Re motion 2. As a member, I don't have a strong view on whether MT should be eligible, except that this should be decided by members and that the information provided should be reasonably fair in order to make the decision informed.
It has been suggested that higher CS management has been pushing for MT to become eligible.
So it's probably worth a quick run-through of the history from that perspective.
There has been a tendency in higher circles to promote Matthew's eligibility as a solution to anomalies; anomalies that somehow keep resulting from the actions of those in the same circles.
(See below) All in all I would have to say it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that higher CS officials have been consistently pushing the idea that MT is, or should be, eligible.
This doesn't make it a bad idea to make him eligible; some have asked why the proposers (or management) have not made a positive case for MT being given eligibility (as opposed to it being the only solution to a series of problems that they have created). This surely wouldn't be hard to do - strengthening the team, getting more press coverage etc. Versus one fewer selection place for Scots, of course.
Why has no-one done so - is it because making the case would make all the pushing that management has done too obvious?
I think the pushing has been very obvious anyway - so go on Jim, Douglas et al, make that case!
WB
Pushing MT eligibility?
1) The original much criticised, 2011 AGM, ad-hoc item voted on - couched as saving a refugee from statelessness, but also (actually, said just before that vote) intending to add a proposal to introduce a new criterion to make Matthew eligible.
It is clear that members were asked to vote on the compassionate grounds of not leaving Matthew stateless.
This is now being presented as the membership granting eligibility.
That's quite a nudge, or nudges.
2) At the 2014 Management board (EDIT - Council) meeting, a quick vote was whipped up to try to introduce a grandparent option, expressly in order to make Matthew eligible.
This may not have been any more competent than the 2011 AOCB vote - would it not be surprising if management were to have the power to change eligibility or representation, as they are themselves, in theory, representatives of the membership? It was defeated.
It is clear from the discussion (link below) that some were most keen to give Matthew eligibility, as opposed to just wanting a grandparent rule.
Not for the first time, it was proposed to change the eligibility rules expressly to make MT eligible.
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...110114.pdf
More than one significant nudge in there?
3) The 2015 eligibility proposals in the proposed new constitution contained two criteria (grandparent, and SCO code giving eligibility), either of which would have made Matthew eligible.
When it clearly wasn't going down well, the idea was given irregular protection - by preventing a losing vote from being completed. The eligibility section was removed from the constitution. The existing criteria, whatever they were, became invisible.
This situation resulted in a chaotic period, with the chaos used to suggest MT was eligible.
These are further significant nudges.
4) Subsequent committees have been selected to examine this issue, and largely comprised people already sharing the view promoted by management (which from the membership standpoint is a big nudge in the direction of the management viewpoint).
There has been secrecy of composition and secrecy conditions imposed on committee members.
The secrecy has led to further anomalies, through the invisibility of the eligibility criteria, and the later retrospective interpretation of the 2016 Muir-Neave motion that explicitly asked to reduce eligibility NOT expand it, but this motion that was later maligned (wrongly, #85-87... #115) never found its way to any updated rule, which led to us to 2019.
As I said, each anomaly somehow created fresh impetus from management to make MT eligible.
(Nudging)
5) There has been unwarranted and aggressive management interference in discussions on the Matthew issue in the forum, including this discussion.
So, a lot of nudging in the politics. Nudging coming to shoving?
It does seem that the management 'nudges' are pushing in the one direction - that of MT eligibility.
Most of these 'nudges' are departures from the normal expectations of duties of an organisation towards its members.
So they could be called shoves.
With so many nudges/shoves, have they formed together into a democracy-shifting force?
WB
It has been suggested that higher CS management has been pushing for MT to become eligible.
So it's probably worth a quick run-through of the history from that perspective.
There has been a tendency in higher circles to promote Matthew's eligibility as a solution to anomalies; anomalies that somehow keep resulting from the actions of those in the same circles.
(See below) All in all I would have to say it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that higher CS officials have been consistently pushing the idea that MT is, or should be, eligible.
This doesn't make it a bad idea to make him eligible; some have asked why the proposers (or management) have not made a positive case for MT being given eligibility (as opposed to it being the only solution to a series of problems that they have created). This surely wouldn't be hard to do - strengthening the team, getting more press coverage etc. Versus one fewer selection place for Scots, of course.
Why has no-one done so - is it because making the case would make all the pushing that management has done too obvious?
I think the pushing has been very obvious anyway - so go on Jim, Douglas et al, make that case!
WB
Pushing MT eligibility?
1) The original much criticised, 2011 AGM, ad-hoc item voted on - couched as saving a refugee from statelessness, but also (actually, said just before that vote) intending to add a proposal to introduce a new criterion to make Matthew eligible.
It is clear that members were asked to vote on the compassionate grounds of not leaving Matthew stateless.
This is now being presented as the membership granting eligibility.
That's quite a nudge, or nudges.
2) At the 2014 Management board (EDIT - Council) meeting, a quick vote was whipped up to try to introduce a grandparent option, expressly in order to make Matthew eligible.
This may not have been any more competent than the 2011 AOCB vote - would it not be surprising if management were to have the power to change eligibility or representation, as they are themselves, in theory, representatives of the membership? It was defeated.
It is clear from the discussion (link below) that some were most keen to give Matthew eligibility, as opposed to just wanting a grandparent rule.
Not for the first time, it was proposed to change the eligibility rules expressly to make MT eligible.
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...110114.pdf
More than one significant nudge in there?
3) The 2015 eligibility proposals in the proposed new constitution contained two criteria (grandparent, and SCO code giving eligibility), either of which would have made Matthew eligible.
When it clearly wasn't going down well, the idea was given irregular protection - by preventing a losing vote from being completed. The eligibility section was removed from the constitution. The existing criteria, whatever they were, became invisible.
This situation resulted in a chaotic period, with the chaos used to suggest MT was eligible.
These are further significant nudges.
4) Subsequent committees have been selected to examine this issue, and largely comprised people already sharing the view promoted by management (which from the membership standpoint is a big nudge in the direction of the management viewpoint).
There has been secrecy of composition and secrecy conditions imposed on committee members.
The secrecy has led to further anomalies, through the invisibility of the eligibility criteria, and the later retrospective interpretation of the 2016 Muir-Neave motion that explicitly asked to reduce eligibility NOT expand it, but this motion that was later maligned (wrongly, #85-87... #115) never found its way to any updated rule, which led to us to 2019.
As I said, each anomaly somehow created fresh impetus from management to make MT eligible.
(Nudging)
5) There has been unwarranted and aggressive management interference in discussions on the Matthew issue in the forum, including this discussion.
So, a lot of nudging in the politics. Nudging coming to shoving?
It does seem that the management 'nudges' are pushing in the one direction - that of MT eligibility.
Most of these 'nudges' are departures from the normal expectations of duties of an organisation towards its members.
So they could be called shoves.
With so many nudges/shoves, have they formed together into a democracy-shifting force?
WB