28-06-2015, 08:00 AM
andyburnett Wrote:Hi Martin,
I don't know the actual reason behind this change, but I can see a simple 'arithmetical' problem...
SCA = 1 adult vote SJCA= 1 junior (or guardian/proxy) vote
CS = 1 adult+1 junior (or guardian by proxy) vote on 'adult' matters AND 1 adult+ 1 junior(or guardian by proxy) vote on 'junior' matters.
No idea if it worked/works this way, but sounds plausible and not obviously a good state of affairs?!
Andy,
its much simpler than that
Under the proposed constitution votes held by juniors under 16 will disappear.
This is my opinion makes the proposed constitution less democratic.
I find it hard to see how any other conclusion can be reached
As the USA expressed it in July 1776 - no taxation without representation.
Perhaps you are worried about parents of juniors expressing their views on adult chess ?
Please think about that large body of people who are parents of junior members.
Most are not chess players, most don't want to be chess players.
Between them they have a massive amount of experience, and skill sets. Chances are are some of them have contacts with potential sponsors. Chances are some of them are natural organisers with an interest in helping out. Many will have seen how other youth organisations operate. Many will already have PVG disclosure and be able to help by being experienced chaperones.
By taking away the voting rights of juniors and their parents CS turns its back on this ever changing pool of talent and financial clout and PVG disclosed adults.
Are things so healthy financially and administration wise that CS can afford to do so?