Forums
AGM motion queries - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: AGM motion queries (/showthread.php?tid=677)

Pages: 1 2


AGM motion queries - WBuchanan - 15-08-2013

From the motion on the Standing Operating Procedures of the Standards Committeee

"6. Competency of Complaints
The Committee will not investigate a complaint unless it is of the opinion that all appropriate direct routes for its resolution, if any, have been exhausted by the complainant. Where appropriate, the Committee will advise the complainant that resolution of the dispute/complaint may be best effected by other means.

Complaints which refer to an incident which occurred more than 42 days before receipt of the complaint will be time-barred, unless, in the opinion of the Panel, exceptional reasons exist for not presenting it earlier."

It's reasonable for the Standards Committee (not a very light or relaxed option) to be the last resort and not the first recourse - but I would have thought that the 'appropriate resolution' of many complaints would often take more than 42 days? If so, the SC might not do much business. Should this timescale/deadline be longer?


Re: AGM motion queries - Patrick McGovern - 15-08-2013

as i understand it the resolution deadline is not 42 days (a common misconception) the 42 days relate to the time from the incident/event to the complaint being made. as far as i can translate the rules there is no actual time limit for the SC to come to a decision, although good practice would dictate as quick a repsonse as possible. if i am incorrect i would be happy to be told so.

"The Hearing will normally be held within 35 days of receipt of a competent complaint" and
"Judgements shall be made in writing and shall be communicated to the relevant parties normally within 14 days of the Hearing"
suggests a maximum 49 days maximum subject to
"The Panel may adjourn the Hearing (but not for longer than 14 days)"
making a new maximum of 63 days but given the use of the word "normally" suggests that the timing may be elastic.


Re: AGM motion queries - Hugh Brechin - 15-08-2013

I think Walter was interpreting it correctly. Six weeks does seem a potentially rather short time to exhaust all alternative methods of solving a problem. I presume the clause is essentially about discouraging exhuming past controversies, but the time-span does seem perhaps unnecessarily restrictive. I suppose the 'exceptional circumstances' bit gives a certain amount of wiggle room.

(I mean, hopefully the SC won't do too much business anyway, but it's still a fair point.)


Re: AGM motion queries - Patrick McGovern - 15-08-2013

SC is the last port of call Hugh, local resolution is the first (and best) way of resolving issues. only then would SC entertain a complaint
"The Committee will not investigate a complaint unless all appropriate direct routes for its resolution, if any, have been exhausted by the complainant. Where appropriate, the Committee will advise the complainant that resolution of the dispute/complaint may be best effected by other means. "

i also agree with you and Walter that times should be more "elastic" in order to effect a fuller consideration of any and every complaint.

p.s. i hope we dont get any too


Re: AGM motion queries - WBuchanan - 15-08-2013

Thanks Pat, Hugh. I’m not sure the issue is flexibility, as applying flexibility could leave the committee open to accusations of bias, which might explain why a fixed length of time was plumped for in the first place.

Maybe what should be counted is the time that has elapsed from the point when the alternatives were exhausted? OK this might be open to creative invention of retrospective ‘alternatives’ (though most people would fire their complaint in on time, I imagine) ... failing something like this, I do fear the 42 days is too short for some complaints to have failed other means of resolution, two or three months sounds a bit better to me. As Hugh says, ‘exceptional circumstances’ might provide wiggle room - but that’s subjective too. Cheers


Re: AGM motion queries - WBuchanan - 15-08-2013

On Motion 2.4

2.4 Motion: This AGM supports the principle that all mainstream adult and junior chess in Scotland should be integrated within Chess Scotland. Therefore the President is instructed to establish a Working Party to determine how best to integrate the various junior chess organisations into Chess Scotland. The Working Party to report to Council before the end of 2013 for early implementation of their recommendations."
Currently none of the junior chess organisations (e.g. SJC, NEJCA, Lothians PSL) that support junior chess within Scotland are affiliated to, or come under the umbrella of, Chess Scotland. This leads to potential disharmony within the Scottish chess scene and creates the possibility of nonaccountability. Importantly, we need to see adult and junior chess as part of a continuum and the need for Chess Scotland to speak for all aspects of chess at national level. This is vital at a time of financial constraint and the need to further encourage more players to both take up chess and continue playing throughout their lifetime. The Working Party will seek ways to use the very best of the current junior structures, strengthen those and address opportunities for future developments.
Proposer: Gerald Lobley, Seconders: David Congalton, Dick Heathwood and Sean MIlton

Anyone know what are the views of the junior chess organisations - is this something they generally welcome?

Integrating all mainstream adult and junior chess in Scotland - sounds reasonable on the surface, but what does it mean? If memory serves, this was the kind of thing Donald Holmes stood on a few years back. He got elected, but didn't manage the integration.

On that 'potential disharmony' within the Scottish chess scene due to groups not being under the umbrella, and it all 'creating the possibility of nonaccountability' - this logic isn't jumping out at me with any clarity, again I'd like to hear the other views, assuming there are any. Perhaps the proposers could elaborate on their thinking as to why this is necessarily better for the future? Thanks


Re: AGM motion queries - amuir - 15-08-2013

"Complaints which refer to an incident which occurred more than 42 days before receipt of the complaint will be time-barred, unless, in the opinion of the Panel, exceptional reasons exist for not presenting it earlier."

