If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff
Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff
The following was posted on the CFC forum and a link to it (without any commentary) was found in another thread here on ChessTalk. I thought this decision deserved it's own thread to highlight it more clearly...
Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff
It is my duty to inform the chess public that the national appeals committee has rendered a decision to deny Nikolay Noritsyn's appeal of the result of the playoff at the Canadian Championship and Zonal blitz playoff. The decision was 3 to 1. I believe the full decision and details of the reasoning will be released publicly very shortly but it was deemed in the best interest of chess in Canada that we end the uncertainty.
The committee worked quickly to comply with the FIDE demand that we inform them of our representative for the World Cup by the extended deadline of July 10th negotiated by Hal Bond.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for their work in reaching a prompt decision. Nikolay has indicated that he has more to say on this matter and I have offered him the opportunity to address the executive (board of directors) by email.
Vladimir Drkulec
President, Chess Federation of Canada
Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff
Here is an overview of the recent events.
Before my appeal was accepted by the CFC executive, I was told by Fred McKim that:
"the NAC would contact you and you would have the chance to give them all of the facts and evidence you have at that time. You would presumably tell them that the video should exist for earlier games in the play-off and they would decide if that was relevant and if so get hold of it.
You should not expect or rely on anything you have said to us will be forwarded to them.
Fred"
On July 5, Bob Gillanders informed me: "This is to notify you that the matter of the final blitz tiebreak game at the Canadian Closed (Montreal, July 1), (Sambuev vs. Noritsyn) has been sent to the National Appeals Committee (NAC). They will be contacting you in the next day or two."
I took a break from posting on this matter online, and thinking about it while waiting for an email from the NAC.
Yesterday, July 10 (5 days later) I asked Bob Gillanders in an email why I was not contacted by the NAC. He was "surprised Mark Dutton has not contacted you yet."
I received an email from the CFC President this morning informing me of the decision. I asked why I was never contacted by the NAC, and he suggested that "if you want to put forward additional considerations that you do it now and in email. You can even release it to the public at the same time. I don't believe that you can hope for a reversal of the decision based on the reasoning provided. If you could it would simply mean that neither you nor Bator could play in the world cup. The place in the world cup would have been lost if we had not submitted a decision by Monday. We have already burned up a great deal of political capital with FIDE as a result of these delays.
My reply:
I was operating under the assumption that I would be communicating with the NAC, "I would be given the chance to give them all of the facts and evidence I have at that time" - and anything I mentioned to the CFC Executive would not be relevant. So I consider this a major misconduct.
You can't turn time backwards, I can't give you my additional considerations now (I will post them in public though). Also, there is nothing in the "Old Handbook" about the Executive being able to reverse a decision of the NAC. There is this though.
"1248. The CFC Business Office will write to the players involved, the TD, and the members of the AC, providing them with the information provided by the appellant, and requesting them to confirm the facts and provide any additional facts or other relevant information."
Last edited by Nikolay Noritsyn; Tuesday, 11th July, 2017, 11:44 AM.
Reason: corrected a quote
Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff
Nikolay,
Of course, I have no official position in the CFC but I think this has become what many of us feared: a cluster....
You should have been consulted to at least provide a written statement of your position and the opportunity to point to any evidence you were aware of (just in case the appeals committee was unaware of some aspect - like the video?).
The fact that this was not done is unbelievable in all universes except the CFC.
The CFC president indicated that: 'I believe the full decision and details of the reasoning will be released publicly very shortly'
and I would hope that includes who the members of the NAC were that voted and what the vote split was.
Now the CFC is complaining about time pressure and loss of "political capital" (whatever the hell that is) - ironic.
Best of luck with all this. I suspect even a lot of luck will not suffice.
Of course, I have no official position in the CFC but I think this has become what many of us feared: a cluster....
You should have been consulted to at least provide a written statement of your position and the opportunity to point to any evidence you were aware of (just in case the appeals committee was unaware of some aspect - like the video?).
The fact that this was not done is unbelievable in all universes except the CFC.
The CFC president indicated that: 'I believe the full decision and details of the reasoning will be released publicly very shortly'
and I would hope that includes who the members of the NAC were that voted and what the vote split was.
Now the CFC is complaining about time pressure and loss of "political capital" (whatever the hell that is) - ironic.
