New constitution

[Jim Webster]

I blame this thread for driving me to this.... Thank you one and all \/

[WBuchanan]

Out of a can, not a real ale...that it has come to this - sorry Jim!

[WBuchanan]

I thought it might be worth reposting this advice from Jim from page 8 of this thread (my emphasis added)

"NOTICE

There seems to be some misunderstanding about how the SGM will operate. The final outcome will be to vote on whether a new Constitution for Chess Scotland should be accepted. During the pre-amble to that vote, each Section will be briefly discussed and any proposed changes voted on. Such proposed change(s) to a Section need to be formally proposed and seconded, as required under the current Constitution. Any proposed amendments should be sent in writing (email) to both Andy Howie (<!-- e --><a href="mailto:Andy@akhowie.co.uk">Andy@akhowie.co.uk</a><!-- e -->) AND Jim Webster (<!-- e --><a href="mailto:jim_webster@btinternet.com">jim_webster@btinternet.com</a><!-- e -->) by 9 pm on Monday 6th July so they can made available to the membership. If an amendment is carried then that becomes part of the new Constitution that will be voted on at the end of the meeting.

This notice will be added the formal SGM NOTICE on the front page as soon as Andy H can fit this in"

Also from his post following this one:

"Again Section 16 (Eligibility) is an addition to the Constitution and can be voted down (or modified) without affecting the rest of the Constitution.

So if you approve of the rest and do not like this section, just vote against this part".

[WBuchanan]

I thougt it might be worth adding to the eligibility discussion in the light of clarifications that have emerged over the duration.

The eligibility proposal (Section 16) has caused confusion and concern as despite mentioning selection criteria, the wording implies that having a SCO code appears to override them.

In addition, the past hasty allocation of SCO codes to some new 'non-Scottish' or foreign, temporarily resident players to facilitate the grading of FIDE rated events has sparked further concern that the new proposals could potentially allow a returning strong player with an old SCO code that was allocated in this way to be eligible for international selection.

There have been reassurances that this wouldn’t happen and that there is no issue here because CS will use the criteria on residency and ‘bloodline’ (parent or grandparent) in order to allocate the SCO code.

Fair enough, this does make some sense - but it seems to me that several concerns have survived the explanations. The first is the hinted-at eligibility criteria were not determined by the membership or a consultation process. The second. is that the assurance that CS will use the implied criteria on residency and ‘bloodline’ in order to allocate the SCO code does not actually appear in the CWP proposal, which is after all a Constitution. This absence is one reason for the lively discussion. It’s not so much that CS could or would want to make eligible just anybody - rather that the selection criteria will not be set by the membership, as is often claimed.

The third concern stems from the fact that this blurriness at the setting-in-stone stage is apparently deliberate - various CS officials have indicated that CS wants to have flexibility and control of the SCO code. In other words, it wants not to be bound by whatever criteria have been suggested – eg (to quote what has been said) to avoid ‘disadvantage’, or because some players who have had qualified so far on residency have ‘done Scotland proud’.

Finally, it does not seem that existing SCO codes held that don't meet any new eligibilty criteria will be re-evaluated, which could compromise the new criteria if not set independently.

This suggests that the view held by CS officials on the tradeoff between what constitutes ‘success’ and ‘Scottishness’ may be at odds with its (unpolled) rank and file. Also from the democratic point of view, the ‘straight choice’ the membership were supposed to be offered is not evident. For example, if members specifically want to either have, or to not have, a ‘grandparent rule’ (or particular residency parameters) to determine eligibility, how do they bring this about?

[Jim Webster]

In response to questions raised on the CS Forum, we would like to state the following - CS will be responsible for the conduct and running of the SGM and therefore responsible for the presentation of the Proposed New Constitution. Also that those amendments that were received within the stipulated timescale will be debated on a section by section basis against the Proposed New Constitution.

Members should also note that the Final Agenda and Order of Business will be published on the CS Website and Public Forum as soon as possible.

Posted on behalf of Hamish Glen, President and Andy Howie, Executive Director.

[StevieHilton]

Why are you publishing on behalf of the President and executive director? Why can't the Executive Director do it?

[Jim Webster]

Hi Steve,

It is also going of the front page of the website, but I can't post there, so I am just posting on the forum for consistency.

Andy is rather heavily committed at the Scottish at present, but it will, as I say, appear on front page as well.

I will do the same with the formal agenda as well. Possibly late tomorrow.

I'm just trying to keep people as well informed as possible.

OK?
Jim

[Derek Howie]

In response to questions raised on the CS Forum, we would like to state the following - CS will be responsible for the conduct and running of the SGM and therefore responsible for the presentation of the Proposed New Constitution.

Who is CS? Are Hamish and Andy trying to imply that only those running the meeting and those who are presenting the proposed new constitution are Chess Scotland? Is this propaganda to try and convince people that those proposing the Constitution are the official line.

I Also that those amendments that were received within the stipulated timescale will be debated on a section by section basis against the Proposed New Constitution.

Posted on behalf of Hamish Glen, President and Andy Howie, Executive Director.

Seems a bit unfair. Those on the working party set the time and date when they can make it, are running the meeting, setting the agenda and can argue for their views but the likes of me, who proposed amendments can't make it because I'm working, so there will be 5 arguing for the proposed constitution and nobody for some of the amendments. Talk about stacking the deck.....

[Andy Howie]

Steve,

By the time I got home last night, had something to eat, put kids to bed and finished up the loose ends from the days play, it was 11:30pm. I was grateful of the offer from Hamish and Jim to post for me.

Derek, having it during the Scottish would not be my first choice as my workload increases exponentially. That is what was decided by the committee. That's what is important about committees working properly, you don't always get what you want and you move on still working together.

The notice was to clarify a question that was asked earlier, is it CWP or CS who will be running the SGM. It is CS, it does not mean that this is the party line, it just lets people know who is going to be up front at the meeting. Not all CWP members are going to make the meeting as not everyone can get the time off.

[Derek Howie]

Derek, having it during the Scottish would not be my first choice as my workload increases exponentially. That is what was decided by the committee. That's what is important about committees working properly, you don't always get what you want and you move on still working together.

So who called the SGM?

The notice was to clarify a question that was asked earlier, is it CWP or CS who will be running the SGM. It is CS,

So the meeting will not be run by those on the CWP?