Forums

(07-04-2022, 05:29 PM)Jim Webster Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Willie Rutherford said
If/when motion 2 is defeated that should be the "MT question" laid to rest once and for all. No need to speak of past motions/meeting/discussions on this every again!
If/when motion 1 is defeated, I think it would be really quite wrong for CS to go ahead with the proposed eligibility criteria change without a proper open and objective consultation with, and voting by, the members.

What happens :-
If/when motion 2 is passed – it should equally be the case that the “MT question” also be laid once and for all.
If/when motion 1 is passed – it should equally be quite right for CS to thereby implement the Constitution change.


I firmly believe that it is the members who make the decision by voting.  
Whilst the few, and it is a few, who post on the Forum the rest of the Membership does have actually have a voice.

The forum has an available readership of 203 recorded members, 20 of whom took part on the Eligibility thread. Of these 20 posters, 92 posts out of 169 were by 4 members.  This does not actually reflect the real view of the membership mass, rather a highly vocal few. Incidentally CS has a membership of 527, which also means the 324 members do not even wish to participate in the Forum. Hardly a truly representation of CS membership and participation on the Forum.

You say "highly vocal few" as though that were a bad thing, Jim! Almost every point raised here by the "highly vocal few" has been worthy of discussion - even those I disagree with. If the general CS membership is so disinterested then perhaps we should take the vote away from them  I'll actually be interested to see what the uptake on voting is - have we ever held one before?

I can't be bothered reading 17 pages. So apologies if this has come up already.

Given we (Chess Scotland) haven't had an AGM since 2019. Unless I missed it? I am very surprised that this subject is deemed the most pressing matter to put before the membership by the Exec Comm or Man Comm. I would have thought covid response, FIDE's relationship with Russia or good governance may warrant an actual AGM/SGM.

My view on eligibility has maybe changed a bit. As someone who isn't in any danger of being eligible for international representation I'm not sure my view really matters. I don't think having a vote on a specific person's eligibility is very sensible or appropriate.

In my view a set of eligibility criteria should be established that the International Directors abide by. I also think there should be discretion in exceptional circumstances that can be applied. Mat Turner would be worthy of such discretion in my view for his contribution to chess in Scotland.

(07-04-2022, 05:29 PM)Jim Webster Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Willie Rutherford said
If/when motion 2 is defeated that should be the "MT question" laid to rest once and for all. No need to speak of past motions/meeting/discussions on this every again!
If/when motion 1 is defeated, I think it would be really quite wrong for CS to go ahead with the proposed eligibility criteria change without a proper open and objective consultation with, and voting by, the members.

What happens :-
If/when motion 2 is passed – it should equally be the case that the “MT question” also be laid once and for all.
If/when motion 1 is passed – it should equally be quite right for CS to thereby implement the Constitution change.


I firmly believe that it is the members who make the decision by voting.  
Whilst the few, and it is a few, who post on the Forum the rest of the Membership does have actually have a voice.

The forum has an available readership of 203 recorded members, 20 of whom took part on the Eligibility thread. Of these 20 posters, 92 posts out of 169 were by 4 members.  This does not actually reflect the real view of the membership mass, rather a highly vocal few. Incidentally CS has a membership of 527, which also means the 324 members do not even wish to participate in the Forum. Hardly a truly representation of CS membership and participation on the Forum.

Well obviously if they are approved, they should be implemented. 
Trying to work out what is the purpose of this post and can only conclude it is to discourage members posting on the forum.
Quite bizarre really, but really beginning to form a pattern, which is shame.

(07-04-2022, 04:19 PM)Alex McFarlane Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-04-2022, 04:00 PM)WBuchanan Wrote: [ -> ]Lol to the humour in your post. Why, it's that Andy Muir's fault again, getting Jacob banned from arbitering in Scotland.
But maybe you will say that motion of his would make Matthew eligibile to arbitrate again!

OK, Real world check.

Finding inconsistencies in rules is the easiest thing in the world.
Rules are drafted with main purposes in mind.
You don't turn them inside out because of some angle that had never been considered.
If it's a serious point the answer would be to introduce consideration of the arbiter scene at some level of priority.
You can then argue for the priority to be increased.
Meantime it's easy enough for CS to draft contingencies for exceptions, applying common sense.
Strength of feeling drives rules. Players LOVE arbiters and would never dream of questioning their eligibility

Isn't the highlighted sentence the reason we are here!!??

