New constitution

[Andy Howie]

Strangely more than use cars.

[Andy Howie]

I have been asked by several people if the constitutional change means that Hamish is able to stand as president again.

If this constitution is approved then Hamish has confirmed both to me and to the Council meeting that he will not be standing as president.

I hope this allays peoples fears

[StevieHilton]

I am not entirely convinced Andy sorry.

The proposed changes are a recipe for chaos. You are asking the membership of Chess Scotland to approve changes to the constitution when there are still many unanswered questions about for example the position changes and the descriptions of the new positions. You cannot expect the membership to endorse these changes without this information.

The election cycle is unacceptable because it states that the President or director cannot be challenged during their term of office. That is anti democratic. I am sure these changes are intended to discourage dissent
from the membership.

This meeting should be held only when all the relevant information is put in the public forum

[Jim Webster]

The election cycle is unacceptable because it states that the President or director cannot be challenged during their term of office. That is anti democratic.

Any President and/or Director can be challenged at any time.
-- At an AGM a motion calling for a Vote of No Confidence can be raised against anyone and voted on.
-- An SGM can be called again calling for a Vote of No Confidence under the terms of the Constitution
(current and proposed)

I am sure these changes are intended to discourage dissent from the membership

I personally take strong exception to this and find this allegation extremely offensive and unfounded. I respectfully request that this statement be retracted.

[Andy Howie]

Steve,

Lets look at the counter argument for that. 1 year is not enough for a Director to plan and execute the plan. 2 years are better.

AGMs are no longer about election of Directors (as they are going to be staggered) meaning there is more time to discuss matters brought up by members. Personally I think that is a major plus.

President for a 3 year term. No issues with that. If the President is no use, we have (and indeed always have had) the mechanisms for removal. Second term. Badly needed. I understand why Donald brought in the 3 year rule but it is too short for me.

Discourage dissent from the membership? Really, I can think of far better measures if this was the intention!

[robin moore]

On the topic of length of term of directors, I welcome the proposed change to two years and personally would be happy with three years.

In a role such as IJD, you have constant selection processes and international events. The amount of time involved organising and contacting everyone is quite frightening. A longer directorship term gives the security of a welcome opportunity to gain experience and integrate your own ideas and plans into the post.

One question on the proposed new structure.... Is it possible for any one person to have more than one role?

[StevieHilton]

StevieHilton wrote:
I am sure these changes are intended to discourage dissent from the membership

I personally take strong exception to this and find this allegation extremely offensive and unfounded. I respectfully request that this statement be retracted.

Jim,
I had no intention of offending anyone, but I am not withdrawing the point because to me the point you raised about the use of an SGM to remove someone in a vote of no confidence is inhibited by a deposit of £100 being required in anti democratic and does discourage dissent in my view, which I have the perfect right to express.

On what grounds do you find my words offensive ?

Andy,
AGMs are no longer about election of Directors (as they are going to be staggered) meaning there is more time to discuss matters brought up by members. Personally I think that is a major plus.

Sorry Andy I have to strongly disagree with you on that point. If we as an organisation cease to include annual elections then we cease to be a democratic organisation.
the costs of staging a SGM does inhibit those who may wish to remove a director/ official in a vote of no confidence.
I understand the points being made a planning long term, but that should not stopa director/official being removed if a vote of no confidence is passed. Nothing wrong in long term plans being made

[Craig Pritchett]

I have one overall Q.

Do we really need a mysterious 'Council' ... as well as an 'Executive' Cee, itself comprising President, Directors AND membership delegates (presumably 'elected') - see the organisation chart provided - that is moreover itself called to democratic account, as most such executive bodies, by the entire wider membership at AGMs / SGMs?

Isn't this rather old-fashioned and (I think) certainly untypical of similar sports organisations, even if unincorporated like CS? Has anyone looked at appropriate (sports or other organisational) comparators?

Clearly 'Council' is conceived as some sort of 'democratic' counterweight to the 'Executive Cee' (currently CS Board of Directors), but I'd have thought the point of incorporating elected membership delegates on to the Executive Cee was meant to provide that anyway.

I'd also have thought that the best way to streamline the current constitution, which has always had this slightly uncomfortable, two possible masters (Council and CS Board) element in it, would have been to phase out any perceived democratic deficit(s) that Council (still) represented but was (were) not yet clearly covered by the CS Board / new Executive Cee and transfer them to the Board /Exec Cee.

If the presumably elected Executive Cee 'membership delegates' don't already guarantee full democratic transfer, what else should be transferred, and how to do that, are useful matters for debate. But why continue to confuse matters in CS by continuing to have two possible masters?

Think of the elected Directors. They make a pitch (hopefully!) before election by the entire membership at an AGM (democratic, yes), work hard on a budgeted plan in conjunction with the Executive Cee (or Board), only to find that that approval might be thrown out 6 months later by a 'Council' that doesn't have any real executive responsibility as Directors do.

This isn't really how most Directors are called to account in the real world. Most Directors do wish (really!) to reflect members' views in their plans but this democratic confusion doesn't really help.

Hope helpful

[Jim Webster]

On what grounds do you find my words offensive ?

The inference that I would be part of a deliberate attempt, or even to be party to such an attempt, to mislead or dissuade the CS membership from doing what is their democratic right. This sentence/statement I find offensive and insulting.

...the use of an SGM to remove someone in a vote of no confidence is inhibited by a deposit of £100 being required in anti democratic and does discourage dissent in my view....

Last time I looked --- this is in the current constitution and is unchanged.

[StevieHilton]

On what grounds do you find my words offensive ?

The inference that I would be part of a deliberate attempt, or even to be party to such an attempt, to mislead or dissuade the CS membership from doing what is their democratic right. This sentence/statement I find offensive and insulting."

I never made any such accusation against any individual and never accused you or. anyone of misleading the membership. I suggest you withdraw this remark