.Before being critical of others you should have a look at the rubbish you spew forth on a regular basis.

antichrist
27-05-2005, 04:44 PM
Before being critical of others you should have a look at the rubbish you spew forth on a regular basis.

On chess issues I think I am generally serious. And if I was president of NSWCA I would definitely be serious and more highbrow. Especially publicly.

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2005, 07:12 PM
On chess issues I think I am generally serious. And if I was president of NSWCA I would definitely be serious and more highbrow. Especially publicly.Yes, I really should refrain from responding to fools.

Rincewind
27-05-2005, 07:17 PM
Yes, I really should refrain from responding to fools.

Bill, if you really believe that, then perhaps we could arrange to decrement your post count by several thousand. :laugh:

EGOR
27-05-2005, 07:27 PM
In case anyone is interested, below is the clause on committee meeting from the "Model Rules for associations incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act, 1984". As you can read there is nothing about non-committee members attending one way or the other.
My experience with incorporated associations has always been that non committee members were not allowed, but with nothing in the regulations it is really up to each association.


20 Meetings and quorom
(1) The committee must meet at least 3 times in each period of 12 months at such place and time as the committee may determine.
(2) Additional meetings of the committee may be convened by the president or by any member of the committee.
(3) Oral or written notice of a meeting of the committee must be given by the secretary to each member of the committee at least 48 hours (or such other period as many be unanimously agreed on by the members of the committee) before the time appointed for the holding of the meeting.
(4) Notice of a meeting given under clause (3) must specify the general nature of the business to be transacted at the meeting and no business other than that business is to be transacted at the meeting, except business which the committee members present at the meeting unanimously agree to treat as urgent business.
(5) Any 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business of a meeting of the committee.
(6) No business is to be transacted by the committee unless a quorum is present and if, within half an hour of the time appointed for the meeting, a quorum is not present, the meeting is to stand adjourned to the same place and at the same hour of the same day in the following week.
(7) If at the adjourned meeting a quorum is not present within half an hour of the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting is to be dissolved.
(8) At a meeting of the committee:
(a) the president or, in the presidentís absence, the vice-president is to preside, or
(b) if the president and the vice-president are absent or unwilling to act, such one of the remaining members of the committee as may be chosen by the members present at the meeting is to preside.

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2005, 07:30 PM
EGOR notice that there is no requirement for the Secretary to inform members other than committee members when and where the committee meeting is being held.

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2005, 07:34 PM
Bill, if you really believe that, then perhaps we could arrange to decrement your post count by several thousand. :laugh:
Just imagine how my post count would drop, if my posts to Matt, DR (aka cat), fg7 and A/C were excluded. :hand: :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
27-05-2005, 08:18 PM
A/C
I don't see why your and jay_vee's position does not fit into option 1.

Because I have no idea what is in the NSWCA's constitution.


The purpose of this poll is to get an ideas of opinon before submitting such a change of the constitution as already touched on earlier debate in different thread.

If you were going to try to change the constitution you would first read it, and then this thread would be pointless because you would know the answer to your question.


Non voting opinion so far I would put as 3-1 in favour on option 1.

Completely unjustified.

antichrist
27-05-2005, 11:30 PM
The first first-hand criticism I heard about KB was someone accusing you at comps of being extremely pedantic about the rules etc before the comp. Now I can fully understand them and agree with them. You are a fillibusterer and obscuranter and no better. Taking one step forward and two steps backwards.

I know I will cop the same pedanticism in reply -- stop wasting your time and life.

antichrist
27-05-2005, 11:33 PM
EGOR notice that there is no requirement for the Secretary to inform members other than committee members when and where the committee meeting is being held.

What a pathetic comeback from an intelligent person. Everyone knows that virtually all associations meet "religiously" the same day in the same week of each month. For example, the third Monday at 7.30pm of each month. And if ordinary members really want to attend they have the right to contact the secretary to check the venue etc.

Another obscuranter

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2005, 11:40 PM
What a pathetic comeback from an intelligent person. Everyone knows that virtually all associations meet "religiously" the same day in the same week of each month. For example, the third Monday at 7.30pm of each month. And if ordinary members really want to attend they have the right to contact the secretary to check the venue etc.There is no requirement for the secretary to tell them, as after all its a committee meeting for committee members not members in general.

Another obscuranterI really should remember not to respond to fools.

antichrist
28-05-2005, 12:18 AM
There is no requirement for the secretary to tell them, as after all its a committee meeting for committee members not members in general.
I really should remember not to respond to fools.

As usual you will argue forever with rubbish arguments.

Bill Gletsos
28-05-2005, 12:41 AM
As usual you will argue forever with rubbish arguments...

Kevin Bonham
28-05-2005, 01:41 AM
The first first-hand criticism I heard about KB was someone accusing you at comps of being extremely pedantic about the rules etc before the comp.

Was that something posted here? If so, please specify. If not I would appreciate further details.


Now I can fully understand them and agree with them. You are a fillibusterer and obscuranter and no better. Taking one step forward and two steps backwards.

If that puts me one step further away from some of your nonsense, gladly. :owned:

You're not always this bad, but lately you're posting like a mindless attack machine. If I make a logical argument against what you are saying, then you come back with unsubstantiated insults of the type above instead of addressing the point. Really sad form for somebody who I thought was supposed to be some kind of "rationalist".

ElevatorEscapee
28-05-2005, 04:37 AM
Just imagine how my post count would drop, if my posts to Matt, DR (aka cat), fg7 and A/C were excluded. :hand: :whistle:
Not to mention your replies to your own comments... :rolleyes:

antichrist
28-05-2005, 10:17 AM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]Was that something posted here? If so, please specify. If not I would appreciate further details.

A/C
You seem able to find old quotes when it suits you. Of course it goes back ages ago now. And if I don't research for myself why do it for others.

KB
You're not always this bad, but lately you're posting like a mindless attack machine. If I make a logical argument against what you are saying, then you come back with unsubstantiated insults of the type above instead of addressing the point.

A/C
That is because you dont face the issue, you try to get around it by protesting every minute facet when it is clear what the general thrust is. Also big-picture people like myself don't care that much for detail to the nth degree when it is not necessary.

Because you did not re-instate the Papal Poll on grounds of freedom of expression (though low brow) you are just a another gutless running dog.

Bill Gletsos
28-05-2005, 11:10 AM
Not to mention your replies to your own comments... :rolleyes:I shouldnt waste time on the likes of you either.

ElevatorEscapee
28-05-2005, 03:22 PM
I shouldnt waste time on the likes of you either.
Yes, you shouldn't, but you still can't resist replying to me anyway... ;) :P :lol:

antichrist
28-05-2005, 03:26 PM
Come on Bill, don't let him EE have the last word, that is against your religion, post twice in a row - a double-bunger - that will silence him once and for all

Bill Gletsos
28-05-2005, 04:44 PM
Yes, you shouldn't, but you still can't resist replying to me anyway... ;) :P :lol:

Come on Bill, don't let him EE have the last word, that is against your religion, post twice in a row - a double-bunger - that will silence him once and for all..

ElevatorEscapee
28-05-2005, 04:57 PM
..
I too can quote a post or two without saying anything ;)

antichrist
28-05-2005, 05:08 PM
EE, a classic mate.

Bill Gletsos
28-05-2005, 05:30 PM
I too can quote a post or two without saying anything ;)..

antichrist
28-05-2005, 05:37 PM
Bill, I have just told some guy over there who does not appear too bright to go for your job as prez, he seems thick enough.

Libby
28-05-2005, 05:37 PM
Are these posts off-topic? :hmm:

firegoat7
28-05-2005, 05:38 PM
I too can quote a post or two without saying anything ;)

:buttkick: :classic: :banana: :evilb:

EGOR
28-05-2005, 05:42 PM
Are these posts off-topic? :hmm:
That doesn't seem to matter. :wall:

Kevin Bonham
29-05-2005, 05:11 AM
You seem able to find old quotes when it suits you. Of course it goes back ages ago now. And if I don't research for myself why do it for others.

When I have an idea what to search for I can. I can't remember anything that exactly matches your description - the nearest I can recall was BD having a go at me about my general tendency to not refund players who withdraw. Was it that? If not I am sceptical of your account without further evidence, which the onus is on you to provide if you wish me or any other rational person who does not remember it to take any notice.


That is because you dont face the issue, you try to get around it by protesting every minute facet when it is clear what the general thrust is.

The thrust of this issue is that the NSWCA, as specified by Bill, adopts provisions from a model constitution that refer to committee meetings without stating any other persons who are entitled to be present at them. Therefore you are totally wrong and wasting time over nothing unless you can show that the NSWCA constitution is not as quoted by Bill. Happy now?

My points about the uselessness of this thread and poll were entirely reasonable and you have not even tried to refute them.


Also big-picture people like myself don't care that much for detail to the nth degree when it is not necessary.

Your big picture appears to be the result of clumsily kicking over a lot of paint tins randomly on a pavement then calling the result a masterpiece of clarity while everybody else goes "huh?" and tries to determine whether they should walk away or humour you.


Because you did not re-instate the Papal Poll on grounds of freedom of expression (though low brow) you are just a another gutless running dog.

We have already established above that you don't have a clue what freedom of expression entails and that therefore you have no standing to spout this ineffective rubbish. You should give me credit for standing up to bleating ninnies who are ignorant of the subtle points of political philosophy instead of regarding this as "gutless".

antichrist
29-05-2005, 05:38 AM
When I have an idea what to search for I can. I can't remember anything that exactly matches your description - the nearest I can recall was BD having a go at me about my general tendency to not refund players who withdraw. Was it that? If not I am sceptical of your account without further evidence, which the onus is on you to provide if you wish me or any other rational person who does not remember it to take any notice.

A/C's quoting within a quote
Sorry for bringing up where someone was being rude to you, but he said something like in the speech (probably before) commencing play you raved on and on in a pedantic fashion. He would never attend a comp run by you again. It was pretty early after the opening of this BB if my memory is correct.

KB
The thrust of this issue is that the NSWCA, as specified by Bill, adopts provisions from a model constitution that refer to committee meetings without stating any other persons who are entitled to be present at them. Therefore you are totally wrong and wasting time over nothing unless you can show that the NSWCA constitution is not as quoted by Bill. Happy now?

