25-08-2013, 04:34 PM
First of all, I'd like to make it entirely clear that in this next post I am not speaking as a moderator, but merely as a member, poster and AGM attendee.
Steve, for heaven's sake. The AGM has happened. We should all be trying to move on together and get to work on improving chess in Scotland. I'd really like to let this slide. But I'm not going to, because I feel you've made a few points which should be challenged rather than simply ignored.
Are you fully accepting the results of the elections or claiming that they should be void? It seems rather difficult to do both. Yes, a number of CS officials carried significant numbers of proxy votes. (As I said in an earlier post, it is worth remembering that while Dick Heathwood held a lot of proxy votes on his own account, a good number came from Steve Mannion). A number of non-directors also carried proxy votes. There was discussion at the meeting about the difficult situation where proxies significantly outnumber attendees, and that is being investigated in the forthcoming constitutional review. I hope that there are some changes, but I don't think you can criticise anyone for accumulating proxies under the current system. Without wishing to dig over the past, this was certainly not the first occasion when someone showed up at the AGM with a very large proxy vote.
The member who was admonished by the Membership Secretary was simply trying to bull over a man presenting a report. I'm sure the MS now feels that he was perhaps a bit more peremptory than he should have been, but the member in question wasn't raising his hand and attempting to make points; he was consistently attempting to interrupt a speaker.
In 2009, a number of members chose to change their vote when a recount was sought on a close vote. Honestly I haven't a clue whether that's constitutionally dicey or not, but I don't see how you can stop them. I would absolutely agree with Mike that your subsequent conduct in that meeting did not paint you in a very good light.
The treatment meted out to Andy Muir was disgraceful? He was rejected as a candidate for office due to serious concerns about his behaviour as a director, which a number of members felt he did not adequately respond to when questioned. Later, when open directorships were discussed, he won a vote after expressing an at least somewhat more conciliatory attitude. He left the meeting duly re-elected to the post of International Director. I've seen people treated worse.
On another note, I think describing Calum's answer to one question as 'horrifying' is more than a touch hyperbolic, but I'm glad he's been able to allay your concerns with his reply in this thread.
Anyway, I'm going to stop now. There are other points I could make, but I really don't want this getting out of hand. I would agree with David C in expressing respect for your personal achievements within the game, and in wishing you the best of luck for your forthcoming tournaments.
Steve, for heaven's sake. The AGM has happened. We should all be trying to move on together and get to work on improving chess in Scotland. I'd really like to let this slide. But I'm not going to, because I feel you've made a few points which should be challenged rather than simply ignored.
Are you fully accepting the results of the elections or claiming that they should be void? It seems rather difficult to do both. Yes, a number of CS officials carried significant numbers of proxy votes. (As I said in an earlier post, it is worth remembering that while Dick Heathwood held a lot of proxy votes on his own account, a good number came from Steve Mannion). A number of non-directors also carried proxy votes. There was discussion at the meeting about the difficult situation where proxies significantly outnumber attendees, and that is being investigated in the forthcoming constitutional review. I hope that there are some changes, but I don't think you can criticise anyone for accumulating proxies under the current system. Without wishing to dig over the past, this was certainly not the first occasion when someone showed up at the AGM with a very large proxy vote.
The member who was admonished by the Membership Secretary was simply trying to bull over a man presenting a report. I'm sure the MS now feels that he was perhaps a bit more peremptory than he should have been, but the member in question wasn't raising his hand and attempting to make points; he was consistently attempting to interrupt a speaker.
In 2009, a number of members chose to change their vote when a recount was sought on a close vote. Honestly I haven't a clue whether that's constitutionally dicey or not, but I don't see how you can stop them. I would absolutely agree with Mike that your subsequent conduct in that meeting did not paint you in a very good light.
The treatment meted out to Andy Muir was disgraceful? He was rejected as a candidate for office due to serious concerns about his behaviour as a director, which a number of members felt he did not adequately respond to when questioned. Later, when open directorships were discussed, he won a vote after expressing an at least somewhat more conciliatory attitude. He left the meeting duly re-elected to the post of International Director. I've seen people treated worse.
On another note, I think describing Calum's answer to one question as 'horrifying' is more than a touch hyperbolic, but I'm glad he's been able to allay your concerns with his reply in this thread.
Anyway, I'm going to stop now. There are other points I could make, but I really don't want this getting out of hand. I would agree with David C in expressing respect for your personal achievements within the game, and in wishing you the best of luck for your forthcoming tournaments.