English Chess Forum

On browsing the Welsh Chess Union website I find it interesting that the only information available on handling of complaints is the WCU - Vexatious Complaints And Harassment Policy.

Are the WCU aware that the existence of such a policy without reference a Dispute Resolution Procedure of 'normal' complaints gives the impression that the WCU view all complaints as vexatious? Is this really the image that the WCU want to project?

It is all too easy to dismiss a complaint as vexatious without having made any real effort to understand the issue and work towards a satisfactory resolution. Shouldn't the offer of mediation by a mutually agreed and independent authority be one of the steps in a meaningful complaints procedure?

The question also arises as to whether the Vexatious Complaints Policy is contrary to FIDE Code of Ethics which espouses the ideals of fairness and good sportsmanship?

1. WCU Vexatious Complaints Policy: http://www.welshchessunion.org.uk/image ... olicy_.doc
2. FIDE Code of Ethics: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category
3. ACAS Mediation: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1680

Not sure why you would be so interested or why this is posted on an English Chess Forum. I am sure there must be a reason but cannot see your motivation.

Perhaps, you could browse other federation's websites and provide the same detail? As a starter you could start with:

Maldives - http://maldiveschessfederation.com/
Australia - http://auschess.org.au/acf/
Bahamas = http://www.bahamaschess.org/

No sign of any complaints procedure at all as far as I can see but I may be wrong.

Will you undertake a summary of every non-English federation/union?

The difference between those federations and Wales is that Wales is probably the most likely foreign federation for English players to play in, and it's also a federation whose disputes have come up a number of times on this forum.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:The difference between those federations and Wales is that Wales is probably the most likely foreign federation for English players to play in, and it's also a federation whose disputes have come up a number of times on this forum.

Or at least a specific dispute, a thread about which Carl was forced to moderate and lock due to the threat of legal action.

pauldhatchett wrote:Not sure why you would be so interested or why this is posted on an English Chess Forum. I am sure there must be a reason but cannot see your motivation.

I thought it a reasonable and interesting topic to discuss.

Is the policy itself sensible and helpful or is it intended to block anyone wishing to pursue a complaint?

Andrew Zigmond wrote:

IM Jack Rudd wrote:The difference between those federations and Wales is that Wales is probably the most likely foreign federation for English players to play in, and it's also a federation whose disputes have come up a number of times on this forum.

Or at least a specific dispute, a thread about which Carl was forced to moderate and lock due to the threat of legal action.

This one is an issue I am aware.

IM Jack Rudd » Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:54 am

The difference between those federations and Wales is that Wales is probably the most likely foreign federation for English players to play in, and it's also a federation whose disputes have come up a number of times on this forum.

Surely Scotland is the more probable foreign federation for English players to play in or even France, Spain etc.

North Wales is under ECF rules as graded by them, apart from a few tournaments the rest of the Welsh ones mostly get locals due to the smaller prize funds.

Michael Flatt wrote: without reference a Dispute Resolution Procedure of 'normal' complaints

There is a published protocol for ‘normal’ complaints in the WCU constitution. However this has been shown to have at least two flaws when implemented in practice:

1. Some new evidence can be deemed to be inadmissible at the appeals stage.
In the case of our complaint, unsolicited evidence was presented by a Director which directly contradicted the defence of the accused. Since this same Director apparently did not raise this at the original Management Board meeting – even though she had been present - it was not allowed to be used in the deliberations of the Appeal Committee - who then ruled that they supported the original Management Board decision as “The decision of the Management Board in our view was not unreasonable to make in the light of the information presented at the time”!

2. The powers of the Appeal Committee are not understood by all of its members.
Subsequent to our appeal a Committee member wrote to say that they “have no influence over the Management Board”. This does make you wonder as to the purpose of the Appeal Committee!

Gareth T Ellis wrote:

IM Jack Rudd » Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:54 am

The difference between those federations and Wales is that Wales is probably the most likely foreign federation for English players to play in, and it's also a federation whose disputes have come up a number of times on this forum.

Surely Scotland is the more probable foreign federation for English players to play in or even France, Spain etc.

