10-04-2022, 10:52 AM
Are we going to get a clarification on David and Jim's posts? It seems rather an important point. Or are we going to be discussing Matthew's eligibility again sometime in the future when someone successfully challenges the constitutionality of the votes?
I don't think that's fair on anyone, particularly Matthew who has done nothing to deserve stretching out an already 11 year spell in limbo (quite the opposite). Sorry Willie you will be reading me and Walter's posts on 2016 motions again in 2024 (they're really not that long
)
David and Walter's logic on this seems completely correct to me - if you followed Jim's logic there would be no need to hold a vote at all, you could change the constitution by any mechanism you liked, without even a vote. Clearly there is no way this is a reasonable interpretation of the constitution, and therefore the only valid ways to amend it are AGMs and SGMs.
I suggest Chess Scotland consider withdrawing the motions, apologising for getting the interpretation of the constitution wrong, and then consulting much more widely on these proposals .
Mistakes happen, everyone involved is a volunteer who I am grateful to for the work they have selflessly put in for chess in Scotland and I have great respect for them all.
After the consultation (perhaps in a month or two from now), an improved motion could be put to the membership at an online AGM/SGM. If there are technical challenges that seem prohibitive then I'm sure there are people within the membership with experience at hosting large video calls who can help - this happens every day in every company these days.
Consulting widely will allow all these objections to be sorted out, and for consensus to be built.
There are much neater ways to propose Matthew's eligibility without singling him out as a special case.
Ironically, if people believe Matthew should be eligible then I think the neatest solution would be to propose the version of the motion that Alex McFarlane was told had been passed at the 2016 AGM (and that may have been for all we know):
No special cases, no singling out one individual, no embedding a rule in the constitution then immediately proposing another rule for one individual that contradicts that constitution!
The alternative option which members should be able to choose instead would be the status quo, which would mean CS publicly clarifying the final wording of the 2016 motion and a brief statement explaining what all the current (pre-motion 1) criteria are.
The consultation could come up with other suggestions that may be better than my proposal above but I think this is clearly already a big improvement that deals with a lot of the objections that have come up in this forum, and gives the membership a genuine choice.
After the consultation we would then need to have an AGM or SGM - clearly the constitution has no other mechanisms for changing it.
Potentially an amendment to the constitution could be made at the AGM/SGM to allow online standalone votes like this. I would only vote for this if it included a public consultation mechanism that had to be followed, so that there would be the same level of debate and discussion (and possibility for amendments or even new motions from the floor) as at an AGM.
I don't think that's fair on anyone, particularly Matthew who has done nothing to deserve stretching out an already 11 year spell in limbo (quite the opposite). Sorry Willie you will be reading me and Walter's posts on 2016 motions again in 2024 (they're really not that long
)David and Walter's logic on this seems completely correct to me - if you followed Jim's logic there would be no need to hold a vote at all, you could change the constitution by any mechanism you liked, without even a vote. Clearly there is no way this is a reasonable interpretation of the constitution, and therefore the only valid ways to amend it are AGMs and SGMs.
I suggest Chess Scotland consider withdrawing the motions, apologising for getting the interpretation of the constitution wrong, and then consulting much more widely on these proposals .
Mistakes happen, everyone involved is a volunteer who I am grateful to for the work they have selflessly put in for chess in Scotland and I have great respect for them all.
After the consultation (perhaps in a month or two from now), an improved motion could be put to the membership at an online AGM/SGM. If there are technical challenges that seem prohibitive then I'm sure there are people within the membership with experience at hosting large video calls who can help - this happens every day in every company these days.
Consulting widely will allow all these objections to be sorted out, and for consensus to be built.
There are much neater ways to propose Matthew's eligibility without singling him out as a special case.
Ironically, if people believe Matthew should be eligible then I think the neatest solution would be to propose the version of the motion that Alex McFarlane was told had been passed at the 2016 AGM (and that may have been for all we know):
- Rule that everyone with SCO code is eligible and don't have any other eligibility criteria whatsoever.
- Rule that everyone who currently has SCO code already keeps it and is now eligible for as long as they don't change federations.
- Establish a set of criteria that must be followed for future SCO code registrations with no exceptions other than those who already have SCO.
No special cases, no singling out one individual, no embedding a rule in the constitution then immediately proposing another rule for one individual that contradicts that constitution!
The alternative option which members should be able to choose instead would be the status quo, which would mean CS publicly clarifying the final wording of the 2016 motion and a brief statement explaining what all the current (pre-motion 1) criteria are.
The consultation could come up with other suggestions that may be better than my proposal above but I think this is clearly already a big improvement that deals with a lot of the objections that have come up in this forum, and gives the membership a genuine choice.
After the consultation we would then need to have an AGM or SGM - clearly the constitution has no other mechanisms for changing it.
Potentially an amendment to the constitution could be made at the AGM/SGM to allow online standalone votes like this. I would only vote for this if it included a public consultation mechanism that had to be followed, so that there would be the same level of debate and discussion (and possibility for amendments or even new motions from the floor) as at an AGM.