07-07-2015, 10:28 AM
[Preamble: Yesterday was very busy for me - a funeral and other time-sensitive issues. So, I had no time to revert to this thread.]
CWP (Jim W)
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. The Minutes and Motions of the AGM 2013 are much more complex than you present. No wonder I couldn’t find the origins of the CWP. The”motion” to which you refer was a composite one and it appears the Working Party was supposed to report to Council within a year. I’m not going to go into the history of all this and the various elements that were to be addressed. The key point is that you (on behalf of the CWP) oversimplified the position. That’s presentation, which is what I highlighted in the first place.
The Notice to members about the SGM published on 24 June 2015 states: “The motion to be considered from the Constitution Working Party is as follows:” etc.etc. You say: “The CWP is not presenting its case to the SGM.” But that’s what the Notice said. You can hardly expect ordinary CS members to share your mastery of the nuances. Again, you say that “The Constitution 2015 was presented to Council, by the CWP, on Saturday 30th May etc.etc.” I think you mean the “draft” Constitution 2015, don’t you? Ordinarily, CS members are allowed to attend meetings of Council as observers, but for some reason not on 30th May. Doubtless, there was a sound reason for this exclusivity. But, you (on behalf of the CWP) can hardly blame ordinary members for being curious.
The point about proxy votes is precisely as you repeat: the draft Constitution does not resolve the difficult problem about preventing representatives turning up at a general meeting with control of multiple proxies. That would be unlawful under electoral law. But, the Statement by CWP published on 30 June contents itself with this blandishment: “…Chess Scotland encourages all members to exercise their right to vote wherever possible. Chess Scotland does not support active, external, solicitation to influence members to support a personal view. We would therefore recommend that members ignore pleas or solicitations from external sources.” Sorry, but that’s idealistic pie in the sky that seeks to dissuade members from campaigning! To quote John McEnroe - “You cannot be serious!” It’s no less legitimate to campaign under the existing and proposed Constitutions.
As for my conundrum about which way to cast my proxy vote, I thought you presented good advice the other day when you suggested that members narrow their opposition to just one section rather than vote against the draft as a whole. But, now I see from Derek Howie’s post this morning that I am too late to do that as first I would have had to introduce an actual amendment. So, if I am to vote by proxy I will need to vote against the entire draft Constitution. Sounds as if the CWP has shot itself in the foot through lack of foresight.
That foresight brings me back to the brief period of notice given to members (three weeks). What I am referring to is not the “30 days” restriction imposed by a “jackboot” Constitution but preparing opinion in advance of bringing the “reforms” to a general meeting for decision. The CWP seems to have been altogether too paternalistic in its methodology: Trust us.
That word “trust” brings me, too, the “nuts and bolts” Operational Procedures. The allusion to the Standards Committee shows that some thought has been given to this question. But, it’s not just about dotting I’s and crossing t’s: it’s about what the members need to see in the context of job descriptions. Some Directors seem to think that they are appointed/elected “to direct”. It’s how they interpret this concept that concerns members. The issue does not, I think, affect many Directors thank goodness. But some - perhaps associated with the disbursement of funds in relation to selection - seem to think they can do what they please. That is intolerably arrogant. The Executive Committee must be in overall control to ensure fair play. It’s that kind of insight that members would like to see.
What does an “enabling“ Constitution do? Is there a model we can see to give us an appreciation or - as the BBC would have it - a sense? Has the CWP done enough to sell its product/package of reforms?
Regardless of the outcome, the CWP is to be commended for all its efforts on CS members’ behalf.
George
CWP (Jim W)
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. The Minutes and Motions of the AGM 2013 are much more complex than you present. No wonder I couldn’t find the origins of the CWP. The”motion” to which you refer was a composite one and it appears the Working Party was supposed to report to Council within a year. I’m not going to go into the history of all this and the various elements that were to be addressed. The key point is that you (on behalf of the CWP) oversimplified the position. That’s presentation, which is what I highlighted in the first place.
The Notice to members about the SGM published on 24 June 2015 states: “The motion to be considered from the Constitution Working Party is as follows:” etc.etc. You say: “The CWP is not presenting its case to the SGM.” But that’s what the Notice said. You can hardly expect ordinary CS members to share your mastery of the nuances. Again, you say that “The Constitution 2015 was presented to Council, by the CWP, on Saturday 30th May etc.etc.” I think you mean the “draft” Constitution 2015, don’t you? Ordinarily, CS members are allowed to attend meetings of Council as observers, but for some reason not on 30th May. Doubtless, there was a sound reason for this exclusivity. But, you (on behalf of the CWP) can hardly blame ordinary members for being curious.
The point about proxy votes is precisely as you repeat: the draft Constitution does not resolve the difficult problem about preventing representatives turning up at a general meeting with control of multiple proxies. That would be unlawful under electoral law. But, the Statement by CWP published on 30 June contents itself with this blandishment: “…Chess Scotland encourages all members to exercise their right to vote wherever possible. Chess Scotland does not support active, external, solicitation to influence members to support a personal view. We would therefore recommend that members ignore pleas or solicitations from external sources.” Sorry, but that’s idealistic pie in the sky that seeks to dissuade members from campaigning! To quote John McEnroe - “You cannot be serious!” It’s no less legitimate to campaign under the existing and proposed Constitutions.
As for my conundrum about which way to cast my proxy vote, I thought you presented good advice the other day when you suggested that members narrow their opposition to just one section rather than vote against the draft as a whole. But, now I see from Derek Howie’s post this morning that I am too late to do that as first I would have had to introduce an actual amendment. So, if I am to vote by proxy I will need to vote against the entire draft Constitution. Sounds as if the CWP has shot itself in the foot through lack of foresight.
That foresight brings me back to the brief period of notice given to members (three weeks). What I am referring to is not the “30 days” restriction imposed by a “jackboot” Constitution but preparing opinion in advance of bringing the “reforms” to a general meeting for decision. The CWP seems to have been altogether too paternalistic in its methodology: Trust us.
That word “trust” brings me, too, the “nuts and bolts” Operational Procedures. The allusion to the Standards Committee shows that some thought has been given to this question. But, it’s not just about dotting I’s and crossing t’s: it’s about what the members need to see in the context of job descriptions. Some Directors seem to think that they are appointed/elected “to direct”. It’s how they interpret this concept that concerns members. The issue does not, I think, affect many Directors thank goodness. But some - perhaps associated with the disbursement of funds in relation to selection - seem to think they can do what they please. That is intolerably arrogant. The Executive Committee must be in overall control to ensure fair play. It’s that kind of insight that members would like to see.
What does an “enabling“ Constitution do? Is there a model we can see to give us an appreciation or - as the BBC would have it - a sense? Has the CWP done enough to sell its product/package of reforms?
Regardless of the outcome, the CWP is to be commended for all its efforts on CS members’ behalf.
George