<< Go back to previous page
22/11/06 With regards to the JC competition debacle, I have emailed the WPA executive (this includes Brian Smith) five times with these questions:
1) Who were the executive members present when the ruling was made about the Jacques Cochonnet Petanque Cup:
"Therefore the executive has decided to put all matches on hold until a meeting can be held to review the current rules which have become 'fudged' over time. It is likely the meeting will be held early next year."
2) On what date took this executive meeting place.
3) Under which section of the WPA constitution can the WPA executive make this ruling.
4) Do you think that not consulting with the clubs involved (Masterton and Khandallah) was proper conduct on behalf of WPA.
The WPA executive has so far ignored these requests for information. -Tom.
Update 27/11/06: It is hard to believe that Fay and the Khandallah/WPA people object to me publishing a general (not private) email which was sent out to all clubs in the Wellington region. WPA, Khandallah and Fay are now conveniently using this as a feeble excuse for not answering the questions I and Graeme B have asked in numerous emails to them. Going underground when things get difficult is a sign of guilt and only serves to make matters worse. Just to put things into perspective: here we have Nicky Hager stealing emails from the leader of the opposition and publishing these in a book without any problems! Can we all see the absurdity of the logic employed: objecting to me publishing Fay's email which was meant for general publication anyway. -Tom.
With regards to the Minutes of Special Meeting The folowing is interesting:
"Fay said she took full responsibility for putting the challenges on hold as she felt it would give clubs "time out" but this had not happened – hence the special meeting. Fay also apologised if she made a wrong decision but she had had the best interests of the WPA at heart."
"Fay also apologised if she made a wrong decision" (should this read: "Fay also apologised for making the wrong decision").
No one doubts that Fay meant well, but what does she mean by:
"she felt it would give clubs time out".
Time out from what? Clubs were still negotiating. What is in question here is whether Fay acted by herself, with others or under instruction from others. If she acted by herself, she clearly misused her position. My feeling is that Fay was under instruction, and now feels that she should take the blame out of misplaced loyalty, and to protect others. All very sad. -Tom.
Update 05/01/07: Fay, Khandallah and the WPA's involvement is still shrouded in a thick fog brought about by what seems like a severe closing of ranks weather event. Still waiting for answers to the above questions. -Tom.
The closest we got to an apology from Khandallah was with this line: "He apologized for any disharmony and would like the matter to be resolved." (taken from Minutes of Special Meeting).
Update 20/02/07: WPA President's Report: WPA President's Report: It is interesting to read again, that issues people are concerned about, and subsequently publish on the Web, are seen as "disruptive and controversial comments". The words "disruptive" and "controversial" mean different things to different people. If for example we had not published on the Web that WPA had removed from the WPA website the link to the MPC Blog page, absolutely nothing would have happened. As it turned out, the link was quickly reinstated - this is thanks to many concerned players voicing their abhorrence on to the Web.
The President's Report goes on to say that we put sponsorship deals in danger if we receive a lot of bad press. I totally agree with this and we should therefore collectively ensure that we get mainly good press. One step towards achieving this would be for WPA to answer polite request for information from regional members. I made such a request, but this request for information has so far not been acknowledged, let alone answered. -Tom.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.