Full Version: AGM Candidates
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Andy - check your PMs.
I'm going to say what I think and be controversial.

Hugh Brechin:
I don't have any PM but I can guess what it says

Andy Howie /Hamish Glen/Dick Heathwood:
Sorry, but you are not communicating me on an adult to adult basis.
You are endowed with too much power being in charge of AGM motions and the noticeboard
There is no attempt to build bridges.
You are poor communicators in my opinion.

I get respect from Stephen Hilton
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:28:15 +0100
Subject: Motions
From: <!-- e --><a href=""></a><!-- e -->
To: <!-- e --><a href=""></a><!-- e -->; <!-- e --><a href=""></a><!-- e -->

Good Evening Gentlemen,

I have just returned from my holiday and I am putting together the order paper for the forthcoming AGM.

I have to advise you that the two motions have not been included. Hamish has promised he will give an explanation at the AGM for the omission. The request of the Standards Committee is not competent as the AGM has no power over the Standards Committee. It was set up separately so that it cannot be ordered by myself, the President or even the AGM to instigate an investigation.

Best Regards


The above notice is the response to the 2 Hamilton motions which have been declared out of order both of these motions were received in time, I am the mover of both of the motions. I have asked Andy Howie to explain why we have to wait until the AGM to get a reason for the first motion being ruled out of order. If they can rule it out of order then they should be able to say why it is out of order.

The statement regarding the second motion I cannot accept. The AGM is the body which ultimately controls Chess Scotland if the AGM asks the Standards Committee to investigate an issue it is duty bound to do so. The AGM cannot insist on a particular outcome but it can ask for an investigation. If Andy Howie's interpretation is correct then we have created a Frankenstein monster. So far I have had no response to my query. I fully intend to challenge the ruling at the AGM but I am still looking for an answer long before then.
I have been trying very hard to cast my vote for President based on the comments and policies of the two candidates. However, I have found Hugh Brechin's contribution very hard to ignore

"Both Alex McFarlane and Andy Howie have done terrific things for chess in Scotland over the years, and the fact that they have nominated and seconded Hamish Glen is certainly a point in his favour. I would also have serious concerns about electing someone to the office of President who has resigned, without being pressed to do so, from multiple CS directorships over the years."

Lets have a look at what the candidates had to say
Steve Hilton

1. I was impressed with this
"I also want to clarify who is responsible for the day to day running of the Association. Council must remain the supreme decision making body for chess in Scotland, but the association has to still function as a body on a day to day basis.

and this
"One Idea worth considering is the introduction of voting by email"

Taken together they seem to be about practically getting Council to work better, but also crucially allowing Directors to get on with in - Council cannot micro manage

2. I very much like this
"I have also helped two young players one in Aberdeen through Sheila Emery and the father of a blind kid in Hamilton by providing braille sets free.
I have also donated a number of Sets to Chris Hampton to help him set up a chess club for the blind in Edinburgh."

Grand world designs are all well and good but action on at the local level usually counts.

1. There is a lot about the constitution and very general statements about healing rifts. There is nothing about junior chess, the Scottish championship or the commonwealth championships.

Hamish Glen


1. "I will work with my fellow Directors to promote and enhance the image
of Chess Scotland to put us in a position to be ready to host the
Commonwealth Championships and the Junior Team Home Internationals
next summer which CS can use to highlight the profile of Chess in

A great opening statement - he knows what is going on and the challenge and opportunities that lie in the year ahead

2. "I fully support the motion to bring Junior Chess in Scotland back
under the umbrella of Chess Scotland while still allowing different
areas the autonomy to organise events etc for themselves with the full
backing and support of Chess Scotland. The setting up of a Junior
Management Board with a direct input to CS Council would add credence
to this motion."

Clearly some ideas on developing junior chess, I am not sure that I agree with all of that, but the important things is that Hamish has thought about it and clearly thinks junior chess is important

3. "I was Head of Delegation and Coach to the group of Chess Scotland
Juniors who attended the European Union Youth Chess Championships in
Mureck, Austria in July/August 2012"

I like this a lot, action on the ground over grand abstract ideas again


1. "If re-elected, I promise a Proactive year rather than the Reactive year which has just passed"
Great sentiment, but that doesn't really square with this
"I am submitting this Manifesto in response to Stephen Hilton posting"

Surely the President should be leading not responding

So there we have it, I am not electrified by either candidate, but I have decided to vote for Hamish. He recognises the issues that I think are important and it looks like he'll allow the younger, more dynamic new Directors to take things forward.
Quote:we have created a Frankenstein monster.