Best of luck with all this. I suspect even a lot of luck will not suffice.
What bothers me about all this is Sambuev's silence. He could have done the "correct" thing here. He chose not to. I was a fan, but, I am not any longer.
Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff
When I was a member of the NAC, we would receive a written statement from the player who was appealing - giving reasons why the decision should go in his favour. The TD would also provide a written statement as to why he made the decision that he did. The the NAC would meet - either in person, by phone, or by email. A decision would be made eventually. In this case - possibly the NAC felt that they already had enough evidence from both parties already (discussion boards, videos) that they were able to make a quick decision without contacting the appealing player.
Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff
"I believe the full decision and details of the reasoning will be released publicly very shortly but thought you should be informed before that happens. " - Vlad Drkulec
The reasoning and details have not been released - so I do not yet have an opinion on that matter.
Since I did not get a chance at a dialogue with the NAC, I don't know what it is that they considered. Earlier, I suggested to the Executive to ask the Canadian Zonal organizers to provide the video's for the rest of the tiebreak games. It would not be evidence/proof of anything, but it could provide additional food for thought on black/white queens disappearing.
Here is an opinion of International Arbiter Serge Archambault, whom I have been in contact with:
"Hello Nikolay. A lot of things have been said about the incident, but one of the things I've not seen mentionned yet, and that could be brought to the NAC/Executive is the fact that I believe it could be argued that when you "promoted", while you were doing your move, Bator was already reaching for his queen, which could have been penalized by the arbiter. This part of what happen alone, could "explain" everything else that happened, in my views.
Let me explain in my details, what I mean. Rewatching the video, it could be argued that because he reached his right arm over the board (to grab the white queen), first of all he didn't give you full access to all the pieces (the video shows that while bending over, you don't have access to all the pieces, moreso to the queen because his left hand is covering it (and other pieces) on the table. Secondly, because his harm is there, it almost forces you to play with 2 hands to be able to complete your move (which was one of the big reasons I had a problem, from the get go, with what happened). Also, even though you had access to press the clock, his harm movement didn't give you full access to stop the clock (to ask for a queen). In fact, he only stopped waving his right arm, only when the arbiter jumps in. If I were you, I'd put lots of thoughts into this argument at the NAC level. I believe this, coupled with a few more "more obvious" arguments, could be helpful to you."
This is Bator Sambuev's statement to chess.com.
"I didn't know that I was holding a queen in my hand," Sambuev said. "There were some pieces but I was focused on the game and had no idea what exactly was there. I learned there was a queen only from the video."
After reading a message from a very observant chess.com member:
"Eseles
At 14:20, when the clock is stopped, Sambuev has the white Queen in his right hand. and he is leaving the black Queen on the table with his left one.
Then the hand gets in front of the camera lens, and when we can look again, the white Queen is standing next to the Black one."
I consider Bator Sambuev's statement to be absolutely incorrect. Its very hard to imagine a person holding a queen for three minutes, putting it on the table right before the arbiter intervened, later also putting the white queen right beside the black one - and never acknowledging the fact that there was indeed a black queen, and he was the one holding it.
Apart from the already mentioned (by Sid Belzberg, and others)
11.5
It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
12.1
The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
I think that below FIDE Handbook items seems also applicable:
09. FIDE Code of Ethics
There is also:
2.2.3
Organizers, tournament directors, arbiters or other officials who fail to perform
their functions in an impartial and responsible manner.
(Lack of second Queen, poor game and player observation during game, poor decision taking for incident. Even if all done unintentionally, it was all relevant to how the game ended)
2.2.5
Cheating or attempts at cheating during games and tournaments. Violent, threatening
or other unseemly behavior during or in connection with a chess event.
Of course, I have no official position in the CFC but I think this has become what many of us feared: a cluster....
You should have been consulted to at least provide a written statement of your position and the opportunity to point to any evidence you were aware of (just in case the appeals committee was unaware of some aspect - like the video?).
The fact that this was not done is unbelievable in all universes except the CFC.
The CFC president indicated that: 'I believe the full decision and details of the reasoning will be released publicly very shortly'
and I would hope that includes who the members of the NAC were that voted and what the vote split was.
Now the CFC is complaining about time pressure and loss of "political capital" (whatever the hell that is) - ironic.
Best of luck with all this. I suspect even a lot of luck will not suffice.
