AGM proposals

[Ianbrownlee]

Really Ian? Presumably Andy means that continuing the SGM during the AGM itself would limit discussion time for ordinary AGM business?

yep I was at the AGM in 2013 and it was unfinished at the end of the day even when it started at 10.30 am. The SGM deserves a full day to itself and given the potential carry on regarding the voting e.g what happens to someone who proxied at the first meeting but rurns up at the second what happaens to the original proxy votes etc plus the timescale required to finish the SGM and then start the AGM makes having the SGM on the same day an issue.Maybe it can be done but i dont think so. I think the best thing is have an SGM either AS A CONTINUATION or as a limited reboot of the SGM in the autumn after open debate . the timescale required of the upcoming AGM doesnt allow for the SGM to be part of it . Lets face it , the new constitution wont be in place at least this year so thefoot on the accelarator can be relaxed a wee bit to get as much people on board as possible. The is from someone who passionately wants the constitution in place with its jobs decriptions and operating procedures in place. There has been a wonderful debate so far in this forum , long may it continue with positive input all round. Afew extra months debating the SGM wont do anyone any harm

[WBuchanan]

Hi Ian

Can we hear from Andy and Hamish - Or are you speaking for them?

You say

“The SGM deserves a full day to itself”

Surely not. This is a continuation of the SGM and at the start of the first part (which was supposed to be the whole meeting) it was announced that it would be two hours.

“…given the potential carry on regarding the voting e.g what happens to someone who proxied at the first meeting but rurns up at the second what happaens to the original proxy votes etc”

Normally anyone who proxies and turns up just votes and their proxy is cancelled. No carry-on is necessary.

“…plus the timescale required to finish the SGM and then start the AGM makes having the SGM on the same day an issue.”

Well again, Hamish considered the whole meeting could take place in two hours. The tail-end must take less.

“I think the best thing is have an SGM either AS A CONTINUATION or as a limited reboot of the SGM in the autumn after open debate”

According to the minute discussion at the continuation SGM “would be confined to motions already proposed but not yet considered.”

“Lets face it , the new constitution wont be in place at least this year so thefoot on the accelarator can be relaxed a wee bit to get as much people on board as possible. The is from someone who passionately wants the constitution in place with its jobs decriptions and operating procedures in place. There has been a wonderful debate so far in this forum , long may it continue with positive input all round. Afew extra months debating the SGM wont do anyone any harm”

Thanks for these thoughts Ian - but as it’s totally opposite of what has been said before can you please obtain a firm statement from Hamish or Andy? The SGM needs to be announced by Saturday anway!

Cheers

[Ianbrownlee]

Thanks for these thoughts Ian - but as it’s totally opposite of what has been said before can you please obtain a firm statement from Hamish or Andy?

Its not the opposite to what I have been saying If you want a soundbite from Andy or Hamish just ask them directly

Can we hear from Andy and Hamish - Or are you speaking for them?

Hi Walter

Please let me clarify this. Anybody who knows me knows I am never a mouthpiece for anybody. If I am speaking either for the CWP or anyone else I will say so at the time. Any statements from the CWP will be properly designated and indicated as such

sorry my comments are entirely my own based in the previous AGM I intended. I am a bit of a loose cannon when it comes to this so please read this and remember this is not the part of me who is a member of the CWP . This is my view and my view alone. Let me eloborate further;

The constitution is a major and complicated document. If mistakes have been made in the process then the idea that it can be approved and/or concluded by a short SGM may be one of them. There is my doubt in my mind that few people are interested in it other than the parts that affect them directly. Therefore there is a need to discuss and consult each section individually as part of the whole and that takes time, not just a few minutes. I agree with the concept that most of it is OK and can probably pass as read. I also accept that considerable time has already been spent on it but my argument is that we are getting there, lets get it right and exhaust all counter arguments. Whats the rush? There is no way it can reasonably be in place for this year's AGM so lets take the time required to get it right. The focus right now must be on the AGM and moving forward after that. I implore to everyone that continued respect is given tto he CWP, Chess Scotland , the constitution AGM's and SGM's. Having said that I value everyone's views on this and through discussions such as this, I believe we are getting there

[Ianbrownlee]

Thanks for these thoughts Ian - but as it’s totally opposite of what has been said before can you please obtain a firm statement from Hamish or Andy?

