AGM Proposal: SGM notice periods and running of SGM meetings

[WBuchanan]

I’m thinking of putting a proposal to ensure that for future SGMs (not the one this month, obviously!) there is time for consideration, submission of amendments, voting for them and arranging for proxies, as well as adequate time for the SGM itself. The present total timescale of 2 weeks from the announcement to the meeting is way too short, which impedes proxy voters. Indeed proxies end up being blamed when the real problem is often that processes that deal with serious issues shouldn’t be rushed or compressed.

Here is my suggestion:

AGM Proposal: SGM notice periods and running of SGM meetings

The normal notice period for an SGM should be 4 weeks, within which at least SEVEN days time should be allowed EACH for the submission of amendments, the voting for amendments and the receipt of proxy votes on the ultimate proposals.

[i.e. a schedule like this:

Day 0 Notice and proposal(s)
Day 7 Closing date for amendments
Day 14 Amendments voted on.
Day 21 Proxy votes in on the amended proposals.
Day 28 SGM meeting and votes on amended proposals. ]

Circumstances of exceptional difficulty may require the meeting to take place within a minimum of only 21 days notice, in which these 7 day periods may be shortened proportionately to a minimum of 5 days each.

The results of the votes on amendments should be posted (eg on the CS noticeboard) within two days, with any delay in excess of this time extending the deadline for receiving proxy votes accordingly.

Proxy vote totals shall be published (eg on the CS Noticeboard) at least one day before the meeting.

Any time limit on the length of the meeting shall also be announced at least one week in advance after which the meeting shall not be curtailed due to time constraints.
[END]

Thoughts!?
Cheers

[Jim Webster]

Walter,

For the moment, I'm going to drop out of the debate on eligibility.

At the end of the day what is required is a set of guidelines that are
- clear
- unambiguous
- acceptable to all
- not open to misinterpretation (have I said that already )

One thing the CWP, and it's proposal, has at least done is bring this issue to the fore. This has opened quite a debate, no matter what side one is on, on the subject of Eligibility ranging from International Selection to Scottish Championships. That can only be a good thing, no matter which side of the fence one's viewpoint is on.
Or where we end up.

I just wish I was a good enough player to be affected by this :ympeace:

[amuir]

Walter
I shall second your proposal if you second my remaining motions even if you don't support them.
I wish to discuss many topics at the AGM regarding the new constitution whilst we get a reasonable attendance which we dont get at weekday SGMs.

[andyburnett]

Walter
I shall second your proposal if you second my remaining motions even if you don't support them.
I wish to discuss many topics at the AGM regarding the new constitution whilst we get a reasonable attendance which we dont get at weekday SGMs.

Andy M.

There has been a lot of debate here already, often detailed and generally very constructive. Instead of taking up precious time at the AGM with your proposals, why not try to debate them here first, and convince people they are worth supporting? 'Doing a deal' with Walter could end up with the AGM being clogged up with possibly worthless proposals?!

[WBuchanan]

Andy M, I don’t think horse-trading would be right unless I agreed with the motion or thought it should be debated.

The only ones I think I could support or put up for debate are 1 and 2 and I’m sure they’re not the ones you need support for.

Andy B is giving you good advice about debating them here first

BTW Your Number 6 – why do they have to overlap? Have you asked Alex? I would presume they wouldn’t overlap if they didn’t have to so I don’t think this will get far other than you being told the reason they overlap!

Number 7 is just a statement - you need an ‘action’ or it will be ruled not competent.I'd be uneasy anyway about blanket calls for people to do things - a better idea might be to have the selections early and give training to those that accept (but I don't like that much either... )
I think you should drop these two also 4 (outlandish) and remove the sacking reference in 5 and explain your reasons for the other part.

Cheers

Andy Muir's proposals:
1. The Scottish Champion must be SCO FIDE affiliated.
2. Having a Scottish grandparent is insufficient eligibility to represent Scotland. This shall not appear in any eligibility rules.
3. Matt Turner will be considered for the Olympiad as a wildcard due to services to chess, subject to agreement of the reamining team members.
4. There shall be no selection oversight position. International Directors shall be solely responsible for selections.
5. Directors shall serve a one-year term. (As in football, bad managers should be sacked promptly)
6. The Scottish Championships shall not overlap the Glorney Cup dates (our top players rarely play in the Glorney and haven't won for 50 years)
7. Our top juniors, having received training, are expected to play in the Glorney Cup each year.

[amuir]

Walter
No 1 has already been seconded.
No 6 - They always overlap - dates for next year overlap too.
No 7 - happy to amend wording slightly - a player who refuses selection for Glorney Cup without good reason shall have receive no further CS funding for 2 years.
No 4 is not outlandish - it is the current position

Andy H
what are the rules on unseconded motions ?

[amuir]

Andy H
I have a seconder for all 7 now. He doesn't necessarily agree with them all but thinks they should be debated.

[Alex McFarlane]

6. The Scottish Championships shall not overlap the Glorney Cup dates (our top players rarely play in the Glorney and haven't won for 50 years)

I accept that in an ideal world these events would not clash. The organisers of next year's Glorney have given provisional dates which will not be confirmed until April. It is ludicrous to even debate a motion which effectively says that the organisation of the Scottish should not take place until April as that would be the only way to guarantee that there would be no clash.
Andy seems to want the best juniors to be able to play in both. The only time that can be guaranteed to have all Scottish schools off are weeks 2 and 3 in July (or to clash with the British).

[Clement Sreeves]

How big of an issue is it if the Scottish clashes with the English championships?

[andyburnett]

How big of an issue is it if the Scottish clashes with the English championships?

I would say it is a non-issue. The number of Scots playing the British (as Clement says, it is ostensibly the English Championships now) has declined to almost 0 over the last few years. Certainly to a number low enough that it shouldn't have any bearing on when we hold the Scottish.