A/C
Sorry but I don't even bother sufficiently to revisit the quotes. Because I was moving on and accepting Bill's version, the poll was to judge the issue and promote change, that seemed obvious to everyone except you. NOTE: no one else brought it up as an issue. And Bill having no decent defence quotes your objection, it didn't wash either because no one ran with that either.

KB
My points about the uselessness of this thread and poll were entirely reasonable and you have not even tried to refute them.

A/C
The poll participation and result speak for themselves. The site had many visits but not many polling for probably three reasons. They are not from NSW so don't feel should influence, or don't want to be seen voting with me against Bill's wishes or not interested enough in general. But the important issue for our debate is some serious people took it seriously, if it had minor imperfections they were big enough to overlook them. I am not drafting polls or legislation for federal parliament (like no doubt you could do), just for a folksy chess BB.

KB
Your big picture appears to be the result of clumsily kicking over a lot of paint tins randomly on a pavement then calling the result a masterpiece of clarity while everybody else goes "huh?" and tries to determine whether they should walk away or humour you.

A/C
refer previous answer

KB
We have already established above that you don't have a clue what freedom of expression entails and that therefore you have no standing to spout this ineffective rubbish. You should give me credit for standing up to bleating ninnies who are ignorant of the subtle points of political philosophy instead of regarding this as "gutless".

A/C
I don't agree and can't see any decent arguments that I should respect. As stated in earlier posts, mockery is also an important part of freedom of expression - remember Erasmus's "IN PRAISE OF FOLLY".

I have a lawyer brother exactly like you and no one can bear to be anywhere next to him. Including his family.

Eric
29-05-2005, 10:07 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Bill, I have just told some guy over there who does not appear too bright to go for your job as prez, he seems thick enough.

In terms of that not too bright guy, are you sure you weren't talking to yourself again?

antichrist
29-05-2005, 10:09 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

In terms of that not too bright guy, are you sure you weren't talking to yourself again?

Hello Bill, how are you this morning.

Eric
29-05-2005, 10:12 AM
Hello Bill, how are you this morning.

You're delusional too! :clap:

antichrist
29-05-2005, 10:15 AM
You're delusional too! :clap:

That's right, Bill's most often-used term. I can understand you hiding as you have copped a beating the past few weeks. Better change to another name as we have already seen through this one.

Bill Gletsos
29-05-2005, 02:53 PM
Hello Bill, how are you this morning.I am not Eric you idiot so stop claiming I am.

antichrist
29-05-2005, 04:14 PM
I am not Eric you idiot so stop claiming I am.

An Indonesian panel of judges would certainly convict you.

Bill Gletsos
29-05-2005, 04:19 PM
An Indonesian panel of judges would certainly convict you.Apparently so would a panel of fools like you.

EGOR
29-05-2005, 04:21 PM
Move on! :wall: :wall: :wall:

Eric
30-05-2005, 07:30 AM
An Indonesian panel of judges would certainly convict you.

AC let me show you the flaw in your logic in a way even you MIGHT understand. Here's your thinking AC

Premise 1: All people know Antichrist is a complete, moronic idiot. (True)

Premise 2: Bill knows Antichrist is a complete, moronic idiot. (Also true)

Your Conclusion: All people are Bill.

Above is tyicial of your stupid logic. :lol:

EGOR
30-05-2005, 08:54 AM
AC let me show you the flaw in your logic in a way even you MIGHT understand. Here's your thinking AC

Premise 1: All people know Antichrist is a complete, moronic idiot. (True)

Premise 2: Bill knows Antichrist is a complete, moronic idiot. (Also true)

Your Conclusion: All people are Bill.

Above is tyicial of your stupid logic. :lol:
...and anything that flies is an albatross :owned: :owned: :owned:

antichrist
30-05-2005, 10:05 AM
AC let me show you the flaw in your logic in a way even you MIGHT understand. Here's your thinking AC

Premise 1: All people know Antichrist is a complete, moronic idiot. (True)

Premise 2: Bill knows Antichrist is a complete, moronic idiot. (Also true)

Your Conclusion: All people are Bill.

Above is tyicial of your stupid logic. :lol:

BJP may be dead but his truisms live on: fly like a crow, make noises like a crow and you will get shot with the crows BIll

Eric
30-05-2005, 10:20 AM
BJP may be dead but his truisms live on: fly like a crow, make noises like a crow and you will get shot with the crows BIll

Your medication requires re-assessment. :wall:

Garvinator
30-05-2005, 11:15 AM
Libby first raised and now I am as well, how is any of these last ten or so posts anything really about council meetings, who can go to them or council meeting protocol? Anyways, this thread should have gone through about five posts. One just has to post the relevant sections of the nswca constitution.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 11:54 AM
What is really stupid is that A/C believes or pretends to believe that I am Eric.

EGOR
30-05-2005, 11:56 AM
One just has to post the relevant sections of the nswca constitution.
The only thing relevent to the question of whether normal members can Council meetings is below.
"Life Members are not required to pay any membership fee and are entitled to attend all Council meetings without the right to vote."
The fact that it states that life members are entitled attend Councils meetings seems to ashume that normal members cannot, but that is not stated anywhere in the constitution. :hmm:

EGOR
30-05-2005, 11:57 AM
What is really stupid is that A/C believes or pretends to believe that I am Eric.
So ignor him! :wall: :wall: :wall:

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 12:18 PM
The only thing relevent to the question of whether normal members can Council meetings is below.
"Life Members are not required to pay any membership fee and are entitled to attend all Council meetings without the right to vote."
The fact that it states that life members are entitled attend Councils meetings seems to ashume that normal members cannot, but that is not stated anywhere in the constitution. :hmm:The constitution lists the Council Positions.
The constitution states that " The Council shall meet not less than ten times each year..".
Non council members (other than life members) have no right afforded them by the constitution to attend Council meetings.

EGOR
30-05-2005, 12:27 PM
Non council members (other than life members) have no right afforded them by the constitution to attend Council meetings.
Are you claiming that this is stated in ths constitution?

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 12:57 PM
Are you claiming that this is stated in ths constitution?I didnt say that.
I said the constitution afforded non council members (other than life members) no rights to attend Council meetings.

EGOR
30-05-2005, 01:06 PM
I didnt say that.
I said the constitution afforded non council members (other than life members) no rights to attend Council meetings.
Ok, you can call me stupid if you want.
What you are saying is because the NSWCA constitution says nothing about whether or not non council members can attend Council meetings, they have no right to attend the meetings?

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 01:17 PM
Ok, you can call me stupid if you want.I'll refrain as generally you seem on the ball ;)

What you are saying is because the NSWCA constitution says nothing about whether or not non council members can attend Council meetings, they have no right to attend the meetings?Essentially yes. Since the constituion makes a point of noting that Life Members can attend Council meetings, this implies non Life Members cannot.

EGOR
30-05-2005, 01:39 PM
Essentially yes. Since the constituion makes a point of noting that Life Members can attend Council meetings, this implies non Life Members cannot.
Yes, it does imply that non life Members cannot. What I was saying that it is not stated clearly anywhere in the constitution that regular members cannot attend Council meetings. An implication is not the same as a statement. You have stated a number of times that regular members cannot attend Council meeting, but the constitution only implies it.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 01:52 PM
Yes, it does imply that non life Members cannot. What I was saying that it is not stated clearly anywhere in the constitution that regular members cannot attend Council meetings. An implication is not the same as a statement. You have stated a number of times that regular members cannot attend Council meeting, but the constitution only implies it.I would argue it doesnt have to explicitly say it.
The constitution states when talking about the Council that the Council shall meet. It doesnt say the Council and members.
I've also been on committees where the constitution virtually followed the model rules. I recall the chairman (he was a lawyer) stating that the wording of the model rules makes it clear committee meetings were for committee members only.

EGOR
30-05-2005, 05:22 PM
I would argue it doesnt have to explicitly say it.
The constitution states when talking about the Council that the Council shall meet. It doesnt say the Council and members.
I've also been on committees where the constitution virtually followed the model rules. I recall the chairman (he was a lawyer) stating that the wording of the model rules makes it clear committee meetings were for committee members only.
That may be true, I'm not that up legal stuff. I was just working on what I was reading. You were making these strong statements about it not being allowed and I just could not see it from reading the constitution.
A lawyer once told me that when a government document doesn't state something clear it is because they want to freedom to interpret it in their own favour at a later date if needed, or it's something they just don't care about, because it has nothing to do with money. I was working on the premise that this fits into the don't care category because it has nothing to do with money.

Duff McKagan
30-05-2005, 07:31 PM
I was working on the premise that this fits into the don't care category because it has nothing to do with money.

EGOR, there is a lot of things that the council know that the members are not welcome to know about. That is why they dont want observers. It would not release the results of their extensive player survey from last year. It took a fight at the AGM to get them to supply the results but only upon application. The report on the viability or not of starting a Sydney chess centre is not available to members either. The minutes that show who voted which way on important issues is not open either. It makes it difficult for members to know who they should vote for at the AGM when councillors might say one thing and vote for another.

Councillors take conflicting interests with them into every meeting. As members we never get to know how they vote. I would like to see this change.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 07:46 PM
EGOR, there is a lot of things that the council know that the members are not welcome to know about. That is why they dont want observers. It would not release the results of their extensive player survey from last year. It took a fight at the AGM to get them to supply the results but only upon application. The report on the viability or not of starting a Sydney chess centre is not available to members either. The minutes that show who voted which way on important issues is not open either. It makes it difficult for members to know who they should vote for at the AGM when councillors might say one thing and vote for another.Actually Duff, that isnt entirely correct.
You can see the minutes as per section 11.3 of the Constitution which states: "The records, books, and other documents of the Association shall be open for inspection, free of charge, to any member of the Association at any reasonable hour."

In fact that is exactly the same as the wording of sectrion 40 in the model rules.

Councillors take conflicting interests with them into every meeting. As members we never get to know how they vote. I would like to see this change.That actually is true of most organisations. e.g Leagues clubs board of directors meetings. Board meeting minutes are not publically available.
For Incorporated Associations they are covered by section 40 of the model rules.

