Warning: If you aren't fascinated by the nuances of constitutions and by-laws this post could be very boring. If you do not wish to wade through it I recommend you skip to the final paragraph.
As part of my recent posts on the Australian Championship Title, I did some extra research on the ACF Constitution (ie I read it) and the ACF By-Laws (I read those also). Now the Constitution can only be changed at a National Conference or a Special National Conference (which doesn't actually have to be held btw), but changing the By-laws are a different matter. When I was on the ACF Council 15 years back By-Laws could only be changed by a 'Special Motion' that required each State to submit it's votes in writing. Indeed this requirement still remains for motions to change the annual levy, or to make special levies, but the mention of altering By-laws has been removed. Problematically it has been replaced with nothing. It appears that By-Laws can now be altered by a simple vote of council (just like any normal motion). While this is good in theory, it appears that the ACF Council has taken a bigger liberty in that by assuming the power to change By-Laws it has also assumed the right to ignore them.
My objection to this state of affairs is two-fold. The first is simply semantic. The use of the term "By-Law" implies some legalistic force (eg "You can't do that, it is against the By-Laws of the Federation"), when clearly the "By-Law" only represents the majority opinion of the current council and can be changed at will. To this end replacing the term "By-law" by "regulation" or "guideline" is a more accurate way of representing things.
But my bigger objection is that the ACF expect external bodies to follow the By-laws themselves (eg State approval process for the 2007-07 Australian Open, or the Melbourne bid for the 2008 Australian Championships) , while reserving the right to ignore or change the rules as they see fit. Of course the ACF is quite entitled to do this, but my fear is that it does selectively by enforcing the By-Laws with certain parties while letting them slide for others (eg ACF Tournament By-Law 23.C).
Nonetheless for anyone dealing with the ACF as an event bidder, or sponsorship organiser etc the solution is obvious. Simply ignore the By-Laws you don't like and attach the following clause to your proposal. "Where elements of this proposal conflict with current ACF By-Laws, the ACF By-Laws will not apply". At least this it will formalise an already informal (if selective) practice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Curiously enough, I have already answered many of the points raised here in my last two comments on the "Australian Championship 2008 - Solomons Year?" item.
The essential point is "Is it better to have by-laws that are an indication of the normal processes that will be followed than to have nothing at all?"
Having the by-laws made by Special Motion was a dreadful procedure as voting on a special motion allows State delegates to cast as many votes as their State would have at a National Conference.
As I have already pointed out legally the Council cannot bind itself by by-laws it makes.
The example of the CV bid for the 2008 Australian Champiponships is a very por example as the initial bid (leaving aside the semantics about whether it was a bid at all) was written without the makers even having read the relevant ACF by-laws (as was later admitted by the writer of the bid) and later enquiries made of CV by the ACF in light of the by-laws were met with unacceptable answers. The ACF did not set aside its by-laws. There have been a lot of highly inaccurate and tendentious posts made by one CV individual on this matter that are best ignored.
DJ
Scrap the by-laws. I would rather start with a clean sheet of paper!
Snappy Tom
If something is against the by-laws then that simply means you can't do it unless the ACF passes a motion overriding the by-law in question for that particular case (or permanently).
If someone who is running an ACF event wants to have a by-law suspended or changed then they are free to put a case to the ACF to this effect and if their case is even half-reasonable it will most likely to be granted. The organisers of the 2007-8 Aus Champs did this the right way by applying to the ACF for a reduction in the rating threshhold for automatic eligibility; their application was approved.
ACF By-Law 23c refers to arrangements concerning profits made at tournaments (50% of surplus goes to ACF). Why should the ACF not have the right to waive this if it is in the interests of Australian chess to waive it in a particular circumstance to attract bids?
As for your proposed condition, any bidder is free to submit a proposal at variance with the by-laws and request that the ACF waive such by-laws as are necessary to permit the arrangements stated to be approved. But if there is not a valid reason for such a request, and it poses a risk to the integrity of the title being bid for, then it may happen that the bid is rejected on that basis, or approved subject to that condition not applying.
The above does not necessarily represent the views of the ACF.
I wasn't thinking of the most recent Australian Championship and Australian Open in regard to Clause 23.c
Instead I had in mind the following post by then CAQ Secretary Ian Murray at www.chesschat.org
"The organisers of the 2006 Australian Championships were hit with unforeseen charges by the Carlton Crest Hotel, the playing venue.
At the time the organisers were preparing the bid for ACF to grant hosting rights in Brisbane, CAQ pledged a maximum of $8000 towards the costs.
That pledge was met, and in return CAQ gained 75 new sets, boards and DGT XL clocks with a retail value of $14000+
Ian Murray
CAQ Secretary"
So the question is "Did the organisers of the 2005/06 Championship include the difference between the CAQ donation, and retail value of the equipment in their accounts, and acquit 50% of this amount to the ACF?"
Note: I have put this question to a member of the ACF Council, and he has promised to get back to me with an answer.
"ACF By-Law 23c refers to arrangements concerning profits made at tournaments (50% of surplus goes to ACF). Why should the ACF not have the right to waive this if it is in the interests of Australian chess to waive it in a particular circumstance to attract bids?"
Give me a reason why anyone would submit an early, organised and considered bid with sensible projections on costs and income? Have your act together and the ACF has the hand out. Don't have your act together and they'll hold your hand for you.
I have lost my patience with the whole business.
Libby
Post a Comment