The administrative problems besetting the T&T Chess Association (T&TCA) can also be seen in the Appeals Tribunal’s inability to muster a quorum to deal with the serious complaints made by its public relations officer Alpacino Smith against the association’s executive. As DR has been informed, three members of the five-man Tribunal have not attended any of the meetings called to date.
The trio’s absence would leave the tribunal without a quorum, but fortunately this would not necessarily be a fatal handicap.
As the constitution indicates, member clubs can petition the management committee to call aa general meeting to discuss the issue provided at least one third of the member clubs so petition.
In any case, it is a sad reflection on the state of the national chess body that a matter of such importance cannot secure the urgent and full attention of members of the Appeals Tribunal.
The fact is that young Smith’s complaints go to the very heart of the T&TCA’s constitution since they deal with alleged treatment preventing him from performing his functions as a duly elected officer of the Association.
On the other hand, ex-president of the Association David Martin has accused Smith of conduct not befitting the office that he holds.
Smith, in fact, complains of being totally ignored by members of the executive, of not receiving minutes of meetings and prevented from issuing “public statements under direction of the management committee and perform general public relations functions as required by the management.”
Sadly, however, personal reasons may also account for the “treatment” that the young PRO has complained about.
This can be gleaned from the reaction of a Tribunal member who did not conceal his reason for refusing the call to meet.
He would not attend the meeting, he declared, if Russel Smith, another member, was present. His reason was that Smith, father of Alpacino, would not be impartial at such a session. But what if he is not? Surely Smith has the right, as an elected member, to attend the meeting and to speak his mind and ask questions as others, even if he chooses not to vote or is debarred by a majority from doing so.
Indeed, the decision of three members to nullify the Tribunal by their absence is quite unfortunate.
The both sides of this unfortunate issue have been aired; the PRO has made a constitutionally proper appeal to the Tribunal for a decisive hearing and it is now the responsibility of this judicial body to consider the matter.
However, instead of seeking to resolve the matter one way or the other, the work of the Tribunal has been stymied.
DR is now compelled to ask the question: Why do experienced chess players, having presumably a deep love for the sport, accept important positions in the T&TCA and, when called upon to perform their respective functions, cavalierly decline without offering a proper reason or excuse?
Surely the players who accepted membership on the Appeals Tribunal must have been aware of its administrative importance, the need to settle grievances and maintain functional discipline.
Why accept such a position and then shirk its responsibility?