Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New constitution
On behalf of the Constitutional Working Party I will try to clarify some of the issues here:

Q. (Walter Buchanan and others) “As none of the requirements specified for championship eligibility are mentioned in the section concerning eligibility for international selection, doesn't this mean that the only requirements for the latter are the ones set by FIDE?”

A. Yes, to a certain extent that is true. Doing otherwise would put us at a disadvantage as compared with other nations. But we do insist (as does FIDE) that in order to be eligible, a player must first be registered as ‘SCO’. For this to happen, certain procedures must be followed. These are relatively straightforward for someone not previously registered and playing in Scotland, but in the case of a possible ‘transfer’ from another federation the rules are very strict and require the agreement of both federations and in some cases the payment of a not insubstantial fee. Since Chess Scotland effectively controls who is eligible to be registered as ‘SCO’ then the operating procedures for that process can effectively define who is eligible and who isn't. The fine detail of these can be debated (and already has!) but putting these 'guidelines' in the constitution would create inflexibility, meaning a change to the constitution every time we wished to alter them. The correct place for them is in the 'operating procedures' for whoever applies for registrations (currently the grading officer).

And then there is the additional safeguard that being ‘eligible’ is not enough. You still have to be selected. On this point Walter stated: “Looking at it the other way, on what grounds could a player with a Scottish grandparent and a high enough rating and who has registered as SCO with FIDE rating be refused international selection? A refusal would be unconstitutional.”

I don’t understand that argument. The constitution as drafted clearly states: “Selection of individuals and/or teams who will represent Scotland in international competition is the sole responsibility of the appropriate board of selectors. Qualification according to the above criteria is no guarantee of being considered for selection. “ So why would it be unconstitutional?

Then: “The appearance of the grandparent rule in Championship eligibility suggests which way the drafters of the constitution are minded.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Can I refer you back to the original response which stated: “The current proposal is the 'grandparent' rule which fits with some other sports but not others. This was included to ensure that we would have a constructive debate on the issue to which all members could contribute. In fact the CWP would propose that the membership should also consider an alternative Section 16.1.1 with similar wording but with 'or grandparent' removed. Effectively this would then introduce a 'parent' rule in terms of future 'SCO' registration. So a straight choice vote for 'parentage' or 'grandparentage' to determine 'SCO' in the future.”

In fact there was no unanimity among the drafters that a ‘grandparent’ rule should be included at all. But it was felt that since there has been much debate about such rules when defining ‘Scottishness’ (both within Chess Scotland and elsewhere) then it should be considered, at least. If a suitable amendment were to be adopted without the wording and voted upon then that will decide it. I for one can see arguments both ways and would be happy to accept the democratic wishes of the full membership on the matter.

I hope this is helpful.
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)