"Steve,
Answers needed earlier than that.
Answers needed before proxy votes are given.
Otherwise decision will be taken by the absent and uninformed majority.
Remember that this crucial meeting happens on a Tuesday morning in holiday season with less than three notice given.
Repeating my earlier question, does anyone know how long the meeting will last? Enough material here to keep the debate going until well into the evening. Potentially allowing many people to complete their working day and reach the venue before the final vote is taken.[/quote]"
Phil,
I agree with your thoughts on this
Robin, do you already have a seconder for the junior voting amendment? If not, acting as his parent and guardian, Aiden will second it.
Thanks Martin,
I don't have a seconder as yet so that will be great for Aiden to do that. Will send details in to Andy Howie and Jim Webster.
Thank you.
The more I read this thread, the more unsettled I become. But my concern is less with what the CWP presents than with how it is presented.
What are the composition and terms of reference of the CWP? (I have searched but - presumably - in the wrong place.)
By what authority does the CWP present its case to the SGM? The CWP comprises “draughtsmen”, not “lawmakers”. Its findings should be presented by the elected office bearers who appointed its members and who - I assume - have endorsed its recommendations/conclusions.
The fact that the CWP has not completed its deliberations is concerning, too. The President is not standing for re-election, so whence will continuity derive? The CWP Statement of 30 June 2015 (coupled with other releases) is candid: many issues were settled by majority voting. How clearcut was this majority? Have issues simply been rolled over? The CWP expresses an aspiration: to achieve an “enabling” Constitution, leaving much of the “nuts and bolts” detail - that is, Operational Procedures - to be filled in later. All well and good, no doubt, but patronising.
The SGM will be governed by the existing Constitution, but neither it nor its proposed replacement - if adopted - does anything to prevent bloc voting (not “block voting”, which as defined or interpreted by amuir is tantamount to gerrymandering). There needs to be a cap on how many proxy votes a single representative can bring to the meeting. There already exists a method for members to vote electronically (email) to a properly appointed “Presiding Officer” (or similar) to guard against gerrymandering - though this will do nothing to prevent campaigning, nor should it.
It is suggested that a proxy vote be limited to a specific motion or nomination. The significance of this would be to enhance the importance of actually attending an AGM/SGM where it is normal practice to debate/vote on all motions and issues. In my present circumstances, it is practically impossible for me to attend the SGM. Therefore, if I am to vote it will need to be by proxy. I am firmly opposed to Robin Moore’s proposal to retain voting for Junior Members under the age of 16. But, if I vote against that I cannot also vote against the current proposal regarding proxy votes. Conundrum!
The CWP has deliberated for many months: members are required to digest all that has been produced and make a decision within three weeks. Offhand, from a PR standpoint that is abject. Members need to be forbearing, recalling that all of the work is done by volunteers, who deserve our gratitude and support.
George
PS I drafted this before Robin posted earlier this morning, but pressing business intervened. I do not refer to Robin's expressed gratitude to Aiden.
George Murphy Wrote:What are the composition and terms of reference of the CWP?
The working party was created following acceptance of a motion at the 2013 AGM.
....an from the minutes says :-
* Working party consisting of Hamish, Andy, David C and three others to consider motions as part of constitutional reform
* Notice to be placed on CS Website for notes of interest for the working party
* Recommendations to be presented first to Council then an EGM
George Murphy Wrote:By what authority does the CWP present its case to the SGM?
The CWP is not presenting it's case to the SGM.
CS SGM Notice Wrote:The Constitution 2015 was presented to Council, by the CWP, on Saturday 30th May where proposals/comments were made. These comments were then actioned by the CWP and amendments made as necessary. The updated Constitution 2015 was then circulated to all Council members on June 6th including those unable to attend the meeting.
Following this circulation a small number of further comments/corrections were received and once again, where relevant, these have been included in the final published version.
The meeting will be run in the same way as an AGM, chaired by the President.