Its not the opposite to what I have been saying If you want a soundbite from Andy or Hamish just ask them directly

Can we hear from Andy and Hamish - Or are you speaking for them?

Hi Walter

Please let me clarify this. Anybody who knows me knows I am never a mouthpiece for anybody. If I am speaking either for the CWP or anyone else I will say so at the time. Any statements from the CWP will be properly designated and indicated as such

sorry my comments are entirely my own based in the previous AGM I intended. I am a bit of a loose cannon when it comes to this so please read this and remember this is not the part of me who is a member of the CWP . This is my view and my view alone. Let me eloborate further;

The constitution is a major and complicated document. If mistakes have been made in the process then the idea that it can be approved and/or concluded by a short SGM may be one of them. There is no doubt in my mind that few people are interested in it other than the parts that affect them directly. Therefore there is a need to discuss and consult each section individually as part of the whole and that takes time, not just a few minutes. I agree with the concept that most of it is OK and can probably pass as read. I also accept that considerable time has already been spent on it but my argument is that we are getting there, lets get it right and exhaust all counter arguments. Whats the rush? There is no way it can reasonably be in place for this year's AGM so lets take the time required to get it right. The focus right now must be on the AGM and moving forward after that. I implore to everyone that continued respect is given tto he CWP, Chess Scotland , the constitution AGM's and SGM's. Having said that I value everyone's views on this and through discussions such as this, I believe we are getting there

[WBuchanan]

Hi Ian. OK - seems I know you a bit better now .

You say non-soundbitingly :-)

“The focus right now must be on the AGM and moving forward after that.”

Some of us focussed on the SGM minutes though :| and these said the SGM would be reconvened on 29 August.

The reason for my comment Ian was that it’s Hamish and Andy you need to tell this to - they scheduled the meeting. No point in telling us not to focus on a scheduled meeting unless you know that it isn’t scheduled after all.

Cheers

[Ianbrownlee]

yes Walter
I'm only expressing a personal opinion on the forum. I'm sure everyone on the CWP knows my opinion , I appreciate your priorities aren't necessarily the same as mine , which is why healthy debate on the forum is so important. I don't think we're too far apart on the importance of the constitution

[WBuchanan]

AGM proposal - clarification and modification

More than one person has interpreted one part of my AGM motion on eligibility as implying that CS membership is to be required before a FIDE SCO code is allocated. This was not the intention - which was only that the three requirements numbered (1),(ii) and (iii) are built in to the CS SCO code not the CS membership (which would have unwanted ramifications for domestic FIDE rated events).

To make this clear, at the AGM I will suggest a modification to the wording, for example (highlighted in bold):

AGM Proposal on eligibility:

To be eligible to compete for any Scottish individual national championship title (excluding primary school events), or to be eligible to represent Scotland in any international competition a person must be a member of Chess Scotland and in addition must meet at least one of the prevailing eligibility requirements relating to

(i) birth - i.e. be born in Scotland,
(ii) bloodline – i.e. have one parent born in Scotland (or grandparent if so determined by a vote of CS members), or
(iii) residence - i.e. have permanently lived in Scotland for the requisite number of years [currently 2].

The requirements (i) to (iii) shall be built into Chess Scotland’s rules for eligibility for national Championships and rules for eligibility for international selection, and reflected in future Operating Procedures that relate to eligibility and the allocation of future FIDE ‘SCO’ registration codes. The criteria used and/or future Operating Procedures shall also deal with further parameters of these eligibility requirements, such as any differences that are appropriate in determining the eligibility of juniors.

For international selection, additional criteria may be set by the tournament organisers concerned (including age and rating limits). [END]

[harrymarron]

4 hours for an AGM.......is there a 3 hour lunch break as part of it?

Can we not have a lightning version with all moves still recorded?