+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Chess Scotland Constitution (/thread-1473.html)
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - Craig Pritchett - 10-05-2016
Congrats on an awful lot of hard work in bringing all of this together.
On a quick read, it looks pretty comprehensive. But 'COUNCIL' (always capitalised and clearly very important) still remains poorly defined and its actual place in the constitution remains a foggy mystery to me. It suddenly appears very early on, as if out of the blue, at para 4 (I think), which is where (at least) some kind of clarification about its role in the organisation cries out to be added.
If 'COUNCIL' is actually the primary 'authority' in CS, embodying CS's power of first and last resort, which it seems that it might be, why not say that? If COUNCIL somehow 'delegates' power to run the show in trust to the President and Management Board, the constitution should surely make this clear up front so that members and perhaps more particularly voluntary officers know what they sign up to working with.
Towards the end the constitution seems to make out that COUNCIL works 'in tandem' with President + Management Board but, if push comes to shove, who's boss? I think it is probably COUNCIL. But does the draft actually say that? Or if it's not, does it make that clear? What is it?
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - Craig Pritchett - 10-05-2016
For what it's worth, and having thought a bit further about this, I get the feeling that members (acting primarily through an annual AGM and/or SGMs) are the ultimate source of authority in CS, embodying ultimate powers of first and last resort.
Members (through AGM) empower President + Management Board to manage CS on a day to day strategic and financial basis. Members have also empowered a COUNCIL, with certain limited powers to draw the President + Management Board to account mid-way between AGMS that are held annually.
In other words, the hierarchy is Members/AGM/SGM: President + Management Board: and (only then, in third place) COUNCIL.
I think the constitution would benefit by tweaking to make that clear, assuming I am right. As the draft currently reads, this hierarchy is not really made clear enough. It reads as if COUNCIL has a much greater role than it either actually has or is ever likely to have.
It has always seemed clear to me that COUNCIL isn't really meant to run the show. Nor does it ever really do so. If it did, no self-respecting President or Management Board would be likely to bother to stay in office. COUNCIL is useful as a limited check or advisory sounding board but it certainly isn't the executive body.
Hope helpful!
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - StevieHilton - 11-05-2016
I would like to see some clarification to the Job Descriptions mentioned also how these new positions would work in practice alongside the existing positions.
as regards proxy votes, it is not the number of votes that are a concern to me, but the lack of clear instruction, on what votes the proxy vote is to be used, this is important if there are contested elections in the future. I think this is necessary to make the vote transparent. Can those who give proxy votes to a member who is attending a meeting also give their instructions on how their vote is to be used to the Executive Director?
I apologize for not attending the special Meeting on May 21st, as I am still resting from my recent spell in hospital, though I have recovered just getting my strength back
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - George Neave - 12-05-2016
Can someone explain to me what is undemocratic about a proxy vote?
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - andyburnett - 12-05-2016
George Neave Wrote:Can someone explain to me what is undemocratic about a proxy vote?I guess if somebody gives their proxy to vote on one particular issue, but then it gets used for several other votes which they hadn't ok'd?
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - amuir - 12-05-2016
George, a proxy vote gives one person too much power e.g. someone in say the Dundee or the Aberdeen league advertises on the local noticeboard “to save you travelling to Glasgow, give me your vote” – before you know it you might have 30 or 40 votes “to represent the league”. Then an issue comes up which you feel strongly about – perhaps to get a one-upmanship on someone or to settle a previous score. Your 40 votes swamp someone else with one vote. I have even complained at AGMs about having one measly vote. The heavies always come in at AGMs armed with handfuls of proxies. If people are now elected for 3-5 years, the unelected can be frozen out for what seems a lifetime.
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - George Neave - 13-05-2016
amuir Wrote:George, a proxy vote gives one person too much power e.g. someone in say the Dundee or the Aberdeen league advertises on the local noticeboard “to save you travelling to Glasgow, give me your vote” – before you know it you might have 30 or 40 votes “to represent the league”. Then an issue comes up which you feel strongly about – perhaps to get a one-upmanship on someone or to settle a previous score. Your 40 votes swamp someone else with one vote. I have even complained at AGMs about having one measly vote. The heavies always come in at AGMs armed with handfuls of proxies. If people are now elected for 3-5 years, the unelected can be frozen out for what seems a lifetime.
If working properly, the proxy is simply representing the interests of someone else. So far we have just heard from Andy who, as a candidate, lost heavily and believes this can be explained by abuse of proxy voting. But is that true? Do we have anyone who has given their vote in proxy complaining they were misrepresented? Personally I have given my proxy before and have no issue.
I agree there is a theoretical risk but I have seen noone reporting their proxy was misused.
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - StevieHilton - 13-05-2016
George,
What is your solution about proxy votes?
we have heard nothing from you on this.
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - John Watkins - 13-05-2016
amuir Wrote:George, a proxy vote gives one person too much power e.g. someone in say the Dundee or the Aberdeen league advertises on the local noticeboard “to save you travelling to Glasgow, give me your vote” – before you know it you might have 30 or 40 votes “to represent the league”. Then an issue comes up which you feel strongly about – perhaps to get a one-upmanship on someone or to settle a previous score. Your 40 votes swamp someone else with one vote. I have even complained at AGMs about having one measly vote. The heavies always come in at AGMs armed with handfuls of proxies. If people are now elected for 3-5 years, the unelected can be frozen out for what seems a lifetime.
A proxy vote should be used to reflect an individual's voting intentions on set agenda items requiring a vote as set out in the notice of an AGM. This happens across the country from plc AGMS to your local village hall AGM. The proxy could be given free reign on the vote on set matters, but that will be entirely down to the instructions they receive. Very often the proxy who is nominated is the chairperson of the meeting and they can only cast their proxies according to the instructions they receive. The foregoing is the hallmark of good governance to ensure those members who cannot make a meeting, for whatever reason, have their opinion counted.
I am not aware of any instance where people attending AGMs are given a greater weight to their one vote on a set agenda item just because they are there over someone who may not be able to attend due to perfectly good reasons, for example, ill health. One member one vote is a long established democratic concept.
It is interesting to note who the attendees and proxy voters were at the SGM on 14/7/2015.
Re: Chess Scotland Constitution - Adam Bremner - 13-05-2016
Online voting would be a fantastic step. At the moment it is understandable why people don't want to, or can't get the time to, travel hundreds of miles to attend a meeting, so the proxy is the only reasonable option. It does get abused though. Each year people try harvesting as many of them as possible with circular emails only giving one side of a story. Online voting where you can see what the for and against is would be so much better.