Duff McKagan
30-05-2005, 08:47 PM
Actually Duff, that isnt entirely correct.
You can see the minutes as per section 11.3 of the Constitution which states: "The records, books, and other documents of the Association shall be open for inspection, free of charge, to any member of the Association at any reasonable hour."

In fact that is exactly the same as the wording of sectrion 40 in the model rules.
That actually is true of most organisations. e.g Leagues clubs board of directors meetings. Board meeting minutes are not publically available.
For Incorporated Associations they are covered by section 40 of the model rules.


Hey that sounds prety good!! So how about sending EGOR the SCC report - I think he is interested in it.

Cheers.

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2005, 09:02 PM
Sorry for bringing up where someone was being rude to you,

Yeah, right. If you were truly sorry you'd stop doing it yourself. (Of course, I'm giving you plenty back but you deserve it because you're just talking nonsense instead of attempting to address the points being made.)


but he said something like in the speech (probably before) commencing play you raved on and on in a pedantic fashion. He would never attend a comp run by you again. It was pretty early after the opening of this BB if my memory is correct..

Your claim that this was posted sounds very unlikely to me because I've usually read a very high proportion of posts made on this BB - especially in the early stages - and I would definitely strongly remember a post like that if I'd seen it. I've also tried all kinds of search strings to try to find this supposed post without success. Indeed the only other poster who said they were from Tasmania who I've seen post significantly is PhilD707. It could be that someone said something like this to you and you misremembered it as having been posted online. Frankly I'm very sceptical about the whole thing, though I would take it more seriously if it came from a poster who was consistently sensible.

Can anyone else help with info about this supposed post?

For the record, all I typically do at the start of each comp I am running is organise the appointment of two assistant DOPs, remind players that they must record their results before leaving the venue otherwise they may lose any points scored, read out and explain Article 10.2, and answer any questions about the rules. If someone considers this to be raving on pedantically, they should try a sport which entails a shorter attention span and less patience. I read out 10.2 because I get numerous requests from players to do so.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 09:07 PM
Hey that sounds prety good!! So how about sending EGOR the SCC report - I think he is interested in it.That part of the model rules says absolutely nothing about sending it out to people.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 09:09 PM
Your claim that this was posted sounds very unlikely to me because I've usually read a very high proportion of posts made on this BB - especially in the early stages - and I would definitely strongly remember a post like that if I'd seen it. I've also tried all kinds of search strings to try to find this supposed post without success.I read virtually all posts here and definately all chess related posts and I dont recall it being said by anyone.

antichrist
30-05-2005, 09:54 PM
From previous page:
The only thing relevent to the question of whether normal members can Council meetings is below.
"Life Members are not required to pay any membership fee and are entitled to attend all Council meetings without the right to vote."
The fact that it states that life members are entitled attend Councils meetings seems to ashume that normal members cannot, but that is not stated anywhere in the constitution.
______________________________-

You have all misinterpreted the constitution, Bill deliberately I will claim, and Egor mistaking.

What is intended is that life members can attend (without voting) without paying,

and

ordinary members can attend (without voting) with paying -- like any other organisation.

It does not imply at all that members cannot attend, it does not say anything because it goes without saying that members can attend (with paying which is also unnecessary to say).

I will double check with Fair Trading tomorrow.

Bill, you often take this deceptive stance on many issues until you exhaust people, typical Basil Faulty, you are a very poor specimen.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 10:00 PM
From previous page:
The only thing relevent to the question of whether normal members can Council meetings is below.
"Life Members are not required to pay any membership fee and are entitled to attend all Council meetings without the right to vote."
The fact that it states that life members are entitled attend Councils meetings seems to ashume that normal members cannot, but that is not stated anywhere in the constitution.
______________________________-

You have all misinterpreted the constitution, Bill deliberately I will claim, and Egor mistaking.

What is intended is that life members can attend (without voting) without paying,

and

ordinary members can attend (without voting) with paying -- like any other organisation.

It does not imply at all that members cannot attend, it does not say anything because it goes without saying that members can attend (with paying which is also unnecessary to say).

I will double check with Fair Trading tomorrow.

Bill, you often take this deceptive stance on many issues until you exhaust people, typical Basil Faulty, you are a very poor specimen.Your interpretation is rubbish and you are an idiot not worth debating.

antichrist
30-05-2005, 10:02 PM
Yeah, right. If you were truly sorry you'd stop doing it yourself. (Of course, I'm giving you plenty back but you deserve it because you're just talking nonsense instead of attempting to address the points being made.)



Your claim that this was posted sounds very unlikely to me because I've usually read a very high proportion of posts made on this BB - especially in the early stages - and I would definitely strongly remember a post like that if I'd seen it. I've also tried all kinds of search strings to try to find this supposed post without success. Indeed the only other poster who said they were from Tasmania who I've seen post significantly is PhilD707. It could be that someone said something like this to you and you misremembered it as having been posted online. Frankly I'm very sceptical about the whole thing, though I would take it more seriously if it came from a poster who was consistently sensible.

Can anyone else help with info about this supposed post?

For the record, all I typically do at the start of each comp I am running is organise the appointment of two assistant DOPs, remind players that they must record their results before leaving the venue otherwise they may lose any points scored, read out and explain Article 10.2, and answer any questions about the rules. If someone considers this to be raving on pedantically, they should try a sport which entails a shorter attention span and less patience. I read out 10.2 because I get numerous requests from players to do so.

KB, I don't dislike you sufficiently enough to make up nasty lies, other people do that but not me. It is not my style. It may have even been in the old ACF site. I had no idea who you were until that post re you organising comps.

I am surprised you went to so much trouble, I slightly feel sorry for you, but that is your pedantic character, torturing yourself and everyone else. Just like my brother. Sorry to upset you again maybe. You will end up with ulcers.

antichrist
30-05-2005, 10:28 PM
When I think of it, it is only non-members who need permission of the meeting to sit in attendance. Ordinary members can sit in without permission.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 10:48 PM
When I think of it, it is only non-members who need permission of the meeting to sit in attendance. Ordinary members can sit in without permission.You can believe whatever rubbish you like.

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2005, 11:38 PM
It may have even been in the old ACF site. I had no idea who you were until that post re you organising comps.

The same comments apply to the old ACF site (which is still available and searchable). I was also on the 2002 BBs as well, though it's not still possible to search or even access those.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it shall be my view that you misremembered it (eg that it was either about someone else, or else it was an offline conversation that you misremembered as a post). I also don't trust you to have remembered the conversation correctly rather than taking it out of context. This is assuming it happened at all - on which I'll give you the benefit of a small amount of doubt. If you remember anything that's actually useful, do let me know.


I am surprised you went to so much trouble,

All of ten minutes, if that.


I slightly feel sorry for you, but that is your pedantic character, torturing yourself and everyone else. Just like my brother. Sorry to upset you again maybe. You will end up with ulcers.

Condescending psychoillogical gibberish from someone with no standing to spout it. I am probably taking this far less seriously than you - I just wanted to see if you had anything or if it was just babble.

Surely any half-decent tournament organiser would want to know if they had really been criticised by a player so they could consider the merit of the criticism and decide whether changes were necessary?

EGOR
31-05-2005, 05:58 AM
You can see the minutes as per section 11.3 of the Constitution which states: "The records, books, and other documents of the Association shall be open for inspection, free of charge, to any member of the Association at any reasonable hour."
OK, so how do I get to inspect them?

Duff McKagan
31-05-2005, 07:20 AM
That part of the model rules says absolutely nothing about sending it out to people.

If EGOR was to ask for a copy, would you make a few mouse clicks and send the report to him?

antichrist
31-05-2005, 10:50 AM
Constitution of the

New South Wales Chess Association Inc

(- Incorporating revisions made at the Annual General Meeting on 1 December 2002)



1. NAME

The Association shall be called the New South Wales Chess Association Inc., hereinafter called the NSWCA Inc, or the Association.



2. OBJECTS

To encourage, promote, maintain and control the playing of Chess in the State of New South Wales by: -
encouraging the teaching and playing of chess in schools and amongst juniors and by promoting matches between schools,
promoting and conducting chess matches, competitions, and tournaments,
awarding prizes, titles, and awards,

affiliating with the Australian Chess Federation and, as is necessary, affiliating or co-operating with other chess, sporting, or social organizations, whether inside or outside New South Wales,


adopting or altering rules of play,
providing means for hearing and determining disputes, and by
taking actions it deems necessary to promote the aforesaid.

The NSWCA Inc shall not be carried on for the purpose of profit or gain for its individual members. The NSWCA Inc is prohibited from making any distribution, whether in money, property or otherwise to its members. Nothing hereinbefore contained shall be interpreted to prohibit normal business transactions entered into by the Association with individual members, provided such members declare their interest and take no part in any decision of the Association to enter into such transactions.




3. MEMBERSHIP


Members Any person may become a member by payment of a fee as determined by the preceding Annual General Meeting and by providing the details required on the prescribed application form. A member shall cease to be a member if his/her membership fee is more than one month in arrears. The Council of the NSWCA Inc shall have the right to refuse the application of any person who has been suspended, expelled, or misbehaved at any tournament and has been reported by the Director of Play.



Life Members No more than two (2) Life Members may be elected, on the recommendation of the Council, by a two-thirds (2/3) majority at an Annual General Meeting. Life Members are not required to pay any membership fee and are entitled to attend all Council meetings without the right to vote.



Affiliated Clubs Any club promoting chess may be granted affiliation with the NSWCA Inc by payment of the prescribed fee. This fee must accompany the application.



Other Bodies The NSWCA Inc may set up or approve other bodies to carry out general or specific aims of the Association. These bodies may act independently of the NSWCA Inc.



Members Liabilities The members of the Association shall have no liability to contribute towards the payment of debts and liabilities of the Association or the costs, charges and expenses of the winding up of the Association except to the amount of any unpaid membership fees.



Country Members The Association shall accept those members who live outside the County of Cumberland, New South Wales, as Country Members and accord to them any special privileges applying to such members.



Cessation of Membership A person ceases to be a member of the Association if the person dies, resigns that membership, or is expelled from the Association.




4. MANAGEMENT


The business and affairs of the Association and the custody and control of its funds shall be managed by the Council which, with the exception of the positions of Representative for Junior Chess; shall be elected annually by the general body of members. The position of Representative for Junior Chess shall be filled by a member of the NSWCA Inc nominated by the NSW Junior Chess League at its first meeting after the Annual General Meeting of the NSWCA Inc.