George Murphy Wrote:The SGM will be governed by the existing Constitution, but neither it nor its proposed replacement - if adopted - does anything to prevent bloc voting (not “block voting”, which as defined or interpreted by amuir is tantamount to gerrymandering). There needs to be a cap on how many proxy votes a single representative can bring to the meeting. There already exists a method for members to vote electronically (email) to a properly appointed “Presiding Officer” (or similar) to guard against gerrymandering - though this will do nothing to prevent campaigning, nor should it.
Under the present Constitution I'm afraid this is perfectly legitimate.
George Murphy Wrote:It is suggested that a proxy vote be limited to a specific motion or nomination
Extract from the current constitution.
14.4 ..................... . Only those motions detailed in the relevant requisition, or amendments thereto, shall be discussed and voted upon at the SGM.
However in response to the depth and quality of this Forum discussion (and I hope the openness) along with comments made, the following was added, to the SGM notice, the following to allow a freer discussion platform (it's not perfect and has it's detractors but then.....)
CS SGM Notice Wrote:There seems to be some misunderstanding about how the SGM will operate. The final outcome will be to vote on whether a new Constitution for Chess Scotland should be accepted. During the pre-amble to that vote, each Section will be briefly discussed and any proposed changes voted on. Such proposed change(s) to a Section need to be formally proposed and seconded, as required under the current Constitution
George Murphy Wrote:The fact that the CWP has not completed its deliberations is concerning, too
The CWP has completed its deliberations and that was what was presented to Council.
Actions such as creating Operating Procedures need to be mandated and that requires a Constitution to permit it. I think it is unrealistic to expect these to be drafted and presented for a system that may or not be adopted. This work has be a matter of priority though as has been said earlier in this thread (somewhere!!). In the existing constitution there are no mandated Job Descriptions (i.e. operating procedures for Directors Responsibilities) so items such as these should not be an impediment to adopting a new constitution.
George Murphy Wrote:The CWP has deliberated for many months: members are required to digest all that has been produced and make a decision within three weeks.
The SGM date is actually in accordance with the current Constitution. It requires to be held within 30 days.
George Murphy Wrote:But, if I vote against that I cannot also vote against the current proposal regarding proxy votes.
Sorry George, can't solve your conundrum for you, much as I would like to.
Martin,
I now believe that you need to contact Andy Howie and Jim Webster directly (details on homepage SGM notice) to formally register that you are acting as proxy for Aiden and then in that capacity acting as seconder for my amendment.
I suggest sending this...
This is to inform you that as the parent of Aiden Clarke (member number 26014) I will act as his proxy with regard to the forthcoming SGM. In that capacity I then support the amendments on Sections 5 and 6 as proposed by Robin Moore.
Martin Clarke
Hi Robin, I've emailed both Andy and Jim to second the amendment.
Thanks,
Martin
Got it.
Where would we be without a little humour?
I have submitted the following amendment to section 16 on eligibility.
Walter
Amendment to Section 16 (eligibility)
Proposer: W Buchanan
Seconder: I C Robertson
16.Eligibility
16.1. To be eligible to compete for any Scottish individual national championship title (including open to all, gender or age-related championship tournaments) a person must be a member of Chess Scotland, be currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’) and meet at least one of the following two requirements:
16.1.1. born in Scotland, or have at least one parent born in Scotland, or
16.1.2. permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years immediately prior to the commencement of the competition.
In the case of Juniors aged 18 and under, the residence qualification period as at 16.1.2 above shall be reduced to one year immediately prior to the commencement of the competition.
16.2. To be eligible to represent Scotland in any international competition , a person must fulfil the eligibility requirements in section 16.1, and be able to satisfy any other criteria (including age and rating limits) set by the organisers of the tournament concerned.
Selection of individuals and/or teams who will represent Scotland in international competition is the sole responsibility of the appropriate board of selectors. Qualification according to the above criteria is no guarantee of being considered for selection.
16.3. For national or international inter-club competitions, any member of a qualifying club is eligible to play regardless of nationality, parentage, residence or registration.
[END]
There is a problem with Walter's amendment and it's with regard to the age related part in 16.1.
This issue was highlighted by Derek Howie on page 16 in response to Alastair White's post on the same page.