New constitution

[Andy Howie]

I have no problem with people checking but I would say it would be more courteous to do it in private. I wonder how many emails Dick has received on this. I would predict 0

[Derek Howie]

If we are finished having a go at someone who was doing me a massive favour by taking the minutes and arguing over something that has been withdrawn..

Honestly, I despair at times

I wasn't having a go at Dick, merely questioning a line in the minutes.

So the minutes are wrong?

No

You now seem to be saying that this response from an attendee is incorrect (and has caused a lot of the subsequent debate) as there were 13 votes in favour of my proposal and not zero as per the minutes, which is fine. That was all I was querying and hopefully the minutes can be updated to correct this.

[Dick Heathwood]

Walter,
Irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with your various opinions and demands, there is one inaccuracy which cannot be left unchallenged. Readers of this forum will recall that when I was invited to join the CWP it was me who declined. I refused to allow my name to go forward for possible election. At that time I reminded the President in a public statement at the AGM that I was reducing, not increasing, my CS involvement. I think we can safely say that whatever other mistakes I may have made I most certainly made the right decision there.

For any casual readers who may be wondering what on earth is going on here with the endless succession of posts, can I please assure you that for my part there is no personal animosity towards Walter. In fact, I don’t recall us ever having spoken to one another before or after the recent SGM.

If the meeting in August decides to amend my suggested minutes of 14 July, that is routine, fair and reasonable. On the other hand, I lose interest when a conspiracy theory is launched into the forum especially in relation to the constitution review, a topic about which I can summon no more than a passing interest.

[WBuchanan]

It’s worth pointing out to casual readers that many of these posts have concerned the flat and personally rather hostile denial on the part of both CS/CWP that on the eligibility section there was an omission to check the proxy votes! And the coyness over the CWP input to the minute on eligibility that is under dispute.

You are right Dick, it was indeed you who declined the CWP role (I didn’t say otherwise), after criticism from the floor of the involvement being offered by Hanish in this way. You said something like “well I won’t, then”. This was quite correct response on your part - please note that in mentioning this I was only drawing attention to the unusual choice of minute secretary (not announced in advance) as Hamish’s first choice for the CWP, and Derek’s first choice too.

Straight answers would have made this thread short but you and others who are in CS management continue to denigrate legitimate questions and responses (indeed you adopted a wounded posture even before the minutes were questioned, a cue picked up by Andy Howie who also ‘despairs’ and attributes blame to the questioners despite admitting not paying attention.
No conspiracy theory is necessary (but thanks anyway) - it’s widely recognized that impartiality is important in minutes of meetings. It should not be necessary to repeatedly point out that things like counting the votes cast actually matters, but it has been necessary!

Perhaps it’s coincidental, but allowing the side of a debate that is close to your apparent connections to write the minute is not impartial. Neither is secrecy and refusing normal queries, nor is rounding on critics as a response.

No animosity from me either Dick – as I think you’ll find if you look back. Maybe I’m being too traditionalist, but casual members might want someone to question protocols that have built-in bias and procedures that have been flouted.

[Andy Howie]

It’s worth pointing out to casual readers that many of these posts have concerned the flat and personally rather hostile denial on the part of both CS/CWP that on the eligibility section there was an omission to check the proxy votes! And the coyness over the CWP input to the minute on eligibility that is under dispute.

You are right Dick, it was indeed you who declined the CWP role (I didn’t say otherwise), after criticism from the floor of the involvement being offered by Hanish in this way. You said something like “well I won’t, then”. This was quite correct response on your part - please note that in mentioning this I was only drawing attention to the unusual choice of minute secretary (not announced in advance) as Hamish’s first choice for the CWP, and Derek’s first choice too.

