26-08-2013, 02:53 PM
I have already written to those who entrusted me with their proxy votes detailing the main outcomes and have no difficulty following David D’s example of revealing my actions. First, the votes were solicited from known contacts (so no general mailshot) with about 40% agreeing. No juniors or their parents/guardians were approached. Second, I wrote that the intention was to gain support for Motion 2.4 and also support of the motions submitted by Sean Milton. Third, I thought these objectives were best achieved by re-election of the current President. It goes without saying if someone had replied they would support my motion but wished to vote for Steve H then I would have split the votes accordingly, as others did at the meeting. Fourth, I also wanted to support the new candidates for the junior Director positions and the Marketing Director. Fifth, and importantly, I was entrusted with a ‘carte blanche’ by everyone who replied.
In practice, I only used the proxy for the Presidential election and support of motions 2.4 and 2.5 – most of the other votes were clearly overwhelming and there was no need for proxies to be used.
For the Andy M vote I did not use the proxies (as I felt these were outwith the remit I outlined when asking for the proxies). I did cast my personal vote against Andy on the initial ID candidature as I felt a number of his blogs had propagated incorrect information and were worded in an inflammatory manner. As we have seen within this set of postings it is not just what you say but how you say it (or how it is perceived to have been said) that can make all the difference. Such actions help fuel the flames of discord with CS. When he was proposed again and without any other candidate standing I decided to abstain. If my recollection is correct the votes of those present favoured Andy by just 1, so if I had stayed with my original vote there would have been a tie and in fact he would have been elected based on the proxy votes! So proxies can work in various ways. Let me add that I was pleased to see some of the comments Andy has written since and hope that he can remain true to his promise as this will benefit CS in many ways.
We do need a separate and logical discussion on the proxy situation. There is not a perfect solution, if there were then it would already be adopted universally. Let me make a couple of points. The suggestion has been made to limit the number of proxies based on geography. While I understand the concept, it presupposes that the AGM (or any other similar meeting) will be held a long way from Aberdeen (and places even further north). The organisation name is Chess Scotland – not Chess Central Belt! I spent 4 hours travelling each way to reach the meeting and donated £72 to Scotrail for the privilege. Now reverse the argument and ask how many of you would have come to Aberdeen for the AGM? If you reply ‘all of you’ then that is next year’s venue fixed! Only Sean and his family plus myself made the trek as there were specific issues we wanted to raise or support. So if we carry just a few votes each then you effectively disenfranchise other members from the north and north-east of Scotland. That is both unethical and unconstitutional. So that is not a real solution, although I do understand the reasoning. That is why we need a considered debate on the options – just remember none will be ideal so limitations in any method will have to be accepted.
Finally, while on the point of regionalisation did any of the elections lead to anyone north of Dundee being on Council? OK, Sean, Carl or myself could have proposed a candidate for the individual positions but I sat there thinking surely someone will consider whether the whole of Scotland is included. Nae chance, as this tcheuchter Sassenach has learned to say. Perhaps something also for the Constitutional review to consider?
In practice, I only used the proxy for the Presidential election and support of motions 2.4 and 2.5 – most of the other votes were clearly overwhelming and there was no need for proxies to be used.
For the Andy M vote I did not use the proxies (as I felt these were outwith the remit I outlined when asking for the proxies). I did cast my personal vote against Andy on the initial ID candidature as I felt a number of his blogs had propagated incorrect information and were worded in an inflammatory manner. As we have seen within this set of postings it is not just what you say but how you say it (or how it is perceived to have been said) that can make all the difference. Such actions help fuel the flames of discord with CS. When he was proposed again and without any other candidate standing I decided to abstain. If my recollection is correct the votes of those present favoured Andy by just 1, so if I had stayed with my original vote there would have been a tie and in fact he would have been elected based on the proxy votes! So proxies can work in various ways. Let me add that I was pleased to see some of the comments Andy has written since and hope that he can remain true to his promise as this will benefit CS in many ways.
We do need a separate and logical discussion on the proxy situation. There is not a perfect solution, if there were then it would already be adopted universally. Let me make a couple of points. The suggestion has been made to limit the number of proxies based on geography. While I understand the concept, it presupposes that the AGM (or any other similar meeting) will be held a long way from Aberdeen (and places even further north). The organisation name is Chess Scotland – not Chess Central Belt! I spent 4 hours travelling each way to reach the meeting and donated £72 to Scotrail for the privilege. Now reverse the argument and ask how many of you would have come to Aberdeen for the AGM? If you reply ‘all of you’ then that is next year’s venue fixed! Only Sean and his family plus myself made the trek as there were specific issues we wanted to raise or support. So if we carry just a few votes each then you effectively disenfranchise other members from the north and north-east of Scotland. That is both unethical and unconstitutional. So that is not a real solution, although I do understand the reasoning. That is why we need a considered debate on the options – just remember none will be ideal so limitations in any method will have to be accepted.
Finally, while on the point of regionalisation did any of the elections lead to anyone north of Dundee being on Council? OK, Sean, Carl or myself could have proposed a candidate for the individual positions but I sat there thinking surely someone will consider whether the whole of Scotland is included. Nae chance, as this tcheuchter Sassenach has learned to say. Perhaps something also for the Constitutional review to consider?