Chess Scotland Constitution

[Jim Webster]

Jim,
Would this information from the proxy votes and their instructions on how the vote is to be used, be made available to candidates in a contested election?

Steve
In answer to your question - NO.

Chess Scotland will only record voters names of those in attendance and who submit Proxy votes.
We will not publish the votes cast by individuals, be it by proxy or by show of hand. In both cases, Attendance and Proxy, we record who votes to confirm membership and entitlement to vote. Every voter has the right of anonymity.

This would help to make things more transparent.

Personally I don't understand this definition of transparent, but I believe I have answered this in my response above.

[Alan Jelfs]

Would it be good practice to list those who gave their proxy votes to someone who did attend under "apologies" in the AGM's minutes?

[Jim Webster]

Would it be good practice to list those who gave their proxy votes to someone who did attend under "apologies" in the AGM's minutes?

Alan,
In the 2015 AGM minutes you will find: -
a) a list of attendees (at the start of the minutes)
b) a list of proxy voters (Appendix 1)

Similarly, in the minutes of the July SGM you will find the same information.

Hope this helps.

[amuir]

Would it be good practice to list those who gave their proxy votes to someone who did attend under "apologies" in the AGM's minutes?

Alan,
In the 2015 AGM minutes you will find: -
a) a list of attendees (at the start of the minutes)
b) a list of proxy voters (Appendix 1)

Similarly, in the minutes of the July SGM you will find the same information.

Hope this helps.

Jim - here are the proxy votes at the last AGM but who gave to whom their proxy ? That would be more meaningful. I wonder to whom e.g. Dick Heathwood and Hamish Glen gave their votes to ??

Appendix 1 – List of Proxy Votes received

J. Armour, R. McCormick, R. Moore, C. Moore, I. Robertson, D. Heathwood, E.
Spencer, V. Zamar, A. Dawson, D. Will, C. Donkin, K. McGeoch, P. Girdwood, S.
McKinney, D. Burke, B. Volland, J. Durno, P. Statham, B. Teaz, R. Bhopal, G.
Pyrich, SNCL, G. Grant, S. Sarawyn, Pentland Hills, T. Purkins, D. Begg, D. Reid,
S. Milton, J. Milton, C. Milton, A. Milton, D. McKerracher, Troon CC, T. Davies,
A. Clarke, J. Murray, D Rew, A. Grant, E. Frew, S. Mannion, N. Abdullazada, M.
Abdulla, H. Glen, E. Bamber, S. Smith, R. Guilian, P. Guilan, B. Smith, C.
Pritchett, R. Jennings, Lanarkshire Chess League, Lanark CC, Stewarton CC, J.
Montgomery, A. Campbell, M Burt, A. Armstrong, I Fraser, B. Forbes, J.
Mitchell, D. Camble, N. Lindsay, B. Airlie, A. Pollock, M. Abdullayev

[Jim Webster]

Jim - here are the proxy votes at the last AGM but who gave to whom their proxy ? That would be more meaningful. I wonder to whom e.g. Dick Heathwood and Hamish Glen gave their votes to ??

Andy,
We have a clear policy stating that we will publish who voted, but not their instructions, that includes their assignment of proxy voters. That remains confidential.

[George Murphy]

I have a number of comments - one major and several minor.

Section 5 Voting

5.2 should read: Each Member, Club, and Affiliate may nominate a single representative to the Executive Director at least 7 days before the general meeting. Would this revision be correct? If not, and the real intention is to restrict this limitation to Clubs and Affiliates - excluding individual members - then it has implications bearing on how Proxy Votes are to be cast in the case of individual members? See Clauses 5.5 (iii) and 5.6

5.5 (iii) and 5.6 - as they stand - are (unintentionally) controversial. For years, the abuse of Proxy Votes has been a major bugbear. The suggestion that 5.6 prevents such abuse appears innocent. Members need to be informed why the President places such faith in 5.6. On what model does he rely? Not electoral law where the use of proxy vote is very strictly controlled. As drafted, 5.5 (iii) and 5.6 will perpetuate the abuse to which Andy Muir and Steve Hilton refer for the proxy vote will deteriorate into a bloc vote, something that electoral law is designed to prevent. No representative should be allowed to attend an AGM or SGM armed with multiple proxy votes. Indeed, if the intention of 5.2 is to restrict member Clubs and Affiliates to a single representative, then a question is immediately flagged up as to why a nominee should be allowed to represent multiple ordinary members.

How is 5.5 (iii) to be implemented? Does the individual member notify the Executive Director whom he has nominated as his representative, or does the latter notify the Executive Director of all the members’ particulars whose proxies he holds? Whose responsibility is it to declare in advance to the Executive Director what the proxies relate to? How will members communicate/authorise proxy votes to a representative? What will proxy votes comprise? Oral or written, vague or detailed, communication? Just how much work is the Executive Director expected to carry out before it is considered that he is overburdened?

8. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE/MANAGEMENT BOARD

Does 8.2.6 need to be reconciled with 9.3? (See 9. COUNCIL)


Does 8.2.6.1 need to explain what “a majority of all COUNCIL members …” means? Of those in attendance only? Or the full complement, including absentees?

12. Annual General Meeting (AGM)

12.2 Do proxy votes count towards making up a quorum - whether 10 … or 50% …?

Does 12.4 need to be amended in light of possible revisions elsewhere? See 5. Voting, for example.

12.5 Here it is declared “… sufficient to publish these details on the Chess Scotland internet site.” Elsewhere, in other contexts, it is sometimes stated that email communication could also serve as well as internet. Is there a need to standardise - or not? See, for example, 13.7.

12.9 Here is a very important issue that could be susceptible to abuse of proxy voting - amending the Constitution!

13. Special General Meeting (SGM)

Italicisation of this Section certifies it to have been adopted already, but it is a (slight) pity that (a) SGM is not defined and (b) that 13.4 and 13.5 have already been cast in stone so-to-speak. (But not seriously defective, if at all?)

Comment: The above are to be regarded as observations, NOT criticisms. Very often, when drafting, it is so easy to overlook a detail that may or may not be significant. The Team that has carried out this Constitutional spadework has earned members’ gratitude.

NOTE: I drafted this earlier today before I saw the posts by Mr Watkins and our President and subsequently. I do not regard Transparency as a pressing issue, but I do consider good governance to be in the general interests of Chess Scotland. and the responsibility of our Administrators whether they be called Management Board or Council. The downside of bloc voting is that it will lead to intensified politicking and infighting to promote factions’, cliques’ and cabals’ interests and positions. That need not coincide with Chess Scotland’s interests in general, and in my humble opinion it should not be tolerated. It makes a mockery of an AGM to see representatives turn up in control of more proxies than there are attendants. Given such a scenario, why bother to turn up at all?

George

[Gerald Lobley]

Greetings George,
As a member of the CWP perhaps I can respond to some of the comments raised. Hopefully, this will clarify some issues and perhaps assuage some of your concerns.

5.2 should read: Each Member, Club, and Affiliate may nominate a single representative to the Executive Director at least 7 days before the general meeting. Would this revision be correct? If not, and the real intention is to restrict this limitation to Clubs and Affiliates - excluding individual members - then it has implications bearing on how Proxy Votes are to be cast in the case of individual members? See Clauses 5.5 (iii) and 5.6

There is no comma required after 'Member' because this refers to the single vote allocated to each Member Club or each Affiliated Organisation. The procedure here is exactly the same as at present. Clubs and Affiliates nominate their representative beforehand. The principle is that by doing so it is assumed their representative then carries the wishes of the Club/Affiliate . It is possible for representative to have a different personal stance than the Club/Affiliate and thus can cast one vote in opposite directions. Why is the 7 days required? Well first it means that someone does not turn up at the meeting and then decide to also claim the Club/Affiliate vote on the day (no check possible). Also it indicates that the Club has (hopefully) debated the issue(s).

5.5 (iii) and 5.6 - as they stand - are (unintentionally) controversial. For years, the abuse of Proxy Votes has been a major bugbear.

I am not sure quite what abuse you refer to. If you mean that people have a free rein to cast the votes of others as they see fit on the day then I agree totally. I can only think of one situation where that has occurred (but even that is one too many). Hence the need for any proxy vote(s) to be specific to a candidate and/or motion.

The suggestion that 5.6 prevents such abuse appears innocent. Members need to be informed why the President places such faith in 5.6. On what model does he rely? Not electoral law where the use of proxy vote is very strictly controlled.

The proposal is for strict control and each proxy vote will be for only one candidate or motion. So if a non-attendee wishes to vote on several matters then each will need to be notified separately. The mechanics of this will be defined within the relevant Operating Procedure but there are good precedents for this relating to previous voting. Of course the Operating Procedure will also need to be approved by the membership so there will be opportunity to ensure this is as good as we can make it. For many AGMs in the past people not able to attend were able to inform the Executive Director of their wishes and he cast the votes on their behalf. These were also proxy votes, just via a different route.

As drafted, 5.5 (iii) and 5.6 will perpetuate the abuse to which Andy Muir and Steve Hilton refer for the proxy vote will deteriorate into a bloc vote, something that electoral law is designed to prevent. No representative should be allowed to attend an AGM or SGM armed with multiple proxy votes.

If all the votes are properly obtained it does not matter whether they are held by a member or are sent to the ED. Clearly it is important that a statement relating to the candidate/motion is attached to the proxy but examples of the wording can be given in the relevant OP so that they are cast and used under very controlled conditions. I would point out that at some meetings people held proxy votes for different candidates or for and against a specific motion, which shows how the system can be used correctly. This is also the principle that I adopted in that I asked people to vote but hoped they might support my preferred candidate/motion. I was more concerned about involving more of the membership than 'forcing' through my individual preference.

