New constitution

[WBuchanan]

Hi Dick. To Derek you say

“In all the circumstances, I wonder if you would like to withdraw your reference to the possibility that proxy votes were ignored.”

The suggestion that proxy votes were ignored arose from the minutes themselves. This was Derek’s stated source. The minute says:

“The merits of the two amending motions were considered against each other and the Meeting agreed unanimously that the Derek Howie suggestion should fall in favour of the Walter Buchanan suggestion.”

The minute is correct on this point. There was a vote taken amongst the attendees, and it was unanimous. It couldn’t be unanimous if the proxies were counted. They were not. This may be due to an oversight near the end of the meeting. As regards what the proxy votes said, Andy said he is going to dig it out from his notes and get back to us.

On another issue Dick, are you going to answer my query as to which people input to the minutes? Thanks

Cheers
Walter

[Derek Howie]

Derek, I, also, have asked for changes to previous minutes. Sometimes my suggestions were accepted and sometimes not. It comes down to the simple process of convincing people that your own recollection is more accurate than the proposed record. If you succeed, then the minutes are amended at the next meeting but if you (or I) fail, then the minutes are adopted as originally proposed.

My point is that if you do succeed the minutes still are not updated and remain incorrect.

As already explained in a previous post, the view of the meeting was that, on eligibility, your series of questions did not amount to a competent motion. As recorded in the proposed minutes, your other motions were addressed with some being adopted and some failing.

In all the circumstances, I wonder if you would like to withdraw your reference to the possibility that proxy votes were ignored.

I fail to see how reverting to the current constitution could not be a competent motion. Are you suggesting that the current constitution is not competent?

I would suggest that the vote was not competent as It was not advertised as being on the agenda.

My proposal was published without any problems being noted. How can those not attending the meeting possibly vote on this proposal? It is disenfranchising everyone who could not attend. An SGM should only vote on the matters published beforehand.

I also fail to see why I could not have been contacted to ask for a 2 minute rewrite if it was felt that this was the case, instead of it waiting for the meeting to propose it incompetent. It seems an underhand way of getting rid of a proposal that was not agreed with.

The wording of my proxies would still have allowed for my proxies to be used in support of them, even with this unadvertised "motion". I therefore stand by the fact that my proxies were ignored and the fact that an incompetent motion was allowed to be voted on.


Edit - I have now been separately advised by someone else that my proposal was not ruled as incompetent and there actually was a vote between my proposal and another one and my proxies (and possibly others) were just not counted.

[Dick Heathwood]

Walter,
I can only repeat that I take full responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of what I have suggested we should adopt as the record of the meeting. Again to repeat myself, if the record needs to be changed then that can be arranged at the next meeting (at the end of August). As I said, I am no more exempt from errors and misunderstandings than the next man.

I wonder why you keep asking this question of me about how I prepared the minutes. If I ask you or anyone else to clarify something after the meeting in order to help me, why should your name be published? I was the secretary, the accuracy of the minutes I proposed are my sole responsibility irrespective of who I did or did not contact for assistance. Look on the bright side, you don't normally have to put up with me as minute secretary.

Other than using children for voting, I really don't care about the other issues. For the avoidance of doubt, I should state that I accept the decision taken on children. You will not see me mounting an after the event campaign either on this forum or elsewhere.

Derek,
As minute secretary for that particular day it is not in my power to address, far less resolve, the question you raised about alleged historical failures to amend minutes.

I still regret that you have raised the possibility that proxy votes were ignored and have chosen against taking up the option of withdrawing the comment. That is your decision.

[WBuchanan]

Hi Dick

Thanks for your response. I’m going to reply shortly, but first I thought I’d offer a couple of corrections for the minutes that I’d held back as I didn’t want to derail other discussions.

1) On the section on the proposed removal of the Under-16 vote the minute says

“There had been no formal process to seek the views of all junior members of Chess Scotland before submitting the proposal to eliminate/reduce their voting rights. Individual families had been consulted.”

This wording is quite misleading. Various people were asked if they had consulted the under-16s and they in turn said “I didn’t” or words to that effect.

The minute suggests that there might have been quite a lot of consultation with juniors, anything up to but not including ‘all juniors’ in fact - when there clearly hadn’t been any such consultation.

2) On eligibility Jim Webster said (P34)

“I also recall that it was suggested that yourself (Walter) and Alastair White put your views together with the concept of putting together a workable set of Eligibility criteria combining the proposals you and the PNC offered.”

Yes the President did propose this (thanks Jim) – but I can’t find this in the minutes, Dick.

Cheers

[WBuchanan]

Hi again Dick, just in response to your last post to me (and Derek). You say

“I wonder why you keep asking this question of me about how I prepared the minutes. If I ask you or anyone else to clarify something after the meeting in order to help me, why should your name be published?”

