Standards Committee Chairman

[StevieHilton]

First of all I want to congratulate Duncan Campbell on his appointment as Chairman of the Standards Committee. He will be an excellent Chairman
However, I have a question or two!! about the way this was done.
1/ This appointment should have been confirmed at the AGM in Glasgow. [i]t was not up to the Standards Committee to appoint the Chairman themselves nor is it within the remit of the management board to endorse it. Previous Chairmen have been appointed by the AGM, so why was this appointment not confirmed by the AGM?

[Jim Webster]

There was no candidate at the AGM! - so how could one be elected?

What has happened is that a Chair has been appointed until the next AGM at which time the AGM will make the formal appointment. If anyone wishes to stand against Duncan - that is their prerogative. Just get a suitably supported nomination in for the AGM.

The Management Board has endorsed this appointment until the 2016 AGM. The formal appointment of the Standards Committee Chair must be endorsed at an AGM as per the constitution.

Better that than not having a Chair in place.

So -- the Management Board made a decision to ensure that the Standards Committee can still function as per it's remit.

[StevieHilton]

Jim,
That explanation raises more questions. The AGM, were prepared to appoint a protem chairman, so why not a full chairman?
AGM'S before had elected the Chairman of the Standards Committee so why not this years?

Why weren't nominations called for at the AGM for this post ?

The Standards committee's nomination has to be confirmed by the AGM not the management board that is how I understand it.
You said there were no nominations for the post, did the meeting allow for nominations from the floor, as it did with other positions?
Duncan will be an excellent choice, but I think that this has been poorly handled

[Phil Thomas]

Jim,
That explanation raises more questions. The AGM, were prepared to appoint a protem chairman, so why not a full chairman?
AGM'S before had elected the Chairman of the Standards Committee so why not this years?

Why weren't nominations called for at the AGM for this post ?

The Standards committee's nomination has to be confirmed by the AGM not the management board that is how I understand it.
You said there were no nominations for the post, did the meeting allow for nominations from the floor, as it did with other positions?
Duncan will be an excellent choice, but I think that this has been poorly handled

Actually Steve,

Agree with you that Duncan is an excellent choice. However I have to disagree with you on one key point. The current constitution requires the appointment of the standard committee and chair to be made by a general meeting not necessarily by the annual general meeting.
For me it would be logical to add that topic onto the agenda for the general meeting to discuss the new constitution.

I could be wrong but as I read it there is no need for the members of the standards committee to be members of Chess Scotland. Which means there was no reason for Pat not to continue when his membership was not renewed (according to the 8th December list = the last time I looked). I guess Pat had another reason to step down.

[Ianbrownlee]

Hi Guys
today you can call me by my Indian nickname which is many hats because I am wearing the hats of moderator, man comm member, CWP member, moderator etc.

First of all may I congratulate Duncan Campbell which is a truly inspired choice for the chair

I think that the events of the AGM have been forgotten so let me remind those who were there and update those who were not there.

As is known the Chess Scotland President so the meeting was chaired in the first session by an acting chair ( Steve Mannion) and in the second part by the new president. Both served admirably during the meeting which brought several challenges due to the nature and content of the AGM

The chair of the standards committee was also absent so Gerald Lobley acted as representative both for the chair specifically and for the standards committee in general . He recommended that as Pat McGowan was deputy chair, he (Pat) will act as contact person for any SC issues until a recommendation is made by the standards committee and approved (or not) at the next council meeting (planned for Oct/Nov at that time) so all correspondence should go to Pat in the meantime At no point was a proposal made to appoint Pat as chair. Pat continues to be deputy chair and has never sought for election as chair.

As circumstances played out there was no council meeting although there were two Man Comm meetings. The second meeting unanimously endorsed the recommendation of Duncan as interim chair of the standards committee until his ratification at the next AGM.

I personally think that both the standards committee and the management committee have done their utmost best to get through what potentially could have been extremely difficult circumstances. If anyone have any questions on this matter then please contact me directly and dont chuck any stones either at the constitution or at any committee members. The constitution has it faults but some of us are doing something positive about improving it

[WBuchanan]

I’m sure they are excellent choices - it’s not that the choice is under question but rather that the choice was made/is being made by the wrong people.

Ian says
“I personally think that both the standards committee and the management committee have done their utmost best to get through what potentially could have been extremely difficult circumstances.”

This goes back to the AGM where members were presented with a fait accompli. The “difficult circumstances” that I noticed were that some of those at the meeting objected to names for the SC being foisted upon them at zero notice, as they had not had a chance to consider the nominations or to nominate their own candidates.

And ‘getting through’ these circumstances meant

1) the existing SC representative explaining (in answer to the question why the members were not invited to submit their own nominations) that the ‘right type of person’ had to be selected, a person of ‘sufficient integrity’ and that the existing SC were the right people to make this choice.

2) the acting chair (having curtailed discussion on several occasions by interrupting speakers) ending the debate on the democratic concerns by calling/waving for hands to go up in the air in support of the suggested candidates, as if the candidates themselves were the issue.

There seems no have been no democracy in the election process for the SC. The previous SC seemed to be filled largely by invitation of the chairman. While the integrity of choices is not under question, there is nevertheless possibly additional cause for concern if the SC are required to rule on serious matters relating to CS itself if CS officials and close connections are in reality picking it.

It might all be terribly difficult of course, and I’m sure willing candidates are in short supply - but SC can always try the members, you just never know.... :|

Cheers

[Patrick McGovern]

Hi Walter, the Standards Committee chair was authorised by the 2012 AGM to bring the SC to the required numbers. This was in response to the lack of volunteers at that AGM. Hope this clarifies things.

[Dick Heathwood]

Another Walter Buchanan conspiracy theory?

[Ianbrownlee]

now now guys lets keep this on a positive thread
Just to clarify the difficult circumstances were mainly the absence of both the outgoing president and the chair of the standards committee. I was not referring to the actual procedures of what actually happened. Steve was parachuted in to host the first part and a new president presided over the second part in an AGM where some posts were taken from the floor due to circumstance. For example I was not nominated forhome director before the AGM as I was standing for President. If the rules were as stringent as some people would like I could not have been nominated for home director. Similarly the school's director post was not filled at all. Also chess standards chair nomination may have been nominated before the AGM but sometimes common sense must prevail to get the posts filled and to get the working processes. Dont forget that there is always a process that any chess scotland member can follow ( .i.e a complaints procedure ).

[WBuchanan]

Thanks for the clarification, Patrick. Authorised by the 2102 AGM - well OK, but the minutes of 2015 don’t reflect the issues raised on this matter, or the way it was ‘authorized ‘ - objections were quite rudely overridden. What’s the problem with just making nominations in the normal way - a self-propagating ‘integrity’ committee ‘authorized’ in this way is not democratic.

Thanks Ian for positive slant, as ever, though it’s not so much whether rules are stringent or not, but the circumstances in which they are bent! One the one hand we are told how important it is to have a SC (and it could of course turn out to be important) but on the other it’s fine for the membership to be kept at arms length in deciding its composition, and a nod and a wink at the AGM should be enough by way of explanation.
Cheers