At the AGM today, Ian was elected as Admin Director, Fiona both junior posts. All motions passed (some with slight amendments) with the exception of merging the posts.
As a consequence, only Members of Chess Scotland can post in the forum. As a result, all non members have now been set with read rights only.
There are some guest posters so you may see some people posting who are not members.
If you are incorrectly prevented from posting, can you let Ian or myself know
Bad Decision by CS regarding the notice board
Explanation by CS executive would be appreciated.
Is it to limit dissent
Steve,
It was CS members that voted for the result of motion 4. If you felt strongly about it why didn't you post on the noticeboard in this regard during the voting phase?
I was surprised that the candidates for the junior roles didn't post their future plans if selected. I abstained on voting but could have been persuaded by a good plan by either candidate.
(20-08-2017, 01:43 AM)StevieHilton Wrote: [ -> ]Bad Decision by CS regarding the notice board
Explanation by CS executive would be appreciated.
Is it to limit dissent
As Robin said,
It was CS members, not the Executive who put the motion forward. It was CS members who voted for said motion.
Bit hard for the Executive to give an explanation about something we didn't propose!
Andy,
Your answer is not good enough. You say that you as the executive, cannot explain the motion
as it came from the membership, the motion came the new elected Admin Director and former President.
hardly representative
Steve,
Are you saying that these people, although senior post holders past and present, do not have the right to present motions on their own personal beliefs as individual members of Chess Scotland?
Motions are open to ALL members and being a official does not in any way compromise, or restrict, the right of members to submit a proposal based on personal viewpoints, to the AGM. It only needs to be a valid correctly formed motion and proposed and seconded.
Stevie
as I made the motion I will put forward the following points
1. Hamish isnt on the executive board and neither was I when I proposed the motion.
2. It was Hamish and myself who discussed and proposed the motion If you were at the AGM you would have known that some executive members had initial reservations
3. It is appropriate that the discussions were deliberated at the AGM and nowhere else. However I would have discussed the motion with anyone prior to the AGM on a 1 to 1 basis and everybody knows that
4. I read out a statement and contributed four basic points surrounding the need for the motion to be passed. Other members added further points
5. Several additional suggestions were made, some were taken on board and a basic one was rejected
6. The motion was published on the agenda three weeks previously for anyone to comment on
7. As always anyone could have contacted me directly
on a purely personal note you contacted me directly before the AGM on other matters. I am very surprised since you knew about the motion, you did not discuss any concerns with me. If you had any concerns about the motion perhaps you should have discussed the motion with the proposer or seconder. The Executive committee merely allowed the motion to be put forward, they would have no comment on the motion, which is right and proper. I will pass no further on comment on whether an answer or response is good enough.
Had you been able to attend the AGM, with the reasons and explanations offered at the meeting, then I'm sure you would have came to the same conclusion as the overwhelming consensus.
May I also say it was a great AGM with overwhelming support for the volunteers. May I offer my congratulations to Fiona Petrie on her twin director roles and look further to further working with her. Commiserations to Andy Muir whom I am sure will find himself to further supporting Juniors in Scotland especially with the upcoming Glorney Cup. Andy's boundless energy and enthusiasm will contribute to making the Glorney cup a success
As always, my door is always open for anyone to contact me directly.
Ian,
You and Hamish are still officials of CS, and also I assume that motions were discussed after
the elections, then I can argue that the motion came from an executive board member.
I really think that the consequences fo CS will be disastrous for the organisation. Are the board and council seriously trying to stifle debate because by restricting the right of reply does not help the promotion of transparency.
How much of the chess playing population is a member of CS?
Non members by playing in clubs and tournaments are making their contribution
and if their only means of being heard is via the forum, then this motion denies them that chance, then I will speak out.
I know the motion passed, but that doesn't make it right
Stevie
(20-08-2017, 04:03 PM)StevieHilton Wrote: [ -> ]Ian,
You and Hamish are still officials of CS, and also I assume that motions were discussed after
the elections, then I can argue that the motion came from an executive board member.
I really think that the consequences fo CS will be disastrous for the organisation. Are the board and council seriously trying to stifle debate because by restricting the right of reply does not help the promotion of transparency.
How much of the chess playing population is a member of CS?
Non members by playing in clubs and tournaments are making their contribution
and if their only means of being heard is via the forum, then this motion denies them that chance, then I will speak out.
I know the motion passed, but that doesn't make it right
Stevie
Steve
Even if I was an executive board member it wouldnt matter as I made a proposal as a member not as a director, so as stated before the executive committee would not comment on it.
I would still like to know why you didnt voice your concerns to me directly when you phoned me the other night. After all you were discussing the AGM in general
(20-08-2017, 04:03 PM)StevieHilton Wrote: [ -> ]Ian,
You and Hamish are still officials of CS, and also I assume that motions were discussed after
the elections, then I can argue that the motion came from an executive board member.
I really think that the consequences fo CS will be disastrous for the organisation. Are the board and council seriously trying to stifle debate because by restricting the right of reply does not help the promotion of transparency.
How much of the chess playing population is a member of CS?
Non members by playing in clubs and tournaments are making their contribution
and if their only means of being heard is via the forum, then this motion denies them that chance, then I will speak out.
I know the motion passed, but that doesn't make it right
Stevie
Your first sentence is flawed. Ian had no way of knowing if he was in a contested post or not. Both the motion and the indication of wanting to serve have to be sent in by the same date. The motion came from two members, not from the board. The first they knew about it was when I published the list of motions.
The motion was voted on by members of Chess Scotland. That is their right as the board is run by Chess Scotland. The vote was not close 67.5% for the motion, 20% against and 12.5% abstained.
AGM is sovereign and always will be. That means there is no way I can overturn the decision, neither can Jim, neither can Ian or David (all four members of the Exec Board).
Whilst I may have reservations about the motion, the AGM has spoken and I will abide by it