Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[andybburnett]

And if we had an AGM we could discuss compromise proposals about Matthew.
We could also discuss the problems of Matthew or others playing for Scotland abroad when there are so few tournaments in Scotland.

Compromises and not having/following clearly defined rules are what got us into this mess in the first place - we don't need an AGM to discuss introducing even more nonsensical routes out of this problem.


No idea what the second part of your post is about but sounds irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Have a vote - online allows all members to participate - and have done with this once and for all. Better for Matthew, better for CS, better for everyone.

[Willie Rutherford]

Below I propose a minor amendment to Proposal 1 aimed at avoiding any governance issues and giving Council flexibility (note the word "may") in the unlikely event that something similar comes up in future. Needs a seconder.

Proposed Amendment To Proposal 1: add the following sentence to the end of current wording.
"Council may exceptionally approve (including retrospectively) or cancel the eligibility of a player not meeting these eligibility criteria, subject to a simple majority vote in favour by the general membership following a consultation period of at least 1 month."


If Proposal 1 as amended was approved, then the vote on Proposal 2 can proceed as planned if it is deemed that a 1 month consultation has already happened, or later if not. 
If Proposal 1 is approved unamended, as previously mentioned I think Proposal 2 would be unconstitutional.
If Proposal 1 is not approved then I guess Proposal 2 can just proceed anyway.
I would still not vote for Proposal 2 without a reason, probably abstain.

[WBuchanan]

A constitution has to be logically consistent. Willie Rutherford's useful amendment smooths over the mutual contradiction in the two motions by creating room for exceptional decisions, with some limitations under the parameters in which these decisions can be taken.
 
However, there seems to be a more fundamental issue with Motion 1:
 
The EWP committee was set up to examine the eligibility issues and report back. It met on the basis that its recommendations would be put to a membership vote.
 
This isn't what is happening with Motion 1. It's stated that its provisions will be 'enacted' even if the motion is rejected - it just won't then be put in the constitution.
 
Lifelong eligibility from temporary residency of two years is the crux of the issue.
 
The explanation underneath the motion text says:
 
"If members vote Yes then the provisions of the motion will be included in the CS Constitution. If
members vote No (or not by the required Yes majority) then the provisions of the motion will be
enacted but will not be in the CS Constitution."
 
In other words, what will be voted on is NOT whether this eligibility proposal is acceptable to Scottish chess players in the first place, but HOW DEEPLY it is to be embedded it in the rules.
 
This would seem to be bypassing the views of the membership on the more important issue of eligibility itself.
 
In the 2015 SGM, similar eligibility rules were tabled as part of the new constitution, and were on the verge of being rejected.
They were then controversially removed from the constitution proposal before the last stage of the vote could be completed.
Now they are reappearing as a fait accompli?


Shouldn't the eligibility CRITERIA themselves be the subject of the vote? Probably followed by, if Yes, a second question, ie does it go in the constitution or just in the operational rules.

[George Neave]

I get the impression someone is keen to find a way to allow MT FIDE SCO registration. MT seems a nice guy and I like that he plays in Scotland sometimes, however that doesn't change that he is simply not eligible based on the 3 criteria laid out by Dougie. Having 2 motions is a fudge. If the CS committee want to help make a case for MT inclusion then there should be a proposal to add a 4th - Scottish grandparents - criteria and then put that to a vote. Personally, I'd vote against it (and that's nothing personal against MT).

[Jim Webster]

A constitution has to be logically consistent. Willie Rutherford's useful amendment smooths over the mutual contradiction in the two motions by creating room for exceptional decisions, with some limitations under the parameters in which these decisions can be taken.
 
However, there seems to be a more fundamental issue with Motion 1:
 
The EWP committee was set up to examine the eligibility issues and report back. It met on the basis that its recommendations would be put to a membership vote.
 
This isn't what is happening with Motion 1. It's stated that its provisions will be 'enacted' even if the motion is rejected - it just won't then be put in the constitution.
 
Lifelong eligibility from temporary residency of two years is the crux of the issue.
 
The explanation underneath the motion text says:
 
"If members vote Yes then the provisions of the motion will be included in the CS Constitution. If
members vote No (or not by the required Yes majority) then the provisions of the motion will be
enacted but will not be in the CS Constitution."
 
In other words, what will be voted on is NOT whether this eligibility proposal is acceptable to Scottish chess players in the first place, but HOW DEEPLY it is to be embedded it in the rules.
 
This would seem to be bypassing the views of the membership on the more important issue of eligibility itself.
 
In the 2015 SGM, similar eligibility rules were tabled as part of the new constitution, and were on the verge of being rejected.
They were then controversially removed from the constitution proposal before the last stage of the vote could be completed.
Now they are reappearing as a fait accompli?


Shouldn't the eligibility CRITERIA themselves be the subject of the vote? Probably followed by, if Yes, a second question, ie does it go in the constitution or just in the operational rules.

They were then controversially removed from the constitution proposal before the last stage of the vote could be completed.

See the following link (International and then read down to the foot off the page)

Chess Scotland’s guidance notes on which players can represent Scotland – click here for details.

As you can see this has not been changed - I can make the "here" link in bigger text if you like 

[WBuchanan]

Sorry not quite following you Jim
I wasn't saying eligibility had changed - rather that similar proposals to those in Motion 1 were put in the constitutional draft (Section 16, eligibility) voted on at the 2015 EGM. They were removed from the proposal before the last stage of the vote.
 
My statement on this matter isn't controversial, I'm sure most of us who were at this meeting remember it.
A statement on the SGM which took place at the Championship on 14/7/15 says:
 
"8 Please note that Section 16 is deleted and moved to OP."
https://www.chessscotland.com/news-post/...nt-on-sgm/
 
The links to the documents for the 2015 EGM now point to the current proposals. I have a saved draft of the proposal.

[Edit 2/4/22: I didn't get the point of Jim Webster's reply and seem to have then got myself confused, going off on a different question.
Jim replies that eligibility had not changed and gives a  link to previous eligibility conditions
Jim was replying to my saying it had changed, in Post #33.
However Hamish picks up, using this link, that eligibility HAS indeed changed. (Posts #66 and #76 on Page 8, with another from JW on Post #74)
It has changed from a two-year permanent residency immediately before the tournament in question, and not based on just being a student in Scotland, to a two year residency in the past, which can be as a student as well.

Hence LIFELONG ELIGIBILITY from a temporary residency period is being introduced, as well as eligibility from a student residency period.
WB]

Going back to my question, can you please update us on my AGM query?
 
I get that the constitution doesn't expressly forbid motions from being tabled on the website, but the language seems to assume the context of a General Meeting, and your reply referred twice to AGMs.
 
Also, of course, the constitution requires the AGM, which looks feasible to plan now. Moreover, it was anticipated in March by the management board.
So I don't think my question is unreasonable

Thanks

[Ianbrownlee]

I get the impression someone is keen to find a way to allow MT FIDE SCO registration. MT seems a nice guy and I like that he plays in Scotland sometimes, however that doesn't change that he is simply not eligible based on the 3 criteria laid out by Dougie. Having 2 motions is a fudge. If the CS committee want to help make a case for MT inclusion then there should be a proposal to add a 4th - Scottish grandparents - criteria and then put that to a vote. Personally, I'd vote against it (and that's nothing personal against MT).

Hi George
I dont want to get involved too much as I'm the admin director but I would like to respectfully mention that MT already has SCO, that is not the issue. The issue is how to resolve the current situation where someone has SCO but hasn't got the right to either play for Scotland or play for the Scottish title. There is no documental evidence of any restrictions or conditions given to this individual . None whatsoever that I can find, therefore he has SCO and must be accorded the privileges associated with it. The fact that MT was given SCO was down to a vote which possibly shouldnt have taken place , but it was without any restrictions recorded and any verbal agreements werent followed up or documented. Chess Scotland is trying to clear this up with the best intentions. it also about trying to move forward.
This is only a personal opinion and I really dont want to get into a personal debate about it

[Jim Webster]

Going back to my question, can you please update us on my AGM query?
 
I get that the constitution doesn't expressly forbid motions from being tabled on the website, but the language seems to assume the context of a General Meeting, and your reply referred twice to AGMs.
 
Also, of course, the constitution requires the AGM, which looks feasible to plan now. Moreover, it was anticipated in March by the management board.

When the AGM was planned, COVID was falling and we were hopefully that the restrictions would be lifted. Unfortunately events did not go according to plan and occurrences are still on the rise and being  masked in still the norm.

However we will plan for an alternative for the AGM, but we  now need to cater for logical and technical alternatives that are adaptable for all members, not just the competent and computer literate. For example - not everyone uses ZOOM. We need do to cater for the widest possible access for the membership as a whole and the widest representation of the membership.

How ever as soon as we have a workable solution we will let all members know - were looking for a solution!

You are not being ignored - we are working for the benefit of all the membership.

It's maybe not the complete answer you are looking for but we are doing the best we can under rather trying circumstances.

[Douglas Bryson]

Below I propose a minor amendment to Proposal 1 aimed at avoiding any governance issues and giving Council flexibility (note the word "may") in the unlikely event that something similar comes up in future. Needs a seconder.

Proposed Amendment To Proposal 1: add the following sentence to the end of current wording.
"Council may exceptionally approve (including retrospectively) or cancel the eligibility of a player not meeting these eligibility criteria, subject to a simple majority vote in favour by the general membership following a consultation period of at least 1 month."

The 2011 AGM MT decision is the only time the current eligibility rules on initial SCO registration or transfer rules to Scotland from another federation has not been followed. Would adoption of this amendment mean that further examples of the very circumstance we are currently trying to resolve would then be encoded in the Constitution allowing officials to permit divergence from the eligibility rules. 

Would a move-order nuance improve things? "Take" Motion 2 first and after MT status is established (either way) then Motion 1 offers the Eligibility rules to be placed in the Constitution.

As to the "reason" for Motion 2. Avoid the possible recurrence of the difficulties of the 2019 Championship by establishing the eligibility rights of a leading player in a one-off vote.

---

The EWP committee was set up to examine the eligibility issues and report back. It met on the basis that its recommendations would be put to a membership vote.
 
This isn't what is happening with Motion 1. It's stated that its provisions will be 'enacted' even if the motion is rejected - it just won't then be put in the constitution.
 
Lifelong eligibility from temporary residency of two years is the crux of the issue. 

The rules were examined and confirmed by the majority of the EWP and are generally a continuation of already established procedures. These rules have already been long used in the day to day work of Chess Scotland. The EWP recommends adoption of the Eligibility section in the Constitution to minimise possible future divergence from the rules.

>>>Lifelong eligibility from temporary residency of two years is the crux of the issue.

Scotland has become increasingly diverse. The percentage of people not born in Scotland may be approaching 20% when the current census publishes its tally. Therefore we need rules to deal with the large part of Scotland who are resident but were not born here and do not have a Scottish parent. The minimum time period which is used by SCA/CS is two years (1 year under 18s).

We provide information to players making an application for a new FIDE registration for a SCO ID that if they are eligible for more than one federation they will be subject to transfer fees and possible re-registration if they choose to move away from Scotland. 

There are now over 1000 players registered as SCO. http://ratings.fide.com/advaction.phtml?...e&line=asc
Over 800 of these players have been registered by the Scotland federation in the last 15 years. The increase is due to the massive expansion of FIDE rating as minimum levels were progressively reduced down to 1000 ELO to bring a world ranking within range of almost all players. 

Residency and longevity were key topics discussed by the EWP. https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...Topics.pdf

---

I get the impression someone is keen to find a way to allow MT FIDE SCO registration. MT seems a nice guy and I like that he plays in Scotland sometimes, however that doesn't change that he is simply not eligible based on the 3 criteria laid out by Dougie. Having 2 motions is a fudge. If the CS committee want to help make a case for MT inclusion then there should be a proposal to add a 4th - Scottish grandparents - criteria and then put that to a vote. Personally, I'd vote against it (and that's nothing personal against MT).

Two grandparent votes have already been conducted in the last decade and both times the motion to change failed. The grandparent criteria was one of the subject areas examined by the EWP. The reason why this vote is being conducted now is to avoid the possible recurrence of the difficulties of the 2019 Championship by establishing the eligibility rights of a leading player in a one-off vote. If this vote takes place there should be a level of clarity which obviously was not available at the time of the 2019 Championship.

Grandparent: The group considered if parentage should be changed to a grandparent link rather
than the proposed and previous link of one parent born in Scotland. Grandparent is the bloodline
requirement indicated by the Scottish government in their 2014 white paper of what would qualify
someone to be granted Scottish citizenship. Grandparent is also used by some sports bodies as the
parentage level required to become a player for that country. However, Chess Scotland has
conducted two votes on the grandparent issue in the last decade both of which have been rejected
by the membership, albeit on low turnout. Grandparent could in theory extend the catchment of
players eligible to play for Scotland who may have no current connection with the country which
may have been the motivation to reject the proposal.

[George Neave]

Very helpful post from DMB. I had not appreciated MT had been awarded SCO registration despite not meeting the national body's eligibility criteria. Of course, SCO membership, eligibility to represent Scotland and eligibility to compete for the Scottish championship should all be one and the same thing. If MT does not meet the criteria and if the membership prefer not to change the criteria, I would suggest MT must reconsider his position and reaffiliate with a country for which he is eligible. Given CS were in error allowing him to affiliate here in the first place, I would support CS covering his registration fees to whichever national body he chooses.