Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[andybburnett]

Willie Rutherford said
If/when motion 2 is defeated that should be the "MT question" laid to rest once and for all. No need to speak of past motions/meeting/discussions on this every again!
If/when motion 1 is defeated, I think it would be really quite wrong for CS to go ahead with the proposed eligibility criteria change without a proper open and objective consultation with, and voting by, the members.

What happens :-
If/when motion 2 is passed – it should equally be the case that the “MT question” also be laid once and for all.
If/when motion 1 is passed – it should equally be quite right for CS to thereby implement the Constitution change.


I firmly believe that it is the members who make the decision by voting.  
Whilst the few, and it is a few, who post on the Forum the rest of the Membership does have actually have a voice.

The forum has an available readership of 203 recorded members, 20 of whom took part on the Eligibility thread. Of these 20 posters, 92 posts out of 169 were by 4 members.  This does not actually reflect the real view of the membership mass, rather a highly vocal few. Incidentally CS has a membership of 527, which also means the 324 members do not even wish to participate in the Forum. Hardly a truly representation of CS membership and participation on the Forum.

You say "highly vocal few" as though that were a bad thing, Jim! Almost every point raised here by the "highly vocal few" has been worthy of discussion - even those I disagree with. If the general CS membership is so disinterested then perhaps we should take the vote away from them  I'll actually be interested to see what the uptake on voting is - have we ever held one before?