New constitution

[Alan Tate]

So Alex also believes twerking is fine.

[Mike Scott]

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.

I am not totally convinced by the idea that juniors should only vote on junior matters for a number of reasons:-
a. They sadly do not stay juniors - Hugh is almost middle aged - and therefore decisions taken on 'adult' stuff will be relevant to them in the very near future.
b. If you deem them capable of determining the best selection policy for juniors etc then surely one by implication must assume that they are capable to vote on all issues.
c. Does it mean that its 'wrong' for adults to vote on junior matters?

Personally I think that the real issues are more about getting more people actively involved in making Chess Scotland work - be that attending meetings and standing for positions or being will to take on some of the tasks that the directors can delegate. As I see it many of the past problems with proxies arise simply because so few people are able/willing to attend the AGM and consequently the proxies held sway.

[John Dempsey]

When I was younger, very, very much younger (say around 14 or 15), the debate on the finer points of a changing constitution would have held absolutely no interest for me. Nor for that matter would I have ever bothered to attend a boring meeting with all these old (30 +!) folk rabbiting on about stuff I knew nothing about. BUT if someone came up to me and said “They are trying to steal your vote!”, then I would have been up in arms. It would not matter a hoot that I had never used it and had no intention of using it: it’s MY vote!

Now I think it is highly likely that something like that may well be the message being delivered right now. I also think that all the reasoned arguments in the world will not sway those whose voting rights are going to get chopped! And their proxy vote is being gathered, be sure of that.

So, unless adults in Chess Scotland vote in numbers a lot higher than they have ever done, that part of the constitutional reform at least, may take less than 5 minutes to complete at the SGM.

Mike Scotts final paragraph is spot on. More people, more involved. Then, you may see changes.

[George Murphy]

Hi John

Good to hear you’re in fine fettle! It’s near my bed time, so I’ll be brief and general.

I’m sure the SGM will resolve this through discussion/debate. But, juniors are only one aspect. What is at stake here in my view - and what is not being addressed - is the use of correct protocols. It cannot be right that a representative can turn up at a SGM/AGM in control of multiple proxy votes - adult or junior. If sufficient “proxies” are deployed, there won’t be any point in having a general meeting at all. Just organise a poll online and be done with it.

The same principle (I will come to this) applies in respect of one of the proposed amendments (in Proposal 1, I think). This urges that any member should be allowed to vote regardless of when he becomes a member of CS. Proposal 1, I think without checking, also urges that all it takes is for the proxy/representative to be registered in advance with the Executive Director. (Maybe wrong job title, but its officialdom that is intended. ) This sounds OK as far as it goes. If any one member/representative is seen to be acquiring a large number of “proxies” then officialdom can respond. How is not spelled out. (And, a variation of this scheme could be deployed instead: don’t allow the representative on the floor to deploy the proxy vote but restrict this function to a CS official appointed for the purpose.)

I suggest that this could all be resolved by reference to, and applying the principles of the electoral roll. To be able to vote, an eligible citizen/CS member would need to register by a set cut-off/deadline ahead of the election/SGM or AGM. (No last minute action!) Likewise, no representative can cast proxy votes beyond a set figure/cap. (Oh for a secret ballot! Sadly, probably impracticable.)

I am also quizzical about how this SGM has been set up. Members have not been allowed nearly enough time to digest and respond to the draft Constitution. One view is that the provisions of the existing Constitution compels - not the CWP, but the Executive Committee to adhere to this timetable. That may be true when the initiative for the SGM comes from the floor so to speak. But, when the initiative is coming from the Executive Committee - not the CWP - this argument is thin. We should be able to expect the Executive Committee to show some lateral thinking. What is wrong with circulating a Paper(s) in advance of setting a date for the meeting itself? After all, the Executive Committee has nothing to hide and has the discretion to act.

Is this too radical? Why? Perhaps too many senior members of the Executive doubled up on the CWP, blurring their respective (EC/CWP) roles?

Past my bedtime now, John. Good to hear from you!

George

[John Dempsey]

George,

Always admired that Honkers way of thinking! I will be in Scotland in October so hope to catch up for a red-hot curry!

Re the SGM, a lot of people have worked really hard to come up with something that is best for CS. I just wish that it had NOT included the age voting change as that is taking a stick to a hornets nest and the whole thing may crumble. Two different SGMs may have been the way to go about this. As it stands I fear that the knee jerk reaction from some quarter or another may be to vote down the whole thing. A pity, it is obvious that some really good people are really trying to improve matters. They may or may not be right in everything, but they are definitely worth a hearing.

John

[John Dempsey]

One other thing, what you guys do is very definitely your business. But, as someone who knows many in chess in Scotland personally, I do care about each of you. Yes, each and every one. I may well have disagreed and even fought with you in the past, but it is the past. Today, and at this hour you are facing the future. Just be the men and women I know, and you will be just fine!

With regard to Junior Chess, every person, sooner or later, moves on. They may not want to but life overtakes them. Things will work out if you keep the faith!

Chess Scotland is more than one person, or one group of people, it is an ideal.

I will go, others will go, and the future is for you, not me or my generation. Good Luck, and may God Bless!

John Dempsey

[Phil Thomas]

Open question for all.

What is worse.
(A) a chess player joining shortly before a meeting and voting on issues that concern him
(B) a chess player who does not care about the issues but gives his proxy vote to the first person to ask for it.

The first of these last happened in significant numbers when I was in a disputed election for ijd. Parents that cared joined up and some attended.

The second of these happens all the time. There is a significant probability that the result of this SGM is determined by the ability of persons inactive on this thread to garner proxy votes.

For me I would remove proxy votes and replace them with a postal (e mail of course) postal vote.
Absent members could vote yes or no to a specific proposal.
Or vote for a candidate from a specific list

In either case the options would be clearly displayed close to the tick boxes.

[George Neave]

Open question for all.

What is worse.
(A) a chess player joining shortly before a meeting and voting on issues that concern him
(B) a chess player who does not care about the issues but gives his proxy vote to the first person to ask for it.

The first of these last happened in significant numbers when I was in a disputed election for ijd. Parents that cared joined up and some attended.

The second of these happens all the time. There is a significant probability that the result of this SGM is determined by the ability of persons inactive on this thread to garner proxy votes.

For me I would remove proxy votes and replace them with a postal (e mail of course) postal vote.
Absent members could vote yes or no to a specific proposal.
Or vote for a candidate from a specific list

In either case the options would be clearly displayed close to the tick boxes.

My opinion is voting rights should go to a member for > 1 year and age 16 or over. Problem solved

[Andy Howie]

I am back in the land of the living (more accurately, I am heading back to the UK after being unexpectedly unable to stay in contact due to where I was and what I was doing).

Comment on Proxy votes, almost all received for the SGM have been sent to me directly indicating how they want to vote, a semi electronic system. I am going to be contacting everyone who has sent in proxies to ask them about the amendments so I can get their votes on that.

We are currently looking at electronic voting. It is 1 - 2 years away, I have a few ways of doing it and more importantly. it means that the people with the real power (the membership) are the ones making the decisions. The time of the vote harvesting powerblocks is coming to an end and the sooner the better!

[Patrick McGovern]

We are currently looking at electronic voting. It is 1 - 2 years away, I have a few ways of doing it and more importantly. it means that the people with the real power (the membership) are the ones making the decisions. The time of the vote harvesting powerblocks is coming to an end and the sooner the better!

I suspect that it is for this reason that certain elements in chess circles are not members of CS; :-bd