<
             Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) Forums
*    NWC     NWC Staff     NWC Rules     NWC (DoR) Records    About Us     Send Email Inquiry to NWC
*   La Grande Armée Quartier Général        La Grande Armée Officer Records     Join La Grande Armée
*   Allied Coalition    Allied Officers     Join Coalition
*   Coalition Armies:   Austro-Prussian-Swedish Army    Anglo Allied Army (AAA)    Russian Corps
  
                 Military Books, Magazines, Games for sale (see other items)
Forums:    ACWGC    CCC     Home:    ACWGC    CCC
It is currently Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:06 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:01 am
Posts: 1394
Location: USA
This is exactly the type of thing I have suspected, I have copied this from the voting thread and I assume the person who requested this addition was Marco:

7. 3.2.3. Please add a responsibility: ‘When one of the officers in the army is not acting according to the best interest of the army (negative or destructive actions) or the NWC as a whole the Army commander is allowed to expel the officer from the army. The Army commander will inform the cabinet about the case and the reasons for expelling the officer. The officer in question will be made in-active or he can try to transfer to another army ‘

Why on earth would we want such a thing incorporated into the club rules?

I don't mean to debate this point here only to build the case the Marco has:

1. Been vindicative in his behavior by removing Mark Jones as our Chief of Staff
2. This behavior is an abuse of his position
3. This abuse coupled with his resignation from the Cabinent indicates his inability to continue to act effectively as the CiC.

_________________
General de Brigade, Ed Blackburn
13ème Régiment d'Infanterie Légère
1er Brigade, 1er Division,
5eme Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée

Bourbonnais sans tache


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:29 am
Posts: 264
Location: Pa
Getting along is a two way street, chief of staffs serve at the behest of the CIC. Marco is well within his rights to shake up his staff if he feels it is warranted. Painting Marco as being vindictive and not putting any blame Mark at all is very disengenuos. Look on the bright side, now Mark can devote more time to being president. Also Mark not being Cos of the AAA in no way diminishes his standing as president and is a hysterical argument to make.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2002 4:18 am
Posts: 684
Location: United Kingdom
Dear Mr Stotsenburgh

"Getting along is a two way street"

I agree, now who was it that sacked who :D :?:

"hysterical argument"

perhaps a little hyperbolical :)

_________________
Jim Hall
Field Marshall
Commander Anglo-Allied Army


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:29 am
Posts: 264
Location: Pa
Jim,
Marco has the right that every CIC has and that is to name his own staff. If Marco and Mark haven't been getting along on for years no matter what the reason it's Marco's perogative to make a change. As the charge was originally made that Mark not being COS of the AAA somehow diminishes his role as club president i continue to find it a hysterical argument to make, born out of emotion and nothing else. The members of the AAA will have their say when voting takes place.

regards

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:45 am 
Salute!

David S wrote: As the charge was originally made that Mark not being COS of the AAA somehow diminishes his role as club president i continue to find it a hysterical argument to make, born out of emotion and nothing else.

I've just read the thread through several times and I'm failing to find this charge.
But then there are a lot of posts and I could very well have missed it.
But you also say that it was the original hence I looked in the initial post, but still cannot find it.

Can you quote the charge please?

By the way, I totally agree that not being CoS has no bearing on Mark's role as duly elected Club President.

I also agree that the CiC of an army can pick and choose his CoS.
But it is sort of like an army picking and choosing their CiC, is it not?

Let us take a trip down that country lane in my next post.

Regards


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:54 am 
Salute!

The question here that has been raised is whether or not Marco remains CiC of the Coalition.

From the current Club Rules: 3.1.1 The CiC is responsible for... Serves on the Club Cabinet.

Rue 3.2.6 Allied CiC represents all of the Allied Armies on the Cabinet.

It is a matter of public record on display in multiple threads throughout the club forums and in official Cabinet Minutes that Marco resigned his position on the Cabinet.

This by any reading of the Club Rules would automatically disqualify him from serving as the CiC of the Coalition armies.

We'll get to the country mile about CiC's serving at the will of their officers shortly.

Regards


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:01 am
Posts: 1394
Location: USA
David Stotsenburgh wrote:
Jim,
Marco has the right that every CIC has and that is to name his own staff. If Marco and Mark haven't been getting along on for years no matter what the reason it's Marco's perogative to make a change. As the charge was originally made that Mark not being COS of the AAA somehow diminishes his role as club president i continue to find it a hysterical argument to make, born out of emotion and nothing else. The members of the AAA will have their say when voting takes place.

regards


Huh? Who made that charge? The points I tried to make were that 1. Mark's removal was due to vindictiveness, and 2. how can we have a CiC who has resigned from Cabinent. There was nothing hysterical or emotional about.

