Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[Alex McFarlane]

This is not really my responsibility.

Hamish, I believe that is the wording but could not swear to it. Apparently this outcome was not publicised in time for the following Scottish Championships so may participants were unaware of the changes. I know there were complaints that those eligible for the title were not indicated on the charts but the charts did show those who were SCO so I did not (and do not still) accept that this was accurate. Charts in previous years had required additional identification as a number of non-SCO players had been eligible to win the title (eg Mark Orr due to residence).

Andy, Motion 1 I think is the status quo. However, it is being moved into the constitution where it requires a higher majority than the 50%+1 that it needs to amend it currently.

[hamish olson]

Thanks Alex. You have a point. I should have directed the question more generally rather than just at you.

[WBuchanan]

Thanks Alex, could you please clarify whether the 2016 motion wording I shared is in fact the final wording of the 2016 motion?
If you do not know, is there someone who does? I would have assumed the minutes I linked to would be the definitive version.

There was indeed an amendment, see below. I think it was proposed due to complications arising from the allocation or use of the SCO code.
The 2017 agenda states this regarding the 2016 motion outcome.

" 5. Matters by members.
Chess Scotland Champion must be SCO registered. Grey areas over who is Scottish and who isn’t.
Discussion on wording of proposal. IE discussion on whether this is to do with number of Country
code. Minor amendment – DB suggests change to federation designation instead of Country Code.
AM agrees to amendment. amendment passed.
Vote on proposal. 16 for. 14 against. Motion passed."
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...M-2016.pdf

The stated purpose of this motion (brought by A Muir and G Neave) was to exclude players that had an existing registration with another country from being eligible to represent Scotland or win Scottish titles. It didn't confer eligibility on anyone.

[Jim Webster]

There are some Constitutional procedural points for dealing with formal motions and they are detailed below.   It is not my intention to get involved in the actual debate regarding these motions, simply to advise of the process involved.

****

The following criteria must be followed

1. No changes to the content of intent of either motion.
   
2. Only MINOR corrections or adjustments be made and within the confines of 1 above.
   
3. Any minor alternation must be approved the Proposer (Seconder if the proposer not available) and then authorised by the Management Board.
   (cannot do this at a physical meeting after all)
   
4. If the proposer accepted the amendment, then becomes the substantive motion and voted on.
   
5. Taking into consideration the forum suggestion
   
   1. The alternative/addition proposed by Andy Muir is not permissible as it attempted to introduce a third condition and that does not meet the criteria of a minor amendment.
      
   2. Introducing such a motion would be required to be a completely new motion and follow the requirements of any formal motion.
      
6. Motion 1 requires a 2/3 majority vote since a Constitutional change.
   
7. Motion 2 requires a 50%+1 vote.
   

All valid and correctly formatted submission for amendment as outlined above should be addressed to either 
the myself as President, ( jim_webster@btinternet.com complete)
or to Douglas Bryson as the Proposer of the motions ( grading@chessscotland.com)

Jim Webster

[Douglas Bryson]

I was chairman of the Eligibility Working Panel (EWP) panel set up to examine CS eligibility rules and to try and find resolution of the difficulties of the 2019 Scottish Championship. I'll address some of the points raised in the Forum.

The eligibility rules are largely unchanged from what has been established practice. They clarify various issues in particular that the possession of a Scotland SCO code gives you all rights to Championship titles and international representation. In the years before the 2016 AGM motion restricted eligibility to titles there were separate rules required to cater for foreign registered players resident in Scotland who had title rights.  

The proposals in the motion make it one source document to be consulted with associated links. The first motion asks if members want to place the Eligibility section into the Constitution. "If the rules are in the Constitution it should minimise divergence from established procedure..". Any change to the constitution requires a 2/3rds majority.

***

In general we don't want any exceptions from the eligibility procedure but we do have to deal with the historic circumstances which exist now even if it means addressing the issues can be seen as a contradiction between the motions.
MT is the highest rated active player with a SCO code. The history of why uniquely this code did not have full rights is in the motion details https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...y_2022.pdf  

One of the tasks set for the EWP was to get outcomes - ie fix the problems. It's a big problem if arbiters have their declaration of a champion challenged and then adjusted. Even worse when that adjustment leads to a "result" where two players on different scores are considered to have "tied".

The 2nd motion seeks to establish if GM Matthew Turner should have the full normal rights of a Scotland registered player based on his existing SCO code.  

The member vote at the 2019 AGM decided on the compromise that the title be shared between MT and the next highest scorer. Since there was now a member endorsement of at least a share of the title does that mean MT would be fully eligible at the next Scottish Championship or to represent Scotland internationally? The EWP found it impossible to make a definite ruling either way and the EWP suggestion is to pass the issue back to the membership to see if they can resolve.

