07-07-2015, 11:54 AM
Hi Mike,
I think for me the difference between elections and CS is that membership fees have been paid on behalf of the child (or indeed anyone) to be a member of Chess Scotland - and that they are entitled to be represented on issues that affect them. CS is the successor to both the SCA and the SJCA and to me, it really should keep to the spirit of representing both parts of the membership.
I am sympathetic to your point about multiple votes and junior proxy harvesting. However, membership fees have been paid on behalf of those juniors to become a member of CS. Perhaps it'd be better if it was explicit that junior votes could only be used on junior matters? (junior votes for junior issues anyone?) (Andy, would this address your concern?) - although, we're probably too late now to get an amendment.
Re: age, I agree with the current constitutions reasoning. U12s should be proxied to guardians/parents >U12 they can do it themselves. As to a lower limit, off the cuff I'd say 5 and able to play the game.
In our case I'm not a member and Aiden (a junior) is. Many juniors fall into this category. Under the proposed constitution, the parent/guardian have to pay again to ensure that their child's view was being represented on junior matters - when they don't care two hoots about the rest. This to me seems a bit unfair.
PS Mike, I played as a junior, and I help with coaching at St Peters - I'm happy to help with LJC events if you need it.
I think for me the difference between elections and CS is that membership fees have been paid on behalf of the child (or indeed anyone) to be a member of Chess Scotland - and that they are entitled to be represented on issues that affect them. CS is the successor to both the SCA and the SJCA and to me, it really should keep to the spirit of representing both parts of the membership.
I am sympathetic to your point about multiple votes and junior proxy harvesting. However, membership fees have been paid on behalf of those juniors to become a member of CS. Perhaps it'd be better if it was explicit that junior votes could only be used on junior matters? (junior votes for junior issues anyone?) (Andy, would this address your concern?) - although, we're probably too late now to get an amendment.
Re: age, I agree with the current constitutions reasoning. U12s should be proxied to guardians/parents >U12 they can do it themselves. As to a lower limit, off the cuff I'd say 5 and able to play the game.
In our case I'm not a member and Aiden (a junior) is. Many juniors fall into this category. Under the proposed constitution, the parent/guardian have to pay again to ensure that their child's view was being represented on junior matters - when they don't care two hoots about the rest. This to me seems a bit unfair.
PS Mike, I played as a junior, and I help with coaching at St Peters - I'm happy to help with LJC events if you need it.