30-06-2015, 07:49 AM
The CWP (Constitution Working Party) have noted with interest the discussions between CS members (and a few others) relating to the proposed changes to the Constitution. All the issues raised so far were already the subject of considerable debate with the CWP, and there is no new question or comment made by members that had not been previously closely examined by us from all sides. Over the 18 months of operation we have tried to reach a consensus view on the best way to take CS forward. On several of the issues we did not have unanimity and there were often strong but opposing views held and expressed. This reflects the wide range of views held within CS. Therefore, several important issues were decided by majority vote within the CWP. Despite these differences we managed to conduct a serious debate in a frank but dignified manner and we would hope the CS membership would do the same. On our part there was no intent to 'sneak in' items, use 'small print' to hide matters or 'intended to discourage dissent from the membership'. Indeed, we faced a near-3h 'grilling' from Council members who accepted the invite to the May meeting in Glasgow. Furthermore, the whole document is presented to the membership and we welcome the opportunity to explain our reasoning about any specific issue. Chess Scotland is an organisation for the members, by the members. As such Chess Scotland encourages all members to exercise their right to vote wherever possible. Chess Scotland does not support active, external, solicitation to influence members to support a personal view. We would therefore recommend that members ignore pleas or solicitations from external sources.
Perhaps we can also clarify a few issues that have been raised. Some have already been answered but having these in a single post may save some time wading through pages of comments. The list below is not in any particular order.
Role of Council Yes, we did debate whether Council was needed. On the grounds of accountability it was decided that a wider proportion of the membership (as represented on Council) should hold the ability to over-rule decisions of the Executive Committee. For this to operate, however, the majority of Council must agree on the over-rule - this is not the majority of Council attending a meeting (which can be small) but an overall majority. So a challenge to a decision would be known beforehand and individual Council members who cannot attend the meeting can have their wishes recorded. This hopefully allows the Executive Committee to make rapid decisions but also being cognisant that they will need to be supported by Council. The fact that the Executive Council will have overview information from the appropriate Directors and activities should help ensuring consensus decisions are made. We also envisaged that nobody can hold MORE THAN ONE post on the Executive Committee. It is possible, however, to hold either two Directorships or one Directorship and one Executive Directorship. The actual conditions would be specified in the relevant Operating Procedures.
Length of Tenure We hold to the view that a President will require time to establish his/her 'philosophy' and that 3 years is reasonable time-frame. Occasionally some important matters may require longer so the option of standing for a second term is allowed. By similar reasoning, we considered that 2-year appointments for Directors was sensible to give them time to learn the job and put policies into place. Not all Directors will need such a period but all should have the option. A Director can of course resign at any time (after 1 year for example). His/her replacement would take up any residual time of the Directorship. A President or Director can be challenged at any time by a vote of no confidence. This can be at an SGM (fee involved, which is potentially refundable) or at an AGM (no fee) as a formal motion. This principle is unchanged from the current Constitution. Resolving the alternate years that Directorships start is a simple procedural matter. Any changes inevitably involve a transition period.
Operating Procedures (OP) For those not familiar what these are then please see the OP for the Standards Committee on the CS website. Please note how specific they can be (especially compared with the enabling detail in the Constitution). Such OP should cover a lot of the fine detail that has been discussed on the Notice Board over the past several years. They are seen as an adjunct tot he Constitution and must be adhered to within all Directorships and activities. If the Directorship team is in agreement with proposed changes then these can be approved by Council and thus brought into operation much more quickly than the waiting for the AGM. Where the Directorship does not agree with proposed changes then the issue is decided at the AGM.
So why no OP presented with this proposed Constitution? The simple answer is that these will involve a lot of work and require input from many more people than just the CWP. It is not worth starting on this exercise if the proposed changes to the Constitution are rejected. The plan is that all OPs would be in place by the 2016 AGM (for some this may be before).
Voting of U-16 There are two points here. First, the CWP did not consider it appropriate for juniors to vote on certain matters e.g. details of budgets, the fitness of an adult to hold a CS position. Hence we went for the age of legal majority (currently 16) - it has nothing to do with voting in other elections within Scotland.
Second, there is absolutely no wish to discourage parents/guardians from voting on CS matters, provided they are CS members either in their own right or as part of family membership. The argument that they should vote because their child has CS membership (which includes all other non-voting rights) does not seem particularly valid.
Eligibility This hot potato was added to the CWP workload by the AGM. The issue was contentious and was considered from scratch, so previous votes (based on very small numbers) were ignored.
The first principle established was that being 'SCO' should carry all privileges. So there would no 2 (or 3) tier system in place, as at present. So anyone currently holding 'SCO' should be regularised. This regularisation would have no impact in terms of precedence on future rules.