The Council shall consist of President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, Club Liaison Officer, Rating Officer, Publicity Officer, Communications Officer, Representative for Junior Chess, Tournament Officer, Webmaster, Registrar, Country Representative, and one other member.



The Registrar shall cause a register to be kept of all members, setting forth the name and address of each member and specifying the type of membership.



An Executive Committee comprising the President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Secretary shall carry out the routine business of the Association between meetings of the Council and shall be responsible to the full Council.



The Council shall meet not less than ten times each year and shall decide all matters of policy. Reports of the Office Bearers shall be dealt with at the monthly Council meeting. The names of all members of the Council present and voting, and minutes of all resolutions and proceedings of the Council, shall be entered into a book provided for that purpose.



A quorum for a Council meeting shall be six (6).



The Council shall have the power to make and rescind By-laws of the Association. Such By-laws are subject to ratification by the next Annual General Meeting.



The Council shall have the power to appoint sub-committees for specific purposes. The President and Secretary shall be ex-officio members of each sub-committee appointed.



Any member of the Council who fails to attend a regular Council meeting for three consecutive meetings without leave of absence, shall have his office vacated and a successor appointed by the Council. Any other casual vacancy in the membership of Council shall also be filled by Council appointment.



Each member of the Council shall, subject to this Constitution, hold office until the Annual General Meeting following the date of the member's election or appointment, but is eligible for re-election.




5. GENERAL MEETINGS


The Annual General Meeting shall be held as soon as practicable after the end of October each year, at such time and place as may be prescribed by the Council. At least fourteen (14) days written notice of all meetings shall be given to each member of the Association entitled to attend such meetings and vote.



Extraordinary General Meeting All General Meetings other than the Annual General Meeting shall be called Extraordinary General Meetings, and may be called by the Council on giving not less than fourteen (14) days written notice to each member entitled to attend such meetings and vote.

An Extraordinary General Meeting shall be held by the Council on the requisition of thirty (30) members or ten (10) per cent of the membership, whichever is the lesser. On receipt of such requisition, the meeting must be held within twenty-eight (28) days. At least fourteen (14) days written notice of such meeting shall be given to each member entitled to attend and vote.



Notice of General Meetings Every notice convening a General Meeting shall be in writing and shall specify the place, the day, and the hour of the meeting, and information concerning the business to be dealt with. Notice may be given in the Associationís magazine or newsletter. Such business only of which notice is given, and which is dealt with at the meeting shall be binding on the members. Other decisions arising out of Other Business shall be in the nature of recommendations only.



Quorum At an Annual General Meeting or an Extraordinary General Meeting, 6 members or two (2) per cent of the membership shall form a quorum, whichever is the less.


Business The business of the Annual General Meeting shall be as follows:
to confirm the minutes of the previous Annual General Meeting,
to receive and consider the reports of the Council,
to receive and consider the Statement of Affairs and Statement of Receipts and Expenditure,
to ratify any By-laws made by Council since the last Annual General Meeting,
to elect the Council for the ensuing year,
to determine the annual membership fees,
to appoint an Auditor,
to deal with any business of which due notice has been given. (All business to be dealt with at the Annual General Meeting shall be handed to the Secretary at least twenty-eight (28) days prior to the date of such meeting.)


Voting Upon any question arising at a General meeting of the Association a member has one vote only unless determined in the By-laws as having no vote. All votes shall be given personally or by proxy.



Proxy Voting Each member is entitled to appoint another member as proxy by giving notice to the Secretary no later than twenty four (24) hours before the time of a meeting at which the member is entitled to vote. The notice appointing the proxy shall be on the approved form, fully completed and signed. No member may hold more than five (5) proxies. Members holding proxies must personally attend the meeting to cast them. Proxy votes may only be cast in respect of motions which have been properly placed on the notice paper of the meeting.




6. APPEALS COMMITTEE


An Appeals Committee consisting of three members, with alternate members, shall be elected at an Annual General Meeting. The duties of the Appeals Committee are to hear and judge:



All disputes and appeals arising out of any game or competition that is the concern of the Grade Match Secretary or a Director of Play, and



All matters referred to it by the Council or a General Meeting.



The Appeals Committee shall only hear matters concerning the rules of chess and matters arising therefrom including expulsion from a tournament. It shall not deal with matters of discipline covered in Section 7 of the Constitution. The decision of the Committee shall be final.




7. SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION


The Council may debar a member from some or all of the activities of the NSWCA Inc for breaches of discipline or of By-laws for a period of not more than two years providing: -



notice shall have been sent to the last known address of that member; the notice stating the charges and requiring the member to show cause why no action should be taken, and



the member is advised of the date on which the Council shall meet. Reasonable notice shall be given to the member.



the member is advised that he/she has the right to attend the Council meeting in person, or by his/her personal representative so authorized in writing by that member, and state his/her case.





All disputes and appeals arising out of any game or competition that is the concern of the Grade Match Secretary or a Director of Play, and



All matters referred to it by the Council or a General Meeting.



A member may appeal to the Council against the penalty imposed. Appeals shall be made in writing to the Secretary within seven (7) days after notice of the penalty is served to the member.



A member or affiliated club may only be expelled from the NSWCA Inc by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of those present at a General Meeting where the intention to expel has been given in the notice of the meeting.



An expelled member can only be re-admitted at a General Meeting provided notice of such is given in the notice of that meeting.





8. FINANCE


The funds of the Association shall be derived from the fees of members, donations, grants, and such other sources approved by the Association.


The Treasurer has the right to receive all monies paid to the NSWCA Inc and such monies shall be paid into an account in a bank in the name of the NSWCA Inc.


No payment shall be made without the consent of the Executive Committee. Cheques shall be signed by any two members of the Executive Committee or by one member of the Executive Committee and one of the two council approved non executive council members.


The Treasurer shall keep correct account and books showing the financial affairs of the Association and the particulars usually shown in books of account of a like nature and showing in particular the following: -


all sums of money received and expended by the Council and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure took place.
all sales and purchase of equipment, and
the assets and liabilities of the Association.


The Treasurer shall prepare, and present to the Annual General Meeting a Statement of Affairs and Income and Expenditure Statement which shall be audited. The Auditor's report shall be presented to the Annual General Meeting with the Financial reports.
The Auditor, appointed at the Annual General Meeting, may be a member of the Association but may not be a member of the Council.


9. ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS

The Constitution shall not be altered, repealed in part or whole, or added to, except by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of votes cast at a General Meeting of members, providing that the notice of proposed alteration, repeal, or addition shall have been given in the notice of the meeting. By-laws can be altered at a General Meeting by a simple majority. However, Clause 2, Clause 9 or Clause 10 of the Constitution shall not be altered except by a three-quarters (3/4) majority of votes cast at a General Meeting of members.



10. DISSOLUTION

The NSWCA Inc can only be dissolved by a three-quarters (3/4) majority of votes cast at a Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting providing notice of Dissolution Motion and reasons shall have been given in the notice of the General Meeting.





11. GENERAL


The Common Seal of the Association shall be kept in the custody of the secretary and shall only be affixed to a document with the approval of the Council. The stamping of the Common Seal shall be witnessed by the signatures of two members of the Council.



Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the Public Officer shall keep in his or her custody or under his or her control all records, books, and other documents relating to the affairs of the Association.



The records, books, and other documents of the Association shall be open for inspection, free of charge, to any member of the Association at any reasonable hour.



The decision of the Council on the construction or interpretation of this Constitution and By-laws or on any matter arising therefrom shall be conclusive and binding on all members of the Association unless and until varied or reversed at a General Meeting.
_______________________________________________

Areas which I consider may need attention are

Membership

Comment: what needs to be added is the right of members to observe council meetings with the usual qualifications. Currently the lack of such stated rights leaves the authority in the hands of the council.
.................................................. ................

Section 4, Management :
The Council shall have the power to make and rescind By-laws of the Association. Such By-laws are subject to ratification by the next Annual General Meeting.

Comment: Dysfunctional laws could be enacted, used and then rescinded all between AGMs. By then it would be too late, the damage done. Therefore this law should be rescinded. It is not a common law in other associations and I doubt it is in model rules.

As members would not ordinary know which laws have been enacted etc. as would not know to request copies of the minutes covering such, if this law is to be retained it should be qualified that all such changes be notified to ordinary members within 14 days of passing.






.................................................. ...........

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 11:02 AM
OK, so how do I get to inspect them?Send a request to the Secretary. You can arrange to view them at his convenience. Some items might be deemed commercial in confidence and hence not available for scrutiny.

antichrist
31-05-2005, 11:11 AM
And of course Egor is a member?

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 11:38 AM
If EGOR was to ask for a copy, would you make a few mouse clicks and send the report to him?No.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 11:38 AM
And of course Egor is a member?No idea. Obviously he has no hope of viewing them if he isnt a member.

Duff McKagan
31-05-2005, 11:39 AM
Send a request to the Secretary. You can arrange to view them at his convenience. Some items might be deemed commercial in confidence and hence not available for scrutiny.

1. If there are some CIC figures, will they be blanked out for EGOR?

2. How can the association be both open and still enguage in CIC deals?

3. How are members to know if there are COI issues if there are CIC matters?

4. If the report was based in part upon CIC figures, how does this effect the legitamacy of the conclussions?

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 11:42 AM
1. If there are some CIC figures, will they be blanked out for EGOR?

2. How can the association be both open and still enguage in CIC deals?

3. How are members to know if there are COI issues if there are CIC matters?

4. If the report was based in part upon CIC figures, how does this effect the legitamacy of the conclussions?Standard business practices.
e.g. tendered bids for the provision of equipment.

EGOR
31-05-2005, 12:24 PM
Send a request to the Secretary. You can arrange to view them at his convenience. Some items might be deemed commercial in confidence and hence not available for scrutiny.
Thanks, I will do that.
Yes, I am a member otherwise there would be no point to any of this. :)
Bill, can you explain farther about the "commercial in confidance" part?

Duff McKagan
31-05-2005, 12:27 PM
Standard business practices.
e.g. tendered bids for the provision of equipment.

