Regarding Motion 1, the following statements have been made by CS Officials (my emphasis):
"The eligibility rules are largely unchanged from what has been established practice."
(DB, Post #25)
"The rules were examined and confirmed by the majority of the EWP and are generally a continuation of already established procedures. These rules have already been long used in the day to day work of Chess Scotland.
(DB, #39)
"Motion 1 simply enshrines the eligibility rules in the constitution. If the motion fails, the net result is they remain in standing orders, not be withdrawn and re-written."
(AH, #92)
" If its a CS event, like any FIDE event, all processes are adequately written (or should be) . The motions are an attempt as an attempt to clarify and bullet proof those rules and procedures."
(IB, #97)
As you can see this has not been changed - I can make the "here" link in bigger text if you like
(JW, #35)
None of the above statements (bold parts) are true.
Motion 1 introduces a new clause eliminating the distinction between a permanent residency and a temporary residency, eg students
This will be lifelong.
It simply isn't true that this was 'established practice':
These are from two Championship entry forms:
(i) The 2015 Championships entry form: "Titles will only be awarded to those satisfying Scottish nationality who are also members of Chess Scotland; e.g. permanently resident in Scotland for 1 year prior, or have competed in Championship within the past 5 years. The term “permanently resident” does not include university students or other such residence of a transitory nature".
https://www.chessscotland.com/documents/...Champs.pdf
(ii) The 2017 Championships entry form: "Those permanently resident in Scotland for two years immediately preceding the date of the Championship.
Again, there is a clause to exclude students
https://web.archive.org/web/201701150618...les_14.pdf
Note the requirements a) of 'prior' residency in 2015, and
b) for the residency to be 'immediately preceding' the Championship in 2017.
Therefore, the residency from the past did not give eligibility in the future. The conditions tied the residency to the Championship date.
Therefore it wasn't lifelong.
Also, the 'permanently resident' clause in these two championships excluded students.
So that kind of temporary residence didn't even grant Championship entry for one year.
In between those was the new Constitution brought to the 2015 SGM; the eligibility proposals in section 16 contained the proposal that having a SCO code guaranteed eligibility. As SCO codes aren't normally removed, this was a proposal for lifelong e1igibility.
As noted in an earlier post, it was pulled from the proposed constitution because the vote was going badly.
So lifelong eligibility from residence was NOT 'established' in 2015. It was defeated, or unsuccessful.
And it wasn't part of the Championship conditions that year, nor in 2017.
Can the proposers of Motion 1, rather than claim it's established practice, please acknowledge that lifelong eligibility (in the rules) is becoming 'established' by Motion 1.
Isn't this simply the main purpose of Motion 1?
To (i) establish lifelong eligibility, and
(ii) add temporary residence (mostly students) which will also be lifelong.
Why are members not being given the opportunity to refuse these sweeping changes?
The choice is to like it or put up with it - but not to refuse it.
.
"The eligibility rules are largely unchanged from what has been established practice."
(DB, Post #25)
"The rules were examined and confirmed by the majority of the EWP and are generally a continuation of already established procedures. These rules have already been long used in the day to day work of Chess Scotland.
(DB, #39)
"Motion 1 simply enshrines the eligibility rules in the constitution. If the motion fails, the net result is they remain in standing orders, not be withdrawn and re-written."
(AH, #92)
" If its a CS event, like any FIDE event, all processes are adequately written (or should be) . The motions are an attempt as an attempt to clarify and bullet proof those rules and procedures."
(IB, #97)
As you can see this has not been changed - I can make the "here" link in bigger text if you like
(JW, #35)
None of the above statements (bold parts) are true.
Motion 1 introduces a new clause eliminating the distinction between a permanent residency and a temporary residency, eg students
This will be lifelong.
It simply isn't true that this was 'established practice':
These are from two Championship entry forms:
(i) The 2015 Championships entry form: "Titles will only be awarded to those satisfying Scottish nationality who are also members of Chess Scotland; e.g. permanently resident in Scotland for 1 year prior, or have competed in Championship within the past 5 years. The term “permanently resident” does not include university students or other such residence of a transitory nature".
https://www.chessscotland.com/documents/...Champs.pdf
(ii) The 2017 Championships entry form: "Those permanently resident in Scotland for two years immediately preceding the date of the Championship.
Again, there is a clause to exclude students
https://web.archive.org/web/201701150618...les_14.pdf
Note the requirements a) of 'prior' residency in 2015, and
b) for the residency to be 'immediately preceding' the Championship in 2017.
Therefore, the residency from the past did not give eligibility in the future. The conditions tied the residency to the Championship date.
Therefore it wasn't lifelong.
Also, the 'permanently resident' clause in these two championships excluded students.
So that kind of temporary residence didn't even grant Championship entry for one year.
In between those was the new Constitution brought to the 2015 SGM; the eligibility proposals in section 16 contained the proposal that having a SCO code guaranteed eligibility. As SCO codes aren't normally removed, this was a proposal for lifelong e1igibility.
As noted in an earlier post, it was pulled from the proposed constitution because the vote was going badly.
So lifelong eligibility from residence was NOT 'established' in 2015. It was defeated, or unsuccessful.
And it wasn't part of the Championship conditions that year, nor in 2017.
Can the proposers of Motion 1, rather than claim it's established practice, please acknowledge that lifelong eligibility (in the rules) is becoming 'established' by Motion 1.
Isn't this simply the main purpose of Motion 1?
To (i) establish lifelong eligibility, and
(ii) add temporary residence (mostly students) which will also be lifelong.
Why are members not being given the opportunity to refuse these sweeping changes?
The choice is to like it or put up with it - but not to refuse it.
.