Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
WBuchanan Wrote:The minutes do say the meeting agreed unanimously; Andy might have known the proxies would have made no difference on the choice of amendment but I don't think they were actually mentioned. Derek is entitled to query this.
Regarding the removal of the elgibility item I have a related question but I think the SGM outcome/minutes needs its own thread - has the one that was started disappeared?
Derek is of course entitled to query this, but his recent posts go beyond a simple query.
Is there something which is preventing people from enquiring about things privately, and only going public when they haven't received satisfactory answers? I've lost count of the number of recent posts which could probably have been solved in private but instead have been public attacks on the actions and integrity of CS officials. Personally I'm getting a bit fed up with this kind of offensive behaviour.
Posts: 382
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
Perhaps Derek’s wording is pointed or hasty but you have a point Andy B, about unsatisfactory (for Derek) answers.
Here is Derek’s offending remark:
(Derek) “Or are those members of the CWP who were running the meeting ignoring proxies by introducing motions which were not on the agenda thus preventing those not attending from having their votes registered?”
However, on the eligibility section
1) A motion WAS introduced that was not on the agenda
2) Just prior, Derek’s proxies were apparently ignored (though Andy H may have known they were insufficient, he’ll clear that up for us I’m sure).
3) Responses to Derek’s queries have been contradictory; for example according to Jim proxies were not ignored and the minutes weren’t wrong - but the minutes refer to the meeting ‘agreeing unanimously’ that his suggestion should fail.
Posts: 1,920
Threads: 261
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
Just realised that we are talking about Section 16. I thought we were talking about section 5.
If this is the motion I think it was, if memory serves me correctly was it not suggested (by the chair?) that Dereks motion was not a proper motion, it was a list and only Walters could go through? The meeting voted on this and it was unanimous. I may have this mixed up with something else but that is my recollection.
Does this strike a chord Walter?
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
WBuchanan Wrote:Perhaps Derek’s wording is pointed or hasty but you have a point Andy B, about unsatisfactory (for Derek) answers.
Here is Derek’s offending remark:
(Derek) “Or are those members of the CWP who were running the meeting ignoring proxies by introducing motions which were not on the agenda thus preventing those not attending from having their votes registered?”
However, on the eligibility section
1) A motion WAS introduced that was not on the agenda
2) Just prior, Derek’s proxies were apparently ignored (though Andy H may have known they were insufficient, he’ll clear it up I’m sure).
3) Responses to Derek’s queries have been contradictory; for example according to Jim proxies were not ignored and the minutes weren’t wrong - but the minutes refer to the meeting ‘agreeing unanimously’ that his suggestion should fail.
These questions are all fine Walter, but common courtesy would be to contact the people responsible, and give them a chance to explain things first!
I'm certainly not singling out Derek H. for this, but chess in Scotland is rife with bickering and squabbling, much of it very public, and it is this kind of behaviour which detracts from all the positive things which people are trying to achieve.
I know of quite a few people who would love to get involved more in Scottish chess circles, but are put off by the thought of having to put up with basic rudeness and downright trouble-making - what purpose does it serve and who does it benefit?
Perhaps we should take the vote (and forum rights) away from anyone over the age of 16? 
Posts: 382
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
Andy Howie Wrote:Just realised that we are talking about Section 16. I thought we were talking about section 5.
If this is the motion I think it was, if memory serves me correctly was it not suggested (by the chair?) that Dereks motion was not a proper motion, it was a list and only Walters could go through? The meeting voted on this and it was unanimous. I may have this mixed up with something else but that is my recollection.
Does this strike a chord Walter?
Um, not in Section 16 Andy. There was a criticism from the floor (Alan Borwell I think) that Derek’s Section 16 amendment (which was the status quo) had bad wording but this was only because he (Derek) had quoted from the existing list of criteria guidelines - which aren’t in the existing constitution, and were very roughly formed. The list was only there for information - of course they could not go straight in like that, but that was a minor problem. It would be kind of ridiculous to reject the status quo as improper because of its bad wording.
There was a unanimous vote on my amendment versus Derek's in favour of mine, but I don't believe that the proxies were referred to - this might have been an oversight of course.
