The votes are in
"The results of the two motions are
Motion 1
For the motion 54
Against the motion 17
Abstain 6
(76% for, 24% against)
Motion 2
For the motion 42
Against the motion 29
Abstain 6
(59% for, 41% against)
Thank you to everyone who took the time to vote"
I would also like to thank everyone who took the time to vote.
I voted against motions 1 & 2 and don't understand the logic of the membership's decision.
They have decided that a person who once lived in Scotland for 2 years or has a Scottish grandparent has the same rights as someone who was born in Scotland and has lived here all their life.
Could someone please explain why they have voted this way ?
Andy and Andy,
I have explained why I voted the way I did
I want to make (hopefully) one final point in response to Andy Burnett
"Now, that is what it is, and if you are deemed eligible for Scotland then that's all there is to say - but stop pretending the vote/you won't have a significant impact. If you want to argue that having you in the team is actually a good thing, then please do so, but again, that's a different point from that you've been trying to make."
You have seen the reasons why I voted the way I did. I have never said that having me in the (Olympiad) team is good thing. That is for a simple reason, I am not sure whether it is! I have said that whilst I would dearly love to play for Scotland, I would not do so if it were detrimental to the team. That I why I have said and reiterated to Alan Tate, the International Director, that I would only play with the support of the rest of the team. I have ruled myself out of the forthcoming Olympiad, but post this vote I'll be having discussions with Alan about what that means in practice for future events.
So, in future, one, or both of you, might have a vote to decide whether I should have a place. I am placing my trust in you to place your vote for what you think is in the best interests of Scottish Chess (which may be a vote for my participation or against) and not vote on personal self interest. That I think is a pretty big commitment on my part, but it is what I have consistently said and I stand by it.
I hope there will be the opportunity for me to deprive both of you a place in the team by supporting the next generation of Scottish talent, but today I fly to Ireland to play in a GM norm tournament with Connor O'Donnell, Conor Murphy, Trisha and Tarun Kanyamarala and Tom O'Gorman.
Food for thought hopefully.
(12-04-2022, 10:22 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: [ -> ]I decided that as these votes draw to a close, I would post some thoughts before the results were announced.
Firstly, in the overall scheme of things these votes are not very important, but I think the discussion and this forum more generally demonstrate some of the challenges facing Scottish Chess.
Since last time I visited Scotland, I have played many events in Ireland, some designed to get norms for aspiring Irish talents (even those born outside the Emerald Isle), some with lavish sponsorship, all organised with passion and enthusiasm. Only last week, I was talking to a senior Irish official about plans for a major project in 2024.
I have also been involved (albeit in a fairly small way) in innovative plans for junior development in England.
This isn’t because I am somehow less committed to Scottish Chess, but like everyone else I have limited time and I want my efforts to have an impact.
I work with Andy Howie on a fairly regular basis for the benefit of chess in general, but not particularly Scottish Chess. Back in 2011 there were a bunch of young Scottish chess players coming through organizing events and developing innovative ideas for chess development – where are they now.
We have to recognize that the situation that exists in Scottish Chess at the moment in not conducive to developing our game and those with drive and enthusiasm to fuel our game going forward are pushed to look elsewhere.
I abstained on motion 1. I want to back CS management and move on, but fundamentally I think it is wrong to put eligibility criteria in the constitution. We have tied ourself in knots here and this risks hobbling a future organization. Good luck dealing with our first trans competitors.
I voted yes on motion 2. This is primarily for three reasons
1. Irrespective of the merits of this case, it sets a tone that we are an inclusive, welcoming organization
2. It is not the case that I will deprive a hard working Scottish player of a place in the team. That is simply not the reality; In the modern world it is difficult to take two and a half weeks out of your life to play an Olympiad (I have already ruled myself out of competing this year). It is more a case of the International Director searching for players than players battling for places! Yes, it true that there would be an issue about what is best for Scottish Chess if there was a choice between myself and Freddie Gordon, but there would also be an issue if there was a choice between Andy Muir and Freddie Gordon. To my mind that is a selection issue not one of eligibility.
3. I have enjoyed competing at the (Open) Scottish Championships and I feel that has been beneficial for Scottish Chess. If one day the Championships became closed, it seems both wrong and detrimental to Scottish Chess that I be excluded.
If you have got this far, you have obviously committed a fair amount of time to reading this! So, I would request that you spend a little more time thinking about what you can do to help Scottish Chess to move forward. It is little use reflecting on where things have gone wrong; I hope we can now move to thinking about how thing can improve. The key is we need a lot of people doing a bit!
Can you make your chess club’s Christmas blitz a fundraiser to help a local junior get coaching before they compete in a major championship?
Can you organize a rota so that someone takes a couple of boards to a local park each Saturday?
Do you know someone in the council you can ask about buying chess boards and books for the local library?
