I've been watching this from the sidelines. When I first read the document I too was surprised to see that juniors would not have a franchise. But when I thought about it ...
Did juniors have a vote in the SJCA? Organisers, schools, junior clubs had a say but I don't actually think that individual juniors had.
Organisations often have different classes of membership with different voting rights. Perhaps the wording should be tweeked that juniors paying the full fee have a vote. You could also have a similar senior membership at a slightly reduced rate with no voting rights, perhaps for over 70s.
I can understand the annoyance at non-members having a say. However, it should be remembered that they are potential members and with the right constitution and procedures in operation may (re)join.
Hi Mr Clarke (is it Martin?)
Not sure that there is a universal principle that paying a membership automatically implies voting rights, especially when the membership fee is lower for juniors. For you can buy different classes of shares that give different rights: some will not include voting rights, while the god share allows you to veto everyone else!
Perhaps the solution would be to allow juniors above a certain age to choose what type of membership they want - a cheaper junior one or a full price adult one and with the latter they get voting rights. For the younger ones if their guardians have a strong view perhaps there can be an associate membership such that the combined fee for the junior and the adult is similar to the fee for an adult.
I would point out that in swimming both the parent and the junior MUST join the national body and the fee is considerably higher than that for CS! So I do not feel its unreasonable to expect the adult to join CS if he/she wishes to vote.
Personally I do feel that it is important to garner the thoughts and comments of all its stake holders - that clearly includes the parents/guardians - and allowing them to vote on issues is certainly one way of doing that. Its about trying to find the best pragmatic solution.
Regards
Mike
ps Please come along to the LJC AGM if you fancy lending a hand - you would be most welcome. I can't remember the exact date but will be sticking it on our web site shortly.
Mike/Alex,
Re: different rates; to me it would seem fair that with the current lower fee they can vote on just junior matters, rather than everything. If they were to pay full whack, it'd seem fair to me that they (or guardians/parents) could vote on everything. Would a lower fee (i.e. the current one), with voting only on junior matters satisfy concerns from most parties? Juniors get represented on items that matter to them, and you don't have adult issues being determined by junior votes, adults still vote on both - ensuring that valuable experience and judgement isn't lost.
As an aside - according to the member list, there seems to be one junior who is already a life member!
Mike, I can understand where you're coming from with your experience with Scottish Swimming - I draw a lot from my work with scouting. So while I respect your conclusion about parents having to join too, I just have a different judgement on it.
Thanks, I'll look out for the LJC AGM details.
Martin
Some basic facts, and I believe potentially real examples.
Basic Membership
Adult 21.50
U17 10.00
U14 10.00
Family 1 38.50 1 parent plus any number of children U17
Family 2 51.00 2 parent Plus any number of children U17
Family Junior 19.00 Any number of children U17
Scenario 1
U14 – chess playing (or non chess playing) parent - Automatic Proxy vote, once registered for meeting
–
FULL voting rights for parent on all issues.
Scenario 2
Family 1– one parent plus 3 (eg U10) children 1 vote by right plus 3 Proxy (child) votes
–
4 FULL Voting rights on all issues.
Scenario 3
Family Jnr – chess playing (or non chess playing) parent plus 3 children – 3 Automatic Proxy votes
–
3 FULL Voting rights for parent on all issues.
These are all real scenarios that display the voting power of parents and the current Junior voting system.
There is
no requirement for parents in scenarios 1 and 3 to be able to play chess or even be members of Chess Scotland to have these votes.
Quote:For Information
This posting is NOT on behalf of the CWP
I exercise the right not to reply to any comments on this posting
Jim Webster Wrote:Some basic facts, and I believe potentially real examples.
Basic Membership
Adult 21.50
U17 10.00
U14 10.00
Family 1 38.50 1 parent plus any number of children U17
Family 2 51.00 2 parent Plus any number of children U17
Family Junior 19.00 Any number of children U17
Scenario 1
U14 – chess playing (or non chess playing) parent - Automatic Proxy vote, once registered for meeting
– FULL voting rights for parent on all issues.
Scenario 2
Family 1– one parent plus 3 (eg U10) children 1 vote by right plus 3 Proxy (child) votes
– 4 FULL Voting rights on all issues.
Scenario 3
Family Jnr – chess playing (or non chess playing) parent plus 3 children – 3 Automatic Proxy votes
– 3 FULL Voting rights for parent on all issues.
These are all real scenarios that display the voting power of parents and the current Junior voting system.
There is no requirement for parents in scenarios 1 and 3 to be able to play chess or even be members of Chess Scotland to have these votes.
Quote:For Information
This posting is NOT on behalf of the CWP
I exercise the right not to reply to any comments on this posting
Under the proposed new constitution...
eg Scenario 2
Family membership with 1 parent plus three (eg U16) children
1 vote, cost £38.50
robin moore Wrote:Under the proposed new constitution...
eg Scenario 2
Family membership with 1 parent plus three (eg U16) children
1 vote, cost £38.50
Yes, but we can we not address that under the membership fee structure, which is actually outside the Constitution?
Jim,
I think it would be reasonable to suggest to CS members that if you take away the voting rights of under 16's, junior membership fees both as individuals and families should be reduced, possibly significantly in the case of family membership.
I really can't see why U16's should pay the current membership fee if their voting rights are removed.
Patrick McGovern Wrote:"sigh" this issue of non-members trying to influence CS policy and procedure will only end when we only allow CS members to comment on such policies and procedures. There is an element in scottish chess that seek to make mischief and will not desist until they have their way.
Like Jim the following is how I feel too. :bash:
Pat as a paid up member of CS and close to the corridors of CS power. Would you care to explain to the CS members of this noticeboard
(1) Why the current president of CS wished to reject my membership.
(2) Why I should join such a demonstratively hostile organisation in order to express my views.
(3) Why you apparently think my views carry little weight.
Perhaps if you have the time you would care to answer all the questions posed by me on the thread which have not yet been answered. I suggest that the CS members reading this thread would like to see the answers.
I would also like to point out that the current constitution allows me to join CS on July 13th and vote in person on July 14th. Like it or not this makes me part of the electorate.
Removing the right of non members to post on this threadpost would not only be undemocratic, it would not be in anyone's interest. For one thing it would accelerate the decline in CS membership (ref unanswered question from a CS member). It would hence move us nearer to grading fees for under 14 games. (Ref minutes from junior board meeting in early 2014). Minutes still not published last time I looked even though I was told at the 2014 agm (yes Pat I was a member at the time - even though the chair of that meeting queried my membership status) that they were on the CS website junior page.
Quote:Family membership with 1 parent plus three (eg U16) children
1 vote, cost £38.50
Not sure what point you are making i.e. whether that is expensive or inexpensive.
It seems relatively inexpensive to me as the parent is only paying an extra £8.50 to gain voting rights. It also makes me think wonder whether it would be fair in that situation for the parent instead to have 3 votes - which while the kids are young would certainly all be cast in the same way and reflect the parent's views.
Hm.
BTW I am a non-member individually of CS but am indirectly involved via the LJC that has a vote and is debating which way to vote.
Mike,
In the example I quoted, under the proposed new constitution (and current membership fee structure) the family adult is paying £17 more than an individual adult to cast his/her one vote.