Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Other CFC Executive Candidates?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    784

    Default

    This could have disastrous fiscal implication. According to a famous Quebec Superior Court ruling, arbiters are not employees because the Federations cannot revise their decisions. The Federations gives arbiter seminars, promote, demote and discipline arbiters but they have no authority on the ice (the case was about hockey referees asking for their vacation pay as employee). Having the executive revise NAC decisions could result in arbiters being considered employees of the CFC or of the Organizer and that would be fiscally disastrous.

    I am curious about the two cases that you are referring to. Could you please send me the details in private?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    Except that it HAS happened - at least twice that I know about - and could happen again.
    Last edited by Pierre Dénommée; 07-07-2011 at 10:18 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,138
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    I hardly need to send the details in private since they were very public affairs!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,933
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I hardly need to send the details in private since they were very public affairs!
    Offhand, I would see no reason that the Executive would choose to consider overturning a NAC decision. It certainly does not say this an option in the handbook.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,138
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Well in one case they did overturn a NAC decision, and in another case they agreed but increased the penalty.

    The second case is possibly alright but it would be an example of the NAC and the Executive dealing with the same problem.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,298

    Default I will stand again for the CFC Youth Coordinator position

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    Are the incumbents going to interact with members on the CFC site and Chesstalk this year if re-elected? Will they also be interacting more with Governors on the Governors site this year? Frankly, it appears that Fred and Bob were the only two executive members who regularly interacted with the membership on the discussion boards this year.
    Ken,

    I believe, actions speak louder than words.
    I prefer spending my time at the chess tournaments rather than on the discussion boards.

    But please rest assured - I regularly monitor CFC discussion board and always respond to all youth chess related questions in a reasonable time.
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Chris,

    In France, the court of Appeal has suspended the application of the suspensions of the suspected cheaters of the last Olympiads until the decision of the tribunal on their validity.

    This is based on a technicality. When the Executive wanted to appeal what it believes was an insufficient punishment, it should have complained to the CADE, like any normal plaintiff. instead, the Executive ordered the Federal Appeal Committee to proceed against the cheaters. The CADE role is to determine if a complaint is receivable and to direct receivable complaints to the appropriate disciplinary body. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Executive has no special powers that exempt it from the obligation to fallow proper disciplinary procedure. Following the proper procedure leaves open the possibility that the CADE could refuse the request from the Executive. This will likely be a very costly mistake in terms of Attorney's fees. Just at the interlocutory level, several thousand euros have already been spent.

    This jurisprudence shows that the Exeutive must act cautiously and avoid abuse of authority. In the end, the players may be suspended, but it will cost a fortune to achieve this goal. The FFE has sent a complaint to the FIDE Ethics Committee which is not subject to the Laws of France and which could pronounce a world wide suspension.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,138
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    Chris,

    In France, the court of Appeal has suspended the application of the suspensions of the suspected cheaters of the last Olympiads until the decision of the tribunal on their validity.

    This is based on a technicality. When the Executive wanted to appeal what it believes was an insufficient punishment, it should have complained to the CADE, like any normal plaintiff. instead, the Executive ordered the Federal Appeal Committee to proceed against the cheaters. The CADE role is to determine if a complaint is receivable and to direct receivable complaints to the appropriate disciplinary body. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Executive has no special powers that exempt it from the obligation to fallow proper disciplinary procedure. Following the proper procedure leaves open the possibility that the CADE could refuse the request from the Executive. This will likely be a very costly mistake in terms of Attorney's fees. Just at the interlocutory level, several thousand euros have already been spent.

    This jurisprudence shows that the Exeutive must act cautiously and avoid abuse of authority. In the end, the players may be suspended, but it will cost a fortune to achieve this goal. The FFE has sent a complaint to the FIDE Ethics Committee which is not subject to the Laws of France and which could pronounce a world wide suspension.
    What does any of that have to do with what I said?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    784

    Default

    It is the same kind of problem that the Executive overseeing the NAC. The Executive is doing something not written in the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    What does any of that have to do with what I said?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,138
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    True although with not being officially recognized as a sport in Canada, the CFC would not currently be bound by any Sport Canada rules.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    I'll run for a Rating Auditor.

    After some thoughts I would prefer to see a this kind of the rating system: the above 1800 (and below) the simple formula should be used. A simple formula means that everybody could understand the math (more precise - arithmetic). Additional changes for player below 1800: artificial adjustments might be done if the changes are supported by several players (min 3 ) with >2000. The maximum adjusted rating must not exceed 1800. IMHO, this artificial adjustment would allow for juniors and people coming from internet to reach their actual rating over a smaller number of event. Still the main climb must be on actual OTB results.

    If you support my ideas (or my person), please include my name (Egidijus Zeromskis) in your proxies Thnx.
    .*-1

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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