New constitution

[Phil Thomas]

In addition to the previous post I did do some research into the extent of Junior voting.

AGM
2013 : Attendees 34 : Juniors 1
2012 : Attendees 26 : Juniors 0
2011 : Attendees 17 : Juniors 0
2010 : Attendees 14 : Juniors 0

This doe NOT include Proxy votes, but does include parents of Juniors who are not players themselves.

I'm beginning to wonder just how many people are being argued for here, and history certain does not seem to support the detractors. Nice to have but be never used?

The new concept certainly intends to address the shortcomings of Junior involvement in a more positive way.

This particular post is a personal view and in no way should be construed as anything else.

2009 : Attendees 40. Parents 16, Non playing parents 10 (ish).

Rather higher than attendances in 2010 to 2013
Most of those non playing parents had chess playing children below the age of 16.
Those families would be disenfranchised by the proposed constitution.

The reason for the increased numbers in 2009 was that there were 2 candidates for IJD.

Parents expressed themselves by turning up and voting - at a meeting that lasted for 5 1/2 hours.

There is a suggestion made elsewhere that parents of juniors will be consulted and their views taken to the executive committee.


This I find to be unacceptable and totally undemocratic.
It would also demotivate parents when they consider (re) joining CS.
How many members could CS afford to lose? how many potential volunteers would be lost at the same time?

In summary

(a) Juniors below 16 lose the vote but there is a promise to canvass their parents and consider their views.
(b) Adults retain the vote.

Part (a) brings in yet more additional admin work.
Either there is a glut of new volunteers coming forward at the agm or some of the work just won't be done.
Much less admin work is required under the current system - just count the few extra hands voting at agm's when parents are motivated to attend.