Rules should be drafted for all purposes, not just the main ones.  Sometimes things will be missed.  I do not consider arbiter and FIDE Commission appointments to be an insignificant matter.  Indeed, I know a former refugee arbiter now resident in England who was worried that if she changed to ENG it could restrict another arbiter's chances of appointments at World events.

"Isn't the highlighted sentence the reason we are here!!??"
 
Yes, but note the last part.
There are reasonable assumptions within which the rules hold up well enough.
To draft rules for all purposes, and for all contingencies, would be impossible without vastly more resources than CS has.
 
General rules honed over time applied with wisdom and oversight work well for the common good. The oversight is needed in case of differing visions of what the common good actually means. I think over the last decade there has been this divergence in visions. A strong, star-studded international team is probably desirable for most players, but I don't think members in general would say they want that at any price. That's where it kind of breaks down. Oversight has reduced over time to the point where members views can be largely ignored. That allows rules that were devised to be followed in normal circumstances get breached, or  at least do not get maintained.
 
I don't say anything is an insignificant issue, but you shouldn't argue by exception alone - you'll end up with a free-for-all.
I'm not sure why arbiters should have the same set of rules as players. It's not a competitive sport. I think you'd need to start by instigating that discussion.
But it's not right to suddenly pull out perceived inconsistencies on issues that aren't already in the discusson as a pushing mechanism, that's kind of bouncing us.

Alan Tate notified me today that he intended to post on this thread in a personal capacity. That is perhaps a measure of the diligence and professionalism that he bring to the International Director's role and I look forward to continuing a strong working relationship with him whatever the results of these votes.

It is difficult to respond to everything that Alan has said without seeming to offer an opinion on what CS's eligibilty criteria should be, which is something that I don't want to do. However, I think it is important that I comment on what I think is a misconception.

"There was a gentleman's agreement that MT would not be eligible for Scottish Champion or for Scottish team spots."

Back in 2011, there was certainly an understanding that I didn't meet the eligibility criteria for team selection and presumably the Scottish Championship (although this debate was somewhat clouded by CS moving from a Closed to an Open championship at around the same time). In simple terms then, there was a recognition that I WAS not eligible.

There was never an understanding, or gentleman's agreement, that I WOULD not be eligible (forever). Indeed, I have consistently said that I would very much like to represent Scotland at a team event in future. I have also consistently said that I would not campaign to change the eligibility rules. Both those things are as true now as they were 11 years ago.

I hope that explains my position.

I have voted myself and hope others will do likewise. I am certainly not advocating people vote in a certain direction, but I think it is important that members exercise their rights.

Best wishes,

Matt

Given the constitution can only be amended by an AGM or SGM (as far as I can tell). Are we having a meeting for motion 1? In the absence of said meeting I'm not convinced
an online vote would have any standing. Maybe consultative? You certainly couldn't amend the constitution by those means.

In theory if you want to amend the constitution by members voting outwith an AGM you would actually need to amend the constitution to allow that first.

This may seem like a pedantic point but governance is important and riding roughshod over the constitution does not reflect well on the present leadership. I would suggest a rethink, I don't doubt this is well intentioned but CS is erring here.

I've been following this with interest but without chipping in, because I think all the questions I broadly have are coming up through other people's posts. A few of my own thoughts on this though:

1. It concerns me that the eligibility rules contained in motion 1 are being implemented regardless. There have been so many changes by members through the years that I think the members should be allowed the final yes/no on them. The lifelong eligibility for people passing through SCO is not something I agree with, but I can understand if this is what people want. Personally, I don't care if they are in the constitution or not, I'm much more interested in what the criteria are.

2. I'm in a strange position of both wanting Matt to represent Scotland, but also not being keen on creating exceptions. For me the criteria, regardless of what they are, should be implemented very rigidly as that is the only fair and consistent thing to do. Eligibility for individuals should be defined by the criteria, not put to a vote. This is where going back to point 1, I would actually be supportive of criteria that made Matt eligible, but that is not on the table. Matt's clarifications on what he understood the 2009 vote to be on is also very helpful.

