+- 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 - WBuchanan - 05-07-2015
Ha ha thanks Andy M - i think you need to think this one through again!
Re: New constitution - Ianbrownlee - 05-07-2015
amuir Wrote:people on cwp have vested interest and must be barred from voting.that would mean you couldn't vote as you have a vested interest
Re: New constitution - Ianbrownlee - 05-07-2015
amuir Wrote:That means howie, Bryson, Webster, white must abstain due to vested interest.
BTW the name is Brownlee, not Bryson ,
Re: New constitution - PeterReidSmith - 05-07-2015
Awful lot of "directors" - does the existing structure have that many?
Perhaps it would be good to start with something more digestible (that everyone could hopefully align with) , like being clear on our "Vision", goals, aims. As an organisation are we even on the right path?
Unless we're clear on that , then refining the execution structure/framework won't necessary achieve a great deal and can distract from the bigger picture. How are similar organisations structured and what could we "borrow" from their constitution, structure, organisation seems like an obvious question.
Re: New constitution - Jim Webster - 05-07-2015
PeterReidSmith Wrote:Awful lot of "directors" - does the existing structure have that many?
There is a net gain of 2.
3 posts, Customer Services, Marketing and Sponsorship, have been combined into 1 post.
(Loss of 2 posts)
Selection Board Director, was originally designated as Selection Board Chairman, but Council asked that all posts be designated as director. Under the constitution (both existing and new) this can actually be created as an appointment.
Quote:7.2.3 Additional Office Bearers having responsibilities delegated to them by the AGM, may be appointed by the AGM.
Coaching & Training is new as a director, but exists as an appointment so simply formalising this into council.
New posts are those on the Executive Committee.
Re: New constitution - robin moore - 05-07-2015
I am seeking a seconder for this amendment....
I Robin Moore seconded by xxxxx propose the following motion:
"That Section 5.3.(i) is deleted ( i.e. Members who have not yet reached the age of 16 (i.e. the age of legal capacity in Scotland)). This would allow under-16s the vote at General Meetings"
and....
"In Section 6.3.1. that the words after .... privileges, the remainder of the sentence is deleted (i.e. except that only those age of 16 or over are allowed to vote at General Meetings (as detailed in Section 5) '
Re: New constitution - mclarke - 05-07-2015
Robin, while I agree with the amendments; there probably needs to be something similar to the old 5.4 that should go back in with it. The old 5.4 was:
"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."
Re: New constitution - robin moore - 05-07-2015
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
Re: New constitution - Jim Webster - 05-07-2015
The CWP have followed closely the various issues raised during the on-line process. Again we can confidently state that all the points raised were covered within our own discussions so we have tried to address possible concerns as part of our deliberations. As often happens with these lengthy 'blogs' there is a certain amount of misinformation (or even disinformation) and sometimes possibilities became 'facts' if repeated enough times, even when this is incorrect.
Basically the CS membership has 3 options
1. Accept the proposed new Constitution as is
2. Reject the new Constitution in its entirety
3. Modify (by accepted amendments) and then accept the proposed Constitution (in the revised form)
Obviously we hope that either Option 1 or Option 3 is what the membership would choose. There may be a specific area that members are unhappy about but the best option is to modify this and move forward within the framework of the new proposals. If the membership elects for Option 2 then the current Constitution will remain in force. Considering the number of problems that have arisen in recent years (and passionately debated on these pages) there is a need to resolve some of the problems with the current Constitution and this was very much to the fore in our thinking. If the membership opts for staying with the old Constitution then these problems will continue to surface.
So we would like to either repeat or provide additional comments to what appears to the key areas of debate.
Junior Voting:
There has never been any intention to weaken the voice or the role of the junior scene within Chess Scotland. Indeed three members of the CWP have direct and active roles in promoting junior chess while the other 3 have also voiced strong support. There are serious concerns about the decline in adult club attendance and congresses coupled with an aging membership. Therefore the well-being of the next generation is crucial to the future of Chess Scotland and we should do everything possible to foster the number of children playing the Royal Game. They do not all have to be future internationalists but should form the bedrock of our clubs in the years to come. We suggested that there were some areas that the juniors should not vote on. This is not the same as saying that the juniors should have no voice. Indeed the very opposite is the case, because 2 years ago Chess Scotland voted overwhelmingly to strengthen the integration of the various junior organisations and most but, regrettably, not all signed up to this initiative. Why is this important? Well the vast majority of youngsters who play in junior events are not members of Chess Scotland and so the issue of whether they can vote at General Meeting is irrelevant. More important is that matters that affect all these young chess players is discussed both among themselves and by the various junior organisations around the country. That is the more critical and comes within the remit of the Junior Directorships. I am convinced that the Chess Scotland membership will support any and all initiatives that strengthens furtherance of junior chess. This is a very important issue and will result from the enabling Constitution but will be driven by the Operating Procedures set out for the Junior Directorships.
If you agree with these sentiments but are still unhappy about junior CS members (under-16) not having a vote at the General Meetings then simply propose and support a motion to delete clause 5.3 .1 and the latter half of the last sentence in 6.3.1. Please do not reject the whole proposed Constitution on just this one issue.
Management Structure:
A concern here seems to be the apparent complexity and all these 'new' posts. In fact most of the positions already exist within the current CS structure but may have been 'incorporated' e.g. the addition of the Grading Officer onto Council by right, rather than being elected as an 'ordinary' member at each AGM. In practice there is a net gain of 2 additional posts compared with the current structure. Furthermore, the possibility for a member to hold two Directorships or one Executive Directorship and one Directorship could well reduce the number of actual candidates needed. The Executive Council members are conduits of information from the other Directors so that appropriate and current advice can be presented to the President. Obviously there will be some constraints on what two positions an individual may not hold e.g. the recent debate initiated by Andy Muir on the separate roles of the Adult or Junior International Directors and the independent Selection Board Director is a case in point. In contrast, it may be perfectly proper for, say, the Executive Technical Director to also hold the post of Arbiter Committee Delegate. All of these potential interactions will be considered in the relevant Operating Procedures.
