AGM Proposal: SGM notice periods and running of SGM meetings

[amuir]

Alex
you can have scottish & glorney overlapping but the glorney players MUST take byes in relevant rounds to play for their country. perhaps you can amend tournament rules.

[WBuchanan]

I'm looking for a seconder for my motion on the running of SGM meetings (see Page 1, 1st post).
Anyone want to?
Cheers

[Alex McFarlane]

Clashing with the British
Andy Howie and I discussed the possibility of doing this during the Scottish this year.

Pros: It avoids a potential clash with the Glorney et al. It avoids a clash with the S Wales Open.

Cons: It denies juniors the chance to play in the British juniors which would benefit them in my opinion. It would greatly limit the number of live games broadcast and thereby reduce the status of the event making sponsorship even harder to find. It would almost certainly prevent players like Gawain Jones from taking part. Few English players took part this year but it would affect that potential market. For reasons of confidentiality I cannot be more specific but there is one possible and one slim chance of a sponsor both of which would disappear if the events clashed.

Half point byes
Andy Muir - imagine this scenario. You are leading the race for the Scottish Championship by a half point going into the last round. You lose your last game. The coach of the Glorney pulls level with you thanks to his last round bye. You lose out on the title on tie break. I can just picture the look of joy on your face at the end of round 9 when you come up and thank me for giving the new champion the bye that you wanted him to get.

[StevieHilton]

I will second your motion if needed Walter

[WBuchanan]

That's great Stevie! Can you Email Andy Howie by 6pm!?
Cheers
PS Well played in Lyon

AGM Proposal: SGM notice periods and running of SGM meetings

The normal notice period for an SGM should be 4 weeks, within which at least SEVEN days time should be allowed EACH for the submission of amendments, the voting for amendments and the receipt of proxy votes on the ultimate proposals.

[i.e. as in the following schedule:

Day 0 Notice and proposal(s)

Day 7 Closing date for amendments

Day 14 Amendments voted on.

Day 21 Proxy votes in on the amended proposals.

Day 28 SGM meeting and votes on amended proposals. ]

Circumstances of exceptional difficulty may require the meeting to take place within a minimum of only 21 days notice, in which these 7 day periods may be shortened proportionately to a minimum of 5 days each.

The results of the votes on amendments should be posted (eg on the CS noticeboard) within two days, with any delay in excess of this time extending the deadline for receiving proxy votes accordingly.

Proxy vote totals shall be published (eg on the CS Noticeboard) at least one day before the meeting.

Any time limit on the length of the meeting shall also be announced at least one week in advance. The meeting shall not be curtailed for reasons of time before this limit expires.

[END]

[JMcNicoll]

I'm going to have my tuppence worth now. In my experience this proposal, as it stands, should probably be declared incompetent due to being improperly worded and lacking sufficient detail to allow a discussion to take.
As to why, lets take the 7 day period for discussing amendments, at least 7 days shorter than now ( why so rushed?) which would mean, as I see it, there is no point in discussing any actual proposals until it is known how many or any amendments are to be proposed. And then only another 7 days to discuss any approved amendments before the proxy has to be registered, again 7 days shorter than what we have now, at least.
Then we have a vote. But there is no detail as to how we would have a vote. Is it electronic, snail mail, or an actual meeting? if the latter then surely this a waste of effort.
In my research of broadly similar organisations and their constitutions ( a surprising number are actually registered as companies) I can find no other precedent for this extra meeting. I would wish a lot more detail than it just being something that popped into someone's head. I want to know exactly why an extra meeting or vote improves the process.
I read the first vote as a vote which does not allow proxy votes, unless it is a SGM of some description, no, wait, can't be needs 4 weeks notice, so no proxies allowed? Why not? Very undemocratic. If proxies are to be allowed then the motion should say so, you cannot take anything as read.

Oh, and how do you publish proxy vote totals before the vote is called for? Or is this something else that has been taken as read, is it just the total number of proxy votes, the number of proxies for each amendment , the number of proxies for and against each motion, oh wait, can't be that that's illegal.
I fail to see any advantage to any of these scenarios

I also note that the things like time limits and such like only apply to SGM, why not AGM as well?
You shouldn't really have different ways to run what is essentially the same type of meeting.
That stuff should all be in the Standing Orders we don't have, preferring to bloat the constitution instead, but that's another issue.

