Originally Posted by frosty
That's selective quoting ... you missed out an important part ... the full quote from that section of the bid (as posted publicly on Chess Chat):
I admit that my quote was "selective," as all quotes are/must be selective. However, the implication that I bwas being misleading is not justified. The phrase "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" is irrelevent to my arguement. That phrase could eqally apply to scores of points throughout the bid.
The bidder (Paramatta) is jumping the gun a little by suggesting that, if awarded the bid, they would want BG to be on the committee as the ACF's representative.
It is presumptuous and unethical of the Paramatta team to put forward Bill Gletsos forward as the ACF representitive. It is a clear COI. He would be the NSWCA Pres at a NSW run event run by NSWCA officers, yet reporting to the ACF on matters that may conflict with ACF objectives - such as safe guarding the ACF $2000 safety net from rorting.
If you disagree with this assessment, perhaps you could suggest how else to reconcile the words "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" to a particular by-law relating to bidding for the tournament.
The ACF has the power to appoint anyone it likes to a on executive position in the ACF. It could simply create the positon of "2008 Australian Chamionship Officer" and appoint any non-NSWCA councilor, non-Parramatta office holder, to that position.
Everyone take a step back and look at the situation. I feel like I have been taking crazy pills becuase it appears that I am the only person who sees that, Bill Gletsos sitting on both the NSWCA and the ACF, and also being involved with a bid has a serious COI facet to it?
Bill Gletsos must resign from either the NSWCA or the ACF.