Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[Andy Howie]

Pushing MT eligibility?

1) The original much criticised, 2011 AGM, ad-hoc item voted on - couched as saving a refugee from statelessness, but also (actually, said just before that vote) intending to add a proposal to introduce a new criterion to make Matthew eligible.
It is clear that members were asked to vote on the compassionate grounds of not leaving Matthew stateless.
This is now being presented as the membership granting eligibility.
That's quite a nudge, or nudges.

2) At the 2014 Management board meeting, a quick vote was whipped up to try to introduce a grandparent option, expressly in order to make Matthew eligible.
This may not have been any more competent than the 2011 AOCB vote - would it not be surprising if management were to have the power to change eligibility or representation, as they are themselves, in theory, representatives of the membership? It was defeated.
It is clear from the discussion (link below) that some were most keen to give Matthew eligibility, as opposed to just wanting a grandparent rule.
Not for the first time, it was proposed to change the eligibility rules expressly to make MT eligible.
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...110114.pdf

More than one significant nudge in there?

3) The 2015 eligibility proposals in the proposed new constitution contained two criteria (grandparent, and SCO code giving eligibility), either of which would have made Matthew eligible.
When it clearly wasn't going down well, the idea was given irregular protection - by preventing a losing vote from being completed. The eligibility section was removed from the constitution. The existing criteria, whatever they were, became invisible.
This situation resulted in a chaotic period, with the chaos used to suggest MT was eligible.

These are further significant nudges.

4) Subsequent committees have been selected to examine this issue, and largely comprised people already sharing the view promoted by management (which from the membership standpoint is a big nudge in the direction of the management viewpoint).
There has been secrecy of composition and secrecy conditions imposed on committee members.
The secrecy has led to further anomalies, through the invisibility of the eligibility criteria, and the later retrospective interpretation of the 2016 Muir-Neave motion that explicitly asked to reduce eligibility NOT expand it, but this motion that was later maligned (wrongly, #85-87... #115) never found its way to any updated rule, which led to us to 2019.
As I said, each anomaly somehow created fresh impetus from management to make MT eligible.
(Nudging)

5) There has been unwarranted and aggressive management interference in discussions on the Matthew issue in the forum, including this discussion.
So, a lot of nudging in the politics. Nudging coming to shoving?

It does seem that the management 'nudges' are pushing in the one direction - that of MT eligibility.
Most of these 'nudges' are departures from the normal expectations of duties of an organisation towards its members.
So they could be called shoves.

With so many nudges/shoves, have they formed together into a democracy-shifting force?

WB

Wow

I promised myself I would not get embroiled in this but after reading the most recent post,  I don't think I have ever seen so much bovine excrement hashed together to form coherent sentences.

So lets deal with some facts instead of some fiction.  

2014 I am curious about the management board meeting as they did not start until Jim took over in 2015...  If you are privy to one I was not at I am glad to be corrected.

On point 3.  A constitutional review started in 2013 the members were Ian Brownlee, Hamish Glen, myself, Gerald Lobley, Jim Webster and Alastair White.  The moderators were Steve Mannion Snr, Alex McFarlane, Mike Mitchell.   Knowing and having worked with the non CS board members (Jim was not a board member at the time), I can say with complete confidence that none of them would be swayed by anything Hamish or I tried to push that they thought was wrong.

From the Minutes of the acutal SGM....

11) Eligibility The whole question of the rules to determine eligibility to play for Scotland had provoked widespread discussion over many years. Walter Buchanan’s recent input as recorded on the discussion forum is attached as Appendix B. Derek Howie’s is attached as Appendix C. A number of points were noted during discussion of the two proposals in the Appendices:- • The criteria proposed by the Scottish Government for regulating Scottish nationality (in the event of that issue arising in the future). • The unreliability of the FIDE code “SCO” both in relation its initial allocation and its ongoing relevance where a player who had been SCO registered based on residence later emigrated. • The need to comply with FIDE regulations when participating in their events. The merits of the two amending motions were considered against each other and the Meeting agreed unanimously that the Derek Howie suggestion should fall in favour of the Walter Buchanan suggestion. Jim Webster proposed and Robin Templeton seconded that rather than trying to resolve the issue at the Meeting under minute, Section 16 should be removed from the PNC and addressed in the context of the Operating Procedures for the Selection Boards. The deletion of Section 16, was carried unanimously. 

