New constitution

[Phil Thomas]

There were 14 of us in the room, and over 70 proxy votes!
Generally there was > 50% support for the new constitution, but crucially not 2/3rd support.
There is a "blocking minority" of negative proxy votes.

Only 14 in the room!
How many of those are playing in the Scottish ?

[WBuchanan]

What's this about negative proxy votes - CS isn't an electrolyte solution
It's not surprising that people reject being disenfranchised.

[Alan Jelfs]

There were 14 of us in the room, and over 70 proxy votes!
Generally there was > 50% support for the new constitution, but crucially not 2/3rd support.
There is a "blocking minority" of negative proxy votes.

Only 14 in the room!
How many of those are playing in the Scottish ?

Including myself, I counted two, plus some arbiters.

[Andy Howie]

Technically 4 players as 2 of them have been fillers

[WBuchanan]

FWIW here’s my take on the meeting

Just before the meeting Hamish caught me and answered my question about how the two amendments to Section 16 would be handled so that was fine.

I thought these were the main bones of contention:

Section 5 on the removal of the vote for under 16s.
Section 7 on the new structure
Section 16 on eligibility

At the start Hamish announced there would be a limit of 12.30 as some were playing in the tournament. This didn’t do much to dispel the feeling that things were being rushed.

The number of proxy votes was revealed which indicated that overall the constitution was likely to be rejected. However, interestingly, some of these rejections were conditional on the outcome of particular amendments or sections. This consideration of the overall constitution could influence the voting on particular sections.

The meeting itself was run in a relatively open fashion, with Andy H keeping us informed of the situation regarding proxy votes for each section. A bright future for him beckons on Election Night Special.

If I have any of this part wrong I may take amendments and by reading it you agree I am not liable for any error . There was lively discussion on section 5 after which several CWP members decided to tactically vote against their own proposal to remove votes for under 16s (by voting for the amendment that removed it) including with proxies they had (if I heard it right) in an effort to ‘save’ the overall constitution vote. The amendment to restore the U-16 votes thereby passed, but Section 5 overall with this part removed 'failed' nonetheless, possibly due to proxies (if so, also possibly, junior ones) but also the high threshold. This failure may have improved the constitutions prospects overall due to the aforementioned conditional proxies (if you are confused please remember that minus one to the power of 3 is minus one )

Section 7 on the structural changes, while perhaps not as contentious as 5 and 16, might have been the most crucial one to the thinking of the erstwhile progress makers. It also failed, with a percentage in the sixties if memory serves, due the requirement to get 2/3 of the vote. Reading between the lines this Section did not fail due to proxy votes rather the high threshold and failure to present a convincing enough case for it to meet that threshold. And the feeling of rushedness IMHO…

Section 16 on eligibility. After a discussion, it was generally agreed that there were problems with the two amendments (mine and Derek Howie’s) and also with the constitutional proposal itself. Derek’s proposal had come under fire (rather unfairly I thought, it being after all the status quo) but with him not being present it bit the dust after an initial run-off. No vote was held on the proposed Section 16 versus the surviving amendment to it - as at 12.30 Hamish moved to reconvene the meeting as it seemed that opposing views might be reconcilable with further effort as the discussion that had taken place had seemed useful. This not necessarily kosher decision (which did meet with general agreement) may have had a tactical component but with common ground to work on in Section 16 was probably better than having the proposed constitution all but crash.

[Andy Howie]

The meeting itself was run in a relatively open fashion, with Andy H keeping us informed of the situation regarding proxy votes for each section. A bright future for him beckons on Election Night Special.

Must take a mental reminder not to take a swig of drink before I read a post on the noticeboard. Might be 1 laptop down tomorrow now

[amuir]

Only 14 people turned up. No mention of my proposals. I shall be voting in person against the new constitution in August.

[Jim Webster]

No mention of my proposals.

Andy

You never submitted any formal proposals.

All such submitted proposals were published and available
a) in this forum, Page 24, dated 07 Jul
b) via the following link from the Front Page of the CS website dated 7/7/2015

[Jim Webster]

several CWP members decided to tactically vote against their own proposal to remove votes for under 16s (by voting for the amendment that removed it) including with proxies they had (if I heard it right) in an effort to ‘save’ the overall constitution vote.

I was one of those who falls into this category, and my rationale is quite simple.

Once the Constitution was published a for debate, quite a lengthy debate took place on this thread.
However proxies had been cast from very early on it was then my personal decision to allow the debate to continue but make a decision based on this thread debate and the discussion at the meeting.
I therefore decided to support the motion for change within section 5, such is free will.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

It is also fair to say that I did not see why the constitution proposed should not be acceptable with constitutionally agreed changes from the SGM.



The blanket No votes put paid to that ever happening even although in some cases (I think) the reason for their no vote was on taken on board and incorporated into the proposed constitution.

I will restate that I am giving personal viewpoints above.
Any comments/queries on the meeting proceedings need to be addressed to and answered by relevant CS officials.

[Jim Webster]

b) via the following link from the Front Page of the CS website dated 7/7/2015

I forgot to add the link in my earlier post

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/Files/2015/SGM%20Amendment%20Proposals.pdf">http://www.chessscotland.com/Files/2015 ... posals.pdf</a><!-- m -->