North Wales is under ECF rules as graded by them, apart from a few tournaments the rest of the Welsh ones mostly get locals due to the smaller prize funds.

While the sample might well be biased, over the last year games played abroad from Wales outnumber those from Scotland by some 3 times the submissions of Scottish events.

Brian Valentine
Grader of games played abroad

Thank you Brian,

So if it's not high prize money attracting the English players, maybe it's because they like the way things are run in Wales

Michael Flatt wrote:The question also arises as to whether the Vexatious Complaints Policy is contrary to FIDE Code of Ethics which espouses the ideals of fairness and good sportsmanship?

The WCU Constitution espouses the ideals of fairness and good sportsmanship.
It states: “Every inquiry held by, or on behalf of, the Union concerning the conduct of any individual, club, County or Zone shall be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice”.
In practice, the WCU Management Board allowed a Director to have three people - who she had said were her employees - to sit in judgement over her. The minutes stated that the accused and the President: “left the meeting while this was being discussed. AD , asked if anybody felt that any other members should be absented from the discussion. It was unanimously agreed that no one else should be absented.” Her three employees were allowed to remain and all three voted in her favour.
The WCU Management Board have acted unconstitutionally and unethically and not “in accordance with the principles of natural justice”. For “natural justice” any ‘jury’ should be, and be seen to be, independent.

However, despite all this, the real disgrace in this saga – and what is truly unforgivable – is what came next. Revenge was taken out by way of the subsequent bullying of my children. This is far worse than any constitutional irregularity. Unpublished and retrospective rules, and new rules applied to my family (but not applied to any others) were used to target and exclude my children – just because their parents dared to make a valid complaint against a Director. I am reminded of this old post:

Michael Flatt wrote:I have come across a similar device in the meetings of a registered charity that is run entirely by volunteers when the then chairman used this form of justification to exclude another committee member purely for expressing views contrary to his own.

Example of “unpublished and retrospective” rule change:
In May 2014, the WCU Junior Director wrote to tell us that he had held a Junior Selection Committee meeting in March 2014 and selected an individual (a WCU arbiter) to represent Wales at Under 16 level at the 2014 Commonwealth Championships - “on the grounds that he was the Under 18 Champion”. The Under 18 Championships had been held in January 2014 but we had not been notified that - just for this year - the Under 18 competition would be used for Under 16 selection. It was not mentioned in the Published Junior Selection Policy and the Published Policy has not been amended to show this retrospectively introduced one-year rule which only affected my children. The Junior Director was aware that my children had not taken part in the Under 18 competition as both of my children had entered the much tougher adult Open which was held in the same hall, on the same days, at the same time. He was aware of this as he was present (he is a WCU arbiter). The newly introduced and unpublished retrospective selection criteria prevented my children from having any chance of being selected.
The person organising the Welsh party accommodation for these Commonwealth Championships was the very Director we had complained about, so it is probably no coincidence that a convenient and retrospective selection rule was quickly needed in order to exclude our children.

Example of “rules applied to my family (but not applied to others)”:
We were excluded from being WCU members in July 2014, only weeks before the Publication of a new “Protocol” that those who accompany children to Individual International Championships must be WCU members. We have no doubt this new Protocol was introduced to target our exclusion as it was introduced by the same people. However this protocol does not seem to have been enforced on other families both before and since it was applied to us.

Coral,

It seems to me that your complaint against the WCU as detailed above does fall within the jurisdiction of the FIDE ethics committee.
Exclusion from membership of a National Federation does seem exceptional action and would be difficult for the WCU to justify.
If you have exhausted the WCU appeals procedure it does seem a natural next step to contact with the FIDE Secretariat (Athens, GRE), [email protected], for advice.

It would be advisable to familiarise yourself with the relevant section of the FIDE Handbook: https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... w=category

I would suggest that all discussion now cease on public forums so as not to prejudice your case.

Michael Flatt wrote: I would suggest that all discussion now cease on public forums so as not to prejudice your case.

Strikes me as a bit late for that

This one has reached an end.