Members voted in favour of a MT Scotland registration back in 2011. Members can now clarify that status.

[WBuchanan]

Motion 1 is a constitutional proposal. Doesn't this vote require to be tabled at an AGM or SGM?

The constitution only refers to constitutional votes that are taken at Annual General Meetings or Special General Meetings.
https://www.chessscotland.com/information/constitution/

An AGM was supposed to have been the aim a few months back - pandemic restrictions scuppered the idea.
The last management board meeting in October said the plan was to call the AGM in March.
I realize the restrictions were extended in March but these are expected to be lifted in April.

So why no AGM, and what's the rush? Chess clubs are just stuttering back to life.
As this is an important issue, it's surely desirable to have as representative a membership vote as possible?

[amuir]

And if we had an AGM we could discuss compromise proposals about Matthew.
We could also discuss the problems of Matthew or others playing for Scotland abroad when there are so few tournaments in Scotland.

[Jim Webster]

Motion 1 is a constitutional proposal. Doesn't this vote require to be tabled at an AGM or SGM?

The constitution only refers to constitutional votes that are taken at Annual General Meetings or Special General Meetings.
https://www.chessscotland.com/information/constitution/

In actual fact the Constitution does not define when/now a Constitution Motion is tabled but it does require to require formal notice of call on the website and that has been done.

An AGM was supposed to have been the aim a few months back - pandemic restrictions scuppered the idea.
The last management board meeting in October said the plan was to call the AGM in March.
I realize the restrictions were extended in March but these are expected to be lifted in April.

So why no AGM, and what's the rush? Chess clubs are just stuttering back to life.

These two particular issues have been delayed now for 3 years since the working party of the 2019 AGM – and with the increase in activity for domestically and Internationally these seems an appropriate time to deal with this.

 
Additionally, and taking advice from the ICO (GDPR), we are creating an email to all members. This will then allow members, as part of a possible vote, for these motions to be posted and asking them to vote. This is perfectly admissible for the Membership List to be used to notify, and Vote (Proxy vote) and is in fact a legitimate use of the membership. The address will use the BCC option when sending these emails.
 
It is interesting to note that in the past few AGM’s the Proxy Votes out voted the attendance votes. This justifies case whereby members are more than willing to vote by email/vote than actually in person.
 
Holding AGM’s remotely have become much more commonplace and providing we notify all members (email/letter/Noticeboard) the mechanism does not contravene the terms of the Constitution.
 
The Constitution requests: the date be announced in advance, the Directors reports, Motions and all other aspects of AGM business – what it does not say is what/where the locations will be, nor does it prohibit remote meeting.  

As this is an important issue, it's surely desirable to have as representative a membership vote as possible?

A "representative vote" is one that encompasses ALL members, not just those in attendance and the approach we have taking satisfies these requirements.

[WBuchanan]

Thanks for the clarification Jim.

You elaborate:
 
" Holding AGM’s remotely have become much more commonplace and providing we notify all members (email/letter/Noticeboard) the mechanism does not contravene the terms of the Constitution.
 
The Constitution requests: the date be announced in advance, the Directors reports, Motions and all other aspects of AGM business – what it does not say is what/where the locations will be, nor does it prohibit remote meeting."
 
Can you also clarify, is that what it is then - an online AGM?
Thanks

[ruairidhmckay]

I have followed this thread, but not been actively involved.  Many of arguments have been rehearsed at length and people are welcome to trawl through the information out there if they so wish.

It is up to Chess Scotland and our members to determine the eligibility criteria and I've never requested or campaigned for any changes.

I am either eligible or not and I fully accept the decision that members come to. I appreciate Andy Muir's attempt to find a halfway house solution, but that doesn't seem to help 'continuity' and be in the longer terms interests of Scottish Chess.  So, I would not be playing under that arrangement.

Alan Tate has been in contact with me, firstly alerting me to this thread! and then more latterly on the logistical impacts of a positive vote on motion 2 (that is not presume anything, but merely to plan for all eventualities).  Whilst those conversations are private, Alan did ask me to clarify a previous comment and for those not au fait with previous discussions I will restate that here "Irrespective of eligibility, I will only play with the support of the rest of the team"

The last decade has, in my opinion, seen Scottish Chess and particularly Scottish Junior Chess regress.  I had hoped by this point we'd be discussing whether I was good enough to represent Scotland rather than Scottish enough.  I hope we won't be returning to the same arguments in another decade.

I will continue to follow this thread, but I am not intending to comment on a regular basis.  If someone would like a particular point clarifying then you are of course most welcome to message me.

Matthew, I'm not sure how your views on Scottish Junior Chess relates to the rest of the thread conversation. Some of us have been working hard in the area of bringing on Scottish juniors and have seen some really good juniors coming through in the past few years.