New constitution

[Andy McCulloch]

Jacqui, since none of the Thomas family, and precious few, if any, of those connected with SJC, are CS members, what concern of yours is the CS constitution?

[Phil Thomas]

Jacqui, since none of the Thomas family, and precious few, if any, of those connected with SJC, are CS members, what concern of yours is the CS constitution?

Apart from Jacqui's right to free speech, and her extensive and continuing role in junior chess.

Jacqui has the option to rejoin CS in the future if she wishes to do so. The last time Jacqui attempted to join her and my PayPal payment were reject by the current president. I have ceased waiting for an explanation of WHY the current president wished to reject my membership.

One good point within the proposed constitution is that in future a reason for rejecting membership would have to be given.

[Derek Howie]

Only the Glorney and Gilbert events are FIDE rated, the other Junior events, quadrangular etc, are graded domestically.

But the proposals state that you have to be FIDE registered before you are eligible for selection, which most juniors will not be. Surely where it is graded is irrelevant?

[Derek Howie]

During the pre-amble to that vote, each Section will be briefly discussed and any proposed changes voted on. Such proposed change(s) to a Section need to be formally proposed and seconded, as required under the current Constitution. Any proposed amendments should be sent in writing (email) to both Andy Howie AND Jim Webster by 9 pm on Monday 6th July

Anyone who cannot attend, may nominate a proxy by notifying the Executive Director by 7th July, 2015

So proxies have to be notified in under 156 hours but the amendments proposed have not been published, so it is severely limiting the time that those unable to attend the meeting have to review the changes and register their proxies.

This appears to disenfranchise those who are unable to attend because they work 9-5, or are on holiday or can't attend for other reasons.

[George Murphy]

[Preamble: Yesterday was very busy for me - a funeral and other time-sensitive issues. So, I had no time to revert to this thread.]

CWP (Jim W)

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. The Minutes and Motions of the AGM 2013 are much more complex than you present. No wonder I couldn’t find the origins of the CWP. The”motion” to which you refer was a composite one and it appears the Working Party was supposed to report to Council within a year. I’m not going to go into the history of all this and the various elements that were to be addressed. The key point is that you (on behalf of the CWP) oversimplified the position. That’s presentation, which is what I highlighted in the first place.

The Notice to members about the SGM published on 24 June 2015 states: “The motion to be considered from the Constitution Working Party is as follows:” etc.etc. You say: “The CWP is not presenting its case to the SGM.” But that’s what the Notice said. You can hardly expect ordinary CS members to share your mastery of the nuances. Again, you say that “The Constitution 2015 was presented to Council, by the CWP, on Saturday 30th May etc.etc.” I think you mean the “draft” Constitution 2015, don’t you? Ordinarily, CS members are allowed to attend meetings of Council as observers, but for some reason not on 30th May. Doubtless, there was a sound reason for this exclusivity. But, you (on behalf of the CWP) can hardly blame ordinary members for being curious.

The point about proxy votes is precisely as you repeat: the draft Constitution does not resolve the difficult problem about preventing representatives turning up at a general meeting with control of multiple proxies. That would be unlawful under electoral law. But, the Statement by CWP published on 30 June contents itself with this blandishment: “…Chess Scotland encourages all members to exercise their right to vote wherever possible. Chess Scotland does not support active, external, solicitation to influence members to support a personal view. We would therefore recommend that members ignore pleas or solicitations from external sources.” Sorry, but that’s idealistic pie in the sky that seeks to dissuade members from campaigning! To quote John McEnroe - “You cannot be serious!” It’s no less legitimate to campaign under the existing and proposed Constitutions.

As for my conundrum about which way to cast my proxy vote, I thought you presented good advice the other day when you suggested that members narrow their opposition to just one section rather than vote against the draft as a whole. But, now I see from Derek Howie’s post this morning that I am too late to do that as first I would have had to introduce an actual amendment. So, if I am to vote by proxy I will need to vote against the entire draft Constitution. Sounds as if the CWP has shot itself in the foot through lack of foresight.

That foresight brings me back to the brief period of notice given to members (three weeks). What I am referring to is not the “30 days” restriction imposed by a “jackboot” Constitution but preparing opinion in advance of bringing the “reforms” to a general meeting for decision. The CWP seems to have been altogether too paternalistic in its methodology: Trust us.