Now what I didn't reveal at the time as it would have been improper to do so, if you recall quite a lot of people had sent me instruction on how they wanted to vote (which led to the amusing situation of me voting for and against a motion).  Had this gone to a vote, then the original section would have in all likelihood passed.  If I had been trying to push this on behalf of the Management board, why would I have not pushed for the vote instead of listening to what the members of the meeting were saying and agreeing further consultation was needed on it?  Again, Neither Jim nor Robin were part of the management structure so why would pushing it into SOP's be protecting it given it still has to be voted on.... (you will also recall, I pulled the chair back at one point as they had not voted on a section, I knew that section was going to fail based on the votes that had already been cast for it).


4)  I seem to recall you were on one of the committees that looked at this.  I don't believe you are swayed by Management view point.  I don't think you get why we have these types of committee.  They are not echo chambers of any of our thoughts, they are independent for a reason.  If we wanted to do something, we can just do it but we don't work that way.

Now to touch on the invisibility of the criteria.  The website was updated and it broke several links (including this one).  We were unaware of this.  This has been mentioned many times before.  There is no deliberate attempt at anything here and once we were made aware it was not showing, I went in and fixed it.  There are many pages on the Chess Scotland Website and it is impossible for me to know after an update to the site if something has gone missing.  I do rely on people spotting it and telling me.  As for secrecy?  Hardly!  Jim publishes the minutes of our meetings, on occasions we discuss something sensitive and that is not minuted but I can count on 1 hand the number of times that has happened.

On 5, there has been some comments made by people that have been a bit excessive and I fully understand the reaction of some of my colleagues to them.

Why are you constantly asking Jim to make a case??  He did not write this motion nor Propose / Second it.  I fail to see the logic of asking someone who has neither been involved with, authored nor proposed / seconded a motion to make a case for it?

Speaking from my own personal view (and I highlight personal, ie not one as part of the exec board).  We created an anomaly in 2011 and have tried to fix the anomaly (unsuccessfully so far, if you recall we tried to bring in a special category of membership with no eligibility rights and that was rejected...).  I think after 11 years we really need to sort it out and I am grateful that the EWP came to the conclusions they did.  I find it curious that Scotland stands alone in that it is the only Federation worldwide where we have someone registered and they cannot represent their country (with the exception of sanctioned players).  I didn't consider what Alex McFarlane posted earlier about discrimination, but he it totally right on that point.   Given Scotland as a whole is seen as a progressive, welcoming and multinational country, I can't quite fathom why within the chess community there is this almost bordering on xenophobia when it comes to eligibility.  It is strange as this is not the chess community I recognise when I am arbiting at events and there is something about Eligibility that seems to bring out the worst in people  Of course what Alex has missed is it is also a prima facie breach of Article 6 of the FIDE Ethics code.  I think that in itself is motivation for the motion to pass.


Walter, I think what you forget is the Exec Board / Management Board could have just introduced this change without consultation.  I have not asked but I don't think we have complete consensus across the management board on this issue, the motion has not come from Management Board, it has come from the EWP (which you were part of initially) along with Douglas Bryson, Gerald Lobley, Alastair White and Alex McFarlane.  That's 4 names there that I can be totally confident that will reach the correct decision (and not necessarily one Jim or I agree with) and ignore any perceived management meddling. 

I hope this clarifies some of  you have written above.  There is not some secret squirrel society that is running Chess Scotland.  It is a group of dedicated volunteers who's only interest is the good governance and promotion of Chess in Scotland.  None of us are paid for this, it is all done voluntary so there is no fiscal motivation for us to do what we do and I find your comments above deeply insulting to all members and previous members of the board during the period.  When I think of people like Ken Stewart and Mac MacKenzie to name but two being part of some grand conspiracy, the argument fails spectacularly. 

If you still stand by what you are saying, you have a path to remedy.  Firstly you can raise a case with the Standards Committee in Scotland (that would be step 1) and if that fails, given this is the Governing Body you are accusing of maleficence you can raise a case with the Ethics Commission of FIDE.  If you are going down that route, I highly recommend step 1 first as it will be the first thing that Ethics will ask.

Walter, all this is politics. Having stood in several elections inside and outside chess, this cloak and dagger stuff is normal practice in Scotland.
I await clarification of MT eligibility and dates of AGM.
OTB chess is starting to return e.g Hamilton Open and I can't wait to play regularly again.

Andy, 

This is nothing like politics.  Dip your toe in the FIDE/ECU pond and that is politics!  There is no cloak and dagger stuff going on except in the minds of individuals who do not have the complete facts of the matter, we have neither the time nor the energy for such nonsense. If you want to see real politics, have a look at what PNG are trying to bring in again.  I have dusted off my speech I was going to use at the last GA until Arkady intervened and instructed everyone to vote against the motion and will update ready to eviscerate them at the next one if they try again.

