Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Grandparents rule
#51
David,

It is my understanding that in meetings of this type proxies for or against the motion would routinely be held by the chair. Sorry Mr Chairman but I am not looking to take on the work load involved in collating proxy votes.


The change suggested seems to have become more political and more emotional than most issues reaching SGM or AGM. I don't actually see much evidence of many people changing their views.


There is of course nothing inherently wrong with concerted campaigns in a democracy. Could you imagine parliamentary elections in the UK without a concerted campaign or two, or the USA choosing a president who did not undertake major campaigning.
Reply
#52
David Deary wrote: As I pointed out earlier AGMs are not necessarily the most representative. Can someone direct me to the policy/procedure regarding proxy votes? (3 March)
I am not even sure of the proxy process but I am endeavouring to find out. (5 March)

Phil Thomas wrote: It is my understanding that in meetings of this type proxies for or against the motion would routinely be held by the chair. Sorry Mr Chairman but I am not looking to take on the work load involved in collating proxy votes. (5 March)

David
The CS Constitution - specifically Section 5 - is the place to look. I don’t think you will find it particularly enlightening. As an inconclusive discussion on Proxy Votes on this Notice Board between 28 December 2011-5 January 2012 demonstrated, the true meaning/intention/objective is difficult to pin down. You might think it aspires to enhance representativeness, but I think you will find in practice it can actually obstruct and defeat representativeness. Bloc voting such as you propose - you do realise that is what you are up to, don’t you? - is one obstacle, but so too is the attempt to be even-handed. For example, Clause 5.4 states:       Where an Individual member is under the age of sixteen, one parent or guardian of that Individual member is granted an automatic proxy vote on behalf of the Individual member if the member concerned is not voting in his or her own right. Individual members under the age of 12 at the date of any meeting can only vote by automatic proxy.
So, the parent or guardian can vote for himself or his ward/child, but not for both. Do you think that is fair? Think carefully before answering.
Separately, Phil’s point is well made but needs to be elaborated. But that’s for a different place and a different time.
Lest anyone think I’m being hyper-critical in alluding to the Constitution in this way, let me just say that all I am trying to do is to acknowledge how difficult it is ensure accuracy and precision in drafting such documents.
Reply
#53
Quote:For example, Clause 5.4 states: Where an Individual member is under the age of sixteen, one parent or guardian of that Individual member is granted an automatic proxy vote on behalf of the Individual member if the member concerned is not voting in his or her own right. Individual members under the age of 12 at the date of any meeting can only vote by automatic proxy.
So, the parent or guardian can vote for himself or his ward/child, but not for both. Do you think that is fair? Think carefully before answering.

George, I'm not sure that's what it says. The way I read that, 'the member concerned' refers to the young player, since players between 12 and 16 have the option of attending the AGM or SGM and casting their own vote.

Frankly I don't think it's a good idea to allow parents or guardians to vote for players under 12 (and certainly not for those under, say, 8 ) as well as in their own right, and such a stipulation might be quite fair. But I don't think it can be found in the rules as they stand.
Reply
#54
Why do people draw the line at grandparentage and not parentage? Both are as tenuous as each other. Surely those against this proposal should be seeking the removal of this from the eligibilty criteria. It would seem inconsistent otherwise.

I hope the membership as a whole are a bit more savvy about how maintaining stricter eligibity rules than the norm in other fields may be perceived. Then again maybe they are all on border patrol stopping those pesky foreigners coming over here stealing our international places.

The "wha's like us" attitude can be taken too far sometimes.
Reply
#55
Quote:Then again maybe they are all on border patrol stopping those pesky foreigners coming over here stealing our international places.

They're welcome to steal our international places, as long as they're prepared to come over here to do so!
Reply
#56
George, thanks for drawing my attention to the relevant part of the constitution. I was hoping for something a little more detailed but alas no luck. I do realise I am proposing bloc voting but my real fear is that we have 16 members of CS in a room deciding policy for 580+ members. That said, will my 10 proxies make it anymore representative? Probably not.