What would help the present dispute that Derek has raised is to know how the proxies were distributed on Section 16 and the 2 amendments. Cheers
Posts: 1,920
Threads: 261
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
I had a feeling I had it mixed up. Couldn't be sure. Being in the middle of the Scottish and Alex and I doing at least 14 hour days each day, understandably I am tired at the moment so recall is not as sharp as it should be. Thanks for clearing that up!
My notes on this are mixed up with the Scottish stuff so will look through when I am unpacking it.
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Posts: 382
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
While we’re waiting for Andy to dig out his stuff I had better raise my own question regarding the minutes here as the other thread seems to have vanished.
It concerns (surprise) Section 16. The minutes say:
“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.”
This doesn’t fit well with my recollection, especially the part about it going to the Operating Procedures. This would have rung a bell with me. I'm not sure Section 16 on eligibility was to be removed from the PNC (Proposed New Constitution) either - I thought it had been remitted to a continuation of the SGM.
I would be surprised if all of this minute were accurate; it is equivalent to the proposal in the PNC, in that CS management will decide the selection criteria themselves later, without putting the criteria to a formal vote. As it was the opposite of my motion which aimed to give the membership a formal say on the criteria, I’d be pretty surprised if I was sold such a turkey.
While Section 16 could I expect be remitted legitimately to a future meeting as the meeting was running out of time I think it would be out of order to allow a vote of this nature, as it would amount to a vote for or against Section 16 of the constitution, without voting first for or against the surviving amendment to it.
Indeed it would also be evading the votes cast by proxy against the equivalent proposal in the constitution!
And finally of course it was made clear that only proposals already in were to be voted on and this was a new one, with new details.
So though of course I could be wrong I’d appreciate it if anyone present at the meeting can shed any light as to what precisely was proposed.
Cheers
Posts: 445
Threads: 52
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
3
WBuchanan Wrote:This doesn’t fit well with my recollection, especially the part about it going to the Operating Procedures. This would have rung a bell with me. I'm not sure Section 16 on eligibility was to be removed from the PNC (Proposed New Constitution) either - I thought it had been remitted to a continuation of the SGM.
I did indeed say that. The rationale, which I also said at the time, was that the reason for this proposal to remove Eligibility from the PNC was the confusion and lack of clarity at the meeting regarding the FIDE position on the allocation of national codes. That it would be better to address the matter as an Operating Procedure and could then be potentially re-introduced into the Constitution at a later date.
I also recall that it was suggested that yourself (Walter) and Alastair White put your views together with the concept of putting together a workable set of Eligibility criteria combining the proposals you and the PNC offered.
WBuchanan Wrote:... it is equivalent to the proposal in the PNC, in that CS management will decide the selection criteria themselves later, without putting the criteria to a formal vote. This is not true, we the CWP, have always maintained that any Operating Procedure would be presented to Council and ratified at either an AGM or SGM and would be just as binding in its authority as any part of the Constitution.
The constitution is designed to define who we are and what we do, but not the fine detail on how we do it. Hence the rationale for creating and maintain Operating Procedures.
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
0
Jim,
With all due respect, The fine detail is vital in order to clarify the whole document.
The job descriptions should be there if only to avoid any demarcation disputes, especially the role of the President. To be fair to the CWP, Job descriptions have not been available for some years now, but the new constitution is to be an improvement on the old one. I feel that it is falling into the same position as the previous constitution.
I do not think it is right to ask the membership to ratify a document that leaves so many questions unanswered, not just on the remits of office bearers, but also in respect to the questions about that have been asked in this forum.
Posts: 29
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
0
Andy (B), Yes, of course you are absoutely right. Players have asked me more than once, "Why do people write all that stuff?".
I fully expected people (attendees or otherwise) to attack the competence of the minute secretary. That is why my previous post acknowledged that it is open season. Go for it, enjoy yourselves, by all means shoot the messenger. In my own defence all I can say is that I wrote the minutes honestly and carefully.
With regard to eligibility, when I wrote the meeting was unanimous that is not the same as writing the voting was unanimous. Nobody at the meeting argued that a series of questions was a competent motion.
As the original author (along with others) of <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/international/elignational.htm">http://www.chessscotland.com/internatio ... tional.htm</a><!-- m -->, I can only hang my head in shame to learn that the words were very roughly formed. When read in the context of the complete page on the website, perhaps they are not all that bad but, hey, have we just returned to my first paragraph?
|