That word “trust” brings me, too, the “nuts and bolts” Operational Procedures. The allusion to the Standards Committee shows that some thought has been given to this question. But, it’s not just about dotting I’s and crossing t’s: it’s about what the members need to see in the context of job descriptions. Some Directors seem to think that they are appointed/elected “to direct”. It’s how they interpret this concept that concerns members. The issue does not, I think, affect many Directors thank goodness. But some - perhaps associated with the disbursement of funds in relation to selection - seem to think they can do what they please. That is intolerably arrogant. The Executive Committee must be in overall control to ensure fair play. It’s that kind of insight that members would like to see.

What does an “enabling“ Constitution do? Is there a model we can see to give us an appreciation or - as the BBC would have it - a sense? Has the CWP done enough to sell its product/package of reforms?

Regardless of the outcome, the CWP is to be commended for all its efforts on CS members’ behalf.

George

[Patrick McGovern]

"sigh" this issue of non-members trying to influence CS policy and procedure will only end when we only allow CS members to comment on such policies and procedures. There is an element in scottish chess that seek to make mischief and will not desist until they have their way.
Like Jim the following is how I feel too. :bash:

[Mike Scott]

I do find it interesting to see the argument that since actions by CS affect u16 juniors they should have a vote being put forward. I appreciate that this is a valid position to take but I would ask those that support that view whether they would have supported giving the vote to u16 in the Scottish independence vote, in the recent general election, or the Greek referendum?

Is the argument about what the age limit is (18, 16, 14 ..., 2) or do those that object to the u16 limit suggest that no limit should apply and that a 6 month old has the capacity to make a reasoned decision?

Clearly not you shout - the point being that guardian gets their vote and votes on their behalf. However one is not then getting the view of a junior being expressed rather the view of an adult regarding the issue affecting the junior. If that guardian felt strongly on the matter they could join CS in their own right and cast a vote and thus they are not excluded from having their say and so having a age limit is not undemocratic.

I would suggest that it is undemocratic for someone to have two votes simply because they have a child.

I stopped attending AGMs because the use of block votes made up of harvested junior proxies made debate and voting somewhat irrelevant. I am not suggesting that all such junior proxies were blindly given, but most I suspect will be.

[andyburnett]

I don't have a problem with 'non-CS members' contributing to debates on this forum, but it would be helpful if there was an easy way to recognise if people are members or not. Andy Burnett (CS) or JacquiThomas (x) (just an example).

The issue of u-16's voting rights is a tricky one. In an ideal world all members would have voting rights, but parents using their child's vote on non-junior matters isn't one I'm comfortable with. Personally I think u-12 would be more reasonable, but I can understand why u-16 was chosen.

[mclarke]

Hi Mike,

I think for me the difference between elections and CS is that membership fees have been paid on behalf of the child (or indeed anyone) to be a member of Chess Scotland - and that they are entitled to be represented on issues that affect them. CS is the successor to both the SCA and the SJCA and to me, it really should keep to the spirit of representing both parts of the membership.

I am sympathetic to your point about multiple votes and junior proxy harvesting. However, membership fees have been paid on behalf of those juniors to become a member of CS. Perhaps it'd be better if it was explicit that junior votes could only be used on junior matters? (junior votes for junior issues anyone?) (Andy, would this address your concern?) - although, we're probably too late now to get an amendment.

Re: age, I agree with the current constitutions reasoning. U12s should be proxied to guardians/parents >U12 they can do it themselves. As to a lower limit, off the cuff I'd say 5 and able to play the game.

In our case I'm not a member and Aiden (a junior) is. Many juniors fall into this category. Under the proposed constitution, the parent/guardian have to pay again to ensure that their child's view was being represented on junior matters - when they don't care two hoots about the rest. This to me seems a bit unfair.

PS Mike, I played as a junior, and I help with coaching at St Peters - I'm happy to help with LJC events if you need it.

[Derek Howie]

and precious few, if any, of those connected with SJC, are CS members,

That would be excluding the 4 on CS Council, of course?

(Not even sure why SJC are being mentioned).