Straight answers would have made this thread short but you and others who are in CS management continue to denigrate legitimate questions and responses (indeed you adopted a wounded posture even before the minutes were questioned, a cue picked up by Andy Howie who also ‘despairs’ and attributes blame to the questioners despite admitting not paying attention.
No conspiracy theory is necessary (but thanks anyway) - it’s widely recognized that impartiality is important in minutes of meetings. It should not be necessary to repeatedly point out that things like counting the votes cast actually matters, but it has been necessary!

Perhaps it’s coincidental, but allowing the side of a debate that is close to your apparent connections to write the minute is not impartial. Neither is secrecy and refusing normal queries, nor is rounding on critics as a response.

No animosity from me either Dick – as I think you’ll find if you look back. Maybe I’m being too traditionalist, but casual members might want someone to question protocols that have built-in bias and procedures that have been flouted.

Its wasn't Hamish's choice. Dick offered given I was tied up doing the Scottish. i gratefully accepted knowing how much work I was doing on a daily basis there. My point still remains unanswered. Did anyone actually take the time to contact Dick privately or did we all stampede onto the noticeboard to pick faults? I suspect it is the latter and that is what I have a beef about. The minutes are draft until approved at the next meeting. That means we can change them.

So I made a mistake over my recollection of the meeting. Sue me. I am human and the meeting took place possibly at the worst possible time for me. With Alex being unwell, and having to do the live boards myself on top of all the other duties needed for the Scottish, I can be forgiven for not remembering everything in the exact clarity that seems to be demanded here.

[WBuchanan]

Andy you’re still not reading the posts before replying to them. What I was referring to was that Dick was Hamish’s instant choice for the CWP at the 2013 AGM before the floor complained and Dick then correctly stood down.

Why is a polite query ‘picking faults’? Why is it a stampede?

I will answer your question about not emailing. Questions of fact or propriety are best raised publicly as the other attendees or members might also want to know. As long as they are polite, of course.
Although CS management picked the minute taker, I’ve been careful not to have a go – though I don’t need to be that careful, because I’ve only asking legitimate questions and responding to unfounded aspersions cast in response.

“So I made a mistake over my recollection of the meeting. Sue me. I am human and the meeting took place possibly at the worst possible time for me. With Alex being unwell, and having to do the live boards myself on top of all the other duties needed for the Scottish, I can be forgiven for not remembering everything in the exact clarity that seems to be demanded here.”

I’m sorry to hear Alex has been unwell. But Andy, where has exact clarity of recollection been demanded? Where have you been blamed for your mistake?

In the omission to count the proxies the issue was not blame – it was just that it was being flatly denied (and since you raise courtesy, it is not courteous to speculate on questioner's motives when they are just asking a question). Indeed Dick told Derek his motion was ruled incompetent while the minutes said it had been unanimously voted against. Meanwhile the CWP poster said the minutes weren't wrong but the proxies hadn't been ignored. You couldn't make this up - no wonder Derek didn’t accept this!

Andy, I’d just like you to know that I have enormous respect and gratitude for the work that people like you and Alex put in to run tournaments etc. on our behalf. I’ve long had a theory that there are two or more Andy Howies – it’s almost the only rational explanation for your prolific efforts!

This discussion is about the running and outcomes of the meeting however.
If you are looking for a reason why exchanges become testy, you need look no further than the attitude of CS management towards legitimate questions.

In general, the attitude from CS management has been to not answer any questions or answer them wrongly, posture and round on the people asking the questions (you're still doing it here!).

Now if you don’t believe me, get a large coffee and a packet of biscuits and take your mobile device down to the beach and read the thread since the meeting, and tell me where I am wrong.