Can you get the best player in the club to do a simultaneous display at the local shopping centre?
If you have other ideas, please post them on the forum and hopefully other will take up the challenge.
Best wishes.
Matt.
Hi Matt,
As the last incumbent of the International Junior Director post for 2 years before stepping down, I note with concern Andy H's acknowledgement that a successor has still not been identified since I let Management Committee know in October that I would be stepping down at the end of December. It was my hope that stepping back at the time I did would give someone else plenty of time to bed in before the Glorney this summer.
I would share Andy B's concerns about the above post but I am hopeful that it misrepresents you. Having been involved in various levels of junior chess in Scotland since 2012, I am aware of exactly who the different coaches and volunteers are for whom Scottish juniors owe a debt of gratitude to for their efforts at both grassroots and elite level over the last decade.
I agree that Ireland does get many things right in terms of its junior chess structure and there are indeed many things they do that we could aspire to. One of the key things that Ireland has that we don't have is a GM like Alex Baburin who seems to regularly commit himself across the year to the development of his own federation's top juniors. I acknowledge your presence at some of the pre-pandemic OTB Glorneys over the past 10 years but I am hopeful that the recent vote could be a step towards more constructive involvement from you across the year towards the development of Scottish juniors including a working relationship with Chess Scotland's junior directors Harry Marron and whoever eventually takes over from me.
Ruairidh
(14-04-2022, 05:53 AM)amuir Wrote: [ -> ]I voted against motions 1 & 2 and don't understand the logic of the membership's decision.
They have decided that a person who once lived in Scotland for 2 years or has a Scottish grandparent has the same rights as someone who was born in Scotland and has lived here all their life.
Could someone please explain why they have voted this way ?
Andy,
You are understandably frustrated. Partly, I think because you didn't hear any discussion for and against as there would be at a General meeting so it is hard to discern the mood of the membership. I don't agree with you on the grand parentage point, that is nowhere in the criteria. If you are referring to Matt, his status has been anomalous since 2011 and Motion 2 at least provides clarity. I abstained on motion 2 as I was conflicted, a cop out of sorts but there you go.
I hope there has been some learnings as the turnout is an undoubted positive, we had 80 votes out of 534 individual members, so turnout of c.15%. I suspect that's the highest level of engagement we have had for a number of years? Can anyone confirm.
Improvements I'd like to see:
- I'd like to see some form of discussion being built in so the membership can reach an informed decision. It felt a bit like the motions were a bit of a fait accompli, given the time that had passed since the EWP was setup in 2019, things have changed and whilst they were charged with taking this forward I think some informed debate in advance of the vote would have helped matters. I think that was the intention of the discussion thread but not sure that worked well? How many people actually read this before voting, I didn't!
- I also think Chess Scotland should contact the membership through Associations, Leagues, Clubs, Teams etc. to ensure that members have the correct details with Chess Scotland. The onus is on the individual member, but a friend of mine who is a life member of over 40 years was unaware the vote was happening and couldn't login to the website. The individual concerned assures me they had no junk emails and Chess Scotland confirmed they had the correct email on file so it was a bit bizarre. It was resolved ably by Chess Scotland in a very timely manner for which I am grateful.
- I'd also like to see operating procedures for how online votes are conducted including oversight and independent verification. Such a document may already exist but I cannot find it on the website.
Overall, I think the turnout is hard to argue with and with some tweaks like I have suggested, this is a useful way to engage with the membership on matters.
Cheers,
David
It might be that a lot of the membership thought like Ruairidh and that by conferring Matt full status there is a potential for more coaching from him.
It is up to the selectors who pick the teams and Scottish Championship organisers to deal with the politics of all this.
I have been copied in to discussions about the Senior team selections and some people have strong feelings on the type of team they wish to play in.
(14-04-2022, 01:17 PM)David Deary Wrote: [ -> ][*]I also think Chess Scotland should contact the membership through Associations, Leagues, Clubs, Teams etc. to ensure that members have the correct details with Chess Scotland. The onus is on the individual member, but a friend of mine who is a life member of over 40 years was unaware the vote was happening and couldn't login to the website. The individual concerned assures me they had no junk emails and Chess Scotland confirmed they had the correct email on file so it was a bit bizarre. It was resolved ably by Chess Scotland in a very timely manner for which I am grateful.
Hi David,
Yes it is the highest engagement we have had in quite some time and long may that continue!!
As to your quoted post. I have checked my sent items and confirmed it was sent. When the member contacted me I dealt with is quickly to allow them to vote. At first I suspected an old email address but this turned out not to be the case.
What you are suggesting here is very difficult to do now with GDPR as we can't simply just go to them. It is a horrible minefield hence we have to rely on members letting us know when they change email addresses. I also periodically cross check the membership database with the Website logins to see if there is a different email address there then query the member to which is the correct one. Sharing of information like this is very closely controlled and it would be very hard to implement as we would need to negotiate with each league team and association who in turn would have to get permission from their members. GDPR has made this very messy!
