(05-04-2022, 08:19 AM)Douglas Bryson Wrote: I was chairman of the Eligibility Working Panel (EWP) panel set up to examine CS eligibility rules and to try and find resolution of the difficulties of the 2019 Scottish Championship.
The majority EWP report recommends that Motion 1 is placed in the Constitution. This is our best judgement of a set of Eligibility requirements within the administrative capabilities of CS which provide guidance on what constitutes the rights to win Scottish Championship titles, represent Scotland in international play and to be registered as Scottish with FIDE, the world chess federation.
If the Eligibility section is within the Constitution it will minimise divergence from established rules and the potential problems that may bring. Whether the rules are in the Constitution or not they can still be adjusted in future by members securing the consent of the membership by way of AGM motions - the only difference is a Constitution change will require a 2/3rd vote to secure change rather than a simple 50% majority.
***
With regard to the issue of the FIDE registration of students and other temporary residents mentioned by various posters the majority EWP view was that the stipulation of a minimum period of two years is sufficient. In the allocation of FIDE IDs we simply ask players if they meet at least one of the criteria 1) Born here 2) parent born here 3) Residency of two years - any one of the three is considered sufficient. CS do not seek information on the future work and location choices of players and no record is kept of how any player meets the eligibility requirements. Therefore we do not currently know who are "residency only" players.
If a player has eligibility for more than one federation then they should consider possible future financial penalties before choosing Scotland. If the intention is to move outwith Scotland there will be transfer fee costs if they wish to re-register in the new location. There may also be particular federation registration requirements to play in certain events (in the same way SCO would be a requirement in any closed Scottish Championship). It would not be sensible for a player intending to continue with serious chessplay to register with Scotland if their intention was to leave the country a short time later.
***
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...b_2022.pdf
5. Transfer Fees
If a player wishes to transfer away from Scotland to a different federation, they should be aware that FIDE will impose an administration fee. The current (Jan 2022) minimum fee is 50 euros with significantly higher costs for strong titled players. If a player is eligible for more than one federation, they should consider the potential cost of changing later to a different federation before they request an initial Scotland registration. Players wishing to transfer to Scotland should contact the Chess Scotland International Rating Officer for advice.
6. Temporary residents
The provisions on residency are intended to apply to those who are normally resident in Scotland rather than those who are only here on a temporary basis. In addition to the section on possible fees associated with changing federation it should also be considered that the rules of a domestic competition in a player’s normal country of residence may require a FIDE registration transfer to the home country. So this may create problems for a player if they have already been allocated a SCO registration.
7. Longevity
Once granted the SCO registration remains unless the player wishes to transfer to another federation or commits a serious breach of Chess Scotland rules of conduct.
***
Presumably the concern is that a temporary resident will claim a place in a Scotland international team or contest the Scottish Championship. Just how strong will an 18-20 year-old be if they are applying for an initial FIDE registration? There is no example of any such gaming the system among the 1000+ SCO players currently FIDE registered.
With almost 20% of the Scottish population not born in this country there will be many players who are "resident only" qualifiers for a Scotland badge. For the bulk of players this assists with their ability to play FIDE rated games. For those players strong enough to represent Scotland in Olympiads or contest the Championship should there be restrictions placed on "resident only" Scotland players if they later re-locate to an address outside Scotland?
The majority EWP conclusion was that as far as FIDE is concerned any player holding a SCO registration is considered as Scottish regardless of their geographic location. Any player ruled ineligible from representing Scotland under a CS residency check would be unable to play for any other federation until they had transferred away from Scotland. Should CS place restrictions on players who have already demonstrated a connection to the Scotland chess community now or at some time in the past?
Prior to the 2016 AGM ruling (restricting eligibility to SCO players only) players already FIDE registered with a country other than Scotland were eligible to win the Scottish Championship title if deemed ordinarily resident. Title contenders would be already strong players (in contrast to new fide-registrants) and the rules were required to protect the title against strong players considered as making only a temporary stay.
Players are entitled to transfer to Scotland from other federations provided they meet eligibility requirements and the financial costs of transfer. There have been no examples of players deliberately seeking transfer to use Scotland as a flag of convenience in order to play in international teams or contest the Championship.
The issue of residency was one of the main topics of debate among the EWP https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...Topics.pdf
***
Motion 2: The EWP would like to establish member views on what should be the rights of GM Matthew Turner with regard to his Scotland registration. It is unfortunate that MT is the subject of this debate from a situation which arises outwith his control due to the lack of any documented guidance from officials on how they thought the 2016 "SCO only" rule change was to be interpreted and why it warranted a change in status.
As it now stands the current circumstance is MT has held a Scotland registration for over a decade established by a vote at the 2011 AGM plus a share of the 2019 Championship title. The EWP declined to make any unilateral ruling on future rights and would prefer if members indicated how CS should proceed. Once the vote is concluded it will assist both the player and CS by providing a member-backed ruling on future rights.
Hi Douglas et al
"If the Eligibility section is within the Constitution it will minimise divergence from established rules and the potential problems that may bring. "
As evidenced in Post #118 on Page 12, the various rules referenced in the recent past do not bear a close resemblance to these proposals.
They are not 'established rules'.
Motion 1 introduces a new clause eliminating the distinction between a permanent residency and a temporary residency, eg students.
This will be lifelong.
In Hamish's rather superbly worded long post he says (my emphasis)
" I dislike that motion 1 has been presented as a fait accompli, and that none of the associated documentation highlights that it is making students eligible - even our President was confused. How can ordinary members be expected to notice (especially now this thread has grown so massive)? Why aren't we getting a vote on it?"
Funny HO should say that...the main single reason I resigned late on from the EWP was on the treatment of lifelong eligibility, the trigger being that this new proposal was not going to be highlighted to members.
If it wasn't clear to Hamish, who has taken a keen interest, then it will not be clear to most members.
The decision to separate the purpose of the proposal from what members can easily see has to be considered as deliberate. (I would be delighted for you to refute this notion by highlighting it as Hamish suggests).
This has to be considered in combination with the members not being given a choice in Motion 1 anyway, other than how deeply to embed the removal of their rights.
I'm not so sure that this is reassuring:
"Whether the rules are in the Constitution or not they can still be adjusted in future by members securing the consent of the membership by way of AGM motions - the only difference is a Constitution change will require a 2/3rd vote to secure change rather than a simple 50% majority. "
What AGM is that, Douglas?
If there was an AGM here - as required by the constitution, and pandemic restrictions are being lifted on April 18 - members could have brought other motions that didn't cede so many of their rights away.
In practice, it would be very difficult for membership to 'adjust' these rules in a later vote if it needed a 2/3 majority.
Management (senior officials) have control over timing and can even 'not hold' AGMs when they are due.
Management also have power to refuse motions (see section 14.2 of the constitution).
Even with these potential hurdles overcome, a 2/3 majority would be difficult to get (plenty of 'management' votes to overcome as well) and would require an extremely focussed discussion (due to eg a 50-50 split among those not paying close attention). Members do not have the control of central resources to look after the proprieties of the discussion.
One thing I would say is vitally important is board moderation that is independent of management. That's not easy to get, though it's not inconceivable.
Cheers.