I do n ot think that I am alone in thinking that this reply does not in any way answer the questions asked. Please try to give more concidered and least dismissive answers to:

1. If there are some CIC figures, will they be blanked out for EGOR?

2. How can the association be both open and still enguage in CIC deals?

3. How are members to know if there are COI issues if there are CIC matters?

4. If the report was based in part upon CIC figures, how does this effect the legitamacy of the conclussions?

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 12:40 PM
Thanks, I will do that.
Yes, I am a member otherwise there would be no point to any of this. :)
Bill, can you explain farther about the "commercial in confidance" part?Yes, we often ask for quotes from "chess suppliers" for equipment, grade match prizes, trophies etc. We would consider those quotes as commercial in confidence.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 12:44 PM
I do n ot think that I am alone in thinking that this reply does not in any way answer the questions asked. Please try to give more concidered and least dismissive answers to:

1. If there are some CIC figures, will they be blanked out for EGOR?Yes.

2. How can the association be both open and still enguage in CIC deals?Standard business practice.

3. How are members to know if there are COI issues if there are CIC matters?Council members would keep tabs on other Council members who may have a COI. For there to be a significant problem you would have to believe that all Council members have a related COI and are covering for each other. However as far as I am aware Council members have always declared any COI and refrained from voting.

4. If the report was based in part upon CIC figures, how does this effect the legitamacy of the conclussions?It doesnt effect them whatsoever.

EGOR
31-05-2005, 12:47 PM
When I think of it, it is only non-members who need permission of the meeting to sit in attendance. Ordinary members can sit in without permission.
A/C, I get the feeling that you have general members meetings and Council members meetings confused.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 12:49 PM
A/C, I get the feeling that you have general members meetings and Council members meetings confused.A/C is always confused. ;)

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 12:50 PM
Thanks, I will do that.You could always just join the Council. ;)
We have a couple of vacancies.

EGOR
31-05-2005, 01:22 PM
You could always just join the Council. ;)
We have a couple of vacancies.
I've already taked to you about that. ;)

Duff McKagan
31-05-2005, 01:27 PM
You could always just join the Council. ;)
We have a couple of vacancies.

Bill, he wants the Presidency so he can pursue the SCC option without the obstruction of your information filter :lol:

Cheers.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 01:30 PM
I've already taked to you about that. ;)Ah. Now I know who you are. ;)

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 01:34 PM
Bill, he wants the Presidency so he can pursue the SCC option without the obstruction of your information filter :lol:I seriously doubt the Councils views on this would differ from mine.

antichrist
31-05-2005, 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
When I think of it, it is only non-members who need permission of the meeting to sit in attendance. Ordinary members can sit in without permission.

Egor
A/C, I get the feeling that you have general members meetings and Council members meetings confused

A/C
After speaking to Fair Trading I have come to realise that it is up to individual associations how they treat ordinary members attending committee/council meetings.

As having mixed in associations where they greatly value freedom of speech, often having fought for freedom of speech and openedness, I thought that it was virtually standard.

The NSWCA consitution permits the council to deny this right to ordinary members. This situation I consider is detrimental to the association.

So Egor, with premission of the council, or by changing the constitution ordinary members can sit in on meetings, obtaining permission to speak at the discretion of the meeting but having no voting rights of course.

I advocate that the constitution be changed to encourge greater participation by ordinary members and to permit openness so that the right thing can be seen to be done and not just relying on trickle down effect of information

The last option is of people members of the public who may be chess-playing for example and may like to see how the assoc. operates before joining, which is very popular option in other organisations. They may be a friend of a council member or of a top player. Of course at the discretion of council whilst discussing confidential matters they can be asked to leave the room along with paid up ordinary members.
_________________________

Egor, does that suffice for now. Because I have finished work for the day and am going surfing than playing chess.

EGOR
31-05-2005, 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
When I think of it, it is only non-members who need permission of the meeting to sit in attendance. Ordinary members can sit in without permission.

Egor
A/C, I get the feeling that you have general members meetings and Council members meetings confused

A/C
After speaking to Fair Trading I have come to realise that it is up to individual associations how they treat ordinary members attending committee/council meetings.

As having mixed in associations where they greatly value freedom of speech, often having fought for freedom of speech and openedness, I thought that it was virtually standard.

The NSWCA consitution permits the council to deny this right to ordinary members. This situation I consider is detrimental to the association.

So Egor, with premission of the council, or by changing the constitution ordinary members can sit in on meetings, obtaining permission to speak at the discretion of the meeting but having no voting rights of course.

I advocate that the constitution be changed to encourge greater participation by ordinary members and to permit openness so that the right thing can be seen to be done and not just relying on trickle down effect of information

The last option is of people members of the public who may be chess-playing for example and may like to see how the assoc. operates before joining, which is very popular option in other organisations. They may be a friend of a council member or of a top player. Of course at the discretion of council whilst discussing confidential matters they can be asked to leave the room along with paid up ordinary members.
_________________________

Egor, does that suffice for now. Because I have finished work for the day and am going surfing than playing chess.

Well, it is quiet a lot to take in. I agree with the view that it is up to the individual association whether they allow ordanary members at Council meetings. I don't think that the current NSWCA constitution forbids it, although Bill has already told me that I'm wrong! ;) Ultimatly it is in the hands of the members. If they care enough about going to Council meetings they'll make the changes with their votes.
Catch a big one & win. :)

antichrist
31-05-2005, 05:47 PM
Bill,
when is the closing date for motions to be sent for the AGM?

Kerry Stead
31-05-2005, 10:45 PM
Can I just make the simple point that for the most part, NSWCA council meetings are rather uneventful ... dare I say it, dull even ...
Personally I can't really think of why someone would WANT to attend! Peter ... why do you want to sit in on meetings? What are you hoping to achieve as a result?

Garvinator
31-05-2005, 11:19 PM
Kerry, the answer to that is rather simple, cause he knows it would piss off other people, including Bill :eek:

antichrist
01-06-2005, 01:36 AM
Can I just make the simple point that for the most part, NSWCA council meetings are rather uneventful ... dare I say it, dull even ...
Personally I can't really think of why someone would WANT to attend! Peter ... why do you want to sit in on meetings? What are you hoping to achieve as a result?

It is more the point of being able to if one wanted to or felt the need to.

For example, there was correspondence requesting me be barred from the Assoc. for my outside political activities. I should have been informed about that as a matter of courtsey and not have to find out by leaks. I should be able to obtain a copy of that correspondence but cannot. In government organisations I could do a FOI request. Correspondents could, as some posters on this BB do, post complete lies about me, and get away with it, and maybe be believed by some committee members, then it becomes folklore.
.................................................. ......................................
You won't find me attending meetings to gauk as I am an activist, that is the main reason why I stopped going to JCL meetings - I was given absolutely nothing to do. What did I do there? Sit on the same chair all night there a few nights after travelling right across Sydney. No wonder I went to sleep. At least I was achieving something. You could not recall, even checking the minutes, that I was handed any duties. Was not even offered a cup of tea to keep myself awake and something to do.

A woman in a similar situation to myself used to complain to me about it. Saying if you weren't in the cliche well you may as well not be there.

You can see from Lidcombe that I am an activist. In other organisations I am usually secretary, president, editor or campaign manager. As well as doubling for the hatchetman.
.................................................. ..........................................
The second reason is for openness and transparency in decision-making. A worthy cause on it's own.
.................................................. ....................................
Thirdly so that members are encouraged to have an interest in the affairs of the assoc and be more inclined to take positions.

You won't discourage myself by having to obtain permission to attend, you will encourge me, but for normal people they will be discouraged. You must cater for the majority.

Now Mr Gray maybe you can see that I do have reasons for people been able to attend. What is the position for your state organisation?

With Bill's BB persona, and even your own if you keep these smartarse posts up, both of you would attract antogonists - Matt Sweeney for starters. Then you will want draconian rules to protect yourselves from your love children. If you want to go down that road I can try to piss you off and hope I already am.

JohnH
01-06-2005, 02:06 PM
It is more the point of being able to if one wanted to or felt the need to.

You won't find me attending meetings to gauk as I am an activist, that is the main reason why I stopped going to JCL meetings - I was given absolutely nothing to do. What did I do there? Sit on the same chair all night there a few nights after travelling right across Sydney. No wonder I went to sleep. At least I was achieving something. You could not recall, even checking the minutes, that I was handed any duties. Was not even offered a cup of tea to keep myself awake and something to do.

A woman in a similar situation to myself used to complain to me about it. Saying if you weren't in the cliche well you may as well not be there.

You can see from Lidcombe that I am an activist. In other organisations I am usually secretary, president, editor or campaign manager. As well as doubling for the hatchetman.
.................................................. ..........................................
.


I want to first make clear that I am not writing on behalf of the NSWJCL or expressing a Council position.

I am, however, on the Council and would like to address some of the issues raised by Peter Hanna regarding the NSWJCL.

First, Peter attended a total of two NSWJCL meetings during his year on Council. The first was in April following the AGM. At that meeting he fell into a deep sleep at the beginning of the 3rd agenda item, which was the Treasurer's report. He slept through the rest of the meeting. At the second meeting he attended in November he left early.

Second, Peter left the meeting immediately at the end of the first meeting in April and left before the end of the second meeting in November and consequenly was unaware that Richard GH provided refreshments.

Third, Other than the two meetingS mentioned, Peter attended no further meetings. He missed the remaining 7 meetings. He has provided no written or oral feedback to Council concerning his discontent with those meetings. He did not provide any apologies regarding his failure to attend the other 7 meetings.

Fourth, Peter may well be an activist, but there was no evidence of this in his involvment with the NSWJCL. In his first meeting it was not possible to delegate him specific areas as he slept through the whole event. His activist spirit was not evident in the second meeting.

Fifth, I am unaware of any concerns mentioned by a female Council member. As all women who were present that night are still on Council they could not have had the level of discontent he implied.

Sixth, The NSWJCL is always happy to hear and deal with constructive feedback on how to improve the development of junior chess in NSW. I am unaware of Peter giving the Council any such feedback.

I trust this clarifies the situation.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 02:30 PM
I want to first make clear that I am not writing on behalf of the NSWJCL or expressing a Council position.

I am, however, on the Council and would like to address some of the issues raised by Peter Hanna regarding the NSWJCL.

