+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Public Area (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Chess Scotland Forum (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-28.html)
+--- Thread: New constitution (/thread-1257.html)
Re: New constitution - StevieHilton - 01-07-2015
Jim,
I thank you for your swift response.
Outside of chess, I am a director of ICOD which is the Inverclyde Council on Disability. They provide a range of services for disabled people in the district of Inverclyde. They rely on getting grants from various sources in order to get trained staff who provide services that are vital to the disabled people of my district.
I do this work on a voluntary basis, with no payment.
Nor do I get paid for my work as Secretary General of the IBCA which I've been doing for 7 years and still do currently.
I am sure that you are correct in what you say but I thought it was unclear.
Re: New constitution - robin moore - 01-07-2015
Jim,
I checked the 2010,2011 and 2012 AGMs with regard to junior representation to add to the figures I previously mentioned for 2013.
2010- 14 attendees. 0 juniors, 4 parent/guardians of 5 juniors.
2011- 17 attendees. 0 juniors, 1 parent/guardian of 1 junior.
2012- 25 attendees. 1 junior, 5 parent/guardians of 6 juniors.
2013- 39 attendees. 1 junior, 7 parent/guardians of 11 juniors.
Re: New constitution - Jim Webster - 01-07-2015
Phil
Wow !! I express a personal opinion and I get this...
What I was trying to point out was the number of juniors who actually attended. Not parents who turn up with 2/3 or more votes in their pocket based on family membership - possibly voting on their own opinions rather than those of the children. Did these parents actually turn up and vote for their children using a proxy, having submitted formal proxies from their children in accordance with the constitution of the day? I'm sure the records should be able to show the evidence to support this
Phil Thomas Wrote:There is a suggestion made elsewhere that parents of juniors will be consulted and their views taken to the executive committee. This I find to be unacceptable and totally undemocratic.
I do not understand how consultations, and taking actions based on these consultations, is in anyway undemocratic -- it may well be exactly the opposite.
You find it unacceptable - well you are entitled to your own viewpoint, such is democracy.
Again these comments are personal opinions and are not to be construed in any way, shape or form as an official CWP comment.
Re: New constitution - Jim Webster - 01-07-2015
Robin,
Thanks for that, you obviously have a far greater knowledge and experience of the junior scene that I have.
All I was trying to do was point out how many Juniors actually attend AGM's.
But I'm not going to be sidelined anymore from the Constitution - so I'll stick to what I do know something about.
Re: New constitution - Phil Thomas - 01-07-2015
Jim Webster Wrote:Phil
Wow !! I express a personal opinion and I get this...
What I was trying to point out was the number of juniors who actually attended. Not parents who turn up with 2/3 or more votes in their pocket based on family membership - possibly voting on their own opinions rather than those of the children. Did these parents actually turn up and vote for their children using a proxy, having submitted formal proxies from their children in accordance with the constitution of the day? I'm sure the records should be able to show the evidence to support this
Phil Thomas Wrote:There is a suggestion made elsewhere that parents of juniors will be consulted and their views taken to the executive committee. This I find to be unacceptable and totally undemocratic.
I do not understand how consultations, and taking actions based on these consultations, is in anyway undemocratic -- it may well be exactly the opposite.
You find it unacceptable - well you are entitled to your own viewpoint, such is democracy.
Again these comments are personal opinions and are not to be construed in any way, shape or form as an official CWP comment.
Jim,
with reference to the words I have put into bold script.
The Sept 2012 constitution states
Where an Individual member is under the age of sixteen, one parent or guardian of that Individual member is granted an automatic proxy vote on behalf of the Individual member if the member concerned is not voting in his or her own right. Individual members under the age of 12 at the date of any meeting can only vote by automatic proxy.
Assuming these words were in force at the 2009 agm (seems likely to me but I could be wrong) then there was no requirement for the youngster to sign anything for the parent to cast a proxy vote.
I really don't understand how taking a vote away from paid up members and replacing it with a consultation process can be seen as being more democratic.
Think about prime ministers questions in the house of commons. Protocol dictates the the prime minister has to listen to the leader of the opposition. I don't recall this leading to many changes in government policy.
When parents vote after forming their own opinions they generally are voting for the benefit of their child. Thats how parenthood works.
Re: New constitution - amuir - 01-07-2015
Quote:The original title here was Selection Board Chairman, however Council had a preference for all titles to be Director so it was changed. The concept was to appoint an independent authority for the selection boards
- to arbitrate when/if conflicts or impasse were reached.
- to ensure that there is no conflict of interest during the selection process
This position was also a common reporting method for all selection boards into the Executive Committee. The relevant job description should clarify this when it is produced.
(and when/if the new constitution is adopted). This position does not override the rights if the Adult and Junior Directors to convene and chair boards within the scope of Section 10 of the Constitution.
Q. Is it a conflict of interest for me to be director,selector, player + captain ? Which post(s) should I resign from to remove this conflict ?
Q. Should Matthew Turner be eligible for 2016 Olympiad ? Yes /no. Four top players don't want him in the team, but four top players do !
