Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[Andy Howie]

Ironically, those same thoughts about not really reflecting the real view of the membership mass is something I think of the AGM in its old state. It is not right that to "care" about Scottish Chess you need to be able to find your way to a hotel in Glasgow on one lunchtime of the year. There are lots of logistical reasons why people can't go (think 6hr round trips, travel costs, childcare, etc), and OK, historically there was no way round this, but one thing to come out of the pandemic has been the realisation that hybrid in person/zoom/teams meetings do work and I think would get much better engagement and discussion. The point around some people not being computer literate is fair, but hybrid seems almost a no brainer to give people both options. One of the key votes around eligibility was passed 16 to 14 at an AGM. Isn't that also a highly vocal minority? And that is not to criticise best efforts of the past, but I think does show the dangers of adopting significant motions that have limited scrutiny.

Funny you should say that Adam, it is something Jim and I have been discussing very recently around how we can safely have an AGM as well as potentially increasing the number of people who participate. When you consider the distances people have to travel, it is easy to understand why so few attend and was one of the reasons we switched from proxy voting to online voting a few years ago to increase the number of people engaging. I personally am very much for hybrid / Online meetings and one of the benefits is being able to record the meeting to allow those not present, the chance to watch it at a later date. We do have to do a bit more research on it (things like how do we record votes, etc) but I am hopeful this is a methodology we can use going forward if there is a desire to do so.