24-03-2022, 01:59 PM
I know I said I would say no more...but I'll try to make a constructive suggestion this time.
Thanks for the summary Alex, I knew the bit about you resigning and I think that was a great shame, and hopefully you will feel able to resume in the future as Scottish chess is much poorer for that having happened.
However, the history is somewhat irrelevant to my points. Surely the proposer of the exception should be able to provide a justification in, say, 10 words or less to go with their proposal e.g. "in recognition of past services to Scottish Chess", or "to formalise a position previously informally communicated to the player concerned". Just examples, I'm not saying these are good or relevant justifications. The historical summary may be referred to in order to provide further background on the justification, if relevant.
On the governance point, constitutions should be strategic and durable over time. The problem with this issue is it is verging on operational. All organisations need some operational flexibility. I would suggest this could be retro fitted to the current scenario if proposal 1 included something along the lines of "Council may approve exceptions to these eligibility criteria subject to 1) consultation with the general membership for a period of at least 1 month prior to the proposed effective date and 2) ratification (prior or retrospective) by a simple majority of voting members at the next general meeting".
As it stands proposal 2 to me looks both incompetent and (literally) unjustified.
Thanks for the summary Alex, I knew the bit about you resigning and I think that was a great shame, and hopefully you will feel able to resume in the future as Scottish chess is much poorer for that having happened.
However, the history is somewhat irrelevant to my points. Surely the proposer of the exception should be able to provide a justification in, say, 10 words or less to go with their proposal e.g. "in recognition of past services to Scottish Chess", or "to formalise a position previously informally communicated to the player concerned". Just examples, I'm not saying these are good or relevant justifications. The historical summary may be referred to in order to provide further background on the justification, if relevant.
On the governance point, constitutions should be strategic and durable over time. The problem with this issue is it is verging on operational. All organisations need some operational flexibility. I would suggest this could be retro fitted to the current scenario if proposal 1 included something along the lines of "Council may approve exceptions to these eligibility criteria subject to 1) consultation with the general membership for a period of at least 1 month prior to the proposed effective date and 2) ratification (prior or retrospective) by a simple majority of voting members at the next general meeting".
As it stands proposal 2 to me looks both incompetent and (literally) unjustified.