I don’t know why you wonder. Is it not obvious that it is greatly advantageous (probably +/- ) to one side of the discussion to be able to give input to the published minutes but not the other?
On your second point above, as what’s said at the meeting is public there is no obvious reason what is claimed afterwards to have been said should be private - while at the same time it is written into the minutes! What in your view is the difference between this and collusion?

I haven’t mentioned anything about whose responsibility the minutes are - yet you have given me this response three times. I can only repeat that you could perhaps just answer what’s being asked about their correctness.
But if you really insist on this line of ‘defence’, then I would point out that 'taking full responsibility’ implies a certain accountability – and not being so secretive about who actually wrote what you claim responsibility for would be a good start :-)

It makes little difference whether Derek retracts his point – he is correct in saying that proxy votes were not counted in the section on eligibility when my motion was run off versus Derek’s.
Again, if you wanted to be seen as impartial and responsible it would help if you would acknowedge this anomaly rather than call for its retraction (and not try to shoot all the messengers yourself, to coin a phrase).
Had the vote in the meeting not been unanimous, this discrepancy wouldn’t have come to light.

“Look on the bright side, you don't normally have to put up with me as minute secretary”.

The Dutch defence . Now that you mention it yourself, it is rather surprising to have a minute-taker who is so closely connected with management when such fundamental changes are on the table. You’ve just come out of a position in CS, and were Hamish’s first choice for the CWP in 2013, until this move was overruled by the floor.
This doesn’t reflect on you personally of course (no wounded gestures, please :-)) - the general reasoning is that people shouldn’t be put in a position where they have a conflict of interest, or of loyalties, as it can be difficult to meet both.

In general if you wish to come across as impartial it would help if you desisted from gesturing and questioning people’s motives as a first response to their perfectly legitimate questions.

Regards
Walter

[Jim Webster]

2) On eligibility Jim Webster said (P34)

“I also recall that it was suggested that yourself (Walter) and Alastair White put your views together with the concept of putting together a workable set of Eligibility criteria combining the proposals you and the PNC offered.”

Yes the President did propose this (thanks Jim) – but I can’t find this in the minutes, Dick.

Walter,
If my memory serves me correctly, this was a suggestion after the meeting was formally closed, rather than a proposal from the chair during the SGM.
Jim

[WBuchanan]

"If my memory serves me correctly, this was a suggestion after the meeting was formally closed, rather than a proposal from the chair during the SGM."

I didn’t mean it was a formal proposal Jim but the meeting was not formally closed – I was on my feet when Hamish said this, having been speaking in support of my eligibility amendment but in the discussion that followed ending up almost in agreement with Alistair.
Hamish later referred to common ground when we were voting (possibly unconstitutionally, having neglected to vote on the eligibility amendments) for the continuation meeting – I remember sitting with my hand in the air gesturing a handshake at Alastair when Hamish said this.

[Derek Howie]

Derek,
I still regret that you have raised the possibility that proxy votes were ignored and have chosen against taking up the option of withdrawing the comment. That is your decision.

Surely we both agree that proxies were not used for the vote in question?

[Andy Howie]

On holiday abroad at the moment and not particularly paying attention on line as I am having a break (and we are quite remote)

I brought my notes with me, well they were in my bag so I have them with me. On this particular part of the meeting I recorded the following

Dereks motion for 13 against 23
Walters motion for 19 against 4

If we are finished having a go at someone who was doing me a massive favour by taking the minutes and arguing over something that has been withdrawn..

Honestly, I despair at times

[WBuchanan]

Thanks for this Andy.

You say

"If we are finished having a go at someone who was doing me a massive favour by taking the minutes and arguing over something that has been withdrawn..

Honestly, I despair at times"

Except that you also say

"On holiday abroad at the moment and not particularly paying attention on line"

Indeed, you haven't been paying attention!

CS officials have been quick to throw up their hands in ‘despair’ (and have a go at questioners, as you have) but CS members are entitled to ask questions.
The first question Derek asked was met with puzzlement and posture, although Derek was perfectly correct. With a normal constructive response to a simple question, for example

"We forgot this but we'll check it"

instead of

"no we didn't forget this" or "O, I am slain" (I paraphrase!)

(even though it's clear in the minutes that it WAS omitted) there would have been no need for a thread on Derek’s motion.

I don't know whether you're having a go at me as well, after all I supported Derek's right to a straight answer and CS is supposed to be democratic. Perhaps you can also confrim you think it is OK for the CWP to be able to ‘clarify’ directly into the minutes without this even being admitted?

On 'massive facours', why did you pick such a close connection of CS managements and Hamish as minute-taker? The minute taker is an important role and needs to be uncompromised by connections.

Cheers