[amuir]

Alex
I think you could live with the fact that anyone involved in the Glorney will get half-point byes in the overlap period. This can be announced at the start of the tournament. I don't have a problem with this.
The result of the championship is slightly arbitrary anyway in an open swiss - your last round opponent is very important - you need a bit of luck - e.g. Neil Berry had an easier opponent than Roddy McKay - unlike the 2007 all-play-all Championship played at Cumbernauld.
The stark fact is that if nothing is done Scotland will not win the Glorney for another 50 years.
Andy Murray rearranges his tournaments to play team tournaments e.g Davis Cup - we should do the same.

[andyburnett]

Out of interest, what exactly is the 'funding' for top juniors which will be withdrawn?

[WBuchanan]

To John McNicoll

Hi John I don’t understand your post. It’s very – well, terse let’s say. I can understand that, if my proposal is really so hopeless as you make out. Have you perhaps misunderstood somehow about the timescales of my proposals?

Can I start by saying the object was to give MORE time for all the stages! This was partly because I thought the present SGM has suffered badly because of the rush since the amendments went in. And partly as an SGM can be called at two weeks notice and my proposal specifies at least four.

Let’s take your points…

"I'm going to have my tuppence worth now. In my experience this proposal, as it stands, should probably be declared incompetent due to being improperly worded and lacking sufficient detail to allow a discussion to take."

I'm not sure what wording is improper but wording can be amended.
Let’s look at what detail you think is missing.

"As to why, lets take the 7 day period for discussing amendments, at least 7 days shorter than now ( why so rushed?) which would mean, as I see it, there is no point in discussing any actual proposals until it is known how many or any amendments are to be proposed."

1. Currently the minimum period from notice to meeting is two weeks – how can it be that this allows two weeks for discussing amendments? Proxies have to be in a week before the meeting! On the contrary, it was the SGM process that was rushed.
2. If it WAS an issue that you had to wait to see amendments, would this not also apply to the current situation?
3. I think I may see what your point is meant to be - the notice might precede the proposal. As the constitution was in early, people had time to prepare amendents before the SGM was announced? Yes but there is no reason that can't also happen with my proposal. Equally, for another SGM the proposal might be announced at the same time as the meeting. You need to compare like with like!

"And then only another 7 days to discuss any approved amendments before the proxy has to be registered, again 7 days shorter than what we have now, at least."

No it was six days longer. For the SGM in July people had only one day after amendments were in to arrange their proxy - and that was only after it was extended following complaints.

"Then we have a vote. But there is no detail as to how we would have a vote. Is it electronic, snail mail, or an actual meeting? if the latter then surely this a waste of effort."

Electronic would be better. CS has everyone’s email but people could still use snail mail if they wanted.
It would be odd if everyone submitting a proposal had to specify every resulting detail – leave management to manage.

"In my research of broadly similar organisations and their constitutions ( a surprising number are actually registered as companies) I can find no other precedent for this extra meeting."

Why set one then. You’re beating up your own suggestion of a meeting. It’s up to CS how they do the vote.

"I would wish a lot more detail than it just being something that popped into someone's head. I want to know exactly why an extra meeting or vote improves the process."

What makes you think this just popped into my head. Cheers for that - I must have made dozens of posts on this before and after the SGM which I spent almost all day on.
Perhaps you should have popped in to the forum too and you’d have got more detail.
But I’ll answer your point. It will improve the process because:
1) Proxy votes for amendments will get more time to arrange (7 days rather than about one day).
2) Proxy votes for the main proposal(s) will be cast after longer timescales (not shorter, as you seem to believe - I’m not sure why) on amendments that have therefore had time to settle. People then using a proxy vote on finalized proposals therefore actually know what they are voting for.
I thought all of this was obvious.
3) A point that didn’t apply this time, as the constitution proposal was flagged up well in advance – but as far as the rules seem to allow, an SGM meeting could be called with a proposal announced at the same time, with two weeks notice. Hope it never happens…

"I read the first vote as a vote which does not allow proxy votes, unless it is a SGM of some description, no, wait, can't be needs 4 weeks notice, so no proxies allowed? Why not? Very undemocratic. If proxies are to be allowed then the motion should say so, you cannot take anything as read."

