New constitution

[Jim Webster]

Hi folks

I can't comment here I'm afraid - you're recent questions on amendments and are out with my sphere. As said these are for CS management to respond to. Bear in mind that Andy is currently unavailable and unable to post. That really is for him and President to clarify and I'm sure that they will do at the start of the SGM.

I don't know about what would happen to Proxy votes either in the case of "on-the-day" amendments.

Sorry I'm not much help this time.

I can ask, and post if/when I can get official confirmation of the process.

[WBuchanan]

Surely this CAN'T be left to the start of the meeting. Someone else should be able to reassure us that all the work put into detailed amendments is not simply accepted on an all-or-nothing basis.

[Jim Webster]

Organize is a legal spelling in any case , at least according to my spell checker (it's just the American version and legally acceptable).

Personally I don't know why it wasn't just pointed out as a spelling error early on and I could have fixed it. All members of council had copies of the constitution before it was posted for general viewing and were asked for comments/corrections then. Only 2 were submitted and they were taken on board.

In any case I don't think I will comment further on the amendments.

[Hugh Brechin]

Like Alex, I've kind of just been watching this unfold. I'll chip in one tuppence-worth on the subject of junior votes: we don't let ten year-olds vote in national elections, for a number of reasons, possibly primarily that when you're young you tend to just agree with your parents (I know I did) and it's basically just giving them extra votes. I refuse to believe that the average ten-year-old member of Chess Scotland has any views at all on most issues at CS AGMs - I know for a fact that I'd have just asked my dad what he thought at that stage. He wouldn't have cared, which would have left me none the wiser, but there we go. There are exceptions, and there might be a case for lowering the age from sixteen, but on the whole I think restricting the franchise is a well-motivated idea.

(And the total number of juniors expressing their views here is I think zero - Clement hasn't been a junior for some years now, which is indeed a pretty chilling thought.)

That said, if the franchise ends up being amended, there is definitely a case for looking again at membership fee structures. If a parent of a chess-playing child or children feels strongly about CS issues, it would be great if some kind of adult+junior membership fee was available to enable them to contribute without the cost being too high. (I should also add that I think removing the right of non-members to post on the noticeboard would be a dreadful idea.)

One other point, and I have no idea what the status here is: I'd like to add my voice to those pointing out that there are a number of complex and multi-faceted amendments which have been raised, and it would be good if there was some way of considering them piecemeal, rather than necessarily rejecting or accepting them utterly.

[Gerald Lobley]

Within the debate on voting rights for juniors the important point is not to decide how much a vote 'costs' but how are the best interests and wishes of the juniors served? A comment about junior votes on junior matters has been made and I would hope that most people would see this as very reasonable. Of course this is exactly the role of the Home Junior Board, which was re-instated so that all the junior organisations could have a say (regardless as to whether they are affiliated to Chess Scotland, as are LJC and NEJCA, or not). In that respect it provides a forum for junior chess across most of the country. Whether it is working as well as it might is a matter for debate but there is a structure in place. The existence of this Board and its open membership (membership or affiliation to Chess Scotland is not a requirement to be part of the Board) was an influence in the recommendation of the CWP about juniors voting at General Meetings. This open structure provides a potential voice for all juniors, not just those who are members of Chess Scotland. It was expected that this Board would be the main route for information from and about juniors to be circulated to the rest of Chess Scotland. Indeed, in many (possibly all) cases where there is a junior issue it would be expected that Chess Scotland would seek the advice or views of the Board before taking any action. Furthermore, the general discussions within the CWP relating to the Operating Procedures for this Board would actually provide some 'teeth' to ensure junior interests were protected within Chess Scotland. If you look at the composition of the CWP you will see that least 3 of the 6 members play major roles in various junior organisations and how to strengthen the junior programme is of key interest to them, as undoubtedly it is to the majority of Chess Scotland members.

[robin moore]

I totally understand folks concerns of U16 juniors presently being able to vote at AGMs. I know Mike has concerns that "harvested junior proxies" may have occurred in the past (but not in recent years as far as I'm aware) and of course that would be wrong if they were being used to vote on issues that do not affect juniors directly.
However, I really don't feel that young juniors will cast their vote on adult matters. Why would they? They may wish to use their vote on a motion that affects juniors directly. These types of motions are few and far between at AGMS although my amendment (proposal 2) at the SGM clearly comes into that category.
If we pass the new constitution on this issue it will mean that adults will be deciding junior motions at AGM's and U16 juniors/ non playing parent proxies will not be able to vote on an issue specific to them even though that child is a member of ChessScotland.
As an inclusive organisation, strongly supportive of juniors, I am confident that we can trust our younger members to use their votes only when they require to.

[mclarke]

As an inclusive organisation, strongly supportive of juniors, I am confident that we can trust our younger members to use their votes only when they require to.

Or if we don't trust them, we can change the constitution (too late for this SGM) to ensure that they only get a vote on matters that impact them.

[WBuchanan]

On amending of wording at the SGM

Alex Macfarlane wrote (P 22 I think)

"Organisations often have different classes of membership with different voting rights. Perhaps the wording should be tweeked that juniors paying the full fee have a vote. You could also have a similar senior membership at a slightly reduced rate with no voting rights, perhaps for over 70s."

So Alex also believes tweaking is fine.

[robin moore]

Objection!
Alex's tweeking and Walter's tweaking have spelling differences. Surely this calls for some sort of amendment.

[Derek Howie]

Derek

I'm just the postman, I don't know what Andy Howie's commitments are like. He is not back home until sometime Thursday I believe.

There is a small matter of the Scottish Championship mind you.

I understand that, Jim, and wasn't expecting a reply from you.

Andy has a busy diary but so do many others which shows that giving under 24 hours to review the amendments, make their decisions and register their proxies when they may have other commitments is unreasonable. Hopefully those who make these decisions will acknowledge that and amend the deadline.