Like you I am looking forward to the restart of OTB but if cases keep rising, I fear it is going to be a short period so I would get as much in as I can!

[WBuchanan]

Reply to Andy Howie, Post #121

Quick version of reply: Is the insult aimed at deterring casual readers?  No 'fiction' noted but many attempts to personalize.
I would say you haven't made many challenges to the substance.
 
My reply

"2014 I am curious about the management board meeting as they did not start until Jim took over in 2015...  If you are privy to one I was not at I am glad to be corrected."
 
Is this an example of my 'fiction'? Council meeting, then? Given that you were at the centre of the proposal Andy, it's hardly possible you didn't know what meeting I was talking about. Why pretend otherwise?
 
The first paragraph in your reply to point 3 doesn't answer the point about all the 'nudges'.

Your next para:
 
"Now what I didn't reveal at the time as it would have been improper to do so, if you recall quite a lot of people had sent me instruction on how they wanted to vote (which led to the amusing situation of me voting for and against a motion).  Had this gone to a vote, then the original section would have in all likelihood passed.  If I had been trying to push this on behalf of the Management board, why would I have not pushed for the vote instead of listening to what the members of the meeting were saying and agreeing further consultation was needed on it?  Again, Neither Jim nor Robin were part of the management structure so why would pushing it into SOP's be protecting it given it still has to be voted on.... (you will also recall, I pulled the chair back at one point as they had not voted on a section, I knew that section was going to fail based on the votes that had already been cast for it)."
 
What are you saying, you held back your proxies so your proposal would fail? Feel free to clarify if you want.
Anyway - the idea of democracy and voting is that you count the darned votes. You don't expect such stories about the middle of votes to emerge six years later.
The idea of pulling the eligibility item came firmly from the management team (in my recollection it was Jim's predecessor), who then asked for a proposer, who could have been anyone. People don't sit looking at each other when meeting leaders ask for a proposer, it's a formality.
 
On 4)  you say "I seem to recall you were on one of the committees that looked at this.  I don't believe you are swayed by Management view point.  I don't think you get why we have these types of committee.  They are not echo chambers of any of our thoughts, they are independent for a reason. "
 
If they were independent Andy, they wouldn't be hand picked, secret and told to sign a gag clause :/
I got the sole place available to members basically by default.
 
"If we wanted to do something, we can just do it but we don't work that way."
 
Yes that's what Motion 1 is; the options are 1) Like it or 2) Lump it.
 
Whether it's against any rules or not to bypass the membership, I couldn't say.
Covid restrictions are being lifted on 18 April. Had there been an AGM - as required by the Constitution - other motions could have been brought.
 
Still on 4): "Now to touch on the invisibility of the criteria.  The website was updated and it broke several links (including this one).  We were unaware of this.  This has been mentioned many times before.  There is no deliberate attempt at anything here and once we were made aware it was not showing, I went in and fixed it.  There are many pages on the Chess Scotland Website and it is impossible for me to know after an update to the site if something has gone missing.  I do rely on people spotting it and telling me.  As for secrecy?  Hardly!  Jim publishes the minutes of our meetings, on occasions we discuss something sensitive and that is not minuted but I can count on 1 hand the number of times that has happened."
 
Lack of visibility in a particular time and place was just one part of the point; the criteria were missing for years after 2015. The 2016 Muir-Neave motion was passed to change the eligibility criteria, but it didn't result in them even being located and dusted off to look at with the aim of altering them to implement the motion.

This was the substantial point:
 
"This situation resulted in a chaotic period, with the chaos used to suggest MT was eligible."
 
I don't see you have said anything to challenge it.
 
5) "Why are you constantly asking Jim to make a case??  He did not write this motion nor Propose / Second it.  I fail to see the logic of asking someone who has neither been involved with, authored nor proposed / seconded a motion to make a case for it?"
 
Constantly? Just the once Andy, while asking many others - no need to exaggerate.
Others have popped this question. Jim did pick the EWP! But I'll ignore Jim if you want - not much of a challenge to my point there, I think.
 
"Speaking from my own personal view (and I highlight personal, ie not one as part of the exec board).  We created an anomaly in 2011 and have tried to fix the anomaly (unsuccessfully so far, if you recall we tried to bring in a special category of membership with no eligibility rights and that was rejected...)  I think after 11 years we really need to sort it out and I am grateful that the EWP came to the conclusions they did.  I find it curious that Scotland stands alone in that it is the only Federation worldwide where we have someone registered and they cannot represent their country (with the exception of sanctioned players)."
 
