AGM today (Consequences for noticeboard)

[Graham Kerr]

ah well, didn't like the new site anyway...
when will non members be blocked from?

[Andy Howie]

now!

[StevieHilton]

Andy,
My first sentence is not flawed, because the proposer and seconder did hold positions within CS.
They are members of course but officials.
I still think the decision is wrong for the reasons I outlined and will continue to speak out against.

AGM is sovereign and always will be?? Then why are post that are meant to be filled left unfilled
The AGM could have filled them.

[David Deary]

Is there a list of the results of the votes? Not specific counts but just what passed and failed. Apologies if I missed this.

Steve, I dont believe anyone has been disenfranchised nor have they lost their voice. It just means they have to join the organisation they are seeking to influence, it hardly seems an imposition to me.

On a wider point, the forum is a CS service provided and maintained by volunteers as is the grading system. For too long the value of CS services have been taken for granted and I don't think its unreasonable to have to pay for them.

Some positive feedback - I felt the online voting worked very well. For those of us who couldn't attend it meant we weren't left without a voice and is much more important to me than who can actually post on the forum. Its good to see CS moving into the 21 century so congrats for that!

[Andy Howie]

Andy,
My first sentence is not flawed, because the proposer and seconder did hold positions within CS.
They are members of course but officials.
I still think the decision is wrong for the reasons I outlined and will continue to speak out against.

AGM is sovereign and always will be?? Then why are post that are meant to be filled left unfilled
The AGM could have filled them.

No nominations within the prescribed time limit.   Under the new Standing Orders and Constitution, any unfilled posts are passed on to the Management Board to fill.  Has been like this for 2 (or 3) AGMs now so nothing new.

[Jim Webster]

I was planning to stay out of this after my first post, but I need to clarify points.

Quote StevieHilton: -

"My first sentence is not flawed, because the proposer and seconder did hold positions within CS.
They are members of course but officials."

First and foremost the proposer and seconder are CS members and have an absolute right to express an opinion and to put forward motions to the AGM.  I do not accept the point that officials are barred from freely promoting their own personal views at any AGM.  It is up to the AGM to decide the acceptability of their motion - not individuals who disagree, for whatever reason, with a correctly formed, proposed and seconded motion.  

Are you really saying that when members become officials they cannot have the right of free expression and to promote their own beliefs?

"I still think the decision is wrong for the reasons I outlined and will continue to speak out against"
That is your prerogative.

I should point out however CS works on a democratic principle that decisions made by the majority at an AGM are sacrosanct and even the Management Board has no power to change the will of the voters.

"AGM is sovereign and always will be??. "
Absolutely - and we are also duty bound to comply with the conditions of the Constitution.

"Then why are post that are meant to be filled left unfilled. The AGM could have filled them"
Let me remind you of the pertinent Constitution paragraphs, just to make it crystal clear.

8.2.5. To fill any vacancy among Directors by appointment.

12.6.     Nominations for elections must be received by the Executive Director in writing (including e-mail) at least three weeks before the meeting, and must be proposed and seconded by current members, and confirm the consent of the nominee to serve.

[WBuchanan]

I greatly respect all the effort and organisation that CS officials and helpers put in. No complaints on that score - it is the area of accountability that seems to me to attract the most legitimate complaints.

Just to take one example, the initial response to Steve that it "came from the membership" is pretty misleading. The AGM might be 'sovereign' but whether members or not, people asking a question are entitled to expect more than evasion.

Before all the non members are kicked off the forum (tick tick...), it might be worth asking why they don't join CS!?

Cheers

[George Neave]

Out of curiosity, what were the votes for / against on this motion?

[David Deary]

Walter, I don't think anyone disagrees that officers should be accountable. However, speaking from my experience when I was an officer of CS the forum is just a means for certain individuals (a minority) to have a rant and a moan about CS matters almost always without discussing with the officer concerned first. This approach just gets peoples' backs up and for me is why the forum should not be used as a means to hold officers to account.

Also, the response to Steve was perfectly fine and entirely factual. Why should the Management Board explain a motion that went to the AGM that wasn't proposed or seconded from any members of the Board? There is also no guarantee that the Management Board has a collective view on this, all four could have voted differently. The members who proposed and seconded the motion are in the text of the motion and readily available in the AGM documents on the website. That's hardly evasion!

I agree wrt. finding out why non members don't join CS.
Also, they aren't kicked off the forum that is misleading, they can still read posts they just cant post themselves.

[Gerald Lobley]

As one of the attendees, I can state that all the motions were actively debated. Nothing went through 'on the nod'. Indeed 4 out of the 6 motions were only approved once minor amendments were agreed to by the proposer/seconder (major amendments are not allowed under the Constitution) . Probably Motion 4 had the longest and most lively debate. Strong arguments were made on both sides and it is a pity that more use was not made of the Forum for concerns and issues to be raised and debated beforehand. Suddenly we have fire and fury after the vote when really the actions should have been started  3 weeks ago.  Such debate would certainly help those who vote on-line. There was some discussion of Motion 1 within the Forum. For Motion 4, in practice the 67%:20% split in favour was about the same for on-line and from attendees based on the figures given by Andy H. The issue was difficult, trying to balance what will be our legal responsibilities with upcoming legislation and allowing sensible discussions involving all parties interested in Scottish chess. The sub-committee formed by the President to  implement the principles outlined in the Motion (including how 'guests' i.e. non-CS members can be allowed to participate) will no doubt take the very disparate views expressed into account during their deliberations. Presumably, those practical recommendations will be debated both within the Management Board and at Council to ensure they comply with the spirit of the AGM wishes.
 
On a separate issue, the on-line system has the advantage of having more members casting a vote but the disadvantage that not all the arguments are heard by everybody. How much this might skew the final outcome is uncertain. Andy H for each final result gave the online, meeting and total votes. It would be very useful if he could retain this information in a spreadsheet that can be analysed to see if there is a wide discrepancy between on-line and attendee voting. This should not be done on a single meeting (and certainly not a single issue) but we need to build up information to see if there are ways we can improve both providing information to members prior to a vote and seeing if the outcome differs between the on-line voters and the  attendees. In general the agreement between the two voting sources was good/reasonable except for one motion and one Directorship. The actual figures will be available with the AGM minutes. The other piece of relevant information was that on-line votes were approximately double the attendee votes (some of which involved a limited number of proxy votes).  This is a new area for us and we need to learn progressively, with the objective of helping more members make informed judgements (whether these be for or against motions). The final reminder is that having a more democratic process is never an easy ride, and I speak as a 'remain' voter in a Brexit world!