Although this is an article about the NCC rules, it is also an example of how the committee goes about its work.

At the AGM in September, a motion was passed (from P.17 of the minutes):

• National club championships will run on the format of the last two years with restrictions on players as defined above.
• The new format will decide the second team to qualify for the European club cup.
• Armstrong winners automatically be entitled to place in the European Clubs

When I became chairman, I presumed that coming up with a set of rules that would implement the AGM motion would be fairly easy. How wrong I was!

Within a few weeks, Gerry Graham, our tournaments officer, wrote up a proposed set of rules. An email conversation ensued around the rules governing player eligibility. I won't bore you with the minutiae, but just as we all thought we had the rules ready for a vote at the next committee meeting, I received an email from Mark Heidenfeld. His main point was that our rules might prevent the professional chess players taking part in and earning money for playing in our championships. In soccer circles this is known as the Bosman ruling.

Then Rory Delaney joined the committee as acting secretary. He suggested very cleverly that players were eligible if they had played in two previous NCC events. This wording prevented the parashooting in of very strong players that the AGM so disliked. It also did not prevent these same strong players coming to Ireland and playing for a club in the provincial leagues, or playing in one of our weekenders. Bosman ruling avoided. Game over, or so I thought.

On the 14th November, the committee held its first Skype meeting. This technology is not perfect, but it has a huge advantage over meeting in person: Nobody has to travel, saving many of us many hours of driving. When we discussed the NCC rules, it became clear that both Pete Morriss (the connaught representative) and Rory Quinn, the membership officer, felt that the rules were patently unfair, due to the favouritism shown to the winners of Leinster's Armstrong Cup competition. My view on this matter is that, yes, it is unfair, but it was voted on and passed at the AGM. However, doubts were also expressed about whether the motion should have been allowed at the AGM, so that I decided to send this matter to Herbert Scarry, our arbitration officer, for a decision. You can read his decision below. To expedite the matter, we voted on the NCC rules without the clause about the Armstrong Cup, and this was passed.

A week later Herbert ruled that the AGM motion was correct, and so to comply with both the AGM and the ECC rules, the Armstrong Cup winners must have played in the NCC and come in the top half to claim their place in the ECC along with the winners of the NCC.

There is still some discussion about whether the ECC rules allow the Armstrong Cup winner's to qualify for the ECC without coming 1st or 2nd in the NCC competition. My own opinion is that the Armstrong Cup clause clause is consistent with clause F1.1.6 of the ECU rules. However, we have asked Dirk de Ridder, ECU tournament director, for his opinion.

Finally, there are a number of lessons I have learned from this issue:

• Sometimes simple looking issues are a lot more complicated than they seem at first.
• External contributions to our debates (like Mark Heidenfeld's) are very valuable, and give us a different perspective. So, please don't feel shy about writing on this or any other matter to the committee.
• Committee members often hold opposite views, but we treat each other with respect, and this helps us to make better decisions.
• The NCC rules as they stand now, and in accordance with the AGM motion on the matter are patently unfair against Connaught and Munster. I propose to bring a motion to next year's AGM asking that the Armstrong Cup clause be removed from the rules. If enough members requested it, I would also be willing to hold an EGM.
• Woe betide any committee that goes against decisions made at an AGM. That is one place I will not go.

Appendix: Arbitration Officer's Findings

Mr Chairman,

I have considered the legality of Motion 10: Format of National Club Championships as debated at the ICU AGM 2010 and I believe the vote taken should be applied by the executive committee.

The motion essentially tried to return the NCC to its format before 2009 and 2010, and added some restrictions on eligibility of players.

There are two objections to the motion:

1. the original motion was published after the one month deadline, due to an error by the ICU secretary;
2. the original motion was heavily amended to the extent that the final motion passed was almost a diametric opposite of the original motion.

The first objection could have been raised at the AGM itself, however I don't believe this was done.

The second objection was considered by the ICU chairman in the course of the AGM, but he allowed the matter to be debated and a vote to be taken.

I can identify three good reasons why the current chairman and executive committee are obliged to honour the course of events at the AGM, and apply the spirit of the motion passed:

1. the ICU chairman at the AGM, after due consideration, allowed a debate on the motion to proceed among those members present at the AGM, and then a vote to be taken; once this is done, only in extreme circumstances can the result of the vote be discounted;
2. any injustice caused to any ICU member (or group of members) not present at the AGM (or not represented by e.g. a provincial representative) is not permanent; can be addressed at a subsequent AGM, or even an EGM which may be called for this purpose or even for another purpose;
3. had the ICU chairman at the AGM disallowed the amended motion then it would probably have been withdrawn by the proposer, and the format of NCC which was used in 2009 and 2010 would have prevailed, in which case it is plausible that the ICU tournament director would have applied the controversial Armstrong Cup clause (it had the approval of the LCU and the MCU) and the restrictions on eligibility set out in the original motion in his revised NCC rules for 2011. Which would be the same result as the passing of the amended motion.

Herbert Scarry Arbitration Officer.