First, Peter attended a total of two NSWJCL meetings during his year on Council. The first was in April following the AGM. At that meeting he fell into a deep sleep at the beginning of the 3rd agenda item, which was the Treasurer's report. He slept through the rest of the meeting. At the second meeting he attended in November he left early.

A/C
I doubt they were five months apart. I thought maybe 3 consecutive meetings . If first in April, no way the last was in November.

I hope my sleep did not imply any judgement on the treasurer.

If it was November, what time was early? An approx time will do. Maybe 10pm which is the official time for all ALP business to end?

I will grant I may have left after having a nap, because I don't think it is very nice to sleep during a meeting. Before sleeping in such comfy lounge chairs one does not necessary know that they are about to nod off. Even judges and popes do it. And as stated I was commencing work very early and needed to the next morning.


JohnH
Second, Peter left the meeting immediately at the end of the first meeting in April and left before the end of the second meeting in November and consequenly was unaware that Richard GH provided refreshments.

A/C
Do you mean that you low down so and sos never gave me a dig in the ribs to get a coffee and bikkie to wake me up. You probably ate my share.

JohnH
Third, Other than the two meetingS mentioned, Peter attended no further meetings. He missed the remaining 7 meetings. He has provided no written or oral feedback to Council concerning his discontent with those meetings. He did not provide any apologies regarding his failure to attend the other 7 meetings.

Fourth, Peter may well be an activist, but there was no evidence of this in his involvment with the NSWJCL. In his first meeting it was not possible to delegate him specific areas as he slept through the whole event. His activist spirit was not evident in the second meeting.

Fifth, I am unaware of any concerns mentioned by a female Council member. As all women who were present that night are still on Council they could not have had the level of discontent he implied.

Sixth, The NSWJCL is always happy to hear and deal with constructive feedback on how to improve the development of junior chess in NSW. I am unaware of Peter giving the Council any such feedback.

I trust this clarifies the situation.

A/C
JohnH, surprisingly I can even remember the name of the woman who made that comment but no need to dob her in. Well she brought it up to me, not the reverse.

John I will not complain about anything then and now because I know that they are working their hearts out. I felt I could have helped and was willing but that is how things work out.

For having obviously checked the minutes I think you have it wrong re November, my mistakes were accidental - exhaustion and boredom.

But if the time come and they are desparate for workers and if I was available [and not exhausted] I would still come forward in good spirit. That is more important than anything in the past. I love being with the children at their tournos and taking on Lloyd Fell.

Agree and we will call it a draw?

JohnH
01-06-2005, 02:37 PM
A/C
JohnH, surprisingly I can even remember the name of the woman who made that comment but no need to dob her in. Well she brought it up to me, not the reverse.

John I will not complain about anything then and now because I know that they are working their hearts out. I felt I could have helped and was willing but that is how things work out.

For having obviously checked the minutes I think you have it wrong re November, my mistakes were accidental - exhaustion and boredom.

But if the time come and they are desparate for workers and if I was available [and not exhausted] I would still come forward in good spirit. That is more important than anything in the past. I love being with the children at their tournos and taking on Lloyd Fell.

Agree and we will call it a draw?

I am not engaging in a chess game, hence the issue of a draw does not come up. I wanted to set the record straight. I stand by my comments in the previous post.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2005, 02:37 PM
Agree and we will call it a draw?Nice try, in a clearly lost position.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 03:08 PM
Nice try, in a clearly lost position.

thanks for the laugh Bill, your humour is much better than name calling.

John {dont know his surname?} stands by his claim but I definitely thought the meetings were consecutive. I could even remember the train I had to catch back over the bridge the following month. I don't think I would have the hide to miss out on 5 month's of meetings then come back just like that.

He did not deny eating my biscuit quota.

John, can you inform us what time the meetings closed? I really would like an answer.

JohnH
01-06-2005, 03:19 PM
thanks for the laugh Bill, your humour is much better than name calling.


John, can you inform us what time the meetings closed? I really would like an answer.

My name can be found in previous postings. Copies of the minutes were sent to you and you can check the time.

My original post regarding your attendance is accurate. The post overall is accurate and I have nothing further to add.

auriga
01-06-2005, 03:53 PM
thanks for the laugh Bill, your humour is much better than name calling.

John {dont know his surname?} stands by his claim but I definitely thought the meetings were consecutive. I could even remember the train I had to catch back over the bridge the following month. I don't think I would have the hide to miss out on 5 month's of meetings then come back just like that.

He did not deny eating my biscuit quota.

John, can you inform us what time the meetings closed? I really would like an answer.

a/c mate, you need to take a leaf out of the wallabies book and pop a few no-dooz next meeting.

don't the meetings finish around 1am'ish.
but i spot you regulary posting shoutbox message around that time all the time so what was the problem??

Kerry Stead
01-06-2005, 04:56 PM
a/c mate, you need to take a leaf out of the wallabies book and pop a few no-dooz next meeting.

don't the meetings finish around 1am'ish.
but i spot you regulary posting shoutbox message around that time all the time so what was the problem??
NSWJCL meetings are normally over by 10 ... latest they've gone when I've been there is about 10:45.
NSWCA meetings are a little different - 11 being the standard finishing time ... and they start earlier ...
Think the latest I've been at a meeting of any chess committee was about midnight, and that was because I hung around to sort out some other things after the main meeting finished.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 05:04 PM
NSWJCL meetings are normally over by 10 ... latest they've gone when I've been there is about 10:45.
NSWCA meetings are a little different - 11 being the standard finishing time ... and they start earlier ...
Think the latest I've been at a meeting of any chess committee was about midnight, and that was because I hung around to sort out some other things after the main meeting finished.

I will be surprised if they finished by 10 when preparing for the nationals I think it was. My train was about 10.30 and there was still tonnes of business to complete I thought.


I can't expect you to remember what I did but it was a few meetings in a row, nothing 5 months later. CAn you remember that much?

antichrist
01-06-2005, 05:07 PM
a/c mate, you need to take a leaf out of the wallabies book and pop a few no-dooz next meeting.

don't the meetings finish around 1am'ish.
but i spot you regulary posting shoutbox message around that time all the time so what was the problem??

That is because I have already conked out about 7.30 or later and reawoken about 11ish. If I have worked hard or been swimming I will always conk out early.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 05:11 PM
My name can be found in previous postings. Copies of the minutes were sent to you and you can check the time.

My original post regarding your attendance is accurate. The post overall is accurate and I have nothing further to add.

I have changed house twice then as well as a flood in the basement where everything was stored. Thrown those minutes out for sure by now.

Now come on, I DID NOT ATTEND A MEETING IN NOVEMBER, 5 months apart. Kerry, you would back that up? They were all in a row.

Bob1
01-06-2005, 06:16 PM
Obviously a lot of people use this thread to increase their post count.

The NSWCA constitution is on the NSWCA web site.

Normal members are not specifically excluded (or included) as attendees to council meetings.

Some one quoted most of the constitution (but as always people only quote to prove a point - I take the same liberty)

- but it is the very last paragraph that has the final say:

"11. GENERAL
.....
IV The decision of the Council on the construction or interpretation of this Constitution and By-laws or on any matter arising therefrom shall be conclusive and binding on all members of the Association unless and until varied or reversed at a General Meeting."


Bill is right again!

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2005, 06:31 PM
Bill is right again!I never doubted it for a minute. ;) :whistle:

antichrist
01-06-2005, 06:34 PM
Obviously a lot of people use this thread to increase their post count.

The NSWCA constitution is on the NSWCA web site.

Normal members are not specifically excluded (or included) as attendees to council meetings.

Some one quoted most of the constitution (but as always people only quote to prove a point - I take the same liberty)

- but it is the very last paragraph that has the final say:

"11. GENERAL
.....
IV The decision of the Council on the construction or interpretation of this Constitution and By-laws or on any matter arising therefrom shall be conclusive and binding on all members of the Association unless and until varied or reversed at a General Meeting."


Bill is right again!

It did not need a bright spark to work that out, you are not telling us anything new as I had already discussed this para with Fair TRading. That is why I gave the verdict in my post yesterday. I had even put the whole constiution on this BB. Now do you have any new revelations which you can be rude about.

Bob1
01-06-2005, 06:35 PM
to A/C

I am sure if you so desparately want to attend a NSWCA council meeting that there is a vacancy in the council that you could apply to fill.
(Note: attending a meeting may actually prove some of the allegations Bill has made about you in his posts)
All you need do is have a motion posted (and passed) at the next AGM to ammend the constitution.

to All

I totally agree with Kerry that these meetings are worse than boring.
Getting through the agenda can sometimes be a chore.

Allowing all councillors to have their say, decide and agree ideas or motions is difficult. But it is far more important that they all feel free to express their ideas and opinions in a environment that is supportive and constructive (ie they enjoy themselves enough to want to return the following month) Allowing casual attendees would not support these objectives.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 06:59 PM
to A/C

I am sure if you so desparately want to attend a NSWCA council meeting that there is a vacancy in the council that you could apply to fill.
(Note: attending a meeting may actually prove some of the allegations Bill has made about you in his posts)
All you need do is have a motion posted (and passed) at the next AGM to ammend the constitution.

A/C
I have no intention of going for 2 reasons, first, I want to see that purchasing a premises is on the agenda. This has always been my well-known qualification for the past few years.

And secondly, I know that is already full of competent members and doesn't need me. If otherwise I would get involved.

I prefer to do innovative new projects, though risky and controversial are more rewarding. I have done tonnes of hack work in other organisations so I am past that stage.

Well I have already telegraphed an attempt to amend the constitution so you are not saying anything new there either.
________________________________________
to All

I totally agree with Kerry that these meetings are worse than boring.
Getting through the agenda can sometimes be a chore.

Allowing all councillors to have their say, decide and agree ideas or motions is difficult. But it is far more important that they all feel free to express their ideas and opinions in a environment that is supportive and constructive (ie they enjoy themselves enough to want to return the following month) Allowing casual attendees would not support these objectives.

A/C
Maybe a compromise could be that agenda items are posted on the internet approx 7 days earlier, and interested parties can contact the secretary for expected permission to attend. With a limit of say 4 ordinary members sitting in at a time. The items they are interested in to be handled first, then they are out of there.