Kerry,
I am also not sure what "political capital" means. Regarding time pressure, here is what Fred McKim had to say: "The timing of the appeal was horrible as both Vlad and Hal have been pre-occupied with CYCC / CO stuff, and it seemed that if I didn't move the process along it wouldn't get done."
When I was a member of the NAC, we would receive a written statement from the player who was appealing - giving reasons why the decision should go in his favour. The TD would also provide a written statement as to why he made the decision that he did. The the NAC would meet - either in person, by phone, or by email. A decision would be made eventually. In this case - possibly the NAC felt that they already had enough evidence from both parties already (discussion boards, videos) that they were able to make a quick decision without contacting the appealing player.
I was told that I would get to communicate with the NAC, and operated under that assumption. If I was told otherwise, I would send my (new) considerations to them/CFC Executive without waiting for them to message me first.
I am also not sure what "political capital" means. Regarding time pressure, here is what Fred McKim had to say: "The timing of the appeal was horrible as both Vlad and Hal have been pre-occupied with CYCC / CO stuff, and it seemed that if I didn't move the process along it wouldn't get done."
I have a lot of respect for Fred - he does a LOT of work (mostly behind the curtains) to keep the CFC Executive process on track and he often has been able to mobilize some efforts. I am sure he did whatever he could to expedite the process without (in any way) compromising it. Sometime 'the process' is very poorly defined and I suspect this situation highlights some serious problems with the appeal process in general. Tying the appeal process to some external forces (especially FIDE - I have omitted many adjectives I had included here for brevity) is a truly bad move. The CFC needs to always govern itself properly and it always seems to cave in to other pressure.
This situation also reveals another problem with the appeal process: when one of the NAC is the arbiter involved, obviously he/she will recuse themself from the decision but that leaves an even number of people on the NAC - I don't suppose there is a 'reserve' member or members of the NAC that could be called in to serve in this case? In retrospect, probably a good idea that likely would be used very seldom...
I honestly do not know what sort of decision or resolution could be made in this case to right the wrong; maybe it cannot be corrected. I hope the reasoning behind the decision becomes public too but I am worried that it will be considered too politically sensitive for that to happen.
"I believe the full decision and details of the reasoning will be released publicly very shortly but thought you should be informed before that happens. " - Vlad Drkulec
The reasoning and details have not been released - so I do not yet have an opinion on that matter.
Since I did not get a chance at a dialogue with the NAC, I don't know what it is that they considered. Earlier, I suggested to the Executive to ask the Canadian Zonal organizers to provide the video's for the rest of the tiebreak games. It would not be evidence/proof of anything, but it could provide additional food for thought on black/white queens disappearing.
Here is an opinion of International Arbiter Serge Archambault, whom I have been in contact with:
"Hello Nikolay. A lot of things have been said about the incident, but one of the things I've not seen mentionned yet, and that could be brought to the NAC/Executive is the fact that I believe it could be argued that when you "promoted", while you were doing your move, Bator was already reaching for his queen, which could have been penalized by the arbiter. This part of what happen alone, could "explain" everything else that happened, in my views.
Let me explain in my details, what I mean. Rewatching the video, it could be argued that because he reached his right arm over the board (to grab the white queen), first of all he didn't give you full access to all the pieces (the video shows that while bending over, you don't have access to all the pieces, moreso to the queen because his left hand is covering it (and other pieces) on the table. Secondly, because his harm is there, it almost forces you to play with 2 hands to be able to complete your move (which was one of the big reasons I had a problem, from the get go, with what happened). Also, even though you had access to press the clock, his harm movement didn't give you full access to stop the clock (to ask for a queen). In fact, he only stopped waving his right arm, only when the arbiter jumps in. If I were you, I'd put lots of thoughts into this argument at the NAC level. I believe this, coupled with a few more "more obvious" arguments, could be helpful to you."
This is Bator Sambuev's statement to chess.com.
"I didn't know that I was holding a queen in my hand," Sambuev said. "There were some pieces but I was focused on the game and had no idea what exactly was there. I learned there was a queen only from the video."
After reading a message from a very observant chess.com member:
"Eseles
At 14:20, when the clock is stopped, Sambuev has the white Queen in his right hand. and he is leaving the black Queen on the table with his left one.
