Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[Andy Howie]

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 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

Wow

I promised myself I would not get embroiled in this but after reading the most recent post,  I don't think I have ever seen so much bovine excrement hashed together to form coherent sentences.

So lets deal with some facts instead of some fiction.  

2014 I am curious about the management board meeting as they did not start until Jim took over in 2015...  If you are privy to one I was not at I am glad to be corrected.

On point 3.  A constitutional review started in 2013 the members were Ian Brownlee, Hamish Glen, myself, Gerald Lobley, Jim Webster and Alastair White.  The moderators were Steve Mannion Snr, Alex McFarlane, Mike Mitchell.   Knowing and having worked with the non CS board members (Jim was not a board member at the time), I can say with complete confidence that none of them would be swayed by anything Hamish or I tried to push that they thought was wrong.

From the Minutes of the acutal SGM....

11) Eligibility The whole question of the rules to determine eligibility to play for Scotland had provoked widespread discussion over many years. Walter Buchanan’s recent input as recorded on the discussion forum is attached as Appendix B. Derek Howie’s is attached as Appendix C. A number of points were noted during discussion of the two proposals in the Appendices:- • The criteria proposed by the Scottish Government for regulating Scottish nationality (in the event of that issue arising in the future). • The unreliability of the FIDE code “SCO” both in relation its initial allocation and its ongoing relevance where a player who had been SCO registered based on residence later emigrated. • The need to comply with FIDE regulations when participating in their events. The merits of the two amending motions were considered against each other and the Meeting agreed unanimously that the Derek Howie suggestion should fall in favour of the Walter Buchanan suggestion. Jim Webster proposed and Robin Templeton seconded that rather than trying to resolve the issue at the Meeting under minute, Section 16 should be removed from the PNC and addressed in the context of the Operating Procedures for the Selection Boards. The deletion of Section 16, was carried unanimously. 

Now what I didn't reveal at the time as it would have been improper to do so, if you recall quite a lot of people had sent me instruction on how they wanted to vote (which led to the amusing situation of me voting for and against a motion).  Had this gone to a vote, then the original section would have in all likelihood passed.  If I had been trying to push this on behalf of the Management board, why would I have not pushed for the vote instead of listening to what the members of the meeting were saying and agreeing further consultation was needed on it?  Again, Neither Jim nor Robin were part of the management structure so why would pushing it into SOP's be protecting it given it still has to be voted on.... (you will also recall, I pulled the chair back at one point as they had not voted on a section, I knew that section was going to fail based on the votes that had already been cast for it).


4)  I seem to recall you were on one of the committees that looked at this.  I don't believe you are swayed by Management view point.  I don't think you get why we have these types of committee.  They are not echo chambers of any of our thoughts, they are independent for a reason.  If we wanted to do something, we can just do it but we don't work that way.

Now to touch on the invisibility of the criteria.  The website was updated and it broke several links (including this one).  We were unaware of this.  This has been mentioned many times before.  There is no deliberate attempt at anything here and once we were made aware it was not showing, I went in and fixed it.  There are many pages on the Chess Scotland Website and it is impossible for me to know after an update to the site if something has gone missing.  I do rely on people spotting it and telling me.  As for secrecy?  Hardly!  Jim publishes the minutes of our meetings, on occasions we discuss something sensitive and that is not minuted but I can count on 1 hand the number of times that has happened.

On 5, there has been some comments made by people that have been a bit excessive and I fully understand the reaction of some of my colleagues to them.

Why are you constantly asking Jim to make a case??  He did not write this motion nor Propose / Second it.  I fail to see the logic of asking someone who has neither been involved with, authored nor proposed / seconded a motion to make a case for it?

Speaking from my own personal view (and I highlight personal, ie not one as part of the exec board).  We created an anomaly in 2011 and have tried to fix the anomaly (unsuccessfully so far, if you recall we tried to bring in a special category of membership with no eligibility rights and that was rejected...).  I think after 11 years we really need to sort it out and I am grateful that the EWP came to the conclusions they did.  I find it curious that Scotland stands alone in that it is the only Federation worldwide where we have someone registered and they cannot represent their country (with the exception of sanctioned players).  I didn't consider what Alex McFarlane posted earlier about discrimination, but he it totally right on that point.   Given Scotland as a whole is seen as a progressive, welcoming and multinational country, I can't quite fathom why within the chess community there is this almost bordering on xenophobia when it comes to eligibility.  It is strange as this is not the chess community I recognise when I am arbiting at events and there is something about Eligibility that seems to bring out the worst in people  Of course what Alex has missed is it is also a prima facie breach of Article 6 of the FIDE Ethics code.  I think that in itself is motivation for the motion to pass.


Walter, I think what you forget is the Exec Board / Management Board could have just introduced this change without consultation.  I have not asked but I don't think we have complete consensus across the management board on this issue, the motion has not come from Management Board, it has come from the EWP (which you were part of initially) along with Douglas Bryson, Gerald Lobley, Alastair White and Alex McFarlane.  That's 4 names there that I can be totally confident that will reach the correct decision (and not necessarily one Jim or I agree with) and ignore any perceived management meddling. 

I hope this clarifies some of  you have written above.  There is not some secret squirrel society that is running Chess Scotland.  It is a group of dedicated volunteers who's only interest is the good governance and promotion of Chess in Scotland.  None of us are paid for this, it is all done voluntary so there is no fiscal motivation for us to do what we do and I find your comments above deeply insulting to all members and previous members of the board during the period.  When I think of people like Ken Stewart and Mac MacKenzie to name but two being part of some grand conspiracy, the argument fails spectacularly. 

If you still stand by what you are saying, you have a path to remedy.  Firstly you can raise a case with the Standards Committee in Scotland (that would be step 1) and if that fails, given this is the Governing Body you are accusing of maleficence you can raise a case with the Ethics Commission of FIDE.  If you are going down that route, I highly recommend step 1 first as it will be the first thing that Ethics will ask.

Walter, all this is politics. Having stood in several elections inside and outside chess, this cloak and dagger stuff is normal practice in Scotland.
I await clarification of MT eligibility and dates of AGM.
OTB chess is starting to return e.g Hamilton Open and I can't wait to play regularly again.

Andy, 

This is nothing like politics.  Dip your toe in the FIDE/ECU pond and that is politics!  There is no cloak and dagger stuff going on except in the minds of individuals who do not have the complete facts of the matter, we have neither the time nor the energy for such nonsense. If you want to see real politics, have a look at what PNG are trying to bring in again.  I have dusted off my speech I was going to use at the last GA until Arkady intervened and instructed everyone to vote against the motion and will update ready to eviscerate them at the next one if they try again.

Like you I am looking forward to the restart of OTB but if cases keep rising, I fear it is going to be a short period so I would get as much in as I can!