New constitution

[StevieHilton]

Sorry Steve, I am not being pedantic here or trying to have a pop at you, but that is simply not what your words said.

Of course you have the right to voice your opinion and state your views - I would hope nobody thinks otherwise - but what you actually said is offensive.

'I am sure these changes are not intended to discourage dissent from the membership, but I fear they may have that effect'. If this is what you really mean, then fine, that's something worthy of discussion

Andy,
We are not going to agree on this,but I concede that your choice of words is better than mine
I am sorry that you think that my choice of words is offensive, but I do not think that they are.
I agree with you that the effects of the proposed changes are worthy of a deep and meaningful discussion

[Andy Howie]

Prediction in 2016 approximately zero percent will be be due for re-election. In 2017 approximately 100%
It is the function of the constitution to state the length of time appointments last for. Speculating on the percentage changeover per year should not be included.

No as half the directorships will be for one year this year and then they will be up for reelection next year for a 2 year period.

[Phil Thomas]

Prediction in 2016 approximately zero percent will be be due for re-election. In 2017 approximately 100%
It is the function of the constitution to state the length of time appointments last for. Speculating on the percentage changeover per year should not be included.

No as half the directorships will be for one year this year and then they will be up for reelection next year for a 2 year period.

Is that not contrary to the proposed constitution?

If this goes ahead should you not announce before the meeting on July 14th which half will be one year appointments ?

[mclarke]

The second item (1.1.1) of the constitution states:- Chess Scotland is the successor in interest of the Scottish Chess Association (founded 1884) and the Scottish Junior Chess Association (founded 1967).

I think it is important to remember that CS is the successor to two organisations - the SCA and the SJCA - one containing predominantly adults, and one containing juniors. As I understand it, at the time of the merger it was agreed all members (or their guardians by proxy) would have a vote and they've had that up until now.

Could someone who supports the proposed constitution help me understand the rationale behind removing the right to vote for juniors?

Many thanks,
Martin

[andyburnett]

Hi Martin,

I don't know the actual reason behind this change, but I can see a simple 'arithmetical' problem...

SCA = 1 adult vote SJCA= 1 junior (or guardian/proxy) vote

CS = 1 adult+1 junior (or guardian by proxy) vote on 'adult' matters AND 1 adult+ 1 junior(or guardian by proxy) vote on 'junior' matters.

No idea if it worked/works this way, but sounds plausible and not obviously a good state of affairs?!

[John Dempsey]

I wanted to stay out of this discussion completely. I am no longer a CS member, I no longer live in Scotland, and chess politics bores me these days. Yet, I still take a passing interest in what is happening. And, up until a few hours ago, that was the extent of it. However, I am also active on facebook, and as such I got a message on my newsfeed from someone who is very active in Junior Chess in Scotland and who has gone public to a far wider audience than the CS membership with his views on the new constitution as it pertains to Junior chess.

I would have no issue with this, if, the same views were expressed to the CS membership directly and so give a right of reply. I would ask that what was put on facebook today be published on this noticeboard as It does, after all, begin, " To all Chess Scotland Members" yet there will be many who are CS members who will not see this on facebook.

With regard to the proposed constitutional changes, that is for the CS membership to decide, not I, nor the world at large.

[Phil Thomas]

Hi Martin,

I don't know the actual reason behind this change, but I can see a simple 'arithmetical' problem...

SCA = 1 adult vote SJCA= 1 junior (or guardian/proxy) vote

CS = 1 adult+1 junior (or guardian by proxy) vote on 'adult' matters AND 1 adult+ 1 junior(or guardian by proxy) vote on 'junior' matters.

No idea if it worked/works this way, but sounds plausible and not obviously a good state of affairs?!

Andy,
its much simpler than that

Under the proposed constitution votes held by juniors under 16 will disappear.
This is my opinion makes the proposed constitution less democratic.
I find it hard to see how any other conclusion can be reached

As the USA expressed it in July 1776 - no taxation without representation.

Perhaps you are worried about parents of juniors expressing their views on adult chess ?

Please think about that large body of people who are parents of junior members.
Most are not chess players, most don't want to be chess players.

Between them they have a massive amount of experience, and skill sets. Chances are are some of them have contacts with potential sponsors. Chances are some of them are natural organisers with an interest in helping out. Many will have seen how other youth organisations operate. Many will already have PVG disclosure and be able to help by being experienced chaperones.

By taking away the voting rights of juniors and their parents CS turns its back on this ever changing pool of talent and financial clout and PVG disclosed adults.

Are things so healthy financially and administration wise that CS can afford to do so?

[Matthew Turner]

6 pages of discussion on the new constitution, but not a word on the Glorney and Faber Cups due to start in three weeks. I find it all a bit depressing.

[Alan Jelfs]

To Phil,
A voting age of 16 is all the rage at the moment.
(I don't recall many under-16s at last year's AGM).
No-one is stopping parents of junior chess players from joining Chess Scotland and exercising their votes.

As Ian mentioned, in regards to competitive junior swimming, it is the parents who are the members of the swimming clubs and they are unlikely themselves to be competitive swimmers (who seem to be 'past it' by their mid-20s).

[Phil Thomas]

To Phil,
A voting age of 16 is all the rage at the moment.
(I don't recall many under-16s at last year's AGM).
No-one is stopping parents of junior chess players from joining Chess Scotland and exercising their votes.

As Ian mentioned, in regards to competitive junior swimming, it is the parents who are the members of the swimming clubs and they are unlikely themselves to be competitive swimmers (who seem to be 'past it' by their mid-20s).

Alan,
I agree that voting age of 16 is all the rage at the moment. But this is a reduction from 18 and is justified I believe as a means to more people involved in the political process.

Lack of turnout is not reason for abolishing the vote.
If I read the Google output correctly turnout in Westminster by-elections has fallen below 25%
Imagine the outcry if by elections were abolished because turnout is so low.

Someone is stopping parents joining up and voting - - -if they don't do so less than 14 days before the meeting. I still see no viable justification for that 14 day rule.