Careful Andy you might be giving me another nudge :-)...
It could be 'sorted out' by leaving as is, as per your own proposal in 2011. It's only 'pushing' that has kept the anomaly going.
If it was an error and not part of a deliberate attempt to make a player eligible that was not, it would be curious to resolve that error by moving the mountains that have been moved - rather than live with the fact that someone has a code that you yourself argued for "to save him from being stateless".
It seems to add up to a big effort to make a player e1igible.
 
"I didn't consider what Alex McFarlane posted earlier about discrimination, but he it totally right on that point.   Given Scotland as a whole is seen as a progressive, welcoming and multinational country, I can't quite fathom why within the chess community there is this almost bordering on xenophobia when it comes to eligibility.  It is strange as this is not the chess community I recognise when I am arbiting at events and there is something about Eligibility that seems to bring out the worst in people  Of course what Alex has missed is it is also a prima facie breach of Article 6 of the FIDE Ethics code.  I think that in itself is motivation for the motion to pass."

Andy, you've given me another nudge. You yourself made the original proposal in 2011, and asked people to accept it because MH was stateless. Now you argue discrimination in order to complete the process. And if Scotland doesn't accept it, it's not progressive.
Suddenly 'Scottishness' rules don't matter, other than to the xenophobic.
Nudge goes to push goes to shove.

You complain about non-existent 'insults' and then insult the membership yourself.
 
" I hope this clarifies some of  you have written above.  There is not some secret squirrel society that is running Chess Scotland.  It is a group of dedicated volunteers who's only interest is the good governance and promotion of Chess in Scotland.  None of us are paid for this, it is all done voluntary so there is no fiscal motivation for us to do what we do and I find your comments above deeply insulting to all members and previous members of the board during the period.  When I think of people like Ken Stewart and Mac MacKenzie to name but two being part of some grand conspiracy, the argument fails spectacularly."
 
Red herring, I've never criticized the work that those volunteers do for chess.
I agree largely about the promotion of chess - but the vision for the future that organisers and governors have can be different from those the members have.
If I've been critical it's been along the lines of democratic deficit, including...let's call it openness.
 
Your last statement - a misleading appeal to emotion, and bringing in past personalities, is unworthy of you. Members are entitled to point out things that are claimed that are incorrect without it being distorted and turned into a personal attack.
 
"If you still stand by what you are saying, you have a path to remedy.  Firstly you can raise a case with the Standards Committee in Scotland (that would be step 1) and if that fails, given this is the Governing Body you are accusing of maleficence you can raise a case with the Ethics Commission of FIDE.  If you are going down that route, I highly recommend step 1 first as it will be the first thing that Ethics will ask".
 
Thanks for reading me my options Andy, but it's not about me.
My purpose was simply to look at some of the nudges there had been to make MT eligible, in lieu of a proper case being made by management.
Since you raise it, I found in 2019 that the Standards Committee was not a path to correction of abuses of process by CS management.
Had there been an AGM I might have proposed a change of the Standards Committee procedures so the whole committee should at least see each complaint, so that the chair (or successive chairs, as the case may be) can't move to suppress it. You may recall there was AGM disquiet that the SC candidates were not open to members to propose. But that's by the by.

[Jim Webster]

I am only going to make this on comment on your posting and it is absolutely wrong

 Jim did pick the EWP! But I'll ignore Jim if you want - not much of a challenge to my point there, I think.

The decision to form this EWP was made at the 2019 AGM and approved by the attending members - and you actually volunteered to be part of that EWP from the membership. I remember that fact quite clearly. Yes or No ?

[Ianbrownlee]

Walter
a good THREAD bogged down by ABSOLUT DRIVEL.

"There has been secrecy of composition and secrecy conditions imposed on committee members."
if there's a secret composition, how do you know about it?
You cast aspersions on every person on the Management Committee I have the utmost respect for. For the record that's Jim , Andy H , Dougie etc.
You try and engage with Alex McFarlane and others and when you are corrected by Alex and several others, several times, you either ignore them or move on to something else.
In my opinion People are afraid to post because you will have a go at them. Your recollection of the formation of the EWP is faulty. I know I was there.
You criticize me for posting on the forum as I'm a moderator. I don't see you chastising Andy or Jim as they are also moderators. In fact I take instruction from Jim as he is CS Scotland president and Andy is my immediate boss as chief moderator.
Lets not have any doubt about this, if i thought Jim or Andy was in any error , I would be the first to criticize, I'm sure anyone who knows me doesn't need any reminding of that.
Before you accuse me of bias against anyone who doesn't completely agree with me, I also have the greatest respect of Willie Rutherford and George Neave who have valid opinions, and I thank them for their contributions
Just you Walter, and its because of the way you conduct your business, and I am holding back because I am a moderator.
I won't be posting again on this thread.
Like I said , absolute drivel and a good thread bogged down unnecessarily

[WBuchanan]

Ian; threatening to Not Hold Back - are we in a discussion board or a Rambo film, or what ?
There's a lot of innuendo and insult in your post as it is.
Feel free to criticize anything at all of mine, but do it in a civilized manner. Or people might get the idea that you are just suppressing criticism  . I expected  a bad reaction, been here before.

