09-08-2015, 02:15 AM
OK Jim. Partly right. So partial apology follows.. 
First though, I wasn’t making ‘an allegation’ as such Jim. My point was meant to be that the CWP shouldn’t have had this flexibility - not to blame you for using it.
You are right in that the first part of what I said IS wrong. I thought it (ability to tactically vote down one of your own sections) flowed from management having the proxy totals. But the ability to use the proxies to vote tactically only arose because they hadn’t already been counted – NOT because the CWP had a count of them (though management did), but because the members didn’t. Apologies for the inaccuracy and any aspersions taken, though none meant – my comments relate to the process with the happenings of the SGM as illustrations.
“Management did not pull any section out. The one section that was pulled (Eligibility) I personally proposed it without consultation of the CWP, or anyone else, and this proposal was seconded by a non CWP member which the SGM then approved. I decided this, of my own volition, since I felt there was some confusion created by the uncertainty of the FIDE 'SCO' code at the meeting and this was sufficient grounds for my proposal take it out Eligibility and have a rethink.”
Hamish suggested it first and you offered to propose it. Perhaps you missed it, but Andy told us a few days later the proxy totals for my amendment on eligibility (19 vs 4). There were only 14 people at the meeting – the eligibility section of the Constitution was pretty much doomed from the start. It could of course be that the right hand (the president) didn’t know what the left hand (the exec director) was doing or seeing (sorry, mixed metaphor!). I’m not actually making that accusation – they were able to pull it, and effectively did by us not having the proxy vote totals. The situation couldn’t occur if enough time was allocated to each stage of the process (as per my proposal) as then the proxy totals for the amendments would probably not even need to exist and in any case total votes cast for amendments would have been already published (assuming this isn’t illegal!).
“Management did not remit it to themselves, it was returned to the originators (CWP + Walter Buchanan) for rework and reintroduction at a later date either as an Operating Procedure or possibly an addition to the Constitution. No timescale was set.”
Thanks – bit in brackets not appeared in the minutes yet though....the Operating Procedures bit (disputed that this was said) was the long-argued attempt to place the criteria for the determination of ‘Scottishness’ under management control. My amendment intended to place this determination with the membership. Despite this being effectively voted for, it's not there yet Jim is it?
Cheers
Walter
First though, I wasn’t making ‘an allegation’ as such Jim. My point was meant to be that the CWP shouldn’t have had this flexibility - not to blame you for using it.
You are right in that the first part of what I said IS wrong. I thought it (ability to tactically vote down one of your own sections) flowed from management having the proxy totals. But the ability to use the proxies to vote tactically only arose because they hadn’t already been counted – NOT because the CWP had a count of them (though management did), but because the members didn’t. Apologies for the inaccuracy and any aspersions taken, though none meant – my comments relate to the process with the happenings of the SGM as illustrations.
“Management did not pull any section out. The one section that was pulled (Eligibility) I personally proposed it without consultation of the CWP, or anyone else, and this proposal was seconded by a non CWP member which the SGM then approved. I decided this, of my own volition, since I felt there was some confusion created by the uncertainty of the FIDE 'SCO' code at the meeting and this was sufficient grounds for my proposal take it out Eligibility and have a rethink.”
Hamish suggested it first and you offered to propose it. Perhaps you missed it, but Andy told us a few days later the proxy totals for my amendment on eligibility (19 vs 4). There were only 14 people at the meeting – the eligibility section of the Constitution was pretty much doomed from the start. It could of course be that the right hand (the president) didn’t know what the left hand (the exec director) was doing or seeing (sorry, mixed metaphor!). I’m not actually making that accusation – they were able to pull it, and effectively did by us not having the proxy vote totals. The situation couldn’t occur if enough time was allocated to each stage of the process (as per my proposal) as then the proxy totals for the amendments would probably not even need to exist and in any case total votes cast for amendments would have been already published (assuming this isn’t illegal!).
“Management did not remit it to themselves, it was returned to the originators (CWP + Walter Buchanan) for rework and reintroduction at a later date either as an Operating Procedure or possibly an addition to the Constitution. No timescale was set.”
Thanks – bit in brackets not appeared in the minutes yet though....the Operating Procedures bit (disputed that this was said) was the long-argued attempt to place the criteria for the determination of ‘Scottishness’ under management control. My amendment intended to place this determination with the membership. Despite this being effectively voted for, it's not there yet Jim is it?
Cheers
Walter