The only thing I was taking for granted was that you don’t need proxy votes if voting electronically over a period of a week on specific, settled amendments . People can still turn up and hear the arguments at the one, final meeting so members might well still appoint someone then to listen and vote for them.

"Oh, and how do you publish proxy vote totals before the vote is called for? Or is this something else that has been taken as read, is it just the total number of proxy votes, the number of proxies for each amendment , the number of proxies for and against each motion, oh wait, can't be that that's illegal."

1. No need to take it as read John - the proposal suggests ‘on the CS website’ does it not?
2. Not the total number of proxy votes, the totals – John the proposal does say “Proxy vote totals shall be published”.

So yes, the totals for amendments and resulting effects on motions. Perhaps total votes outcomes of amendments would be better - thanks.

Totals and outcomes were not available this time round before the SGM meeting, except to management, with consequences that are not democratic as noted.

"I fail to see any advantage to any of these scenarios"

Perhaps the reason you fail to see the advantage is because you have somehow not understood that my proposals leave more time for each of the vital stages.

But to take a particular case, you were at the SGM meeting in July as was I. Several drawbacks to the proxies only being known to management were obvious. CWP members were able to switch sectional proxy votes tactically in an attempt to shore up the vote for the constitution. Management were able to pull a section out knowing it was doomed to fail against an amendment in the vote, then remit it to themselves to do what they wanted in the first place. And though I don’t suspect deliberate miscounting, we couldn’t actually see how the proxies (some of which were conditional on the outcome particular sections {and some of which had confusing status}) were being counted.

"I also note that the things like time limits and such like only apply to SGM, why not AGM as well?"

If you like it, post an amendment to this effect! No point in suggesting it if you don’t. You seem to be opposing my proposal from every conceivable angle.

"You shouldn't really have different ways to run what is essentially the same type of meeting."

OK, the dynamics are rather different - SGM's are infrequent and will probably be called by management in order to get their own proposal through. Whether intentional or not, the additional leeway to squeeze the parts of the process and/or the meeting time disadvantages the members.

"That stuff should all be in the Standing Orders we don't have, preferring to bloat the constitution instead, but that's another issue."

Bloat the constitution? Well John, I make it only ten lines plus the explanatory text (which admittedly seem to have failed to enlighten their first customer ).

I'm really not sure where you're coming from John. Perhaps you could read my proposals through again in the light (I hope!) of my responses and see if the timescales I refer to make sense at least! ?

Cheers

[Jim Webster]

But to take a particular case, you were at the SGM meeting in July as was I. Several drawbacks to the proxies only being known to management were obvious. CWP members were able to switch sectional proxy votes tactically in an attempt to shore up the vote for the constitution. Management were able to pull a section out knowing it was doomed to fail against an amendment in the vote, then remit it to themselves to do what they wanted in the first place

Walter - The paragraph above is wrong.

Proxies were only known to 1 person prior to the meeting and certainly NOT to the CWP. You have no justification, or for that matter, anything to support such an allegation.

CWP members had no idea how proxy voting was broken down and you have no justification for saying this either. I would like to think that we are intelligent people and can draw our own conclusions making decisions accordingly. Nor did the CWP have any influence over the proxy votes cast at the meeting, only the votes that they themselves personally carried.

To state otherwise is totally wrong, and if I were the person responsible for the registering the proxy votes at the meeting I would find that statement quite insulting.

As for tactical voting, there was a strong feeling on the Junior vote, but it was felt that it still needed to go the SGM and we (the CWP), like everyone else, have a right to take into consideration all discussions and vote accordingly.

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.

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.

The CWP is not management and should not be categorised as such, only 2 members of the CWP are management and that was at the instruction of the AGM the authorised the formation of the CWP.

1.1, 2.1, 2.2a, 2.2b and 2.5 were considered together
* Working party consisting of Hamish, Andy, David C and three others to consider motions as part of constitutional reform 
* Notice to be placed on CS Website for notes of interest for the working party 
* Recommendations to be presented first to Council then an EGM

I believe David C chose not to be part of the CWP however. The remaining 2 actions were carried out as per these instructions