(24-03-2022, 03:13 PM)hamish olson Wrote: Thanks Alex, could you please clarify whether the 2016 motion wording I shared is in fact the final wording of the 2016 motion?
If you do not know, is there someone who does? I would have assumed the minutes I linked to would be the definitive version.

1. No changes to the content of intent of either motion.
   
2. Only MINOR corrections or adjustments be made and within the confines of 1 above.
   
3. Any minor alternation must be approved the Proposer (Seconder if the proposer not available) and then authorised by the Management Board.
   (cannot do this at a physical meeting after all)
   
4. If the proposer accepted the amendment, then becomes the substantive motion and voted on.
   
5. Taking into consideration the forum suggestion
   
   1. The alternative/addition proposed by Andy Muir is not permissible as it attempted to introduce a third condition and that does not meet the criteria of a minor amendment.
      
   2. Introducing such a motion would be required to be a completely new motion and follow the requirements of any formal motion.
      
6. Motion 1 requires a 2/3 majority vote since a Constitutional change.
   
7. Motion 2 requires a 50%+1 vote.
   

(26-03-2022, 10:54 AM)WBuchanan Wrote: Motion 1 is a constitutional proposal. Doesn't this vote require to be tabled at an AGM or SGM?

The constitution only refers to constitutional votes that are taken at Annual General Meetings or Special General Meetings.
https://www.chessscotland.com/information/constitution/

In actual fact the Constitution does not define when/now a Constitution Motion is tabled but it does require to require formal notice of call on the website and that has been done.

An AGM was supposed to have been the aim a few months back - pandemic restrictions scuppered the idea.
The last management board meeting in October said the plan was to call the AGM in March.
I realize the restrictions were extended in March but these are expected to be lifted in April.

So why no AGM, and what's the rush? Chess clubs are just stuttering back to life.

These two particular issues have been delayed now for 3 years since the working party of the 2019 AGM – and with the increase in activity for domestically and Internationally these seems an appropriate time to deal with this.

 
Additionally, and taking advice from the ICO (GDPR), we are creating an email to all members. This will then allow members, as part of a possible vote, for these motions to be posted and asking them to vote. This is perfectly admissible for the Membership List to be used to notify, and Vote (Proxy vote) and is in fact a legitimate use of the membership. The address will use the BCC option when sending these emails.
 
It is interesting to note that in the past few AGM’s the Proxy Votes out voted the attendance votes. This justifies case whereby members are more than willing to vote by email/vote than actually in person.
 
Holding AGM’s remotely have become much more commonplace and providing we notify all members (email/letter/Noticeboard) the mechanism does not contravene the terms of the Constitution.
 
The Constitution requests: the date be announced in advance, the Directors reports, Motions and all other aspects of AGM business – what it does not say is what/where the locations will be, nor does it prohibit remote meeting.  

As this is an important issue, it's surely desirable to have as representative a membership vote as possible?

A "representative vote" is one that encompasses ALL members, not just those in attendance and the approach we have taking satisfies these requirements.

(24-03-2022, 08:35 AM)Matthew Turner Wrote: I have followed this thread, but not been actively involved.  Many of arguments have been rehearsed at length and people are welcome to trawl through the information out there if they so wish.

It is up to Chess Scotland and our members to determine the eligibility criteria and I've never requested or campaigned for any changes.

I am either eligible or not and I fully accept the decision that members come to. I appreciate Andy Muir's attempt to find a halfway house solution, but that doesn't seem to help 'continuity' and be in the longer terms interests of Scottish Chess.  So, I would not be playing under that arrangement.

Alan Tate has been in contact with me, firstly alerting me to this thread! and then more latterly on the logistical impacts of a positive vote on motion 2 (that is not presume anything, but merely to plan for all eventualities).  Whilst those conversations are private, Alan did ask me to clarify a previous comment and for those not au fait with previous discussions I will restate that here "Irrespective of eligibility, I will only play with the support of the rest of the team"

The last decade has, in my opinion, seen Scottish Chess and particularly Scottish Junior Chess regress.  I had hoped by this point we'd be discussing whether I was good enough to represent Scotland rather than Scottish enough.  I hope we won't be returning to the same arguments in another decade.

I will continue to follow this thread, but I am not intending to comment on a regular basis.  If someone would like a particular point clarifying then you are of course most welcome to message me.