+- 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 - mclarke - 05-07-2015
robin moore Wrote:Martin,
I think 5 (1)(i) and 5.(1)(ii) in the proposed new constitution would cover all junior votes if my amendment was passed.
5. Voting
5.1. The following are each entitled to one vote at a general meeting, subject to the additional
regulations contained in 5.2 to 5.7
(i) Every Individual Member;
(ii) Every named eligible individual within a Family Membership
Hi Robin,
Sorry if last reply came across curt, wasn't the intention, I was in a rush out the door. I guess the outcome I'm trying to achieve is that the youngest junior members interests can be protected by their parents/guardians (which is where I think you're coming from with your amendments).
The old 5.4 seemed to achieve that - what I'm not clear about is if the new 5.5 is sufficient.
Martin
Re: New constitution - Phil Thomas - 05-07-2015
Jim,
Near the start of your very long post (mid way through junior voting paragraph)you stated that most but not all junior organisations had signed up. Actually only LCA and NEJCA show as affiliated. the vast majority are not affiliated. It is not just SJC who are active but outwith CS affiliation.
To name just a few.
All the schools who enter the qualifying round for the Megafinals( hundreds per year) Stirling Schools ( 150 plus entrants) Lanarkshire schools ( near 200 players). Also the dragon league and up a few years ago a large event in the borders which may or not still be running.
You simply cannot blame current CS problems on voluntary organisations who do not affiliate.
Re: New constitution - robin moore - 05-07-2015
Martin,
Looking at 5.5 in the proposed new constitution....
5.5. Votes may be cast in the following ways:
(i) by personal attendance at the meeting;
(ii) by on-line submission via a system established on the Chess Scotland website;
(iii) by proxy vote via a representative entitled to vote and in attendance at the meeting,
notified at least 7 days beforehand.
It appears to have favourably flexible options to all voters.
For clarity, I personally don't feel very young CS members will vote at all unless on a specific junior motion but I strongly believe it would be wrong to deny them the opportunity to use their vote.
Re: New constitution - Jim Webster - 05-07-2015
Phil Thomas Wrote:You simply cannot blame current CS problems on voluntary organisations who do not affiliate
2 things wrong with this statement.
I do not blame anyone or organisation for anything.
The post was on behalf of the CWP, but then it does say that at the end. Why make it so personal?
e.g. simply you could have said "The CWP simply cannot....."
No one is denying that there are issues, but the way forward is to identify and address them.
This thread has, to my mind, stimulated active and constructive discussion and on some points offered clarification and reason.
I know there are some points (well one anyway) you and I will not agree on.
I do respect your opinions and your right to disagree however.
Admittedly statements should be factually correct,
but as Alexander Pope wrote "To err is human, to forgive, divine"
-- quotes like that - gosh it must be getting late - please don't reply with another quote 1 in a thread is enough for me
)
Re: New constitution - Phil Thomas - 05-07-2015
Jim Webster Wrote:Phil Thomas Wrote:You simply cannot blame current CS problems on voluntary organisations who do not affiliate
2 things wrong with this statement.
I do not blame anyone or organisation for anything.
The post was on behalf of the CWP, but then it does say that at the end. Why make it so personal?
e.g. simply you could have said "The CWP simply cannot....."
No one is denying that there are issues, but the way forward is to identify and address them.
This thread has, to my mind, stimulated active and constructive discussion and on some points offered clarification and reason.
I know there are some points (well one anyway) you and I will not agree on.
I do respect your opinions and your right to disagree however.
If
Admittedly statements should be factually correct,
but as Alexander Pope wrote "To err is human, to forgive, divine"
-- quotes like that - gosh it must be getting late - please don't reply with another quote 1 in a thread is enough for me
OK point taken. The CWP simply can not blame current CS problems on organisations who do not affiliate.
Lots of words on this thread. Anyone know how much time is available for the sgm?
As I understand it the view of the CWP is that the incumbents in post with the proposed constitution will do a much better job than the incumbents in post with the current constitution.
I for one do not see how.
Essentially the same people will be in post before and after the SGM and the agm. No job descriptions will be available for a long time.
So if the proposed constitution gets passed those appointed will not know their remit under the new structure. Also a problem under the old constitution but at least there is custom and practice to guide directors under the existing constitution.
Plus as things stand those going for posts at the agm don't even know (yet) if they are going for a one year or a two year appointment.
Quite simply its a recipe for chaos.
Re: New constitution - StevieHilton - 05-07-2015
The debate seems to have asked a number of important questions that need to be answered.
1/ the voting rights of under 16`s
2/ eligibility issue again is unclear and needs full clarification before the meeting
3/ The proposed positions and the job descriptions need to be answered before the vote.
The CWP have put forward an interesting document and have put a bit of work into it and must be commended for that, but the fact remains that document is raising a lot of questions that need answering before the vote.
Re: New constitution - Phil Thomas - 06-07-2015
StevieHilton Wrote:The debate seems to have asked a number of important questions that need to be answered.
1/ the voting rights of under 16`s
2/ eligibility issue again is unclear and needs full clarification before the meeting
3/ The proposed positions and the job descriptions need to be answered before the vote.
The CWP have put forward an interesting document and have put a bit of work into it and must be commended for that, but the fact remains that document is raising a lot of questions that need answering before the vote.
Steve,
Answers needed earlier than that.
Answers needed before proxy votes are given.
Otherwise decision will be taken by the absent and uninformed majority.
Remember that this crucial meeting happens on a Tuesday morning in holiday season with less than three notice given.
Repeating my earlier question, does anyone know how long the meeting will last? Enough material here to keep the debate going until well into the evening. Potentially allowing many people to complete their working day and reach the venue before the final vote is taken.
Re: New constitution - Alan Jelfs - 06-07-2015
Phil Thomas Wrote:Remember that this crucial meeting happens on a Tuesday morning in holiday season with less than three notice given.
Repeating my earlier question, does anyone know how long the meeting will last? Enough material here to keep the debate going until well into the evening. Potentially allowing many people to complete their working day and reach the venue before the final vote is taken.
I think the idea was that it would be over by 1.00 p.m. when the important stuff, i.e. the CHESS, starts.
Re: New constitution - Jacqui Thomas - 06-07-2015
Question: regarding new structure & specifically Executive Committee. At the moment the President is a figure head & chairs meetings & the executive director is in charge of everyone & the buck stops with him/her. With the new structure who will ultimately be in charge - with whom will the buck stop.
Re: New constitution - robin moore - 06-07-2015
From the CS homepage....
"Anyone who cannot attend, may nominate a proxy by notifying the Executive Director by 7th July, 2015"
For clarity, does this mean by 11.59pm on Tuesday 7th July 2015?