I personally think AGMs/SGMs should have a quoracy of something in the region of 60 members to make binding decisions. Also, I accept it may be several years since an AGM of CS has been attended by that sort of number. I don’t know if holding the AGM after a one day tournament or the final round of a tournament might enhance participation. Or if it has been tried in the past and failed. At any rate this is a debate for another topic.

Gary, I don’t believe this has anything to do with how savvy people are. I appreciate you are making a slightly satirical point but the second part of your post is a little unfair. Seeing as you asked me own personal view is as follows:

Genealogy should be secondary to residency in the global world we now live in: with more families moving for work commitments and it being relatively easy to move halfway around the world. Things have changed and a system based solely on genealogy could be seen as restrictive and exclusive. I believe residency should be more important than your family history. I am also not opposed to a grandparentage rule if it is tempered by a residency clause. Andy Burnett’s suggestion is along the lines of something I would move to if I felt the rules should be changed but I’m not convinced they need to be.

andyburnett Wrote:Personally speaking, the following requirements would be necessary to satisfy me for someone to attain full Scottish international status at adult level.
-born in Scotland (regardless of residency) or,
-parents born in Scotland plus 1 year residency or,
-grandparents born in Scotland plus 3 year residency or,
-citizenship of UK plus 3 years Scottish residency or,
-residency of 5 years.

I think they probably have the right balance as they are with a slight tweak to allow Matthew to use the SCO flag to retain his FIDE rating (ie. Dougie’s suggestion).

Douglas Bryson Wrote:Perhaps the halfway house of grandparent gets you on the FIDE list as SCO but you must choose to reside here before you can play is the way to go.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#57
Hugh

I lost access there for a moment - no, not the plot, though you might well think that.

I'm not sure you're right - though I grant you may be. I was preparing to employ the Socratic method, but you've managed to blow that. Now I'll have to set up the pieces again, and at my age it's not easy to remember where everything goes.

I could just take the easy way out and claim 'quod erat demonstrandum', which for the benefit of those without Latin (or the Concise Oxford English Dictionary), means that our disagreement about the precise meaning of the constitution on this point establishes the truth of what I was saying about it not always being easy to understand what the Constitution is trying to achieve: here in relation to Voting.

I see where you are coming from in relation to Family Membership - just looked that one up - but there is a deeper, philosophic point. Is it right - or fair - that a parent/guardian can vote for him- herself and his/her ward/child? Doesn't that amount to two bites at the cherry i.e. a mini-form of Bloc Voting? In this context, please remember the basic tenet that not only must Justice be done, but it must be seen to be done.

Now, you have flushed me out into the open. I was laying a snare for David, but I had no idea that David Deary was a pseudonym for Hugh Brechin. No wonder I find crosswords so difficult nowadays.

George

PS I might return to develop that analogy that I was preparing...
Reply
#58
George Murphy Wrote:Now, you have flushed me out into the open. I was laying a snare for David, but I had no idea that David Deary was a pseudonym for Hugh Brechin. No wonder I find crosswords so difficult nowadays.

As I was typing a reply I noticed that Hugh had responded so I was able to side step that trap. Had the website not lost access I would have probably bitten. =)
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#59
Is it not possible to set up an electronic, web-based proxy vote?

In that way CS members can login, as they do for grading, and cast their vote online. The chair can then register the votes as cast at the meeting.

There are actually 2 types of proxy votes
- where the Proxy holder must vote as directed by the member
- where the Proxy holder has the freedom to vote on behalf of the member

The first option obviously prevents "bloc" voting by the Proxy holder
Reply
#60
I actually agree with you David that genealogy should come secondary to residency in today's world. But a couple of points:-

Andy Burnett's suggestion of no residency requirement for those born in Scotland does not seem compatible with residency before genealogy

Your view that the rules don't require a change seem at odds with your views regarding residency and those currently eligible.

While personally not adverse to a residency clause, if introduced, it should be applied to all and in equal measure. Otherwise it will be a case of all scottish international players are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)