AGM

[Ianbrownlee]

Now the AGM has been called can I be assured that all the executive committee, management board and council minutes will be published and up to to date no later than three weeks before the AGM.
.
I also wish to stand as an individual for council and have a proposer and seconder. Can anyone guide me as to procedure for myself and proposers as I don't see how in the policies or constitution how to do it.

Finally since Chess Scotland  wont entertain AOCB how do submit a statement or question(s) at the AGM

[Jim Webster]

Ian,

The Council Operating Procedure states
   Section 8 - Powers of Council (extract)
      The AGM will be informed of all appropriate decisions by Council.
 
additionally, The Constitution states
  Section 14.3.1
      Following approval by the appropriate Council, Board or Executive Committee meeting the minutes will be published within 4 weeks of the date of the meeting.

Since the Council Meeting was held on Tuesday 1st October any minutes (draft) should be published no later that 29th October to order to comply with the Constitution as stated above.

Only motions can be presented an AGM, proposed and seconded by CS members. 

Appropriate questions however can be raised providing they are relevant to the proceedings and/or Agenda items

[amuir]

My proposals:
1 The AGM should be in person, not on-line. Speaking robotically is not democratic.
2 All positions should be elected democratically. No-one should be appointed.
3 If someone wishes to stand they should not need a proposer or seconder. I would like to stand for International Director or an individual or some other position in order to have a fair election, but I am not going to bother getting these as I don't see the point. I don't see the point in sending my cv either. People don't read them.

[Ianbrownlee]

Hi Andy
Point 2 and 3 is moot as all positions are appointed except for grading officer, CS magazine editor and membership secretary. Any appointments ratified by the Management Board would have to be ratified by the subsequent AGM including new appointments. The AGM is the final authority on this. Point 1 is debatable although it does allow members to attend when travel to a venue is potentially an issue, however a hybrid AGM both online and on site is a viable alternative if there is a genuine preference for it and its one I would vote for if asked. I believe in accountability and transparency

[Alex McFarlane]

Andy, Having an online meeting allows more people to attend without having to spend a whole day to do so. Having a proposer and seconder is standard practice and should indicate that the candidate has some support. What people don't want is a prolonged meeting taken up by having votes where only a minor miracle would allow one of the two candidates to get elected. (And for clarity, I am in favour of contested elections and would love to see two or three strong candidates contesting all positions.)

Ian, The ECF has two Council meetings a year. One is on-line and one is in the hybrid format you suggest. There was fairly strong feeling that the hybrid format should be abandoned. One reason is cost and also some felt that the meeting at times was dominated by those present and others were ignored. There seemed to be some support, though not a lot, for returning to in person meetings. The main reason for having old style meetings was that people actually got to meet up and get to know others.

I should also mention that a hybrid meeting can be an expensive option. You have the cost of a venue but you also have the additional cost of requiring a venue where the wi-fi can cope with the online part of meeting.

[Ianbrownlee]

given the geographical landscape in England I can appreciate the need for the format to be online. However in England the forum and other means seems to be vibrant whereas the Scottish scene is limited to say the least. Online meetings has several drawbacks including the limitations you suggest. If Chess Scotland has to reinvigorate itself there will have be a point where a physical meeting , whether hybrid or not, will be required. As to cost, any university or public building should be able to provide these facilities, I could even do it with a sim card and the appropriate router and video conferencing wouldnt be a problem. If we can provide live chess games over the Internet, why cant we broadcast a video meeting? If anyone wishes to make their presence felt then they should have the right, sometimes that can only be done face to face.
I repeat you dont need to rely on a venue's internet connect, you can use your own, the technology is there and most universities provide that service at minimal cost so i dont buy the cost argument.

The answer to this is to poll the members and ask them and possibly select a central venue e.g. Stirling, this is a University there which hosted the Glorney there last year and we both know they provide Video conferencing services there

[Alex McFarlane]

Ian, I'm puzzled by your reference to geography. England is about 400 miles long. Mainland Scotland is 274 miles (and the roads beyond Aberdeen are not conducive to high speed driving, and I will not comment on the rail service) but if you include Shetland (and why wouldn't you?) then the length of Scotland is about 450 miles so longer than England.
With those figures your understanding of why England having online is acceptable but Scotland to do so isn't, is puzzling.

I've also been involved in meetings where the video link was not good enough to sustain a meeting and people were turning off their video link. I won't argue with you over the technical requirements other than to say that if you want a reasonable probability of people being able to join and contribute you need much better than the provision allowed by anywhere without proper video conferencing facilities. Universities may provide these at minimal costs at certain times but certainly not at weekends where they require (and charge considerable amounts for) someone to monitor the provision.

[amuir]

We need personalities in chess so we need in person meetings. Appointments are undemocratic. I stick by my proposals for more elections.

[Ianbrownlee]

My point which seems to be getting lost is that CS needs to engage the membership more and different needs are required. Admittedly I dont know how many members are in Shetland or even in Orkney but I'm generally confident the vast majority of members reside within an hour or two from my example of Stirling. It would be interesting if Dougie could supply a generalised statistic of geographic locations of members. Yes we need an online presence but I'm sure those who wish to make a physical presence at an AGM.

An AGM seems to be the only time there is sufficient interest in the forum and that signals at least a need for an online presence. I am arguing for a hybrid presence which would accommodate both online and a physical presence. What I am saying is that there is an indication for such a serious meeting as an AGM that there should be a physical presence offered to those who feel an online meeting is too restrictive or members are unable to convey their thoughts and feelings. We really need to do more to encourage old and new members to feel more inclusive. I also feel voting could be much better organised but that is a subject for another day. How can motions be adequately voted on when the voting is effectively and realistically over before the AGM. On average there are 60 votes cast with only 20 members attending which makes the debates and elections a farce

[Alex McFarlane]

 "I also feel voting could be much better organised but that is a subject for another day. How can motions be adequately voted on when the voting is effectively and realistically over before the AGM. On average there are 60 votes cast with only 20 members attending which makes the debates and elections a farce"

Sorry you think that is a topic for another day.  As the constitution is under review, hearing comments on this aspect would be useful.

I too have concerns over votes cast in advance.  However, it is better than the previous system of proxy votes where people harvested others votes in the hope of getting something controversial through.  This usually ended up as effectively two people opposing each other with the winner being the person with the larger number of proxies.  Attendance at the meeting became an irrelevance as the debate didn't matter.

I'm not sure that keeping voting open after the meeting, even if possible, would be a better solution. 
How many would listen to the points made at the meeting?

At least the current system allows everyone to express an opinion if they want.  It is to be hoped that some thought is given before the vote is cast.