All the best
Walter

[Gerald Lobley]

Unfortunately, my return from the SGM was accompanied by a severe deterioration in health that culminated in emergency surgery and a prolonged hospital stay. This meant I have missed the last 10 days of 'blog' communication and yesterday I was horrified to see so much incorrect information in circulation and the unfounded accusations that then arose about the conduct of certain CS members. I hope the following information will, first, correct all the misinformation and, second, immediately halt the disgraceful accusations. Perhaps those of you with more integrity will have the grace to offer some private apologies.
A number of these problems arise from the lack of understanding by certain CS members on how General Meetings are properly conducted - these apply to all types of organisations, including big business down to the local golf club. The following facts are irrefutable:
1. The SGM was run by CS, with the two senior officials in charge, the President and Executive Director. To ensure they could operate at this level they asked the 3 members of the CWP who were able to attend to deal with all points of information about the proposed new Constitution.
2. ALL votes were registered and recorded. Hamish asked Andy to state at the very beginning of the meeting how many votes were recorded, either by presence on the day, proxy on the day and by proxy recorded via the Executive Director. This number was checked at each vote to ensure that the numbers tallied. While this was done by Andy, several of us in the room took individual counts to ensure all motions were dealt with in a correct constitutional manner.
3. One problem was that a number of the proxy votes held by the Executive Director had 'provisos' e.g.' if Section X was approved/modified in a certain form then I will support (or vote against) Section Y'. This is the best way to present proxy votes under the current Constitution rather than the blanket 'yes' or 'no' provided by others. Please note that one proposed change in the new Constitution is that proxy votes could only be recorded for specific motions or candidates i.e. 'block' voting would not be permitted. Anyway, this complexity created more work for Andy but he used a clever spreadsheet calculation to decide on the majority percentage for or against any amendment or motion. That technical innovation certainly speeded up the outcome of each decision.

No proxy votes were used in deciding matters on how the meeting was to run e.g. the order in which sections were to be discussed. That was left to the members present. For every specific motion and amendment, however, the CORRECT number of proxy votes were recorded and distributed.

The Eligibility motions seem to have caused the most confusion. There were four apparent motions on this issue. That proposed by the CWP, that proposed by Walter B, one proposed by Derek H and then the 'status quo'. In practice, Derek H's motion was to support the status quo and therefore did not need to be considered as that is the default position. It was suggested that Walter's and Derek's proposal be set head-to-head until to was made clear that Derek's was not a new proposal and this must be tested only against whichever of the new proposals was successful. For that reason Derek's motion 'fell' with the proxy votes recorded for that then automatically transferred to the retention of the status quo (when that came to be voted on). Basically, this can be envisaged as the status quo having a bye into the 'final' where it would meet the winner of the vote between Walter's and the CWP proposal. In practice there was no decision on the other semi-final as Alex raised an issue about how FIDE would decide if a player was entitled to an SCO code. All motions (including the status quo) would be influenced by any such FIDE decision. The CWP had read the recent messages on Federation affiliation and considered CS had the final say on who would be permitted but in view of the uncertainty based on Alex's comments it was decided to hold off on Section 16 until we had further clarification. Had we continued then all votes in support of the Derek H motion would have been transferred to support the status quo.

All the above is proper procedure and although it can look a little unwieldy at times it does prevent major problems and avoids anomalies. Although this SGM was a CS meeting it must be firmly stated that none of the CWP would have allowed a non-constitutional approach as that would have been against the whole principles we have sought to enshrine in our suggested changes.

As the CWP have said many time we are more than happy to answer proper questions that relate to how best allow CS to operate. We can only put forward proposals, it is up to the membership to accept or reject them. What is so disappointing is that only 11% of the membership actually cast a vote in any form. Any chance we could go back to discussing some positive ideas on how to move chess in Scotland forward?

[WBuchanan]

Hello there Gerald.

The idea that disgraceful allegations are levelled at esteemed officials must indeed be horrifying. I’m genuinely sorry that this perception might have aggravated you in your recuperation, in which I wish you all the best

I think if you yourself level this kind of accusation, call for apologies and talk about integrity you have to specify what allegations you believe your post has refuted.
It could be that you regard every query as an allegation. You could be forgiven for this, as this has been the post-meeting attitude of CS management to questions in general.
Perhaps you haven’t been able to read the thread since the meeting – I don’t blame you, especially if you’re unwell but if you haven’t read the thread how can you make up your mind about such detail and then level your own accusations?

