Please see the rest of the series here. Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
I am going to reveal here the events surrounding the Syuen Tournament. I am now able to do so because I am no longer a committee member and under no moral obligation to the team. And I will do this by way of the letter to MCF outlining the case.
My reasons for doing this are 3 fold.
1. The manner decisions are reached in Associations are a mystery to most. I have been in chess for 6 years now and only from my short stay in PICA did I manage to catch a glimpse of the internal politics. I think it is important for members of Associations to know what they are voting for.
2. This is also a poser to MCF to see if they feel they have a moral obligation to ensure that the elected officials of their affiliates are treated fairly and in accordance to the Consitution. Or if it's just a decorative piece of paper? Whether they believe that they have an obligation to address the excesses of their affiliates? MCF's response will tell us much about what they think is important for the development of chess. Whether if the rules only apply to players and selections or if they apply to the affiliates/officials themselves? I have officially written to MCF when I was still in the committee and the ball is now in their court.
3. In a manner of speaking this will also be an attempt to clear my name as I have been sacked as a committee member without a hearing and without due process. And to compound the matter I have also been removed as a member of PICA which now casts aspersions on my integrity. Currently this blog remains my only voice as my rights as well as the rights of every member who voted for me have been taken away. Someone once said, if they believe, no proof is necessary and if they don't, no amount of proof will suffice. Lets put this to the test.
Note: This blog and it's "revelations" started much after the events stated and so should not be confused for to the reasons why the behaviour mentioned ocurred. I have also mentioned names here for reasons of clarity as I see no need to protect their identity in view of their attack on my person.
I will try to conclude the series in my last part so you may share my perspective.
ps: Please excuse my ramblings in the preamble of my email to MCF. There was and still continues to be much confusion about what model is permissible given the status of PICA as an NGO. This is much clearer now with the successful launch of the DATCC model. Strangely this model was "rejected" by PICA when I proposed it although I understand they were acting under advicement from the initiators of DATCC. And we now see DATCC working in tandem with PICA. You'll get better clarity just looking at the sequence of events. But if you are interested in the convoluted logic to Association politics, the preamble can shed some light.
My email to MCF here. This email was sent before I was officially informed by letter of my sacking. At that time Greg told me there was nothing he could do until the official letter came. I am still waiting for an official response from MCF.