19-05-2016, 11:52 PM
.... 9.2.2. To govern Chess Scotland, in conjunction with the MANAGEMENT BOARD and on behalf of the membership between General Meetings.
9.2.3. To approve a business plan and budget over an annual, or longer, period.
9.2.4. To approve the strategic direction for Chess Scotland
9.2.5. To manage ad hoc committees as necessary, these committees may co-opt Individual members who are not COUNCIL members where specific expertise is required ... [From the draft constitution].
In addition to my previous suggestion that para 3 in the draft should contain a further sub-clause, clarifying the relationship between Members / Exec Committee + Management Board / Council along the lines of my previous post, can I suggest that the above four sub-clauses (about the role of Council) also need some tweaking?
9.2.2 should probably best simply be dropped ... as it is wholly unconvincing. Only the Executive Committee/Management Board actually 'governs' CS on behalf of members between AGMs; it is logically impossible for Council, which 'incorporates' the Executive Committee/Management Board on it (according to the draft constitution elsewhere), to govern 'in conjunction' with any body that it isn't actually separate from.
9.2.3 and 9.2.4 are surely much closer to what Council is really there to do. It isn't really there to 'govern' but to act as an accountability check on the most important financial and strategic decisions of the Executive Committee/Management Board ... AND as an advisory sounding board (which leads into 9.2.5). 9.2.3 and 9.2.4 would therefore surely be clearer if they spelled this out, say along the lines of what actually happens each year...
'to approve the annual budget and strategic direction of the Executive Committee/Management Board on the basis of an annual budgetary report presented to it no later than the end of March each year'
9.2.5 needs to be reined in a little bit more since, as currently drafted, it would seem to suggest that Council and the Executive Committee/Management Board could end up in a ridiculous, potentially well nigh unworkable stand-off of competing committees (if they 'fell out'). It would therefore surely better read along the lines ...
'to have the right to advise the Executive Committee/Management Board on any matter, to be informed of and to obtain rights to input into the work of any ad hoc committee set up by the Executive Committee/Management Board to address any issues'
Isn't that really what CS members really want to see happen? Council shouldn't be set up to compete with the Executive arm of the organisation but work in tandem with it.
By the way, if this isn't mentioned somewhere else, shouldn't Council be chaired by someone? I'd say it should be the President.
Hope helpful!
9.2.3. To approve a business plan and budget over an annual, or longer, period.
9.2.4. To approve the strategic direction for Chess Scotland
9.2.5. To manage ad hoc committees as necessary, these committees may co-opt Individual members who are not COUNCIL members where specific expertise is required ... [From the draft constitution].
In addition to my previous suggestion that para 3 in the draft should contain a further sub-clause, clarifying the relationship between Members / Exec Committee + Management Board / Council along the lines of my previous post, can I suggest that the above four sub-clauses (about the role of Council) also need some tweaking?
9.2.2 should probably best simply be dropped ... as it is wholly unconvincing. Only the Executive Committee/Management Board actually 'governs' CS on behalf of members between AGMs; it is logically impossible for Council, which 'incorporates' the Executive Committee/Management Board on it (according to the draft constitution elsewhere), to govern 'in conjunction' with any body that it isn't actually separate from.
9.2.3 and 9.2.4 are surely much closer to what Council is really there to do. It isn't really there to 'govern' but to act as an accountability check on the most important financial and strategic decisions of the Executive Committee/Management Board ... AND as an advisory sounding board (which leads into 9.2.5). 9.2.3 and 9.2.4 would therefore surely be clearer if they spelled this out, say along the lines of what actually happens each year...
'to approve the annual budget and strategic direction of the Executive Committee/Management Board on the basis of an annual budgetary report presented to it no later than the end of March each year'
9.2.5 needs to be reined in a little bit more since, as currently drafted, it would seem to suggest that Council and the Executive Committee/Management Board could end up in a ridiculous, potentially well nigh unworkable stand-off of competing committees (if they 'fell out'). It would therefore surely better read along the lines ...
'to have the right to advise the Executive Committee/Management Board on any matter, to be informed of and to obtain rights to input into the work of any ad hoc committee set up by the Executive Committee/Management Board to address any issues'
Isn't that really what CS members really want to see happen? Council shouldn't be set up to compete with the Executive arm of the organisation but work in tandem with it.
By the way, if this isn't mentioned somewhere else, shouldn't Council be chaired by someone? I'd say it should be the President.
Hope helpful!