Thank you for your elucidations in point 3). These refer to some inevitable complexities of conditional proxy votes, and the fact that Andy attempted to handle them in real time. You write:

“3. One problem was that a number of the proxy votes held by the Executive Director had 'provisos' e.g.' if Section X was approved/modified in a certain form then I will support (or vote against) Section Y'. This is the best way to present proxy votes under the current Constitution rather than the blanket 'yes' or 'no'”

This hardly makes sense; Andy did explain that some proxy votes for or against the CONSTITUTION were conditional on the outcome of one or more section votes. I imagine this meant mostly the age voting and eligibility section.

It's odd to say "the best way to present proxy votes" as if any presentation would make any difference to the voting. Not that there was any presentation (of any kind) of proxy votes - in the meeting we didn't really know what Andy was doing, we just had to trust him, I think he only read out the overall situation for each section after proxy votes were counted, and updated us on how the vote on the constitution was affected after conditional votes were counted.
Yes it’s clever enough to do this in real time – the trouble is Gerald, for the eligibility vote (the run-off of my motion versus Derek’s) the proxies were NOT counted - it’s even noted in the minutes as unanimous. Andy has now given us the proxy votes. When you say

“For every specific motion and amendment, however, the CORRECT number of proxy votes were recorded and distributed.”

you are almost right - except for the unfortunate instance of the run-off on the eligibility section – the one being discussed!

If you refer to the point made by Derek or myself on the questions on the section on eligibility, Derek has been given contradictory and/or factually incorrect replies. In fact, the simple truth hasn’t even been acknowledged to date, except tacitly by Andy who recently counted the proxies for us.

“It was suggested that Walter's and Derek's proposal be set head-to-head until to was made clear that Derek's was not a new proposal and this must be tested only against whichever of the new proposals was successful.
For that reason Derek's motion 'fell' with the proxy votes recorded for that then automatically transferred to the retention of the status quo (when that came to be voted on).”

This is incorrect, it WAS head to head. Derek's motion 'fell' versus my motion – and that was because of the votes taken at the meeting, which were unanimous as the minutes say (not sure why) and which did not as I say include the proxies for Derek’s motion. Can you not see that had Derek’s motion fallen as being the status quo, there would have not then been a need for any vote against my motion?

I’ll say again that most of the ‘accusations’ have been leveled by CS management by way of response to legitimate queries. Their posturing has been unbelievable and it began before the minutes were published. You can find details in my two most recent posts, if you care to read them. For the records, I’m happy to retract anything that is wrong or OTT. I'm old fashioned though, and kind of need to see it first

Cheers
Walter

[Alex McFarlane]

For clarification on the confusion I caused at the meeting.

The FIDE Arena (on-line playing via the FIDE site) allows players to join directly. If you already have a FIDE code number (FIN) then that is used for both on-line and over the board play. It was not clear to me what would happen to players applying directly to FIDE for an on-line code but then using that for over the board play.

Subsequently, what now seems to happen is that if someone joins the Arena and claims to be Scottish they are indeed assigned an SCO designation. However, is Chess Scotland objects to this then that designation is not given to the player and they are reassigned as FIDE.

What is still not clear is what the legal position is if a player denied by CS takes the matter further. If such a player then wanted to play over the board with a FIDE FIN as opposed to a CS FIN he would have to pay a significant annual fee to FIDE. (It may be that he can claim another Federation as his own!!)

[WBuchanan]

Hi Alex. Hope you're feeling better!

"What is still not clear is what the legal position is if a player denied by CS takes the matter further"

Do you mean they could try to insist on playing for Scotland? I presume they could not, if there were further selection criteria like residence, bloodline, birth) that they didn't meet? Maybe this isn't what you mean...