PDA

View Full Version : Motion 2011-03 (Amended) (Elimination of Life Governors)



Lyle Craver
10-10-2010, 11:10 AM
Since the Amendment to motion 2011-03 has been passed the motion becomes (changed text in Italics)

AMENDED Motion :Moved: Governor Patrick McDonald; Seconded: Governor Paul Leblanc
.
Governors-at-Large – Past CFC Presidents: Section 6 of By-law # 2 is amended by deleting

“ the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least two full terms. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next. The past presidents of the federation who have served as President for at least 2 terms and continue to demonstrate that they are active governors by attending at any one annual meeting over a 2 year period or commenting or voting on not less than 3 governors motions in any two year period or attending at least 2 on line governors meetings over a two year period. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next”

and replacing

“ the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994. “

There shall be added after the words “ five years “ in the remaining section, the sentence “ A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.”

Please vote YES, NO or ABSTAIN - voting on this motion ends 2300 (11 pm) EDT, Tuesday October 12th

Christopher Mallon
10-10-2010, 02:03 PM
I vote yes, only because it's better than what we already have.

Baby steps, right?

Lyle Craver
10-10-2010, 03:22 PM
Sorry folks - this thread is for voting ONLY.

Discussions on the merits or otherwise of this proposal belong in the discussion thread.

If you have a procedural question relating to the motion by all means ask it here but please no advocacy messages.

For the record I will be voting NO as I feel it removes a precious resource and is by no means as evil as Bob A has suggested.

Michael von Keitz
10-10-2010, 04:12 PM
Discussions on the merits or otherwise of this proposal belong in the discussion thread.

For the record I will be voting NO as I feel it removes a precious resource and is by no means as evil as Bob A has suggested.

Just to be clear, will those life governors that have not demonstrated activity over the past two years be immediately removed if this motion passes?

Bob Armstrong
10-12-2010, 02:58 AM
Hi Michael:

Good question - in all the discussion since Les first made his motion comment in 2009-10 GL # 2, I don't think that has been discussed - if it has, please enlighten us as to the conversation.

I have my own opinion ( and I'm sure Les has one as well ):

1. Formal Wording - I don't see anything in the wording that says that it does not immediately apply - that is, the life governors who have not complied over the past 2 years are terminated.

2. Procedural Fairness - However, besides the wording itself, there is a procedural fairness issue - the life governors did not know 2 years ago that they would have to meet some unknown activity criteria in the following 2 years, to remain a life governor; they were guaranteed life governor status, even if they had retired from active CFC chess politics. So I think the amendment can only look forward. The life governors are now on notice exactly what activity is required over the next 2 years to keep their life governor status.

Perhaps the Chair and/or Secretary need to wade into this question as well.

Bob

Lyle Craver
10-12-2010, 11:25 PM
Folks, voting on motion 2011-03 (Elimination of Life Governors) is now CLOSED.

The vote was 19 yes, 1 no with no abstentions. Since this is a Constituional Amendment, it requires 50% of Governors to take part in the vote to pass which did not happen and thus the motion FAILS.

(The rules governing a Constitutional Amendment are in the Handbook at http://www.chess.ca/section_2.shtml and the specific rules governing Online meetings are found in the records of the AGM on pages 49-50 http://www.chess.ca/Gls/10-11GL1.pdf

Beyond this there are additional problems - the April Online Meeting was said to have revealed all problems but this is not so and here's why:

CFC Governor votes have always been secret ballots before the deadline with who voted how being revealed after the votes were tallied and released. The vBulletin Forum software on the other hand has 2 types of votes: 'secret' and 'open' - an 'open' vote is one where viewers can see who voted how DURING the voting period which is not the CFC way. So when I put the question on 2011-03, I chose the 'secret' option expecting to be able to flip the flag back to open after the polls were closed.

I have e-mailed Chris Mallon the Forum moderator as when I closed the vote I found I was unable to switch the vote from secret to open which would mirror how the CFC does things.

It is my hope that the new version of the software would accomodate the CFC's Governor voting procedures since it would be completely out of order for the CFC to change our procedures for the sake of the software. Any Executive that approved such a thing should be opposed by all Governors.

I'm hoping Chris has the access to flip the vote (after it's closed) from secret to open since otherwise while I know who the no vote is (he told me) I don't know who the yesses were.

This is a fairly major matter - in fact it's what when I was in the software business was called a 'showstopper bug' and thus I cannot share the view of my predecessor as Posting Secretary that vBulletin is ready to be used to conduct a CFC vote and will be advising the Executive accordingly.

Bob raises the question of procedural fairness - I'd argue that the easiest way to deal with this issue in future constitutional motions would be to strongly suggest (since I don't have the authority to require) an effective date on all such motions - if one is not specified in the motion, the motion is of immediate effect which may not be either fair or good policy.

Finally, I have heard from a couple of former presidents affected by this motion one of whom tried yesterday to get access but wasn't able to get in in time. So we have work to do in seeing that everyone gets access before the next meeting.

All of this I have referred to the President and I would invite feedback from Governors.

Ken Craft
10-13-2010, 08:44 AM
Not voting is a time honoured method of killing motions that require quorum. That said i don't think any Governors would do such a thing.

Fred McKim
10-13-2010, 10:48 AM
It would appear that many of the Governors had "left" the meeting by the time the vote for the amended motion came up. Considering the overwhelming support, I would have to think it would be allowed to be re-introduced at a later date.

Michael von Keitz
10-13-2010, 11:48 AM
It seems clear this issue will not be going away, and, I feel, these continual procedural blockages are only delaying the inevitable. I also feel that the President should be stepping forward to rule whether motions do or do not satisfy the requirements of our by-laws. Deferring to the judgment of our "Constitutional experts" is fine, but the final word should ultimately rest with him.

Fred McKim
10-13-2010, 12:03 PM
Changing the by-laws at an AGM with 30 days notice of motion require a 2/3 vote.

Changing the by-laws any other time require a 2/3 vote and 50% of the total number of governors voting.

Ken Craft
10-13-2010, 12:23 PM
The meeting was extended once. The president could extend voting on this motion based on that precedent.

Bob Armstrong
10-13-2010, 12:48 PM
Changing the by-laws any other time require a 2/3 vote and 50% of the total number of governors voting.

Hi Fred:

The quote above is no longer correct. Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ) was amended at the July AGM, such that the on-line meeting is the equivalent of an AGM re " constitutional " amendments. No quorum of 50 % is required now at an on-line meeting.

I have sent you my recent correspondence with Bob G and Lyle on this.

This is my best opinion, but as of yet I'm not sure who agrees with me.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
10-13-2010, 12:52 PM
Lyle, you should be able to see the votes through the admin control panel. I'm sure I'll be able to flip it back to public, but I can't do that until the next time I'm at home (Thursday night).

It's ironic because part of my reasons for introducing a similar motion in the past were due to the fact that inactive governors make it almost impossible to pass constitutional motions.

Bob could possibly rule that this was in fact a "Meeting" and not simply an "Online Vote" and thus anyone present who did not vote is considered automatically to have abstained. So it would then be 19-1 with 22 abstentions, and pass.