Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New constitution
DIck Heathwood: “Go for it, enjoy yourselves, by all means shoot the messenger. In my own defence all I can say is that I wrote the minutes honestly and carefully.”

Not sure what you are on about, Dick. We are entitled to query things, you know. No-one has attacked you - I just queried the minute that’s all. If there was a discrepancy, why would it make you dishonest or careless?

“As the original author (along with others) of <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> ... tional.htm, I can only hang my head in shame to learn that the words were very roughly formed.”

OK, I hereby retract that cruel and hurtful description and apologise for any umbrage, shame, hung heads and feeling-shot minute secretaries (I’d like to see that bullet though Smile )

There was a criticism from the floor that because it was in the form of a series of questions as such it couldn’t go straight into the constitution. I was only trying to explain the crticism from the viewpoint of the crtiics, with whom I don't agree.
In my view, this criticsm was no reason at all to reject the status quo but the CWP members seemed to agree readily with the criticism so I’m not sure why the 'hurt' routine is only aimed at people querying the minutes Sad
General question regarding the SGM minutes

DId the minute secretary produce them on his own, or was there input from other people? If so, from whom?

After 3 weeks with no access to the board, I am back. Is someone trying to silence me I wonder? Who knows? Anyway I do have a point I have been wanting to raise.

The Scottish Championships were very entertaining this year and let me congratulate Neil Berry for a great performance.

Shortly before the end of the final round I asked Andy Howie if Jacob Aagaard was eligible to be Scottish Champion. I had determined if Neil's game with Keti finished a draw then Jacob would finish ahead of all the Scots, Andy informed me he was eligible.

Now I admire Jacob's play and would be first to congratulate him had he won the Scottish Open but Scottish Champion? I think not. You see I recall how a few years back when Jacob was affiliated to Scotland in FIDE, he decided to change affiliation so that it was no longer to Scotland but back to that of his native country - Denmark. He even posted on this board the reason why: he wanted to be eligible to play in the ...errm...Danish Championships! Surely you cannot have it both ways and be eligible to be champion of both countries simultaneously?

To avoid such an unfortunate situation coming about in future can I proposed that as well as satisfy residency criteria or parentage rules to be eligible to become Scottish Champion that in addition the Scottish Champion MUST be FIDE affiliated to Scotland.

Am I alone to think this? If I am in the majority can we capture this in the rules going forward?
I asked a similar question re: Jacob's eligibility during the tournament.

I forget who I was talking with at the time (1 or 2 of our strongest players I think) and the response was a unanimous 'of course, he's been living here for 10 years' or something similar, coupled with a few strange looks aimed at me for posing such a ridiculous question.

I'm a bit unsure whether Jacob, or someone in a similar situation, should be eligible or not. Would it be possible for someone to be eligible for even more than 2 national championships? Through residency, birth, FIDE affiliation, parentage, grand-parentage..? Hmmm...

I similarly admire Jacob's contributions to chess here in Scotland and elsewhere, but the question George has posed is definitely worthy of a discussion. Perhaps we could have it without being specific to Jacob, although he is an obvious 'for example' to use.
I just used this by way of example. It seems ridiculous to me that when someone consciously chooses to change affiliation to not being Scottish we would still say "no worries you can still be our national champion" Even if a direct descendant from Maw and Paw Broon, this is still is a showstopper for me!

It's not personal.
That's a surprise!

It never occurred to me that Jacob was playing as anything other than a 'foreigner' and therefore wasn't eligible to win the Scottish championship title!!

That is worth clarifying for future years. I think you could argue both ways but a decision to opt for FIDE registration with another country is a weighty decision and the eligibility rules (which currently don't recognise this category of player at all) should really be clear about it.

This sort of thing must occur in other countries. When I lived (and worked many decades ago!) in Germany, I don't think I was eligible to enter any qualifier for (or play) in the (old) West German championship as SCO registered with FIDE, but I've no idea how this might be in 2015 ... anywhere.
WBuchanan Wrote:However, on the eligibility section

1) A motion WAS introduced that was not on the agenda
2) Just prior, Derek’s proxies were apparently ignored (though Andy H may have known they were insufficient, he’ll clear that up for us I’m sure).
3) Responses to Derek’s queries have been contradictory; for example according to Jim proxies were not ignored and the minutes weren’t wrong - but the minutes refer to the meeting ‘agreeing unanimously’ that his suggestion should fail.

And nobody has seen fit to address this yet, possibly because my proxies were actually ignored?

I have to wonder who else's proxies were ignored.
andyburnett Wrote:Derek is of course entitled to query this, but his recent posts go beyond a simple query.

Is there something which is preventing people from enquiring about things privately, and only going public when they haven't received satisfactory answers? I've lost count of the number of recent posts which could probably have been solved in private but instead have been public attacks on the actions and integrity of CS officials. Personally I'm getting a bit fed up with this kind of offensive behaviour.

You have a point, Andy, but I'd make the following points:

1. I have sent several emails to CS directors in the past which have not had a response, including some on the issue of the constitution.
2. I have in the past asked for minutes of meeting to have been altered and they remain unchanged.

If there are questions on the voting during an SGM or the minutes are incorrect (or misleading) then surely it is open for all to know about it.
Craig Pritchett Wrote:That's a surprise!

It never occurred to me that Jacob was playing as anything other than a 'foreigner' and therefore wasn't eligible to win the Scottish championship title!!

I'm surprised that you're surprised!

Jacob won the 2012 Scottish Championship while Denmark registered. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Andrew Greet won the 2010 Championship while England registered <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... nt16=50938</a><!-- m -->

Keti Grant won the 2003 Championship while Georgia registered <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... nt16=24711</a><!-- m -->

Jonathan Parker won the 1994 Scottish Championship as an English junior internationalist.

American Danny Kopec won in 1980 and so on.

Irishman Mark Orr has always been considered eligible for the title.

Craig Pritchett Wrote:the eligibility rules (which currently don't recognise this category of player at all) should really be clear about it.

The current and proposed rules do recognise this category of player by deeming residency sufficient for eligibility.

"If the player is 18 or more years old, has he/she been permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years (if a junior, that is under 18, the equivalent time is one year)?"

The Championship entry form also indicated residency established eligibility albeit there is an inconsistency over the number of years required.

However it is an entirely reasonable position to argue that the Championship title should be restricted only to Scotland registered players if that is the view of a majority of members. Jacob himself commented to that effect after he won in 2012.
Derek, I, also, have asked for changes to previous minutes. Sometimes my suggestions were accepted and sometimes not. It comes down to the simple process of convincing people that your own recollection is more accurate than the proposed record. If you succeed, then the minutes are amended at the next meeting but if you (or I) fail, then the minutes are adopted as originally proposed.

For example, I wrote the minutes for the most recent SGM because Karen was unavailable and Andy was fully utilised in the championships. The accuracy of what has been proposed as the record of the meeting is my responsibility alone. If the minutes are amended at the next meeting, then so be it; I am no more immune from errors and misunderstandings than the next man. All I can promise is that, with the exception of using children for voting, I have no strong views on any of the topics discussed and, therefore, had a free hand in trying to write an accurate record.

As already explained in a previous post, the view of the meeting was that, on eligibility, your series of questions did not amount to a competent motion. As recorded in the proposed minutes, your other motions were addressed with some being adopted and some failing.

In all the circumstances, I wonder if you would like to withdraw your reference to the possibility that proxy votes were ignored.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)