New constitution

[StevieHilton]

Jim,
A most interesting read.
I ask again about the job descriptions and remits for the new structure. Surely information on this is necessary in order to make an informed decision on the document as a whole?

I also oppose the withdrawl of voting rights for those under 16. The argument that kids should not be allowed to vote on adult matters can be countered by Should adults be allowed to vote on matters affecting Juniors?

[Jim Webster]

Steve

I ask again about the job descriptions and remits for the new structure. Surely information on this is necessary in order to make an informed decision on the document as a whole?

Job Description/Remits
- under the current constitution there is no requirement for job descriptions and very few, actually exist and none that can be formally found on the website. Nor does the current constitution mandate such.

So to counter your argument - where was this information when the current constitution was voted on and if it is such a key requirement where is it from the past and why never identified before?

In that respect the Working Party has identified a shortcoming and a proposal to address this.

The new proposed constitution is all about moving forward.

At such a time as when the new constitution is approved then these Job Descriptions will be a fundamental requirement which will be created and developed in conjunction with the elected post holders. It has taken us a considerable amount of time and effort to get this far, but I personally don't want to create work for something that may or may not happen.

Once approval is given to create these then a priority list can be created and addressed accordingly.

Again, speaking personally, I think it unfair and unrealistic, to elect office bearers no matter what constitution is in place and then let them decide (or even cherry-pick) which areas of responsibility they do work on.

I also oppose the withdrawl of voting rights for those under 16. The argument that kids should not be allowed to vote on adult matters can be countered by Should adults be allowed to vote on matters affecting Juniors?

This is addressed in the preceding post, so I'm not going to revisit it again.

[StevieHilton]

I have responded to your private message


"

[Alan Tate]

Hi Alan

Constitution Working Party.

Would you like to explain WTF? )

Jim

Hi Jim. I was kind of being half serious!

Joking because CS is organisation run mostly by volunteers (who work for members), and sometimes things are way too serious..

Serious because I have never heard of the CWP and was interested in how it works. Your openness on this forum has brought some clarity and in my opinion is a progressive attitude.

[George Neave]

Hi Alan

Constitution Working Party.

Would you like to explain WTF? )

Jim

Hi Jim. I was kind of being half serious!

Joking because CS is organisation run mostly by volunteers (who work for members), and sometimes things are way too serious..

Serious because I have never heard of the CWP and was interested in how it works. Your openness on this forum has brought some clarity and in my opinion is a progressive attitude.

Agreed. The work here is impressive. It will never satisfy everyone and I am sure there is always more can be done but it is nevertheless progress and to be commended.

[Jim Webster]

It has been posted on this thread and there have been email questions/comments regarding votes for U16 members.

The following statement is given in order to clear up some of the concerns

It is intended that any and all Junior specific issues be addressed to all junior members/parents and their views sought. The outcome would them be passed to the Executive Committee. It is felt that the best place for this is within a relevant operating procedure designed specifically for Junior Issues and does not actually need to be "Constitutionalized". The operating procedures are designed to be less rigid and easier to update than the Constitution but no less binding once approved.

Jim

[Jim Webster]

In addition to the previous post I did do some research into the extent of Junior voting.

AGM
2013 : Attendees 34 : Juniors 1
2012 : Attendees 26 : Juniors 0
2011 : Attendees 17 : Juniors 0
2010 : Attendees 14 : Juniors 0

This doe NOT include Proxy votes, but does include parents of Juniors who are not players themselves.

I'm beginning to wonder just how many people are being argued for here, and history certain does not seem to support the detractors. Nice to have but be never used?

The new concept certainly intends to address the shortcomings of Junior involvement in a more positive way.

This particular post is a personal view and in no way should be construed as anything else.

[robin moore]

Jim,

At the 2013 AGM I make it 39 attendees including 1 junior and 7 parents/guardians of 11 junior players.

On the proxy vote, at the same AGM one of the votes total was 194 members but I don't know the breakdown of adult/parent/junior.

[andyburnett]

I was re-reading the proposed new Constitution and noticed that the 'grand-parent' rule only applies to Scottish national championship title eligibility and has no direct relevance to International team selection (the only pre-requisite here being an SCO affiliation with FIDE). Have I understood this correctly? Looking at the 2012 amended Constitution I can see no mention of any of this.

[Jim Webster]

Robin

I made it 39 as well - OOPS typing error. I get to be wrong once after all. Last time I was wrong it was because my wife told me I was wrong.

I did not count parents/guardian who were members in their own right. If they carried a proxy then unfortunately I don't know the details of proxies.

Having said that you are talking about 1 AGM out of 4?

Jim