Priorities

[Mike Scott]

Glad to see the positive outflows with regards proxies and constitution but can I ask what the other priorities are for the coming months for CS, and what is the order of priority?

Personally I fear that a lot of energy and time could go into resolving problems we didn't know we had or which are not most significant on the list of problems, and which when solved will not actually contribute to resolving more fundamental problems e.g. funding, lack of progression of juniors, falling membership of clubs.

I have no doubt that CS would be a better organization if it had a dynamic agm that involved more of the members: that is certainly the first step towards getting more people involved and the proxy vote is part of that for sure but only part.

I personally feel that there has been a lack of transparency and engagement and that could be addressed without changes to rules&regulation.

[Alex McFarlane]

Mike,

The main driving force behind the original version of the current constitution (if that makes sense) was to allow Directors to get on with the task in hand without having to report back and get authorisation. Unfortunately, a side effect of this can be a lack of communication - you just do something but don't tell everyone.

I don't know how you overcome this.

The original constitution after the merger of the SCA and SJCA had no provision for Junior Directors. This had the laudable intention that the junior and 'adult' games would have to merge. It quickly became clear that there was too much work for one Director and the current situation arose. However when you have separate Directorships then the integration is almost certain to be less.

I would suggest that there should be a Director of Home Chess who has a Manager of Junior and a Manager of Adult Chess underneath them. The Managers do the work but the Director co-ordinates and gives final approval.

The downside of such a structure is the need for more volunteers!!!!