Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AGM Election Results
I agree with Andy, let's stop tying ourselves in knots. Whatever happened is now over. If we think there are issues with the proxy vote system (and there probably are), then let's look at that and discuss changing it. =)
Perhaps it's time this thread came to a close.

I think I'll do something controversial and start a new thread about 33 bits of wood,
in the form of 1 8x8 checkerboard, 16 white bits and 16 black bits

- I seem to recall it being called chess.....
I was only aware of emails soliciting support for Hamish. You will find that I carried no proxy votes into Saturdays meeting.

I repeat that I was not aware of the email you refer to and I don't know how they got a copy.

Lets drop this, there will be no winner here.
Let's make proxy votes a topic for november meeting.
I have sympathy for Gerard Lobley travelling from Aberdeen.
Alan B suggested max of 3 per person but perhaps this should apply to central belt only. Perhaps Dundee 4, Aberdeen 5.
We could make proxy votes a discussion here on the forum, but only about the way forward. We can't change the past.

I can start a new thread, starting by copying in the relevant section in from the current constitution.

But... not as an attempt to pre-empt or direct the Working Party's effectiveness - perhaps more a wish list for consideration.

By the way I think we should give this particular WP a name, given the un-addressed resolutions from the AGM it looks like there may be more than one WP being set up.
..... how about - Constitutional Review Panel?
Hi Walter
Agreed Steve is entitled to say whatever he wants. But the negative impact of such a statement, which read simply like sour grapes, leaves me in no doubt that the chess community was not served by it. He would have been far better advised to have followed Andy's example and take some time to reflect.

If there were real and serious mistakes made then sure raise them at council but raising them here is not the way to have them remedied: nothing like that is ever resolved in anyway when debated in a medium like this.

The big problem we have is that many people only accept decisions/results that go their way. If you sign up to a process then I think you are obliged to accept the results unless one has solid evidence of serious malpractice.
I will tell things as I see it Mike and if you don't like that then that's your right.
I am in agreement with Jim W for once Big Grin I am tired of having to defend myself. The election is over and the result is declared. I have important work to do for blind chess and I just want to concentrate on that.
I will say this though, I will still take an interest in the chess business of my nation and will give praise to CS when they do something that is good, equally I will continue to speak out when I consider something is wrong.
Mike this medium is the only way to put the full picture to the members.
One other thing Mike, when the result was announced, I immediately congratulated the President on his victory and also thanked Chess Scotland for making me a free man!! Big Grin That is not the sound of someone with sour grapes. You should apologise for that statement as it portrays a very unfair picture of me
Proxy votes - these would be my suggestions

*A standard form indicating any votes specifically cast in advance

*You cannot transfer your entire voting capacity on all items on the Agenda.

*A limited number of items can be specified (that are on the Agenda) where carte blanche voting capacity can be transferred. My suggestion would be a maximum of three.
Can I remind everyone that there are two types of proxy vote (possibly three)

There is the proxy vote where you have been given the vote of another individual member. These are the ones which are causing the problems.

But there is also the proxy for an affiliated organisation. These should not have the same restrictions put on them as the individual exercising the vote is effectively the organisation at the meeting.

The third type could be parents. If a limit is put on proxies it would, I think, be unfair to limit them in the same way as 'normal' individuals.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)