Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Reformation of the Constitution
Sorry Andy, this is definitely the incorrect title for what you are aiming for.

There have been all too many schisms within Scottish Chess over the last 15 or so years. What is needed now is a revision of the Constitution rather than a reformation.
How come both candidates wanted to change the constitution but neither listed what is wrong with it.

Shouldn't you ask people what they think is wrong with it rather than form a committee of people who also didn't know what is wrong with it apart from the proxy vote system.
Andy. *sigh*

Jac, That is the point of it. It is the reason for forming a working group!
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
I believe it was said at the meeting that the working group would be welcoming public input. Hope so anyway!
It didn’t seem that welcome, more like reluctant. Don’t start off on the wrong foot – people want to be involved, not just to turn up once a year to find out what has happened.

BTW, is there a link to the constitution? Ta
WBuchanan Wrote:BTW, is there a link to the constitution? Ta
Hi Andy
Quote:Jac, That is the point of it. It is the reason for forming a working group!

I don't understand your reply to JT post. Are you saying the working committee is being setup to find out whats wrong with the constitution, to do a general review, or to address specific concerns?

I would assume that this exercise has been motivated by an idea or concern that certain aspects of it need re-working and the starting point should be a statement of what these concerns are, even if the exercise is not to be limited to these initial concerns.
As I recall from the AGM, there were a large number of motions tabled regarding the constitution, including the "Proxy Issue". The scope of this was extended to also include input on any other aspects of the constitution that members may have.

Therefore a Working Party was being set up to examine these motions and make recommendations to Council. The council was then to review and publish these findings for comment and possible modification before then calling an EGM to formally publically discuss, re-tailor if necessary and then incorporate into the constitution before the next AGM.

But that's only my understanding............................

I agree the title of this thread is a bit misleading, perhaps it should be called "Constitutional Review"
I am thinking of participating in this working party.
These paragraphs, I guess, are the most controversial at the moment. Any others ?

5.2 Each Club and Affiliate member shall nominate a single proxy representative to the Executive Director at least one week before the General Meeting, which failing, their most recent nominee shall be deemed to hold their proxy vote.

16.1 A Standards Committee shall be formed which shall be responsible for promulgating and enforcing relevant ethical standards. The Chair and Members of the Standards Committee shall be appointed, normally for a three- year (renewable) term, by a General Meeting. The Committee shall establish its own Operating Procedures, subject only to approval by a General Meeting.
A few random 'problems' I picked up at the AGM:

The division of responsibility for fund raising between the Treasurer and the Marketing Director.

The role of the Customer Services Director (so we didn't elect one).

The Chief Grader not being automatically a member of the Management Board (or is it the Council?) means Dougie Bryson gets elected unanimously every year as an ordinary member, thus depriving another ordinary member of a place.
I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)