Operating Procedures:
These contain the fine detail that relate to positions and activities within Chess Scotland. In terms of content, examples include ensuring that selectors do not vote on their own selection; how junior organisations report to (or instruct) the Junior Home Director; in terms of eligibility what is the situation of a player who has a Scottish step-parent (or step grandparent), does this entitle them to SCO registration? These are examples of 'thorny' issues that can be defined and resolved but of course the Operating Procedures will also detail the job descriptions of the various Directors etc and how the Directorship should normally function. Those of you within local government, academia and certain industries will have experience of these. They are a pain to write but are extremely useful in helping define how the system should function and what can (and can not) be done. They should be looked on as lengthy sub-clauses of the Constitution. As such they cannot be foisted on the membership but instead each has be formally approved either at Council or the AGM. Where there is agreement for change within the Directorship then Council can approve (or not) the alteration, where the Directorship disagrees with any recommended change than that is decided at the AGM. The Operating Procedures are as binding as the Constitution but do have the flexibility to be changed more quickly if circumstances demand.
The Management Structure and Operating Procedures need to be seen together as this is a new approach. If this approach is rejected then basically whole proposed Constitution becomes redundant. To write the Operating Procedures will take a lot of time and require input from other members of Chess Scotland but it is not worth embarking on that task until the principle of their introduction is approved. It is intended that if this part of the new Constitution is approved that the Operating Procedures would be in place for approval either at or before the AGM in 2016.
Eligibility:
This is an addition requested by the AGM. This is a always going to be a thorny issue, and has been dealt with extensively by Alastair White on this thread. Nonetheless, but a few facts are worthy of repeating or need to be clarified further. A player cannot be registered as SCO without the approval of Chess Scotland, if he/she tries this then we can instruct FIDE to remove that registration. So an unknown suddenly popping up and swearing allegiance to the tartan is just not possible. Second, FIDE insists that a player can only have one allegiance country and therefore anyone wishing to transfer allegiance has to have the approval of both Federations (or a delay and/or fee is required if the Federations are in disagreement). There have been a number of high-profile transfers of allegiance recently (Wesley So and Fabiano Caruana spring to mind) but in both cases the receiving Federation needed to approve the transfer (else it would not have occurred). Therefore Chess Scotland has complete control over who becomes SCO registered.
The next issue relates to FIDE and single federation registration. Based on this the CWP agreed unanimously that SCO registration (both current and future) entitled the player to full rights, including national titles and the option to be selected to represent Scotland.
This then raises the question of what is required for future SCO registration. The 3 possible conditions are
1. Birth in Scotland
2. Parent (or Grandparent) born in Scotland
3. Current residence in Scotland
For most circumstances 1 and 2 are easily to understand. Incidentally, the debate in the parent/grandparent rule within the CWP included such arguments as the proposed conditions for a Scottish passport proposed by the SNP. This included a grandparent who was Scottish and 10 years residence in Scotland at any time of life. If Scotland were to become independent then our rules in the future may need to cover holding of a Scottish passport. On the opposing side, the use of a parent rule would be closer (but not identical) to the Welsh and Irish Chess Unions. As Alastair has said the descendent rule is a decision for the membership.
For option 3 (residency) again clarification is required.
To be registered as SCO but with no descendent link requires at present 2 years for adults and 1 year for junior. The length of each can be debated of course but that is what is currently applied and so will not change in the case of acceptance or rejection of the new Constitution. As Alastair says we have a number of SCO registered players who qualify on residency and have done Scotland proud over the board. These players have full rights. Now consider the situation where that player may leave Scotland (e.g. change of job, marriage or retirement) but wishes to remain affiliated to SCO. This they can do (unless Chess Scotland insists to FIDE they are deregistered). So to what are they now entitled? As worded, the new Constitution would allow a national title and be eligible for national selection. Some of the proposed amendments within the web blog would actually remove BOTH entitlements - is this what was intended? Effectively then why would they the want to remain as SCO? In addition we have the question of parentage (or grandparentage) as related to adoption or remarriage. All tricky issues.
There are other potential difficulties if we do not go with the ‘SCO’ option for international representation. Since both FIDE and the ECU apply use of ‘SCO’ to determine eligibility, if any other criteria is applied then we potentially have players who can be selected but not allowed to play, (because they do not have the required ‘SCO’ designation) or players who proudly have and wish to retain the ‘SCO’ designation but cannot be selected and therefore cannot play for Scotland or anyone else.
For this reason the wording in the Constitution was kept flexible with the extensive fine detail contained in the Operating Procedures. This will require input from other members of Chess Scotland.
Again Section 16 (Eligibility) is an addition to the Constitution and can be voted down (or modified) without affecting the rest of the Constitution.
So if you approve of the rest and do not like this section, just vote against this part.
We hope this helps and again will try and respond to specific issues.
Please remember that many points may relate to Operating Procedures rather than the Constitution direct. The CWP have discussed a number of issues relating the Operating Procedures and that has shaped the proposed Constitution. Nonetheless, many individuals will be needed to contribute to the writing of those Operating Procedures. Volunteers always welcomed!
On behalf of the CWP
Jim
Re: New constitution - amuir - 05-07-2015
There will be a block vote by the cwp in favour of the new constitution. Statistically likely to be passed.beware!