Q. Can the Selection Board Chairman post be taken by me as well as International Director role ? This would save me a lot of headaches. What if the SBC wants a Greek player to be Olympiad captain but I also want the job? How is that impasse resolved ? Would it cost me £100 to remove an undesirable Selection Board Chairman after only one year ?
Re: New constitution - Phil Thomas - 01-07-2015
Jim Webster Wrote:It has been posted on this thread and there have been email questions/comments regarding votes for U16 members.
The following statement is given in order to clear up some of the concerns
It is intended that any and all Junior specific issues be addressed to all junior members/parents and their views sought. The outcome would them be passed to the Executive Committee. It is felt that the best place for this is within a relevant operating procedure designed specifically for Junior Issues and does not actually need to be "Constitutionalized". The operating procedures are designed to be less rigid and easier to update than the Constitution but no less binding once approved.
Jim
Jim,
It is well established cliche that in a democracy no government can bind its successor.
Your statement therefore carries no weight at all unless it either
(a) Is part of the election manifesto of the next president.
(b) Forms part of the new constitution.
If (a) I note that the current president finishes his 3rd year in August (the current constitution prohibits a 4th term of office). We have also been told (within this thread) that the current president will not take advantage of the proposed constitution to remain in office beyond the agm in August.
If (b) then the constitution being put forwards for the sgm of July 14th is incomplete.
It was rushed through.
The 3 hour grilling by council members on May 30th was inadequate.
In theory no government can bind its successor - it practice they can do so by clear careful and concise wording in the constitution.
That has not been done here.
The proposed constitution is incomplete.
That is sufficient reason for this motion to fall.
Re: New constitution - Matthew Turner - 01-07-2015
Andy Muir wrote,
Q. Should Matthew Turner be eligible for 2016 Olympiad ? Yes /no. Four top players don't want him in the team, but four top players do !
I have addressed this question on a number of occasions - to reiterate I would only accept an invite to play for Scotland at the Olympiad with the agreement of the rest of the team. That is putting the team first.
Re: New constitution - Jim Webster - 01-07-2015
amuir Wrote:Q. Is it a conflict of interest for me to be director, selector, player + captain ? Which post(s) should I resign from to remove this conflict ?Selector - there is a conflict of interest if you are a candidate for playing.
Captain - this is an appointment and not a right as a Director. This is a post that is selected on a "by team" basis, so not sure how you resign from a position you may not hold, and you certainly cannot be Captain before team selection takes place.
Any person seeking selection or captaincy must disallow him/her self from that part of the decision-making process.
amuir Wrote:Q. Should Matthew Turner be eligible for 2016 Olympiad ? Yes /no. Four top players don't want him in the team, but four top players do !We are discussing the Constitution, not individual members so not relevant at this time.
amuir Wrote:Q. Can the Selection Board Chairman post be taken by me as well as International Director role ?No, the key is in the word "Independent"
amuir Wrote:Q. What if the SBC wants a Greek player to be Olympiad captain but I also want the job? How is that impasse resolved ?I don't think we should get involved in hypothetical situations. We are discussing the Constitution
amuir Wrote:Would it cost me £100 to remove an undesirable Selection Board Chairman after only one year ?Not at the AGM since there is no charge for a motion.
If you want an SGM then you need 10 signatories as well as the £100 to submit a motion for a vote of no confidence.
Re: New constitution - WBuchanan - 01-07-2015
Andy Burnett asked
"I just noticed it today and was wondering why there had been a discussion about 'grandparent eligibility re: international selection' on this thread at all :/ There isn't one in place, there isn't one proposed, so...?"
Hi Andy. I read it differently. The proposal is:
16.Eligibility
16.1. To be eligible to compete for any Scottish individual national championship title (including open to all, gender or age-related championship tournaments) a person must be a member of Chess Scotland and meet at least one of the following requirements:
16.1.1. born in Scotland, or have at least one parent or grandparent born in Scotland, or
16.1.2. permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years immediately prior to the commencement of the competition, or
16.1.3. currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’). In the case of Juniors aged 18 and under, the residence qualification period as at
16.1.2 above shall be reduced to one year immediately prior to the commencement of the competition.
16.2. To be eligible to represent Scotland in any international competition , a person must be:
16.2.1. a member of Chess Scotland currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’), and 16.2.2.
Able to satisfy any other criteria (including age and rating limits) set by the organisers of the tournament corefusedncerned.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/Files/2015/Constitution2015.pdf">http://www.chessscotland.com/Files/2015 ... on2015.pdf</a><!-- m -->
As none of the requirements specified for championship eligibility are mentioned in the section concerning eligibility for international selection, doesn't this mean that the only requirements for the latter are the ones set by FIDE?
Looking at it the other way, on what grounds could a player with a Scottish grandparent and a high enough rating and who has registered as SCO with FIDE rating be refused international selection? A refusal would be unconstitutional.
The appearance of the grandparent rule in Championship eligibility suggests which way the drafters of the constitution are minded.
I could have this wrong...but anyway my view is that the issue of 'Scottishness' on the international scene should be decided by the Scottish members and not weakened through vague changes in rules that are nonetheless binding.
Cheers