This item of the MT vote wasn't on the 2011 Agenda, it was raised under AOCB. As it affects all members, this was surely not a competent vote.
Douglas Bryson: "The allocation of the SCO registration in 2011 was made in the full knowledge it did not meet the published criteria. Those who encouraged the presentation of the transfer request were initially trying to assist a player who was at risk of being FIDE deregistered by England. There was also the belief that there would be a subsequent grandfather vote which would mean a full meeting of the CS criteria. CS officials may not have appreciated at the time the consequences of what they were proposing."
Can I suggest these statements are too contradictory to be applied to indviduals.
The official who indicated his intention to move a grandparent vote (in 3 months time at an EGM that was expected to take place over another issue, I think it didn't happen) also then moved the motion to 'process the transfer'. This was to save MT from being left stateless for 3 months.
So one official at least intended, in a two-move combination, (despite not being an IM
) to make MT eligible despite his not currently meeting any criteria.
Surely we can also take it that others in management knew of the idea. Douglas, you wouldn't have missed the two-mover!?
The last part being pushed as a humanitarian option no doubt moved some of the members present. They were saving MT from being left stateless. It would have been all over in a minute.
In answer to Willie's final point, the eligibility criteria haven't really been put to the membership. They sort of were in 2015 - it was at the SGM about the new Constitution. It was Andy Howie's chance to star like Peter Snow on election night special, and I remember we were getting updates from his laptop. As a result we all knew that Section 16 was heading for defeat but it was controversially pulled from the Constitution. There...might have been legit reasons for that, I remember concerns that the whole Constitution would fail. Anyway, it was remitted to a working party.
The proposals in that Section 16 were a bit like Motion 1 and 2 together. There was a clause about SCO code giving all eligibility, and another adding a grandparent criterion. A third criterion was about residency for two years immediately prior to the competition. You just needed to meet one of those criteria, so long as you were a CS member.
Later at the 2015 AGM I tabled a motion asking members if they wanted to include the grandparent criterion and it was rejected.
Cheers
Douglas Bryson: "The allocation of the SCO registration in 2011 was made in the full knowledge it did not meet the published criteria. Those who encouraged the presentation of the transfer request were initially trying to assist a player who was at risk of being FIDE deregistered by England. There was also the belief that there would be a subsequent grandfather vote which would mean a full meeting of the CS criteria. CS officials may not have appreciated at the time the consequences of what they were proposing."
Can I suggest these statements are too contradictory to be applied to indviduals.
The official who indicated his intention to move a grandparent vote (in 3 months time at an EGM that was expected to take place over another issue, I think it didn't happen) also then moved the motion to 'process the transfer'. This was to save MT from being left stateless for 3 months.
So one official at least intended, in a two-move combination, (despite not being an IM
) to make MT eligible despite his not currently meeting any criteria.Surely we can also take it that others in management knew of the idea. Douglas, you wouldn't have missed the two-mover!?
The last part being pushed as a humanitarian option no doubt moved some of the members present. They were saving MT from being left stateless. It would have been all over in a minute.
In answer to Willie's final point, the eligibility criteria haven't really been put to the membership. They sort of were in 2015 - it was at the SGM about the new Constitution. It was Andy Howie's chance to star like Peter Snow on election night special, and I remember we were getting updates from his laptop. As a result we all knew that Section 16 was heading for defeat but it was controversially pulled from the Constitution. There...might have been legit reasons for that, I remember concerns that the whole Constitution would fail. Anyway, it was remitted to a working party.
The proposals in that Section 16 were a bit like Motion 1 and 2 together. There was a clause about SCO code giving all eligibility, and another adding a grandparent criterion. A third criterion was about residency for two years immediately prior to the competition. You just needed to meet one of those criteria, so long as you were a CS member.
Later at the 2015 AGM I tabled a motion asking members if they wanted to include the grandparent criterion and it was rejected.
Cheers