Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
CS Constitution clause 6.2 states
6.2 An annual subscription payable by Individual, Club, Corporate and Affiliate members of Chess Scotland shall be fixed by COUNCIL from time to time, and COUNCIL is empowered to levy different subscriptions in respect of these different classes of membership and in respect of different age groups or other categories defined by COUNCIL. COUNCIL is empowered to expel any Member whose subscription is three months or more overdue and may delegate this power to an Office Bearer.
I’ll repeat part of that.
COUNCIL is empowered to expel any Member whose subscription is three months or more overdue and may delegate this power to an Office Bearer.
Key phrases being
*** COUNCIL is empowered to
*** Three months or more.
So why is it that Michael Hanley whose membership finished at the end of June 2013 is no longer on the lists of
Directors
Arbiters
Coaches
Chaperones
Especially Chaperones because one does not have to be a member of CS in order to be a chaperone.
Can the last volunteer to leave or be expelled please turn off the lights
Posts: 408
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2011
Personally I would have thought that if you ain't paid your membership then you aint a member from Day 1 of the new year - it surely can not be that you remain a member irrespective of whether you have paid your financial dues until council takes action.?
Posts: 550
Threads: 37
Joined: Nov 2011
Mr Hanley intimated in clear terms that he was not re-joining Chess Scotland and has not been expelled. Of course if someone knows more than me then i am happy to be corrected
Posts: 289
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
Speaking only in a personal capacity, I suppose it could be argued that leaving people as members is a standard policy since people often take a while to get round to renewing. I know I've forgotten to pay for a couple of months more than once, and I'm glad I was kept on the lists when this happened.
Mr Hanley has intimated that he has no desire to renew his membership, which, it could be argued, means there's no need for the interim position to be adopted.
Speaking as a moderator, I moved this thread into the current forum as it seems to be about membership and general CS policy with regards to that, rather than being concerned with junior chess.
Posts: 360
Threads: 97
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
3
I find it curious it is regarded important enough to warrant a headline by itself on the home page. Is there some criteria to be met to enable such a thing?
Posts: 68
Threads: 44
Joined: Aug 2011
Just for clarification:
What I stated was that I would not be renewing my membership while the current President and Membership Secretary/Chairman of Standards Committee were still in office after the disgraceful way Andrew/Linda McCusker and Jacqui/Phil Thomas have been treated.
Posts: 13
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2011
I find it worrysome that it was necessary to announce that Michael Hanley was no longer a member of CS and therefore no longer a CS Director. Why was it necessary to make this annoucement, and in the way it was?
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Mike Scott Wrote:Personally I would have thought that if you ain't paid your membership then you aint a member from Day 1 of the new year - it surely can not be that you remain a member irrespective of whether you have paid your financial dues until council takes action.?
Mike,
I think the guiding principal here should be if in doubt over any potentially contraversial matter - follow the constitution.
And I also suggest that it would be a good idea to publish the author and/ or those people who cleared the notice for publication at the end of any potentially controversial notice.
Posts: 1,000
Threads: 94
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
I believe Michael resigned since his director's report & posts online were deleted.
I disagree with this censorship and will raise at AGM.
Several people who have left CS should be brought back as short of numbers: MH, S Hilton ,Andrew McCusker etc
Posts: 383
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
If this thread is about membership and general CS policy, why has it been moved to a thread on the homepage entitled with a person’s name?
Hugh, you acted quickly before the council meeting to delete the relevant reports and related posts. Yet there is clearly no barrier to open criticism of the person concerned on the CS website. Is this one-sided continuation of ‘the war’ an appropriate use of the site? And what happened to the concern over ‘factions’ and the need for unity, all pulling together?
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the original dispute, in my view there is a need for CS to be seen to act to limit the damage from all this, on both sides. Re-naming the thread would be a start. Even handed-moderation would help too.