_________________
General de Brigade, Ed Blackburn
13ème Régiment d'Infanterie Légère
1er Brigade, 1er Division,
5eme Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée

Bourbonnais sans tache


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2002 4:18 am
Posts: 684
Location: United Kingdom
“Never been one to let the facts get in the way of a good story” Brigade :shock:

_________________
Jim Hall
Field Marshall
Commander Anglo-Allied Army


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:01 am
Posts: 1394
Location: USA
Jim Hall wrote:
“Never been one to let the facts get in the way of a good story” Brigade :shock:


Indeed Jim, I may have a nomination for that Brigade commander. :cry:

_________________
General de Brigade, Ed Blackburn
13ème Régiment d'Infanterie Légère
1er Brigade, 1er Division,
5eme Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée

Bourbonnais sans tache


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:29 am
Posts: 264
Location: Pa
Quote:
Anything that involves the active standing of the President of the NWC


How does Mark not being COS of the AAA diminish his being president?

Whether he is the COS or not has nothing to do with him being president. or am i reading the intent of the above line wrong?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:01 am
Posts: 1394
Location: USA
David Stotsenburgh wrote:
Quote:
Anything that involves the active standing of the President of the NWC


How does Mark not being COS of the AAA diminish his being president?

Whether he is the COS or not has nothing to do with him being president. or am i reading the intent of the above line wrong?


That is not my quote.

_________________
General de Brigade, Ed Blackburn
13ème Régiment d'Infanterie Légère
1er Brigade, 1er Division,
5eme Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée

Bourbonnais sans tache


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 2:48 am
Posts: 1243
Location: Charlotte NC
Todd Schmidgall wrote:
Salute!

David Guegan's recent post below I felt more properly belonged in another thread, so I copied it in Voting for Club Rules thread, and responded in that one.

This is simply to take caution on hijacking the present thread.

Regards,


Thank you for serving as moderator of that topic... and since you are at that maybe you should apply to become moderator for the forum. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

_________________
Image

--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:12 am 
Salute!

Todd wrote: Anything that involves the active standing of the President of the NWC is of interest.

Yes, I will stand by the statement, not that it affects his job, but that the situation is of interest to the club membership when some try to say this is an internal Coalition matter only.

To further support my view that this is of interest I will quote a proposal from Marco during the Cabinet discussion about the Revised Club Rules:

7. 3.2.3. Please add a responsibility: ‘When one of the officers in the army is not acting according to the best interest of the army (negative or destructive actions) or the NWC as a whole the Army commander is allowed to expel the officer from the army. The Army commander will inform the cabinet about the case and the reasons for expelling the officer. The officer in question will be made in-active or he can try to transfer to another army ‘

The implication of wanting such a rule here is that the following could occur: the CiC could expel a sitting President from the Coalition Army and then if the disenfranchised officer was not able to affect a transfer to another army, you would have an elected President of the Club without an assigned position.

David G wrote:
Thank you for serving as moderator of that topic... and since you are at that maybe you should apply to become moderator for the forum. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Hi David, no, not serving as a moderator, hence your post remains in this thread, I just thought it would be better to respond elsewhere.... No offense intended sir.

As for use of the term hijacking it is often used in referring to posts that don't have to do with the thread in which they are found.

I'm sure I'm guilty of hijacking myself from time to time. :mrgreen:

Regards,


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:29 am
Posts: 264
Location: Pa
Quote:
That is not my quote.


never said it was.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Corps Commander very much in the dark
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:29 am
Posts: 264
Location: Pa
Quote:
Todd wrote: Anything that involves the active standing of the President of the NWC is of interest.

Yes, I will stand by the statement, not that it affects his job, but that the situation is of interest to the club membership when some try to say this is an internal Coalition matter only.

To further support my view that this is of interest I will quote a proposal from Marco during the Cabinet discussion about the Revised Club Rules:

7. 3.2.3. Please add a responsibility: ‘When one of the officers in the army is not acting according to the best interest of the army (negative or destructive actions) or the NWC as a whole the Army commander is allowed to expel the officer from the army. The Army commander will inform the cabinet about the case and the reasons for expelling the officer. The officer in question will be made in-active or he can try to transfer to another army ‘


yeah well i'm pretty sure it's not the first time that something has been proposed and shot down by the cabinet. don't see getting worked up on things that were proposed and not adopted, water under the bridge as far as i am concerned. i'm sure current and former members of the cabinet could tell us more than a few funny stories about proposed rules changes that never happened.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr