01-04-2014, 05:43 PM
In response to Jim's point: we haven't heard from the majority of the membership, but we have heard from a rather high proportion of the people affected by the question of the Olympiad captaincy. I would certainly say that John Shaw's views on such an issue should carry more weight than, for instance, mine (as indeed should Andy Muir's.) A majority of the Scottish team unhappy with the captaincy situation sounds at the very least like grounds for concern.
So that's Andy Howie and Calum MacQueen sitting in judgement? Might be interesting.
Seriously, I know that there is provision for such a board in the constitution, but does anyone know when it was last convened? If there aren't any helpful precedents, an attempt to put it together at this late stage might be difficult, not least given that one of the two directors with the power to appoint board members is certainly an interested party. I think Matthew Turner's idea is probably the best yet suggested: I haven't seen any other reasonably detailed proposals which manage to seem fair, workable and at least potentially acceptable to everyone. There's a good amount of scope to debate the details (and the idea of convening the international board definitely has its points; it's probably theoretically the right thing to do). I do strongly believe that at this stage the outcome that would hopefully lead to the least ill feeling would be one in which both sides submit the matter to someone else's judgement and agree to abide by it.
Phil Thomas Wrote:More to the point is the International board - constitution section 11 the relevant parts of which I have copied below.
It does seems strange to wait for or call an extra council meeting in order to create a committee to do the job of a body that already exists in the written constitution.
***********************************************************************************************************
International Director - International Director (Open), International Director (Junior), Event organisers and other personnel appointed by the International Director (Open) and International Director (Junior), FIDE Delegate and at least two people appointed as decided by the International Board
11.2.4 Boards may also invite any other Chess Scotland Office Bearers to attend Board meetings
11.3 The powers and duties of the Boards are:
11.3.1 To govern their area of activity in Chess Scotland on behalf of the membership between General Meetings.
11.3.2 To input to an annual business plan and budget, or longer period as determined by the Management Board.
11.3.3 May appoint ad hoc committees that may co-opt Individual members
11.3.4 To fill any vacancy among Board Members by appointment.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Post Script The second word of the extract "Director" appears to be a typo for "Board"
So that's Andy Howie and Calum MacQueen sitting in judgement? Might be interesting.
Seriously, I know that there is provision for such a board in the constitution, but does anyone know when it was last convened? If there aren't any helpful precedents, an attempt to put it together at this late stage might be difficult, not least given that one of the two directors with the power to appoint board members is certainly an interested party. I think Matthew Turner's idea is probably the best yet suggested: I haven't seen any other reasonably detailed proposals which manage to seem fair, workable and at least potentially acceptable to everyone. There's a good amount of scope to debate the details (and the idea of convening the international board definitely has its points; it's probably theoretically the right thing to do). I do strongly believe that at this stage the outcome that would hopefully lead to the least ill feeling would be one in which both sides submit the matter to someone else's judgement and agree to abide by it.