26-08-2013, 10:28 PM
I like idea of abolishing proxies. To be perfectly honest when I saw 146 proxies I was a bit shocked and pretty much came to conclusion that turning up was pointless as matters were already decided.
Online voting also works. However I will add that unless before the AGM the members are actually well informed it will inevitably end up reverting to status quo where marketing campaigns dominate as asking someone to vote for a specific candidate/motion online is just as easy as asking for a proxy. Voting is completely meaningless unless the electorate can firstly make an informed choice that means knowing what their vote stands for and what consequences of it will be. Secondly they need to be presented with options that are sufficiently different that they can be distinguished rather than both sides reaching for middle ground as you see in national politics.
As far as proxies goes my initial thoughts were that a proxy was for someone who genuinely intended to go but couldn't make it this year. My solution to that was to say that a member of chess scotland can give their proxy to another member attending AGM provided they attended one of the previous two AGMs. This would indicate that person has a track record of having an interest in chess and normally goes to AGM.
I'm unsure how AGMs are run by chess scotland although I assumed there was following format. Firstly the elected official gives a brief report detailing how their respective role has been carried out this year. They may not go into detail but at least give a brief overview so attendees are informed on subject. They then explain how they intend to run it next year and can either advocate status quo or alternatively give suggestions while being willing to accept suggestions from the floor. I personally find this method a lot easier since it gives a clear sense of direction and means that regardless of result office bearer carries a mandate that means all the responsibility isn't heaped onto one person's shoulders but is shared between everyone in organisation.
Online voting also works. However I will add that unless before the AGM the members are actually well informed it will inevitably end up reverting to status quo where marketing campaigns dominate as asking someone to vote for a specific candidate/motion online is just as easy as asking for a proxy. Voting is completely meaningless unless the electorate can firstly make an informed choice that means knowing what their vote stands for and what consequences of it will be. Secondly they need to be presented with options that are sufficiently different that they can be distinguished rather than both sides reaching for middle ground as you see in national politics.
As far as proxies goes my initial thoughts were that a proxy was for someone who genuinely intended to go but couldn't make it this year. My solution to that was to say that a member of chess scotland can give their proxy to another member attending AGM provided they attended one of the previous two AGMs. This would indicate that person has a track record of having an interest in chess and normally goes to AGM.
I'm unsure how AGMs are run by chess scotland although I assumed there was following format. Firstly the elected official gives a brief report detailing how their respective role has been carried out this year. They may not go into detail but at least give a brief overview so attendees are informed on subject. They then explain how they intend to run it next year and can either advocate status quo or alternatively give suggestions while being willing to accept suggestions from the floor. I personally find this method a lot easier since it gives a clear sense of direction and means that regardless of result office bearer carries a mandate that means all the responsibility isn't heaped onto one person's shoulders but is shared between everyone in organisation.