Which is a massive difference to what is happening now.

As well members should be notified if anything personal comes up about that themself like in my case.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2005, 07:17 PM
As well members should be notified if anything personal comes up about that themself like in my case.The letter concerning you arrived in the mail just prior to the meeting. It was addressed to the NSWCA and not you. The writer was anonymous. The Council felt it had no bearing on the NSWCA and as such decided no action was required. If the Council had felt action was relevant you would have been informed by the Council.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 08:09 PM
The letter concerning you arrived in the mail just prior to the meeting. It was addressed to the NSWCA and not you. The writer was anonymous. The Council felt it had no bearing on the NSWCA and as such decided no action was required. If the Council had felt action was relevant you would have been informed by the Council.

Well this is the most I have heard about it. Fancy the person was too gutless to put their name on it. He sent them everywhere you know. As no name on it there can be no confidences so can I see one day?

Kerry Stead
01-06-2005, 11:20 PM
I have changed house twice then as well as a flood in the basement where everything was stored. Thrown those minutes out for sure by now.

Now come on, I DID NOT ATTEND A MEETING IN NOVEMBER, 5 months apart. Kerry, you would back that up? They were all in a row.
I wasn't at the JCL meetings you attended - I've only been on the JCL council for a few years, and I don't attend all the meetings that are held due to other committments I have ... so unfortunately I can't verify your attendance or otherwise ...

JohnH
02-06-2005, 07:19 AM
I have changed house twice then as well as a flood in the basement where everything was stored. Thrown those minutes out for sure by now.

Now come on, I DID NOT ATTEND A MEETING IN NOVEMBER, 5 months apart. Kerry, you would back that up? They were all in a row.

I am not going to get involved with you in a hair splitters seminar regarding minute 'facts'. This is always a part of your tactics. First you make claims regarding your behaviour which show you to be a concerned, involved activist. When the facts come out and contradict this postion you digress into lame humor to cover it up. If that fails you seek find some irrelevant fact to argue over. Finally if that is lost, you go to personal insult. I've seen all this before and will not get involved in it. I stand by my original comments regarding your involvement with the NSWJCL.

I am not responsible for your loss of NSWJCL minutes nor in replacing them. The last time I checked I was not your clerical assistant.

You are no longer a member of the NSWJCL Council, nor are you a member of the NSWJCL. Should you want information I suggest you make a request for it in writing to 'The Secretary' outlining the purpose for which it is needed and such a request will be handled under the agenda item 'Correspondance' at a Council meeting. I will not be discussing this matter any further.

antichrist
02-06-2005, 08:32 PM
I am not going to get involved with you in a hair splitters seminar regarding minute 'facts'. This is always a part of your tactics. First you make claims regarding your behaviour which show you to be a concerned, involved activist. When the facts come out and contradict this postion you digress into lame humor to cover it up. If that fails you seek find some irrelevant fact to argue over. Finally if that is lost, you go to personal insult. I've seen all this before and will not get involved in it. I stand by my original comments regarding your involvement with the NSWJCL.

I am not responsible for your loss of NSWJCL minutes nor in replacing them. The last time I checked I was not your clerical assistant.

You are no longer a member of the NSWJCL Council, nor are you a member of the NSWJCL. Should you want information I suggest you make a request for it in writing to 'The Secretary' outlining the purpose for which it is needed and such a request will be handled under the agenda item 'Correspondance' at a Council meeting. I will not be discussing this matter any further.

JohnH, you think BB posters are such suckers, what you accuse me is exactly what you are doing. As well as fillibustering.


If anything is easy to check out is if someone attended a meeting or not. Everything else almost is debatable - but attendance no as it gets recorded. And you stuffed it. There is no way I attended in November, and if you can't a clear-cut item like that correct then you cannot be trusted to get anything else correct.

And who is interested anyway. You like, some other people, want to play the person and not the ball. Mr Negative, that is what you are.

Spiny Norman
03-06-2005, 09:29 AM
AC, you should know the first rule of meeting minutes ... if its not in the minutes, it never happened. 2nd rule is like the 1st, if it IS in the minutes, then it happened, regardless of whether it happened or not.

So I'd be guessing, regardless of whether you think you were there or not, that JohnH probably has the minutes in front of him and that the minutes don't show you were there (or do show when you were there) and as such, I reckon you are on a hiding to nothing.

We had our Croydon committee meeting last night. Lots of interesting stuff will be in those minutes too ... ;) ... :whistle:

JohnH
03-06-2005, 09:41 AM
JohnH, you think BB posters are such suckers, what you accuse me is exactly what you are doing. As well as fillibustering.


If anything is easy to check out is if someone attended a meeting or not. Everything else almost is debatable - but attendance no as it gets recorded. And you stuffed it. There is no way I attended in November, and if you can't a clear-cut item like that correct then you cannot be trusted to get anything else correct.

And who is interested anyway. You like, some other people, want to play the person and not the ball. Mr Negative, that is what you are.

During the year you were on Council I missed one meeting. I was at the meeting after the AGM in April that you slept through. The only meeting I missed was the November one when I accompanied my daughter to the World Youth Championships in Greece. I checked your attendance with Richard GH and he confirmed you attended the November meeting.


I notice you now resort to personal insult. All my previous comments relate to points of issue or fact.

In terms of suckers it takes one to know one.

Duff McKagan
03-06-2005, 10:38 AM
John, antichrist has you hook line and sinker.

[scream of the reel]

:lol:

Rincewind
03-06-2005, 11:02 AM
John, antichrist has you hook line and sinker.

[scream of the reel]

:lol:

It's no tragedy.

Trent Parker
03-06-2005, 01:10 PM
Yet you keep replying.....?

Spiny Norman
03-06-2005, 02:18 PM
Now Frosty, if it is not in the minutes that I slept does that also mean that it did not happen.

Looks that way to me. So you'd have to call character witnesses from those present at the meeting if you wanted to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were asleep ... but it looks like JohnH is a willing witness to your slumber party, so you're OK in any event.

Paul S
03-06-2005, 04:38 PM
I am not going to get involved with you in a hair splitters seminar regarding minute 'facts'. This is always a part of your tactics. First you make claims regarding your behaviour which show you to be a concerned, involved activist. When the facts come out and contradict this postion you digress into lame humor to cover it up. If that fails you seek find some irrelevant fact to argue over. Finally if that is lost, you go to personal insult. I've seen all this before and will not get involved in it.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Well said John H!!! An accurate portrayal of Peter Hanna's behaviour on this BB!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Paul S
03-06-2005, 04:59 PM
Like John H accurately and truthfully sums up about Peter Hanna..............

I am not going to get involved with you in a hair splitters seminar regarding minute 'facts'. This is always a part of your tactics. First you make claims regarding your behaviour which show you to be a concerned, involved activist. When the facts come out and contradict this postion you digress into lame humor to cover it up. If that fails you seek find some irrelevant fact to argue over. Finally if that is lost, you go to personal insult. I've seen all this before and will not get involved in it.

So, Peter can you provide an answer to the following paragraph (refer to post 136 in this thread - which was a response to post 133), or is this yet another of your many lies and distortions?.................................


I can't find any posts whereby anyone has sworn on a stack of Bibles that this is the case. Have I overlooked something? Can someone show me the post(s) in question?

antichrist
03-06-2005, 05:07 PM
Like John H accurately and truthfully sums up about Peter Hanna..............

I am not going to get involved with you in a hair splitters seminar regarding minute 'facts'. This is always a part of your tactics. First you make claims regarding your behaviour which show you to be a concerned, involved activist. When the facts come out and contradict this postion you digress into lame humor to cover it up. If that fails you seek find some irrelevant fact to argue over. Finally if that is lost, you go to personal insult. I've seen all this before and will not get involved in it.

So, Peter can you provide an answer to the following paragraph (refer to post 136 in this thread - which was a response to post 133), or is this yet another of your many lies and distortions?.................................

PaulS, Jesus Christ you make yourself an easy target. If I am not careful the RSPCA will have me up for being cruel to dumb animals.

You reakon you are not going to get involved in a hair splitting argument then still want to argue. GEt a life and get a brain. bye bye

Paul S
03-06-2005, 05:09 PM
PaulS, Jesus Christ you make yourself an easy target. If I am not careful the RSPCA will have me up for being cruel to dumb animals.

You reakon you are not going to get involved in a hair splitting argument then still want to argue. GEt a life and get a brain. bye bye

Like John H accurately and truthfully sums up about Peter Hanna..............

I am not going to get involved with you in a hair splitters seminar regarding minute 'facts'. This is always a part of your tactics. First you make claims regarding your behaviour which show you to be a concerned, involved activist. When the facts come out and contradict this postion you digress into lame humor to cover it up. If that fails you seek find some irrelevant fact to argue over. Finally if that is lost, you go to personal insult. I've seen all this before and will not get involved in it.

antichrist
03-06-2005, 05:13 PM
Like John H accurately and truthfully sums up about Peter Hanna..............

I am not going to get involved with you in a hair splitters seminar regarding minute 'facts'. This is always a part of your tactics. First you make claims regarding your behaviour which show you to be a concerned, involved activist. When the facts come out and contradict this postion you digress into lame humor to cover it up. If that fails you seek find some irrelevant fact to argue over. Finally if that is lost, you go to personal insult. I've seen all this before and will not get involved in it.

I can't hear you - are you saying something??

Paul S
03-06-2005, 05:22 PM
I can't hear you - are you saying something??

Yes, I was saying something.

However, I forgot that I was speaking to a fool who does not understand (and never will understand)! :doh: :wall:

I should not have wasted my time! Like the Bible says, you cannot argue with a FOOL!!!

