New constitution

[robin moore]

Jim,

I confess I only checked details for the most recent AGM details available (2013). However, it does show that 18 votes were available if a particular junior issue was being proposed/debated. I would suggest that's fairly significant out of 39 attendees.
Of course at this AGM a specific junior motion wasn't on the agenda but if it was, what sort of junior "representation" could be expected?

[Jim Webster]

Andy

The only record I found of the "grandparent" rule vote was at a Council meeting in Jan 2014 where it was included in the minutes as a Discussion item.

There was a vote at the end of the discussion.

"There was a vote which by 6-5 said grandparent was not sufficient link to make you eligible to represent Scotland. The reason why a vote was forced here was the proximity of the 2014 Olympiad at which Turner would have been selected on strength."

However this was a council matter and has never been referred to an AGM for ratification or to be included in the constitution.

As things stand the current Selection Procedure is unchanged, however there would a need to turn this selection criteria into a formal Operating Procedure (I think).

[Alan Jelfs]

To whom it may concern,

What was the thinking behind having a separate Selection Board Director?
I would have thought the JID and AID would just appoint their own selectors to assist them.

[Jim Webster]

What was the thinking behind having a separate Selection Board Director?

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.

Hope this makes some sense.

[StevieHilton]

Jim,
I raise what could be an important point about designation of titles.
2 of the previous job titles under the old constitution were Membership secretary and one other, I am not sure who were 'paid' officials of CS. If these positions are given director status under the new constitution, that would mean CS having paid directors.

Where would that leave CS in a legal sense, in applying for funding?
What would be the status of CS? Where would it stand as an organisation in applying for charitable status?

[andyburnett]

Andy

The only record I found of the "grandparent" rule vote was at a Council meeting in Jan 2014 where it was included in the minutes as a Discussion item.

There was a vote at the end of the discussion.

"There was a vote which by 6-5 said grandparent was not sufficient link to make you eligible to represent Scotland. The reason why a vote was forced here was the proximity of the 2014 Olympiad at which Turner would have been selected on strength."

However this was a council matter and has never been referred to an AGM for ratification or to be included in the constitution.

As things stand the current Selection Procedure is unchanged, however there would a need to turn this selection criteria into a formal Operating Procedure (I think).

Hi Jim,

My point is that there is nothing stopping someone playing from representing Scotland if they have SCO designation under FIDE (except, as I believe in Matt Turner's case personal desire to be approved before playing, and also actually being selected)

The 'grandparent' rule (for or against) doesn't actually exist in Scottish chess for international selection, so what exactly was the point of the vote?

[Jim Webster]

Steve

To be honest - I don't know.
I guess it all depends upon what is defined as "paid".

I would imagine that it is more than likely these not actually salaried posts, so really shouldn't be a problem.

There are many organisations out there that have salaried employees and that does not seem to affect their charitable status (e.g. charity shop managers, chief executives, some organisations also pay the collectors from donors ) but at the end of it - all I simply do not know.

I would surmise that so long as there is no attempt to hide these then I really don't see a problem.

Having said that do you not already have some knowledge from your personal involvement with disabled organisations or do none of them have members who receive some form of remuneration?

Having said all that I do not see anywhere in the Constitution that anyone is actually paid, perhaps you can identify the reference in the constitution for me?

Over the time of the working party I have gone through these constitutions with a fine toothcomb and can find no reference to such payments. Such a concept would however be covered by Operating Procedures in any case.

Furthermore, please do not think that I am attempting to hide behind "yet to be written" operating procedures.

The new Constitution is meant to a document that enables Chess Scotland and the Procedures are the vehicles that determine the methodology, workings and fine detail.

[Jim Webster]

The 'grandparent' rule (for or against) doesn't actually exist in Scottish chess for international selection, so what exactly was the point of the vote?

Hi Andy

Unfortunately I was unable to attend that particular meeting so I'm not in a position to comment.

Sorry.

[Phil Thomas]

In addition to the previous post I did do some research into the extent of Junior voting.

AGM
2013 : Attendees 34 : Juniors 1
2012 : Attendees 26 : Juniors 0
2011 : Attendees 17 : Juniors 0
2010 : Attendees 14 : Juniors 0

This doe NOT include Proxy votes, but does include parents of Juniors who are not players themselves.

I'm beginning to wonder just how many people are being argued for here, and history certain does not seem to support the detractors. Nice to have but be never used?

The new concept certainly intends to address the shortcomings of Junior involvement in a more positive way.

This particular post is a personal view and in no way should be construed as anything else.

2009 : Attendees 40. Parents 16, Non playing parents 10 (ish).

Rather higher than attendances in 2010 to 2013
Most of those non playing parents had chess playing children below the age of 16.
Those families would be disenfranchised by the proposed constitution.

The reason for the increased numbers in 2009 was that there were 2 candidates for IJD.

Parents expressed themselves by turning up and voting - at a meeting that lasted for 5 1/2 hours.

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.
It would also demotivate parents when they consider (re) joining CS.
How many members could CS afford to lose? how many potential volunteers would be lost at the same time?

In summary

(a) Juniors below 16 lose the vote but there is a promise to canvass their parents and consider their views.
(b) Adults retain the vote.

Part (a) brings in yet more additional admin work.
Either there is a glut of new volunteers coming forward at the agm or some of the work just won't be done.
Much less admin work is required under the current system - just count the few extra hands voting at agm's when parents are motivated to attend.

[andyburnett]

The 'grandparent' rule (for or against) doesn't actually exist in Scottish chess for international selection, so what exactly was the point of the vote?

Hi Andy

Unfortunately I was unable to attend that particular meeting so I'm not in a position to comment.

Sorry.

No problem Jim

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...?