I don't believe I have cast any aspersions; unless telling someone that something they said is wrong is an example.

Ian I'm not sure you have grasped the details about which you are sounding off.
I expressed my concern, politely, about your moderation - ie, that you endorsed an abusive outburst/personal attack by a senior official on a member, supporting it even.
On a second occasion instead of stepping in to restrain a derisory post, you joined in.
You can't be unaware of this 'moderator conflict', because I mentioned it before.
I don't think you understand the role of moderator. It is not to support the view that you hold personally, or support other moderators that 'go off on one'.
 
And what the f-pawn is this:
 
"In my opinion People are afraid to post because you will have a go at them."
 
It's childish to cast aspersions, and on no basis too - and frankly unbelievable, coming from a moderator!?
 
I'll also reply to this, on the general principle that you seem to want to deflect away from the substance:
 
"You try and engage with Alex McFarlane and others and when you are corrected by Alex and several others, several times, you either ignore them or move on to something else."
 
Followed it all, did you? No one else commented on the detail. Which is here, also posts by Alex.
 (Post #85, 87, 90, 95, ... #107, 115. The last one might be enough to give the gist)
 The upshot of this, I argued painstakingly,  was that the 2016 Muir-Neave motion was correct in all it's forms (not incompetent or badly worded at all), and only became problematic later because of confusion creeping in and the lack of proper minute of the motion. (And it would seem, a willingness expressed that MT was eligible, or should be)
And it could not imply MT was eligible. Details in posts.


Does the fact of different officials, all citing each other without looking at the detail, turn black into white?
 
I wish to give credit to Alex McF. Jumps in and stays in - but never gets personal.

[andybburnett]

I would like to say that I find Walter's posts to be very interesting and useful and I don't see them as an attack on anyone (unlike those of some others, perhaps even including myself at times). I'm not sure Walter has got everything 100% right, but both his and Hamish's contributions make much more sense than most anything else I have read on this subject.

I have happily worked alongside most of the "management" present in this thread and understand what a thankless task most CS work is, but I feel at least some of them have somehow made a rather strange and complex issue much murkier by their postings here. Hopefully members, when asked to vote, will be able to read this thread and make up their own minds as to what should happen, though I am far from convinced they (we!) are being asked to vote on competent motions.

[WBuchanan]

I am only going to make this on comment on your posting and it is absolutely wrong

 Jim did pick the EWP! But I'll ignore Jim if you want - not much of a challenge to my point there, I think.

The decision to form this EWP was made at the 2019 AGM and approved by the attending members - and you actually volunteered to be part of that EWP from the membership. I remember that fact quite clearly. Yes or No ?

How does that contradict my statement.
My understanding was the other 4 were invited. It says so in the Annual Report, which the AGM is supposed to then accept.
Of course it could only apply to 4/5, that much is obvious.
Open to correction as to who invited them but I'm happy to drop your name from my 'call'.
That still leaves several other people who could still explain the benefits to CS should members vote yes to Motion 2, which other members also requested.

[Willie Rutherford]

<snip>... understand what a thankless task most CS work is, but I feel at least some of them have somehow made a rather strange and complex issue much murkier by their postings here. Hopefully members, when asked to vote, will be able to read this thread and make up their own minds as to what should happen, though I am far from convinced they (we!) are being asked to vote on competent motions.

Completely agree with the above, but I doubt many will wade through this lot. 
Tried to vote but my password is incorrect (...even though stored on google...surely not a conspiracy to stop me voting...joking!)
Anyway, if the webmaster sees this please can you reset me. Thanks.

[andybburnett]

I also tried to access the voting link but my password is ... incorrect! Although somehow I am logged in to the forum...

[Jim Webster]

Andy Howie

#116
Saturday, April 2nd, 2022, 09:46 am
Voting will go live on Tuesday Evening when I return from Berlin and will last for a week

Since this was actually posted on the Forum -- I do not understand why people are trying vote at this time.