Libby
03-06-2005, 05:45 PM
How about you guys take it outside where it belongs :hand:

ElevatorEscapee
03-06-2005, 08:25 PM
Agreed, getting back to Minutes of meetings. I wrote down the Minutes at my chess club's last AGM, to show that we have nothing to hide, here they are in full: :uhoh:

8:24pm Meeting Opened
8:25pm
8:26pm
8:27pm
8:28pm
8:29pm
8:30pm
8:31pm
8:32pm
8:33pm
8:34pm
8:35pm
8:36pm
8:37pm
8:38pm
8:39pm
8:40pm
8:41pm
8:42pm
8:43pm
8:44pm
8:45pm
8:46pm
8:47pm
8:48pm
8:49pm
8:50pm
8:51pm
8:52pm
8:53pm
8:54pm
8:55pm
8:56pm
8:57pm
8:58pm
8:59pm
9:00pm
9:01pm
9:02pm
9:03pm
9:04pm
9:05pm
9:06pm
9:07pm
9:08pm
9:09pm
9:10pm
9:11pm
9:12pm
9:13pm
9:14pm
9:15pm
9:16pm
9:17pm Meeting Closed

Spiny Norman
03-06-2005, 09:27 PM
Nice meeting EE. I carefully read through each of the minutes, just in case you'd missed one. Alas, they're all there. No controversy at all!

Bill Gletsos
03-06-2005, 11:32 PM
JohnH, whoever he is,You really are a fool if you dont know who JohnH is.

I have even dozed off during games, then came back and played brilliantly to beat players I have never beaten before.And then Bobby Ewing walked out of the shower. :owned:

antichrist
03-06-2005, 11:37 PM
You really are a fool if you dont know who JohnH is.

A/C
Frankly I don't know and couldn't care less. I was never the slightest interested who the chesslover was.

BG
And then Bobby Ewing walked out of the shower. :owned:

A/C
And who is B E? Not that I am likely to care.

Bill Gletsos
03-06-2005, 11:43 PM
A/C
And who is B E? Not that I am likely to care.I cant be bothered explaining it to you.

Duff McKagan
04-06-2005, 07:17 AM
How about you guys take it outside where it belongs :hand:

Peter attracts "attention". I wish Bill Paul and now JH would just stop it. For these officials and ex officials to be engaged in pack bullying makes NSW look amateurish and childish. I mean, all this muck over nothing of importance, I shake my head in dismay.

Perhaps something can be done about it at the AGM. A motion to gag officials from using the internet to comment on other members in any way not related to actual chess games, with the penalty for breaking the gag lost of their own membership and position.

To say the least, I am sick to death of it. :evil:

PS. and Sweeney too should cop the gag to if he ever gets back.


Cheers :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 09:21 AM
Perhaps something can be done about it at the AGM. A Pmotion to gag officials from using the internet to comment on other members in any way not related to actual chess games, with the penalty for breaking the gag lost of their own membership and position.What you are proposing is for members to make any unfounded or false claim whatsoever on a bulletin board and gagging officials from responding with the truth and the facts.
As such that is a totally silly idea.


To say the least, I am sick to death of it. :evil:You need to remember that Antichrist was the first to attack PaulS of PaulS speaking against lending A/C equipment at a NSWCA Council Metting.
PaulS and I who were at the meeting responded.
Comments were made by eric with regards A/C's behaviour NSWJCL meetings.
JohnH who is on the NSWJCL Council also commented.

Libby
04-06-2005, 09:41 AM
A/C
And who is B E? Not that I am likely to care.

It's an 80s reference

WhiteElephant
04-06-2005, 11:11 AM
It's an 80s reference

Is that Bobby Ewing from Dallas? In that case, what did the shower have to do with it?

WhiteElephant
04-06-2005, 11:30 AM
Is that Bobby Ewing from Dallas? In that case, what did the shower have to do with it?

Oh I just found out...I knew I should have watched more tv.

Paul S
05-06-2005, 01:30 AM
Peter attracts "attention". I wish Bill Paul and now JH would just stop it. For these officials and ex officials to be engaged in pack bullying makes NSW look amateurish and childish. I mean, all this muck over nothing of importance, I shake my head in dismay.


Hi there, Duff. Why do you attack me and others? Why do you not criticise the cause of the problem, Peter Hanna?

Why are you criticising the behaviour of myself, Bill and John H (people who are making a useful contribution to Australian chess) and not Peter Hanna (who in my opinion has made a net negative contribution to Australian chess) behaviour (which was accurately summed up by John H as per the following paragraph)?

This is always a part of your tactics. First you make claims regarding your behaviour which show you to be a concerned, involved activist. When the facts come out and contradict this postion you digress into lame humor to cover it up. If that fails you seek find some irrelevant fact to argue over. Finally if that is lost, you go to personal insult.


Perhaps something can be done about it at the AGM. A motion to gag officials from using the internet to comment on other members in any way not related to actual chess games, with the penalty for breaking the gag lost of their own membership and position.


Peter frequently lies, distorts and misrepresents on this BB. Would you prefer it if people did nothing about it? Would you prefer that BB readers believe Peter's lies, distortions and misrepresentations on this BB because it is the only point of view they get?

In the unlikely scenario that your silly proposal ever got accepted, would you be prepared to take on the role of NSWCA President if Bill had to leave? I mean, crikey, the biggest problem in chess is lack of admins and you want to reduce the admin numbers further? In case you hadn't noticed there are a few vacancies on NSWCA Council already - BTW, why don't you fill one of these vacancies?


To say the least, I am sick to death of it. :evil:


I am sick of it too! In fact I let most of Peter's garbage "pass through to the wicketkeeper" (and only respond to his more blatant lies, distortions and inaccuracies).

I would prefer not to get involved in BB arguments with Peter (or anyone else for that matter) as I find them tiresome and non-productive, but I am not prepared to let Peter have an "open season" on me whereby he can spread blatant lies, distortions and misrepresentations about me (or activities that I have been involved in).

I'm also annoyed that the moderators take no action over Peter's BB behaviour (and appear to condone it), which in recent weeks has been bizzare (even by Peter's standards) and can only turn people away from this BB.

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 02:48 AM
First of all let me say I like you and think the world of your effort re NSW chess and your clubs. So I am not goin on a personal attack, OK.


Hi there, Duff. Why do you attack me and others? Why do you not criticise the cause of the problem, Peter Hanna?Why are you criticising the behaviour of myself, Bill and John H (people who are making a useful contribution to Australian chess) and not Peter Hanna I am not attacking you, I am asking you and others to cut it out. I do not think Peter "lies", I think there are differing recollections. So be it. And even if there are distortions, just tell it go. Todays headline is tomorrows fish and chip wrapper. Chill dude.



In the unlikely scenario that your silly proposal ever got accepted, would you be prepared to take on the role of NSWCA President if Bill had to leave?

Yes


In case you hadn't noticed there are a few vacancies on NSWCA Council already - BTW, why don't you fill one of these vacancies?

For the same reason you have not.




I am sick of it too! In fact I let most of Peter's garbage "pass through to the wicketkeeper" (and only respond to his more blatant lies, distortions and inaccuracies).

If you must reply once is enough. Dont keep on flaming each other. It takes two to tango!!


I am not prepared to let Peter have an "open season" on me whereby he can spread blatant lies, distortions and misrepresentations about me (or activities that I have been involved in).

One reply, one only, then move on.


I'm also annoyed that the moderators take no action over Peter's BB behaviour (and appear to condone it), which in recent weeks has been bizzare (even by Peter's standards)

Yes they do condone it!! If he dopped a few four letter words in regularly, he would be banned. Apparently is is not what you say, but how you say it. Look at Bills abuse and tell me that it is good for the image of NSWCA. Of course, if he said "F--- I love Mr(s) X efforts. Top job. F---ing marvelous!!" he would be censored. Peter does not do the most disgusting thing - swear - and so he also goes unchecked. Go figure. :rolleyes:

antichrist
05-06-2005, 07:04 AM
Bill, you manipulate facts to suit the situation.

When stating that the NSWCA constitution barred members from observing council meetings this was a misrepresentation, by ommission of mentioning it, it only gave the council the power to decide the issue as it did with many other facets of running the association.

Your response should have been: the council, using the powers bestowed on it in the constitution decides to bar members from observing council meetings.

As president you have a moral and maybe even legal duty to present and intrepret the constitution correctly.

You have used the device in this thread re presenting BB admins MO.

auriga
05-06-2005, 11:05 AM
have you guys read the book 'the pschology of the internet' by wallace?!
i'd recommend reading chapter 4 'group dynamics in cyberspace'.
this thead seems a good example of this.

antichrist
05-06-2005, 01:21 PM
method man, maybe there is a method to our BB madness, but I thought I was making a simple-enough point, i.e., Bill's misrepresentatoin of the constitution - and by the president that is damning.

Notice he has not come back on it - no more to be said. No need for deep psych or other analysis.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 02:24 PM
Bill, you manipulate facts to suit the situation.Not at all. I stated the facts. You are the one who is attempting to manipulate and distort things.

When stating that the NSWCA constitution barred members from observing council meetings this was a misrepresentation, by ommission of mentioning it, it only gave the council the power to decide the issue as it did with many other facets of running the association.

Your response should have been: the council, using the powers bestowed on it in the constitution decides to bar members from observing council meetings.Incorrect. I never said the constitution barred members.
What I said was:

Non council members (other than life members) have no right afforded them by the constitution to attend Council meetings.
That is a statement of fact.

As president you have a moral and maybe even legal duty to present and intrepret the constitution correctly.I did.

You have used the device in this thread re presenting BB admins MO.Incorrect. I commented on the MO of Admins/Mods over in another thread.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 02:27 PM
method man, maybe there is a method to our BB madness, but I thought I was making a simple-enough point, i.e., Bill's misrepresentatoin of the constitution - and by the president that is damning.
I misrepresented nothing.

I said:

Non council members (other than life members) have no right afforded them by the constitution to attend Council meetings.
In fact nowhere in the constitution of the NSWCA does it state that members (other than life members) have the right to attend Council meetings.


Notice he has not come back on it - no more to be said. No need for deep psych or other analysis.Dream one.
I have just been busy with other things this morning.

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2005, 11:34 PM
I'm also annoyed that the moderators take no action over Peter's BB behaviour (and appear to condone it), which in recent weeks has been bizzare (even by Peter's standards) and can only turn people away from this BB.

You might like to tell me what aspect of Peter's stuff you particularly think I should be moderating.

I have modded him a fair bit in recent weeks, usually for making comments that I think are a bit too adult/dodgy for the main board at least.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2005, 11:30 PM
Thread locked due to legal complaint and several posts deleted. The legal complaint involved no threats against the site - simply a request for action over some comments made in the thread.

Those involved - please do not re-open the matters discussed in this thread on other threads unless you are able to do it civilly.