A constitution has to be logically consistent. Willie Rutherford's useful amendment smooths over the mutual contradiction in the two motions by creating room for exceptional decisions, with some limitations under the parameters in which these decisions can be taken.
However, there seems to be a more fundamental issue with Motion 1:
The EWP committee was set up to examine the eligibility issues and report back. It met on the basis that its recommendations would be put to a membership vote.
This isn't what is happening with Motion 1. It's stated that its provisions will be 'enacted' even if the motion is rejected - it just won't then be put in the constitution.
Lifelong eligibility from temporary residency of two years is the crux of the issue.
The explanation underneath the motion text says:
"If members vote Yes then the provisions of the motion will be included in the CS Constitution. If
members vote No (or not by the required Yes majority) then the provisions of the motion will be
enacted but will not be in the CS Constitution."
In other words, what will be voted on is NOT whether this eligibility proposal is acceptable to Scottish chess players in the first place, but HOW DEEPLY it is to be embedded it in the rules.
This would seem to be bypassing the views of the membership on the more important issue of eligibility itself.
In the 2015 SGM, similar eligibility rules were tabled as part of the new constitution, and were on the verge of being rejected.
They were then controversially removed from the constitution proposal before the last stage of the vote could be completed.
Now they are reappearing as a fait accompli?
Shouldn't the eligibility CRITERIA themselves be the subject of the vote? Probably followed by, if Yes, a second question, ie does it go in the constitution or just in the operational rules.
However, there seems to be a more fundamental issue with Motion 1:
The EWP committee was set up to examine the eligibility issues and report back. It met on the basis that its recommendations would be put to a membership vote.
This isn't what is happening with Motion 1. It's stated that its provisions will be 'enacted' even if the motion is rejected - it just won't then be put in the constitution.
Lifelong eligibility from temporary residency of two years is the crux of the issue.
The explanation underneath the motion text says:
"If members vote Yes then the provisions of the motion will be included in the CS Constitution. If
members vote No (or not by the required Yes majority) then the provisions of the motion will be
enacted but will not be in the CS Constitution."
In other words, what will be voted on is NOT whether this eligibility proposal is acceptable to Scottish chess players in the first place, but HOW DEEPLY it is to be embedded it in the rules.
This would seem to be bypassing the views of the membership on the more important issue of eligibility itself.
In the 2015 SGM, similar eligibility rules were tabled as part of the new constitution, and were on the verge of being rejected.
They were then controversially removed from the constitution proposal before the last stage of the vote could be completed.
Now they are reappearing as a fait accompli?
Shouldn't the eligibility CRITERIA themselves be the subject of the vote? Probably followed by, if Yes, a second question, ie does it go in the constitution or just in the operational rules.