How is 5.5 (iii) to be implemented? Does the individual member notify the Executive Director whom he has nominated as his representative, or does the latter notify the Executive Director of all the members’ particulars whose proxies he holds? Whose responsibility is it to declare in advance to the Executive Director what the proxies relate to? How will members communicate/authorise proxy votes to a representative? What will proxy votes comprise? Oral or written, vague or detailed, communication? Just how much work is the Executive Director expected to carry out before it is considered that he is overburdened?

Actually this is exactly what the ED does anyway. All proxies (and the direction of the vote) is formally sent to ED beforehand so that he can check. So there is no change in procedure from that currently in operation. As an example, for the election of the previous President I carried the proxy votes to the meeting. For the election of the current incumbent I asked people to send their vote directly to the ED, but provided them with the appropriate template to properly cast their vote. Either works well and would be defined precisely in the Operating Procedure (remember the Constitution is an enabling document, the fine details of implementation are given elsewhere e.g. in Standing Orders or Operating Procedures).

Of course if on-line voting is introduced then the impact of combined proxy votes will diminish (but not disappear entirely). Currently on-line voting is not permitted, we have no tested system in place, nor any experience of success or flaws within the system. So we need to have both options (proxy and on-line) available in the revised Constitution for the immediate future.

Does 8.2.6.1 need to explain what “a majority of all COUNCIL members …” means? Of those in attendance only? Or the full complement, including absentees?

Yes, this includes all Council members in order to overturn an EC decision. This seems fair in that we need the input of all Council members and not just those who may be able to make it to the meeting. If there is a contentious matter then either on-line or some form of proxy vote (to ED for example) is possible to ensure the matter is either over-turned or at least re-examined. If you stand for Council then surely it is expected that you should express your views, either in attendance or by some form of proxy or on-line submission. Between General Meetings, Council is the voice of the membership and needs to reflect this.

You raised a number of other issues which may also be discussed at the meeting on Saturday. If not then we can discuss these later.

Thanks for your interest

Gerald

[George Murphy]

Hi Gerald,

Thank you. I am pleased and - to a degree - relieved to see your exposition. It shows that serious thought has gone into this exercise. That in itself reflects “good governance”. Even so, implementation will require some very delicate balancing, and I will be interested to see the relevant Standing Orders/Operating Procedures. These will be key to ensure proper oversight - if, indeed, such is attainable.

I will be there on Saturday.

George

[Craig Pritchett]

Gerald, in your most recent post you say (inter alia) that

"Between General Meetings, Council is the voice of the membership and needs to reflect this" ... But is this really true?

Surely the elected President + Management Board are (at least) as much a 'voice of the membership' as COUNCIL? Such phrases are awfully vague and potentially open not just to misunderstanding but possible (even if unintended abuse) ... by either body and/or members.

The elected President + Management Board are surely intended to embody the organisation's EXECUTIVE power 'between AGMs'. COUNCIL are surely intended to embody limited powers to draw President + Management Board to account on certain matters, principally an approval check on the Budget around March each year.

While the proxy issue is indeed important (and is best dealt with separately), I do think that the nature of the relationship between the EXECUTIVE power and COUNCIL, with its more limited (but important!) power to draw the EXECUTIVE power to account in certain ways needs to be clarified a little more than at present.

This would actually be quite easy to do, simply by adding a brief sub-clause in the early para 3 (from memory) to the effect(not final drafting):

'Through its membership (and as described in the remaining clauses of this constitution), CS empowers an elected President and Management Board of Directors to carry out the executive management of the organisation between AGMs. Members have also empowered a COUNCIL to act between AGMs as an accountability check on the exercise of these executive powers within certain prescribed limits, principally on annual budget approval.'

Then para 4 which currently starts quite abruptly 'COUNCIL', not to mention the rest of the draft constitution reads a lot more understandably and is a lot more clear about the correct interpretation of the relative powers of members/Pres and Man Board/Council.

[KMcGeoch]

I've not really followed chess politics much so I'm really just trying to understand exactly what constitution changes mean. I've pretty much assumed that minor grammatical corrections etc means no real change. Would I be correct to summarise the proposed alterations as follows:

1. Constitution Point 7 and structure link(<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Structure.jpg">http://www.chessscotland.com/news/wp-co ... ucture.jpg</a><!-- m -->) basically describe make up of organisation with red jobs requiring specific skills and being directly appointed, blue ones being ones elected at AGM and green ones are other council members (unsure exactly what or how they're appointed).

2. Constitution Point 8 is basically Chess Scotland's objectives and doing necessary actions in an emergency. At work they've been advertising that it's Business Continuity Week (16-20 May) that I assume is pretty much in line with objectives of it. Constitution Point 9 seems to be along similar lines.

3. We now have PVG and FIDE guidelines. Don't know if we had any before but it seems sensible to have them.

That from what I understand the above are the main changes. Discussions about proxy votes (probably a good analogy is postal votes at general elections) doesn't seem that relevant to me and if online voting is available (an excellent idea!) then issue will become obsolete as proxy votes would be done online.

Have I pretty much summarised the changes correctly or have I missed anything or got it wrong?