Then the hand gets in front of the camera lens, and when we can look again, the white Queen is standing next to the Black one."
I consider Bator Sambuev's statement to be absolutely incorrect. Its very hard to imagine a person holding a queen for three minutes, putting it on the table right before the arbiter intervened, later also putting the white queen right beside the black one - and never acknowledging the fact that there was indeed a black queen, and he was the one holding it.
Apart from the already mentioned (by Sid Belzberg, and others)
11.5
It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
12.1
The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
I think that below FIDE Handbook items seems also applicable:
09. FIDE Code of Ethics
There is also:
2.2.3
Organizers, tournament directors, arbiters or other officials who fail to perform
their functions in an impartial and responsible manner.
(Lack of second Queen, poor game and player observation during game, poor decision taking for incident. Even if all done unintentionally, it was all relevant to how the game ended)
2.2.5
Cheating or attempts at cheating during games and tournaments. Violent, threatening
or other unseemly behavior during or in connection with a chess event.
Nikolay, sorry you got hustled. Sorry you got hustled by Sambuev and sorry you got hustled by the Chess Federation of Canada's national appeals committee.
I have a lot of respect for Fred - he does a LOT of work (mostly behind the curtains) to keep the CFC Executive process on track and he often has been able to mobilize some efforts. I am sure he did whatever he could to expedite the process without (in any way) compromising it. Sometime 'the process' is very poorly defined and I suspect this situation highlights some serious problems with the appeal process in general. Tying the appeal process to some external forces (especially FIDE - I have omitted many adjectives I had included here for brevity) is a truly bad move. The CFC needs to always govern itself properly and it always seems to cave in to other pressure.
The pressure is to follow the rules of chess and not the whims of the chesstalk lynch mob. I did not know who was on the NAC until this situation came up. When I saw who was on the committee I was sure that the rule of chess law would prevail. If the NAC had ruled differently we would have been the laughingstock of the world and the competency of the arbiters on the NAC would have been called into question. The last time the NAC convened was in 2013 which in that case reversed a decision at CYCC in Ottawa. I don't even remember the exact facts of the case. Everyone sympathizes with Nikolay's situation but the fact is that knowing the proper rule would have potentially saved a great deal of grief.
Claiming annoyance after the game has ended because of a video replay is the same as claiming touch move based on a video replay as per the Polgar vs Kasparov touch move situation. You have to complain at the time of the infraction. I drill this into the kids before their first and often subsequent tournaments. Complaining after the game is over is almost never a successful strategy.
This situation also reveals another problem with the appeal process: when one of the NAC is the arbiter involved, obviously he/she will recuse themself from the decision but that leaves an even number of people on the NAC - I don't suppose there is a 'reserve' member or members of the NAC that could be called in to serve in this case? In retrospect, probably a good idea that likely would be used very seldom...
I honestly do not know what sort of decision or resolution could be made in this case to right the wrong; maybe it cannot be corrected. I hope the reasoning behind the decision becomes public too but I am worried that it will be considered too politically sensitive for that to happen.
I believe it will all be revealed but I have lessons to teach over Skype and a tournament to play in so any further input from me will come late in the evening or perhaps the morning.
The pressure is to follow the rules of chess and not the whims of the chesstalk lynch mob. I did not know who was on the NAC until this situation came up. When I saw who was on the committee I was sure that the rule of chess law would prevail. If the NAC had ruled differently we would have been the laughingstock of the world and the competency of the arbiters on the NAC would have been called into question. The last time the NAC convened was in 2013 which in that case reversed a decision at CYCC in Ottawa. I don't even remember the exact facts of the case. Everyone sympathizes with Nikolay's situation but the fact is that knowing the proper rule would have potentially saved a great deal of grief.
Claiming annoyance after the game has ended because of a video replay is the same as claiming touch move based on a video replay as per the Polgar vs Kasparov touch move situation. You have to complain at the time of the infraction. I drill this into the kids before their first and often subsequent tournaments. Complaining after the game is over is almost never a successful strategy.
I believe it will all be revealed but I have lessons to teach over Skype and a tournament to play in so any further input from me will come late in the evening or perhaps the morning.
Thanks for the further clarification(s). I am not sure about this comment: "If the NAC had ruled differently we would have been the laughingstock of the world and the competency of the arbiters on the NAC would have been called into question."
but for now I will leave it alone... this is not the Trump thread by the way...