I note that Andy states that the Standards Committee can not be ORDERED. This I assume is similar to the separation of government from the judiciary in the 'real' world. The government (at least in theory I think) can not order the courts do its bidding. It would surely be more monstrous if the SC told what to investigate and what not. Similarly the monster reference would be applicable if it was an uncontrolled beast seeking out cases to prosecute rather than responding to complaints.

That said I would have thought that just as the government can seek redress in the courts, CS can also submit a request to the SC but it would need to comply with the usual rules/conditions that apply to anyone elses to be valid.
I respect your decision.
I have resigned two directorships in CS hardly a multiple as Hugh Brechin says.
I resigned them on a matter of principle. I was filling in as Executive Director in 2007 and I resigned because there were heavy campaigning for the position months before the election was due to take place in 2008. This was a major distraction for my work in this position.
The second time was earlier this year with the Home Director position. I made a decision after consultation in regards the Richardson Cup. I was informed of a problem in one match less than 24 hours before the match took place. I made a decision and it caused problems for one of the teams involved. I was put in an impossible situation by the team who contacted me. I made a mistake and when you make a mistake you ought to resign. I did so as a matter of principle.
StevieHilton Wrote:I made a mistake and when you make a mistake you ought to resign. I did so as a matter of principle.

I disagree with this being presented as if it applies to all situations. It seems to suggest that nobody can ever make a mistake and deserve to keep their job, which is clearly incorrect. Everyone - without fail - makes a mistake from time to time. Some of those are more serious than others (and yes - some warrant resignation/sacking), but in most cases a simple admission that you have made a mistake followed by an apology is enough to clear up the situation. Then you must learn from the mistake and move on. Resigning doesn't really help anyone in a lot of situations, as you could be walking away from a job that you otherwise do well, leaving a hole to be filled - which I'd argue is another mistake. On top of that, resigning is often the easy way out, rather than facing up to challenging situations and tackling them.

Do you think you'll never make any mistakes or face any challenges as President Steve? And if you did, would you just resign or would you stay the distance and try to resolve the big issues?
I suppose that is another point for Steve - his ability to engage with the noticeboard. I've tried to be as objective as I can be and people can read what I've written as supporting either Steve or Hamish. I guess it really depends on what your priorities are. I've decided to vote for Hamish, but I can certainly understand somebody looking at the same information and voting for Steve (or abstaining). Here is hoping for a good clean contest and best of luck (you'll need it) to whoever wins.
Here are some thoughts I have been sent from my colleagues:

1. If the motion was deemed to be libellous why do we have to wait till AGM to find out why the motions were blocked? Can these motions be reworded and resubmitted or can they be submitted under AOCB

2. Can the president rule any business under AOCB as being out of order

3. Was it the President alone that blocked these motions or was it the executive or other council. Does the President and/or the council have the power to block motions

4. If Chess Scotland (CS) AGM created the Standards Committee (SC) why is the SC not answerable to AGM and/or CS?

5. If the SC does something that has legal consequences (i.e. criminal prosecution) who is liable CS OR the standards committee?

6. What if any is the procedure to amend or administrate the Standards committee

7. Will the standards committee submit a report to the AGM in relation to the assault or anything else

8. Was the Chess Scotland official concerned with the complaint suspended or did he resign and what was the punishment when the complaint was upheld. Why weren’t the Police informed when the complaint was upheld. What future role can this person have particularly in the Junior Chess Community. Who is legally liable if an incident was repeated within the sphere of Chess Scotland

9. One CS official is hounding another (by email) to resign, what is the best way in stamping out this outrageous behaviour

10. Why is one CS official secretly asking one presidential candidate questions while helping to organise the other candidate’s campaign?

11. If the standards committee proves to be unpopular, what is the procedure to replace or dissolve it

12. Why does there seem to be a fixation on having a go at present and past members (e.g Micharl Hanley and Phil Thomas, who have more for Junior Chess than any committee put together)

13. If chess Scotland is the sum of all, why are all doubts and dissention treated aggressively and with unbelievable vitriol and anger
I have faced challenges all my life with my disabilities. I will face the challenges of being President with dignity.
I will view every challenge objectively. I agree that every mistake is not a resignation issue, but in the Richardson Cup matter I honestly felt that I was put in a " Catch 22" situation.
I have no intention of making personal attacks on my opponent, for one thing it lowers the tone of the debate.
I will argue over issues certainly, as I have done with many people in the past Big Grin . However it must be done in a most dignified way.
I would never stand for a post in an election if it meant attacking someone personally.
I appreciate your comments about my ability to engage with the noticeboard. That is the proper way to conduct things
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20