Full Version: AGM conclusion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Finally the AGM has been concluded Big Grin

However, There are still unanswered questions.

1/ Accounts: The accounts were not ratified at the first part of the AGM because they were not audited. Were they accepted at the continuation of the AGM? If they were not, then that is unacceptable because it is only the AGM that can accept the accounts. Anything else would be a breach of the constitution of CS.

Why are CS refusing to name those who are to serve on the working party for the reformation of the constitution. I know that a meeting of this working party has taken place, yet there is no information on who is serving on the committee. That is simply not good enough. Was the committee selected by the council or by the AGM? If the President has made the invitations then I would seriously question this as a potential breach of the constitution. Is this committee representative of CS membership I very much doubt it.

I ask you Mr President to name the committee and answer my concerns about the ratification of the accounts
why not ask him directly Steve rather than via the noticeboard?
Hi Steve
I would to reply on both your points as I was there yesterday

1. Accounts
I spoke to the executive director who has assured me the accounts will be published on the notice board.

2. Working party of the constitution
The Chess Scotland President told the quorum that this list would also be published on the notice as part the agreed procedure. I am sure you would agree that in such an important matter every aspect of this committee has to be documented and recorded both in writing and on forums such as the noticeboard. In setting up this committee Anyone who was at the AGM yesterday would have noticed most of the committee got together for a meet and greet, not a formal meeting. There's no cloak and dagger about this. On a personal note I would like to say the committee is a great combination of talent and experience from all over the country.

I would also like to thank Robert Montgomery for the wee chat we had after the AGM. I believe we actually ended up on the same side of the argument as we both had the same aims and concerns. I'm sure Robert has given and will continue to contribute his vast knowledge and enthusiasm in the future

On a further point the volunteers for the remote access challenges were read out and I'm sure they will be published on the notice board at the appropriate time

Finally from my point of view we've had a massive two-part AGM , we've got several parties working on various aspects of Chess Scotland. We've got different people with different views and opinions working together Lets see what we can achieve and be proud of it. if you want to contribute CS would welcome it. Different opinions are healthy but negative and personal grudges are not
I have received a reply from the President and I thank him for taking the time to respond
Ianbrownlee Wrote:2. Working party of the constitution
The Chess Scotland President told the quorum that this list would also be published on the notice as part the agreed procedure.

There was no "agreed procedure".
It's rather concerning that the President refused to disclose the information at the AGM when asked. Why should a CS director not answer a fairly standard question at an AGM? It obviously demonstrates that he does not recognise the AGM has any level of authority.

I offered my services to help with the Constitution to the President and the Executive Director 3 times over the past 16 months and not once did I receive the courtesy of an acknowledgment and tonight I got an email from the membership secretary telling me I was not selected for the sub-committee. I find it extremely rude that neither of them could go to the effort of personally emailing me and they tell someone else that I had been unsuccessful and ask him to email me. All very dismissive and why should someone else be told at my lack of success?

The President has shown a lack of understanding of the current constitution by acting unconstitutionally when he refused membership to 2 people incorrectly, setting policy without reference to Council and deciding to refuse to allow 2 motions at the AGM. I highlighted a number of other issues yesterday at Council where actions agreed at Council had been ignored by the Directors.

He also showed the level of importance he puts on this matter by taking over 4 months after the closing date for applications to advise people as to whether they would be on it. It leaves me wondering whether he is the most suitable person to serve on the sub-committee.

The Constitution should not be something that is just ignored when it is inconvenient to follow it. Let's hope that those who were successful put in place clauses that ensure that it is followed at all times.
Derek Howie Wrote:There was no "agreed procedure".

maybe I am using the word procedure too loosely but Hamish definitely mentioned he was in agreement with Andy that the list should be published rather than disclosed at the AGM which I presume so that it would be seen by everybody at the same time and that it would be on record. To say there was no agreed procedure is wrong, even if Andy and Howie had agreed themselves to do it this way, it is still an agreed procedure. Whether this procedure was discussed at executive or council level I don't know and doesn't concern me at all
Did we not spend 20 minutes discussing remote chess, then 15 minutes on proxy voting ? Then when I wanted to discuss under AOCB how to spend £5000 of members' money and to ask if our 2nd highest rated player should be playing in the world's premier team tournament I was told I had under two minutes, I didn't present the case very well and there was going to be no vote. Did AGM members feel hard done by leaving that decision to council or would you prefer that ?
Actually, AOCB topics are not able to be voted on at an AGM.

They do not satisfy the existing requirements for an AGM vote.
(e.g. Prior notice, distributed and available to members as a motion before meeting, to name just 2)
AOCB are discussion topics that should then be referred to either council or AGM/EGM

I understood that you were going to raise these as Council discussion matters, not as AGM AOCB. But since I wasn't there I can't say which you actually did.

So in actual fact leaving any decision to council was constitutionally correct.
ok, but the meeting certainly set some precedents that the president has special powers:
1 He can block motions
2 He can allow/deny votes on AOCB - presumably no Kasparov/Ilyumzhinov vote would have been allowed either - Andy H must use the noticeboard poll
3 Facetiously he gagged Andy H the whole meeting. Andy H said nothing throughout, he passed notes to Hamish in a whisper who then censored them before reading them out if he liked them!

Also the standards committee basically have final say on disciplinary matters - AGM cannot get any info out of them they don't wish to disclose.
Pages: 1 2