3. The way the AGM is held going forwards needs to be rethought. Back in 2019, the night before r9 of the Scottish, I sifted through the AGM minutes and documents available and was totally confused, which is why I reached out for clarification. It seems now that I was not alone in being totally lost, and the general agreement is that something went very wrong between a motion being raised, being passed, being recorded and being implemented. I found the quote by Jim very interesting:

"The forum has an available readership of 203 recorded members, 20 of whom took part on the Eligibility thread. Of these 20 posters, 92 posts out of 169 were by 4 members. This does not actually reflect the real view of the membership mass, rather a highly vocal few. Incidentally CS has a membership of 527, which also means the 324 members do not even wish to participate in the Forum. Hardly a truly representation of CS membership and participation on the Forum."

Ironically, those same thoughts about not really reflecting the real view of the membership mass is something I think of the AGM in its old state. It is not right that to "care" about Scottish Chess you need to be able to find your way to a hotel in Glasgow on one lunchtime of the year. There are lots of logistical reasons why people can't go (think 6hr round trips, travel costs, childcare, etc), and OK, historically there was no way round this, but one thing to come out of the pandemic has been the realisation that hybrid in person/zoom/teams meetings do work and I think would get much better engagement and discussion. The point around some people not being computer literate is fair, but hybrid seems almost a no brainer to give people both options. One of the key votes around eligibility was passed 16 to 14 at an AGM. Isn't that also a highly vocal minority? And that is not to criticise best efforts of the past, but I think does show the dangers of adopting significant motions that have limited scrutiny.

The good thing about this thread is it is getting a recorded discussion going on the issues. I applaud a lot of the people who have looked to scrutinise this in detail. It might not make an easy discussion, but going through the details (while keeping things away from personal attacks) can only be a good thing. It would be good if we got the same level of engagement on other (arguably more important) issues too.

(08-04-2022, 12:43 PM)Adam Bremner Wrote: [ -> ]Ironically, those same thoughts about not really reflecting the real view of the membership mass is something I think of the AGM in its old state. It is not right that to "care" about Scottish Chess you need to be able to find your way to a hotel in Glasgow on one lunchtime of the year. There are lots of logistical reasons why people can't go (think 6hr round trips, travel costs, childcare, etc), and OK, historically there was no way round this, but one thing to come out of the pandemic has been the realisation that hybrid in person/zoom/teams meetings do work and I think would get much better engagement and discussion. The point around some people not being computer literate is fair, but hybrid seems almost a no brainer to give people both options. One of the key votes around eligibility was passed 16 to 14 at an AGM. Isn't that also a highly vocal minority? And that is not to criticise best efforts of the past, but I think does show the dangers of adopting significant motions that have limited scrutiny.

Funny you should say that Adam, it is something Jim and I have been discussing very recently around how we can safely have an AGM as well as potentially increasing the number of people who participate. When you consider the distances people have to travel, it is easy to understand why so few attend and was one of the reasons we switched from proxy voting to online voting a few years ago to increase the number of people engaging. I personally am very much for hybrid / Online meetings and one of the benefits is being able to record the meeting to allow those not present, the chance to watch it at a later date. We do have to do a bit more research on it (things like how do we record votes, etc) but I am hopeful this is a methodology we can use going forward if there is a desire to do so.

We actually need an AGM. Covid-19 is a reasonable excuse but we're well beyond it being used as an explanation for not having a meeting. We're in a very different place to where we were 2 years ago. OTB chess is returning. We can have a hybrid meeting at any point and it would be more effective than the current process (see Adam's points). I think the sooner the better.

I actually think this current vote is a breach of the constitution. The constitution cannot be amended outwith an AGM or SGM. To propose otherwise is Executive overreach in my opinion.

I voted against Motion 1 on the basis I don't believe the constitution can be amended by an online vote without a General Meeting.

I abstained on Motion 2.

It strikes me that we're in this mess because of cack handed motions with unintended consequences. We're falling into the same trap again here by attempting to amend the constitution in this way.

Where is the option to expand the eligibility to include grandparents? I expect that is the neatest solution and is in step with most sports in the UK. I also think it would stand more chance of passing the 2/3s threshold. I'd vote for it assuming it was properly constituted which this vote is not.

(08-04-2022, 02:52 PM)David Deary Wrote: [ -> ]Where is the option to expand the eligibility to include grandparents? I expect that is the neatest solution and is in step with most sports in the UK. I also think it would stand more chance of passing the 2/3s threshold. I'd vote for it assuming it was properly constituted which this vote is not.

That would be the motion that has been attempted twice (or is it three times) already and rejected? It would be my personal preference as well