I don't believe in time-barring, see my petition to ministers, PE1479:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/Solicitors">http://scottish.parliament.uk/GettingIn ... Solicitors</a><!-- m -->


Re: AGM motion queries - George Murphy - 15-08-2013

I’m not sure this is so simple. I think account needs to be taken of (a) the Main Policy Document governing PVG, which it seems was updated in April 2013, and gives very significant powers to the Chess Scotland PVG Lead Signatory and the President of Chess Scotland; and how this relates to (b) the draft Standards Committee Operating Procedures, Para. 1 of which declares that PVG(PVG Lead Signatory) is one of those ‘national level’ functions/matters (?) which ‘require to be reported to, and addressed at, national level in order to ensure consistency and, where relevant, legal compliance.’

How are (a) and (b) to be reconciled in light of the following extract from the Section in (a) titled Confidentiality and Appeal process: ‘ … the decision of the Chess Scotland PVG Lead Signatory is final and can only be challenged by an individual who has either been deleted from the registered lists of volunteers or has been denied admission thereto. The individual in such circumstance can appeal direct to the Chess Scotland President to have the Lead Signatory’s decision reviewed. The President and Lead Signatory will then discuss jointly the appropriate action to be taken in order to protect both junior chess players and Chess Scotland as a whole. The President’s decision on the course of action to be taken is final.’

Is there any need for (b)? If yes, then why?

PS I wrote this before noticing the above two posts from WAlter and Andy Muir. My post is not intended to refer to theirs.


Re: AGM motion queries - Gerald Lobley - 17-08-2013

Walter,
You raised several general points about Motion 2.4. You probably realise that I am President (a rather grandiose title) of the North-East Junior Chess Association (NEJCA) who organise the majority of junior chess in the NE and Highlands. If anyone is not sure of what we do then just look at our website (http://www.nejca.co.uk). The motion arises from discussion at our AGM in June and the thinking of the sub-committee we established to examine the national issue of junior chess. I have spoken to some (but not all) of the other junior organisations and officials and the response ranges from enthusiastic to cautious - the latter reflecting concern about the current problems within Chess Scotland.

You wrote " Integrating all mainstream adult and junior chess in Scotland - sounds reasonable on the surface, but what does it mean?". Well any integration cannot be superficial, it has to go much deeper, else the exercise if futile. "Can it be achieved?" is probably what you are asking (please correct me if that supposition is wrong). Well first we have to agree that the principle is correct - if anyone disagrees than vote against and hope to demote the concept to the dustbin. Why do we believe in the principle? Well, currently chess in Scotland and Chess Scotland are subjected to considerable pressures, both external and internal. In terms of external, we have lost our grant and need to find alternative income sources. To achieve that requires Chess Scotland to be able to speak as one voice covering the whole spectrum of chess. Funders and other types of supporters like dealing with one organisation, whether it be a company in Aberdeen putting money into local NEJCA events or a major sponsor wanting to support events nationally. Similarly at Government or Local Authority level a single organisation with overall responsibility will also be listened to with more respect and likelihood of success. Unity would also help the Junior Home Director who can then speak on behalf of all the different junior organisations, none of whom are even currently affiliated to Chess Scotland. That is rather a nonsense situation I hope you would agree.

So how best to achieve this unity? Well there are various options (single junior body, a regional council etc) but that is exactly what the Working Party would decide and propose to Council. Would be good to have such a discussion and that could be done by separate submissions to the Working Party and/or via comments on 'Your Views' at the same time. I am relaxed about this provided we do some genuine talking with the aim of fulfilling the wishes of the AGM, if that body decides to support the principle - the key first stage. To put that principle into practice will require strong and positive leadership from the very top and the other key players. The new candidates for the junior directorships appear to want to take us in a new direction and hopefully the Working Party outcomes would enable them to achieve that. A lot of people are unhappy with the current schisms within the Scottish chess community and while this motion will not cure all of those it may be a step in the right direction. We can all see some of the potential problems but that is no reason for not trying to achieve unification. I would prefer us to try and fail than not try at all.
Gerald


Re: AGM motion queries - WBuchanan - 17-08-2013

Hi Gerald, thanks for this explanation.

"You wrote " Integrating all mainstream adult and junior chess in Scotland - sounds reasonable on the surface, but what does it mean?". Well any integration cannot be superficial, it has to go much deeper, else the exercise if futile. "Can it be achieved?" is probably what you are asking (please correct me if that supposition is wrong). Well first we have to agree that the principle is correct - if anyone disagrees than vote against and hope to demote the concept to the dustbin."

Actually I wasn’t really asking if it could be achieved, it just seemed a little unusual to try agree a principle and then look to see what it entails (not unless it’s addressing come blatant unfairness), but obviously you’re thinking of more than just the principle as is evidenced by the ‘action’ part of the motion so I wondered what it was about. If it was universally agreed that it was a good thing it would presumably have happened already or be just about to happen as everyone involved voted it in, so I just wondered if there were issues and if so what they were. Just curious that’s all. Thanks for explaining a bit more about it.

There was one other thing came to mind; you begin by including all mainstream adult chess in Scotland in the principle, though adult chess isn’t included in the proposal. Isn’t that a bit of a hostage to fortune, eg suppose some regions or leagues/competitions don’t want to be included they might vote against your motion thus jeopardizing the junior bit which you believe to be solidly supported. Just going from memory of being involved in running a club a good few years back, one reason they might take such a view is if there were costs attached as it can be difficult to get hard up members to even pay club subs let alone additional CS fees that are supposedly for the greater good. Other than that I don’t have knowledge of any particular contemporary viewpoints, so feel free to ignore me, though I think that’s one possible reason it might be best not to sell the ‘principle’ but present the difficulties including any cost issues as well. Cheers