21-08-2017, 01:17 PM
As one of the attendees, I can state that all the motions were actively debated. Nothing went through 'on the nod'. Indeed 4 out of the 6 motions were only approved once minor amendments were agreed to by the proposer/seconder (major amendments are not allowed under the Constitution) . Probably Motion 4 had the longest and most lively debate. Strong arguments were made on both sides and it is a pity that more use was not made of the Forum for concerns and issues to be raised and debated beforehand. Suddenly we have fire and fury after the vote when really the actions should have been started 3 weeks ago. Such debate would certainly help those who vote on-line. There was some discussion of Motion 1 within the Forum. For Motion 4, in practice the 67%:20% split in favour was about the same for on-line and from attendees based on the figures given by Andy H. The issue was difficult, trying to balance what will be our legal responsibilities with upcoming legislation and allowing sensible discussions involving all parties interested in Scottish chess. The sub-committee formed by the President to implement the principles outlined in the Motion (including how 'guests' i.e. non-CS members can be allowed to participate) will no doubt take the very disparate views expressed into account during their deliberations. Presumably, those practical recommendations will be debated both within the Management Board and at Council to ensure they comply with the spirit of the AGM wishes.
On a separate issue, the on-line system has the advantage of having more members casting a vote but the disadvantage that not all the arguments are heard by everybody. How much this might skew the final outcome is uncertain. Andy H for each final result gave the online, meeting and total votes. It would be very useful if he could retain this information in a spreadsheet that can be analysed to see if there is a wide discrepancy between on-line and attendee voting. This should not be done on a single meeting (and certainly not a single issue) but we need to build up information to see if there are ways we can improve both providing information to members prior to a vote and seeing if the outcome differs between the on-line voters and the attendees. In general the agreement between the two voting sources was good/reasonable except for one motion and one Directorship. The actual figures will be available with the AGM minutes. The other piece of relevant information was that on-line votes were approximately double the attendee votes (some of which involved a limited number of proxy votes). This is a new area for us and we need to learn progressively, with the objective of helping more members make informed judgements (whether these be for or against motions). The final reminder is that having a more democratic process is never an easy ride, and I speak as a 'remain' voter in a Brexit world!
On a separate issue, the on-line system has the advantage of having more members casting a vote but the disadvantage that not all the arguments are heard by everybody. How much this might skew the final outcome is uncertain. Andy H for each final result gave the online, meeting and total votes. It would be very useful if he could retain this information in a spreadsheet that can be analysed to see if there is a wide discrepancy between on-line and attendee voting. This should not be done on a single meeting (and certainly not a single issue) but we need to build up information to see if there are ways we can improve both providing information to members prior to a vote and seeing if the outcome differs between the on-line voters and the attendees. In general the agreement between the two voting sources was good/reasonable except for one motion and one Directorship. The actual figures will be available with the AGM minutes. The other piece of relevant information was that on-line votes were approximately double the attendee votes (some of which involved a limited number of proxy votes). This is a new area for us and we need to learn progressively, with the objective of helping more members make informed judgements (whether these be for or against motions). The final reminder is that having a more democratic process is never an easy ride, and I speak as a 'remain' voter in a Brexit world!