07-08-2015, 01:04 PM
To Jim Webster
Thanks Jim.
“Currently Chess Scotland do not have Operating Procedures, are you trying to place constraints on the development of any potentially future rules/regulations?”
It’s not about my constraints Jim, the members will vote on the constraints. I haven’t made any constraints up, these are from the status quo and expressed members views, and members will ratify them or not. Isn’t that democracy? Under management proposals management will have total control and that means they can override the membership view if they want. To me, that can’t be right - on such an important issue too.
Of course, CS members might reject this motion and prefer to vote to give carte blanche to selectors and officials - but then that’s their choice and I would then respect it equally.
“The allocation of the 'SCO' is not under the control of the eligibility rules for of Scottish Championship criteria as far as I am aware. Is this motion therefore trying to do two different things?
- determine requirements for Scottish Championship eligibility.
- determine criteria for the allocation of the FIDE 'SCO" registration.”
The main eligibility criteria like ‘Scottishness’ shall primarily be set by the Scottish membership voting after which they should be respected by officials and selectors (who will still have considerable freedom within those constraints) and incorporated into Championship criteria.
So no, your first statement above is not correct.
Doing two different things? You know perfectly well that management want the SCO code to provide eligibility on its own - ie the same two 'different things'!
“I personally don't have a problem with the intent of the proposal but do oppose the paragraph quoted above since it is applying constraints to something that may or may not happen in the future.”
The CWP reassure us that Operating Procedures will deal with all future selection issues and (according to the legend that is the minutes), you proposed this at the SGM even though it had been stated that no other motions were to be voted on.
Still, I accept you have a point Jim - in case the Operating Procedures don’t happen, here’s my amended suggestion:
“These primary requirements shall be built into Chess Scotland’s criteria for eligibility for national Championships and international selection, and into future Operating Procedures that relate to eligibility.”
Is this better?
Finally you say
“In any case Operating Procedures, as currently envisaged, would need the approval of a General Meeting any vote at that would simply overwrite this stipulation (as with any AGM/SGM motion, a rule in the past can be repealed at a future date by another AGM/SGM motion).”
I think that’s where we differ. You see having Operating Procedures as handing control to the Operators. I don’t (unless a majority of CS members say that I do
) ).
Thanks for your input
Cheers
Thanks Jim.
“Currently Chess Scotland do not have Operating Procedures, are you trying to place constraints on the development of any potentially future rules/regulations?”
It’s not about my constraints Jim, the members will vote on the constraints. I haven’t made any constraints up, these are from the status quo and expressed members views, and members will ratify them or not. Isn’t that democracy? Under management proposals management will have total control and that means they can override the membership view if they want. To me, that can’t be right - on such an important issue too.
Of course, CS members might reject this motion and prefer to vote to give carte blanche to selectors and officials - but then that’s their choice and I would then respect it equally.
“The allocation of the 'SCO' is not under the control of the eligibility rules for of Scottish Championship criteria as far as I am aware. Is this motion therefore trying to do two different things?
- determine requirements for Scottish Championship eligibility.
- determine criteria for the allocation of the FIDE 'SCO" registration.”
The main eligibility criteria like ‘Scottishness’ shall primarily be set by the Scottish membership voting after which they should be respected by officials and selectors (who will still have considerable freedom within those constraints) and incorporated into Championship criteria.
So no, your first statement above is not correct.
Doing two different things? You know perfectly well that management want the SCO code to provide eligibility on its own - ie the same two 'different things'!
“I personally don't have a problem with the intent of the proposal but do oppose the paragraph quoted above since it is applying constraints to something that may or may not happen in the future.”
The CWP reassure us that Operating Procedures will deal with all future selection issues and (according to the legend that is the minutes), you proposed this at the SGM even though it had been stated that no other motions were to be voted on.
Still, I accept you have a point Jim - in case the Operating Procedures don’t happen, here’s my amended suggestion:
“These primary requirements shall be built into Chess Scotland’s criteria for eligibility for national Championships and international selection, and into future Operating Procedures that relate to eligibility.”
Is this better?
Finally you say
“In any case Operating Procedures, as currently envisaged, would need the approval of a General Meeting any vote at that would simply overwrite this stipulation (as with any AGM/SGM motion, a rule in the past can be repealed at a future date by another AGM/SGM motion).”
I think that’s where we differ. You see having Operating Procedures as handing control to the Operators. I don’t (unless a majority of CS members say that I do
) ). Thanks for your input
Cheers