AGM proposals

[Patrick McGovern]

Any comment as to why there are a " lack of hamilton players at AGM vor voting purposes."
It is a big club, I would have thought that many players from Hamilton would attend.

[Ianbrownlee]

I know of at least two Hamilton players that will be there Andy but I don't see the relevance of whether Hamilton players will be there.

[andyburnett]

I know of at least two Hamilton players that will be there Andy but I don't see the relevance of whether Hamilton players will be there.

Perhaps to vote for Andy's own proposals? Perhaps just to represent a sizeable section of the Scottish chess scene?

[Ianbrownlee]

Perhaps to vote for Andy's own proposals? Perhaps just to represent a sizeable section of the Scottish chess scene?

I know for a fact one of the Hamilton members would vote for the exact opposite Andy B

[robin moore]

These are my proposals.
Any that are seconded will be sent to Andy H for formality.I shall attend in person.

1. The Scottish Champion must be SCO FIDE affiliated.
2. Having a Scottish grandparent is insufficient eligibility to represent Scotland. This shall not appear in any eligibility rules.
3. Matt Turner will be considered for the Olympiad as a wildcard due to services to chess, subject to agreement of the reamining team members.
4. There shall be no selection oversight position. International Directors shall be solely responsible for selections.
5. Directors shall serve a one-year term. (As in football, bad managers should be sacked promptly)
6. The Scottish Championships shall not overlap the Glorney Cup dates (our top players rarely play in the Glorney and haven't won for 50 years)
7. Our top juniors, having received training, are expected to play in the Glorney Cup each year.

In addition to these Andy I suggest you put forward a motion that to cast a proxy vote one has to be a member at the time of the meeting.. For the rationale for this motion take a few minutes to compare the list of members on July 14th with the list of proxy votes on July 14th

Just spent some time going through the proxy votes at the SGM. There are 64 individual members and 8 clubs/leagues/junior organisations. I assume the latter were all entitled to a proxy vote. Of the 64 individual proxy voters 63 of them are listed as CS members on the July 14th membership list. One name isn't and I confess I don't recognise it so I assume it is a parent/guardian voting on their CS member child's behalf.

[Phil Thomas]

Robin,

Key words are in my original posting.



A member at the time of the meeting.



Reading through the thread I see that George criticised me for not disclosing to whom I sent a private mail.

Key word here is private.
A private e mail with full details disclosed on the notice board would be oxymoronic



Overall I was not alleging any underhand business I was trying to ensure that this kind of mistake does not happen again. At the time of the meeting (a Tuesday morning during the Scottish) Andy was overworked and the second checker also failed to look for current membership.

After all the publicity here. This problem, I contend, will not happen again.

I expect Jim will consider this issue when writing the operating procedures

Just imagine the constitutional crisis you would have now if any of the votes had been really close.

[robin moore]

Robin,

Key words are in my original posting.



A member at the time of the meeting.



Reading through the thread I see that George criticised me for not disclosing to whom I sent a private mail.

Key word here is private.
A private e mail with full details disclosed on the notice board would be oxymoronic





Overall I was not alleging any underhand business I was trying to ensure that this kind of mistake does not happen again. At the time of the meeting (a Tuesday morning during the Scottish) Andy was overworked and the second checker also failed to look for current membership.

After all the publicity here. This problem, I contend, will not happen again.

I expect Jim will consider this issue when writing the operating procedures

Just imagine the constitutional crisis you would have now if any of the votes had been really close.

All the proxy voters listed at the SGM were current members of CS at the time of the meeting (July 14th) as they are now on the most updated list (July 14th) except for one which is probably a voting parent.
No mistakes were made and everything was completely in order.

[Derek Howie]

All the proxy voters listed at the SGM were current members of CS at the time of the meeting (July 14th) as they are now on the most updated list (July 14th) except for one which is probably a voting parent.
No mistakes were made and everything was completely in order.

There's 3 that I don't see on the list of members, but as you say, they could well be parents.

[robin moore]

Derek,

Please send me a private message or email so I can have a look in case I am mistaken.

[Derek Howie]

Let me draw attention to the post by Gerald Lobley of 28 July (Page 37) and in particular these excerpts:

“A number of these problems arise from the lack of understanding by certain CS members on how General Meetings are properly conducted”

“ALL votes were registered and recorded.”

“All the above is proper procedure and although it can look a little unwieldy at times it does prevent major problems and avoids anomalies. Although this SGM was a CS meeting it must be firmly stated that none of the CWP would have allowed a non-constitutional approach as that would have been against the whole principles we have sought to enshrine in our suggested changes.”

I see no reason to query any of Gerald’s observations above. They can all be accepted as “gospel”.

Point 1 - so who was Gerald referring to as I didn't have a clue?

Point 2 - contradicted by W\alter Buchanan's post of 28th July.

Point 3 - contradicts Jim Webster's post of 7 July.

I don't believe that they can all be taken as "gospel" given the apparent contradictions.