Tuesday 1 July 2008

ACTCA concern grows

The current state of the ACT Chess Association is becoming an increasing concern within the ACT chess community. The unclear legal status of the current committee (and by extension the Association itself) is impacting on other chess activities in Canberra. For a number of years the ACTCA has been successful in receiving regular government funding, which has been used to fund both senior and junior activities. Unfortunately this source of funds has dried up as either the ACTCA hasn't applied for funding, or failed to acquit the funds received in previous years. This shortage of funds has particularly affected the ACT Junior Chess League, who has used government funding to subsidise training programs and to assist ACT players selected to represent Australia. Due to government requirements, funding applications must come from the parent body within the Territory, meaning that the ACTJCL depends upon a functioning ACTCA.
The ACTJCL has now written to the ACTCA asking it to clarify it's own legal status, and to indicate when an Annual General Meeting is likely to be held. I'm not sure when a reply will be received as previous attempts to get answers from the ACTCA President have been met with silence.
*For those who came in late (as they say in The Phantom) it is worth reading this post I made after last years ACTCA AGM, including the comments posted after it.


Garvin said...

Silly question time- Since ACTCA is incorporated, they would have a constitution somewhere.

I could not find it on the ACTCA website.

Where is the constitution and what does it say on both matters that Shaun raises?

To not have a constitution would surely make the incorporated body illegal, wouldnt it?

TrueFiendish said...

Asking an entity to clarify its own legal status is a dubious proposition, especially if that entity is not above reproach...

It just gives the entity the opportunity to obfuscate, procrastinate and waste time.

Anonymous said...

I think it is even more of a muddle. I know of at least one person, whose honesty I trust, has said that the membership fee has been paid but has no receipt or proof of membership. While it is only one person, it is possible that others may be in a similar situation.

So when it does come time to vote at an AGM how is that person, whose vote may be vital, going to prove membership and exercise their right to vote unless the register of members is complete and accurate? I'll leave it to others to judge whether that is or is not the case with the ACTCA.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure we should all count our blessings. What if the result had been tipped the other way?

As Denis pointed out ""Stephen's track record as a chess administrator is pretty threadbare and the ability to raise $20000 in sponsorship is no substitute for the ability to run a sound organisation."

Just imagine where the ACTCA might be now in the wrong hands ....?

Anonymous said...

Libby, quoting me said "Stephen's track record as a chess administrator is pretty threadbare..."

It still is. Now it includes outrageous behaviour towards the current ACTCA President when he sought to play at the so-called ANU Chess Club.


Anonymous said...

To quote myself this time -

"...this assessment would suggest a requirement to cast an equivalent eye over the contribution of the other candidate. What Stephen had to offer was only his professional expertise, his threadbare resume in chess administration and the capacity to attract sponsorship. And this was insufficient because the alternative candidate offered ..."

Thae alternative candidate offered exactly what the ACTCA is delivering and has delivered now for 2 years. More of the same what exactly?

Garvin said...

Denis- From my experience, we need more professional expertise.

So a person may not be that proficient with chess politics. That is probably a good thing and also that is why there are committees.

Ok, since the 13 all election, can you please list in bullet point form what Mos Ali has done that makes him deserved of re-election and still makes him a better candidate than Stephen Mugford?

What I have read is that there is someone who can attain sponsorship for chess tournaments, which we all cry about regularly and the chess community said no thanks, we would rather just another paper shuffler.


Disclaimer- I have never had any direct dealings with Stephen Mugford.

Shaun Press said...

To avoid this turning into a "low information" debate following this link http://www.qqsr.com.au/about.htm
will provide some extra background info.

Garvin said...

Hello Shaun,

Apologises if I have 'ruined' the thread. I think my original question not even been attempted to be answered by anyone?

Is it too difficult?

Shaun Press said...

No apology necessary Garvin. The questions you ask are the same questions being asked within the ACT chess community (and indeed higher up the chess admin chain), but have been met with the same non-response.
I suspect answering these questions isn't 'too difficult', instead simply 'too hard'.

Anonymous said...

Too hard?

Maybe too accountable to the responsibilities of the role.

It's great to be an active player and the chess community in Canberra needs every active adult it can get over the boards.

And not everyone is a great or progressive President of an organisation. However, good or bad at the job, there are administrative & financial responsibilities for a committee that have to be met. And if you can't, or won't, meet those basic requirements why would you seek the position?

And what, given 12mths of this already, makes you more re-electable than another candidate? (Sorry - I keep forgetting that threadbare resume ...)