The second issue was what should be the rules for the future? The current proposal is the 'grandparent' rule which fits with some other sports but not others. This was included to ensure that we would have a constructive debate on the issue to which all members could contribute. In fact the CWP would propose that the membership should also consider an alternative Section 16.1.1 with similar wording but with 'or grandparent' removed. Effectively this would then introduce a 'parent' rule in terms of future 'SCO' registration. So a straight choice vote for 'parentage' or 'grandparentage' to determine 'SCO' in the future.
Other areas: If there are other areas of concern then please raise them either via this website or by contacting Jim Webster (<!-- e --><a href="mailto:jim.webster@btinternet.com">jim.webster@btinternet.com</a><!-- e -->) by email and we will try and reveal the thinking behind that recommendation.
Presented on behalf of the CWP
Jim Webster
Perhaps we can also clarify a few issues that have been raised. Some have already been answered but having these in a single post may save some time wading through pages of comments. The list below is not in any particular order.
Role of Council Yes, we did debate whether Council was needed. On the grounds of accountability it was decided that a wider proportion of the membership (as represented on Council) should hold the ability to over-rule decisions of the Executive Committee. For this to operate, however, the majority of Council must agree on the over-rule - this is not the majority of Council attending a meeting (which can be small) but an overall majority. So a challenge to a decision would be known beforehand and individual Council members who cannot attend the meeting can have their wishes recorded. This hopefully allows the Executive Committee to make rapid decisions but also being cognisant that they will need to be supported by Council. The fact that the Executive Council will have overview information from the appropriate Directors and activities should help ensuring consensus decisions are made. We also envisaged that nobody can hold MORE THAN ONE post on the Executive Committee. It is possible, however, to hold either two Directorships or one Directorship and one Executive Directorship. The actual conditions would be specified in the relevant Operating Procedures.
Length of Tenure We hold to the view that a President will require time to establish his/her 'philosophy' and that 3 years is reasonable time-frame. Occasionally some important matters may require longer so the option of standing for a second term is allowed. By similar reasoning, we considered that 2-year appointments for Directors was sensible to give them time to learn the job and put policies into place. Not all Directors will need such a period but all should have the option. A Director can of course resign at any time (after 1 year for example). His/her replacement would take up any residual time of the Directorship. A President or Director can be challenged at any time by a vote of no confidence. This can be at an SGM (fee involved, which is potentially refundable) or at an AGM (no fee) as a formal motion. This principle is unchanged from the current Constitution. Resolving the alternate years that Directorships start is a simple procedural matter. Any changes inevitably involve a transition period.
Operating Procedures (OP) For those not familiar what these are then please see the OP for the Standards Committee on the CS website. Please note how specific they can be (especially compared with the enabling detail in the Constitution). Such OP should cover a lot of the fine detail that has been discussed on the Notice Board over the past several years. They are seen as an adjunct tot he Constitution and must be adhered to within all Directorships and activities. If the Directorship team is in agreement with proposed changes then these can be approved by Council and thus brought into operation much more quickly than the waiting for the AGM. Where the Directorship does not agree with proposed changes then the issue is decided at the AGM.
So why no OP presented with this proposed Constitution? The simple answer is that these will involve a lot of work and require input from many more people than just the CWP. It is not worth starting on this exercise if the proposed changes to the Constitution are rejected. The plan is that all OPs would be in place by the 2016 AGM (for some this may be before).
Voting of U-16 There are two points here. First, the CWP did not consider it appropriate for juniors to vote on certain matters e.g. details of budgets, the fitness of an adult to hold a CS position. Hence we went for the age of legal majority (currently 16) - it has nothing to do with voting in other elections within Scotland.
Second, there is absolutely no wish to discourage parents/guardians from voting on CS matters, provided they are CS members either in their own right or as part of family membership. The argument that they should vote because their child has CS membership (which includes all other non-voting rights) does not seem particularly valid.
Eligibility This hot potato was added to the CWP workload by the AGM. The issue was contentious and was considered from scratch, so previous votes (based on very small numbers) were ignored.
The first principle established was that being 'SCO' should carry all privileges. So there would no 2 (or 3) tier system in place, as at present. So anyone currently holding 'SCO' should be regularised. This regularisation would have no impact in terms of precedence on future rules.
The second issue was what should be the rules for the future? The current proposal is the 'grandparent' rule which fits with some other sports but not others. This was included to ensure that we would have a constructive debate on the issue to which all members could contribute. In fact the CWP would propose that the membership should also consider an alternative Section 16.1.1 with similar wording but with 'or grandparent' removed. Effectively this would then introduce a 'parent' rule in terms of future 'SCO' registration. So a straight choice vote for 'parentage' or 'grandparentage' to determine 'SCO' in the future.
Other areas: If there are other areas of concern then please raise them either via this website or by contacting Jim Webster (<!-- e --><a href="mailto:jim.webster@btinternet.com">jim.webster@btinternet.com</a><!-- e -->) by email and we will try and reveal the thinking behind that recommendation.
Presented on behalf of the CWP
Jim Webster
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"