AGM Proposal: SGM notice periods and running of SGM meetings

[Jim Webster]

But to take a particular case, you were at the SGM meeting in July as was I. Several drawbacks to the proxies only being known to management were obvious. CWP members were able to switch sectional proxy votes tactically in an attempt to shore up the vote for the constitution. Management were able to pull a section out knowing it was doomed to fail against an amendment in the vote, then remit it to themselves to do what they wanted in the first place

Walter - The paragraph above is wrong.

Proxies were only known to 1 person prior to the meeting and certainly NOT to the CWP. You have no justification, or for that matter, anything to support such an allegation.

CWP members had no idea how proxy voting was broken down and you have no justification for saying this either. I would like to think that we are intelligent people and can draw our own conclusions making decisions accordingly. Nor did the CWP have any influence over the proxy votes cast at the meeting, only the votes that they themselves personally carried.

To state otherwise is totally wrong, and if I were the person responsible for the registering the proxy votes at the meeting I would find that statement quite insulting.

As for tactical voting, there was a strong feeling on the Junior vote, but it was felt that it still needed to go the SGM and we (the CWP), like everyone else, have a right to take into consideration all discussions and vote accordingly.

Management did not pull any section out. The one section that was pulled (Eligibility) I personally proposed it without consultation of the CWP, or anyone else, and this proposal was seconded by a non CWP member which the SGM then approved. I decided this, of my own volition, since I felt there was some confusion created by the uncertainty of the FIDE 'SCO' code at the meeting and this was sufficient grounds for my proposal take it out Eligibility and have a rethink.

Management did not remit it to themselves, it was returned to the originators (CWP + Walter Buchanan) for rework and reintroduction at a later date either as an Operating Procedure or possibly an addition to the Constitution. No timescale was set.

The CWP is not management and should not be categorised as such, only 2 members of the CWP are management and that was at the instruction of the AGM the authorised the formation of the CWP.

1.1, 2.1, 2.2a, 2.2b and 2.5 were considered together
* Working party consisting of Hamish, Andy, David C and three others to consider motions as part of constitutional reform 
* Notice to be placed on CS Website for notes of interest for the working party 
* Recommendations to be presented first to Council then an EGM

I believe David C chose not to be part of the CWP however. The remaining 2 actions were carried out as per these instructions