In my mind, there are a few other "proper rules" that were not followed: specifically (as mentioned elsewhere by Sid and others) the inadvertent or otherwise kidnapping of the opponent's Queen resulting in maximum chaos at the right moment. I look forward to reading the NAC reasoning - assuming that is published.
Before my appeal was accepted by the CFC executive, I was told by Fred McKim that:
"the NAC would contact you and you would have the chance to give them all of the facts and evidence you have at that time. You would presumably tell them that the video should exist for earlier games in the play-off and they would decide if that was relevant and if so get hold of it.
You should not expect or rely on anything you have said to us will be forwarded to them.
Fred"
On July 5, Bob Gillanders informed me: "This is to notify you that the matter of the final blitz tiebreak game at the Canadian Closed (Montreal, July 1), (Sambuev vs. Noritsyn) has been sent to the National Appeals Committee (NAC). They will be contacting you in the next day or two."
I took a break from posting on this matter online, and thinking about it while waiting for an email from the NAC.
Yesterday, July 10 (5 days later) I asked Bob Gillanders in an email why I was not contacted by the NAC. He was "surprised Mark Dutton has not contacted you yet."
I received an email from the CFC President this morning informing me of the decision. I asked why I was never contacted by the NAC, and he suggested that "if you want to put forward additional considerations that you do it now and in email. You can even release it to the public at the same time. I don't believe that you can hope for a reversal of the decision based on the reasoning provided. If you could it would simply mean that neither you nor Bator could play in the world cup. The place in the world cup would have been lost if we had not submitted a decision by Monday. We have already burned up a great deal of political capital with FIDE as a result of these delays.
My reply:
I was operating under the assumption that I would be communicating with the NAC, "I would be given the chance to give them all of the facts and evidence I have at that time" - and anything I mentioned to the CFC Executive would not be relevant. So I consider this a major misconduct.
You can't turn time backwards, I can't give you my additional considerations now (I will post them in public though). Also, there is nothing in the "Old Handbook" about the Executive being able to reverse a decision of the NAC. There is this though.
"1248. The CFC Business Office will write to the players involved, the TD, and the members of the AC, providing them with the information provided by the appellant, and requesting them to confirm the facts and provide any additional facts or other relevant information."
Last Wednesday after Bob received the $35 fee from Nikolay, we decided he he would make contact with both players, the 4 NAC Members (Mark Dutton, Lyle Craver, Aris Marghetis, and Ilia Bluvshtein) who could serve, and the Arbiter (Pierre), Chief Arbiter (Bernard) and Organizer (Richard). The NAC were given these e-mail addresses (players and officials) so that they could contact them. I think reports were made available by Pierre and Richard. Along with Nikolay's appeal and the video, I would say no other contact was made with the e-mails we supplied. Presumably the NAC felt they didn't need any further information.
Neither Bob or I intended to mislead Nikolay.
I suppose different people will have different opinions if this constituted misconduct on anyone's part.
Under the current NFP, it is quite possible that the Directors could overrule the NAC, but I don't have the expertise to know for sure.
I have a lot of respect for Fred - he does a LOT of work (mostly behind the curtains) to keep the CFC Executive process on track and he often has been able to mobilize some efforts. I am sure he did whatever he could to expedite the process without (in any way) compromising it. Sometime 'the process' is very poorly defined and I suspect this situation highlights some serious problems with the appeal process in general. Tying the appeal process to some external forces (especially FIDE - I have omitted many adjectives I had included here for brevity) is a truly bad move. The CFC needs to always govern itself properly and it always seems to cave in to other pressure.
This situation also reveals another problem with the appeal process: when one of the NAC is the arbiter involved, obviously he/she will recuse themself from the decision but that leaves an even number of people on the NAC - I don't suppose there is a 'reserve' member or members of the NAC that could be called in to serve in this case? In retrospect, probably a good idea that likely would be used very seldom...
I honestly do not know what sort of decision or resolution could be made in this case to right the wrong; maybe it cannot be corrected. I hope the reasoning behind the decision becomes public too but I am worried that it will be considered too politically sensitive for that to happen.
The only reason the NAC findings have not been released yet, is that some of the Directors (myself for one) felt it was in too "raw" of a format. One way or the other it will be released to the public, soon.
Tweet
Comment