(14-04-2022, 02:12 PM)amuir Wrote: [ -> ]It might be that a lot of the membership thought like Ruairidh and that by conferring Matt full status there is a potential for more coaching from him.
It is up to the selectors who pick the teams and Scottish Championship organisers to deal with the politics of all this.
I have been copied in to discussions about the Senior team selections and some people have strong feelings on the type of team they wish to play in.
There were many comments on this thread that whatever the outcome, the matter should be closed. We can spend all evening second guessing why people voted the way they did, at the end of the day, we have had (for recent times) a record turnout of votes and the membership have expressed their desire. I think we should respect the wishes that have been expressed here and consider the matter closed.
(14-04-2022, 07:06 AM)Matthew Turner Wrote: [ -> ]Andy and Andy,
I have explained why I voted the way I did
I want to make (hopefully) one final point in response to Andy Burnett
"Now, that is what it is, and if you are deemed eligible for Scotland then that's all there is to say - but stop pretending the vote/you won't have a significant impact. If you want to argue that having you in the team is actually a good thing, then please do so, but again, that's a different point from that you've been trying to make."
You have seen the reasons why I voted the way I did. I have never said that having me in the (Olympiad) team is good thing. That is for a simple reason, I am not sure whether it is! I have said that whilst I would dearly love to play for Scotland, I would not do so if it were detrimental to the team. That I why I have said and reiterated to Alan Tate, the International Director, that I would only play with the support of the rest of the team. I have ruled myself out of the forthcoming Olympiad, but post this vote I'll be having discussions with Alan about what that means in practice for future events.
So, in future, one, or both of you, might have a vote to decide whether I should have a place. I am placing my trust in you to place your vote for what you think is in the best interests of Scottish Chess (which may be a vote for my participation or against) and not vote on personal self interest. That I think is a pretty big commitment on my part, but it is what I have consistently said and I stand by it.
I hope there will be the opportunity for me to deprive both of you a place in the team by supporting the next generation of Scottish talent, but today I fly to Ireland to play in a GM norm tournament with Connor O'Donnell, Conor Murphy, Trisha and Tarun Kanyamarala and Tom O'Gorman.
Food for thought hopefully.
Matt,
I have no idea why you keep changing the goalposts in this argument (and it was really tangential to the main reasons I thought your first post was incredibly tone-deaf/offensive).
You said you being eligible wouldn't have an impact on players coming through re: Olympiad spots - I've shown why that simply isn't the case.
I have already also explained that you'd be a shoo-in for a spot in the team at someone else's expense, so no idea why you are talking about not voting in "personal self-interest" (more offensive language I should point out) though I don't know why, or how you expect that works?
If I am up for selection I can't be a selector. If I WAS a selector, I'd be choosing the best team from those eligible - to suggest otherwise is ...searches thesaurus...nope...offensive!
Anyway, enough, I also have actual chess to focus on this weekend. Good luck in Ireland!
Andy
(14-04-2022, 06:17 PM)Andy Howie Wrote: [ -> ]Hi David,
Yes it is the highest engagement we have had in quite some time and long may that continue!!
As to your quoted post. I have checked my sent items and confirmed it was sent. When the member contacted me I dealt with is quickly to allow them to vote. At first I suspected an old email address but this turned out not to be the case.
What you are suggesting here is very difficult to do now with GDPR as we can't simply just go to them. It is a horrible minefield hence we have to rely on members letting us know when they change email addresses. I also periodically cross check the membership database with the Website logins to see if there is a different email address there then query the member to which is the correct one. Sharing of information like this is very closely controlled and it would be very hard to implement as we would need to negotiate with each league team and association who in turn would have to get permission from their members. GDPR has made this very messy!
I think you misunderstood my suggestion. GDPR doesn't stop Chess Scotland asking Affiliates, Leagues, Associations, Clubs, Teams etc. to remind their members who are Chess Scotland members to update their details with Chess Scotland.
As an example, I'm sure if Chess Scotland approached the Ayrshire Chess Association they would post a message on their website and reach out to their membership to advise their members who were CS members to check their details were up to date. They could also email League and Club Contacts to do the same. You are simply using them to get the message out. You are not asking for their data. I'm quite sure in those circumstances most if not all would be willing to pass the message on. Its pretty risk free and would help ensure everyone is aware of the need to keep their details up to date. I'm sure any other Leagues, Associations, Clubs etc. would do the same. You could also put it in the CS Magazine. Its just about getting the message out rather than harvesting data. I appreciate with GDPR sharing data is a minefield so it's a no go.
On the specific case you helped with. I am grateful it was rectified, its just an oddity.