PDA

View Full Version : 29. Motion 2011-D - DISCUSSION



Lyle Craver
01-15-2011, 01:02 AM
Motion 2011 – D – On-line Meeting Procedures Amendment to s. 5 – Constitutional Amendments

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Michael von Keitz

- that SECTION 2 –Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings, s. 5, :be amended by deleting the words: “, and 50% quorum for non-AGM constitutional amendments “.

NOTICE TO GOVERNORS: As a Constitutional Amendment motion this is subject to the Handbook requirements for Constitutional Amendments and takes effect if passed at the close of this meeting

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 08:54 AM
Armstrong/von Keitz Commentary in Favour of Motion 2011-D:

The on-line meeting procedures intended that the quarterly non-AGM governors’ on-line meetings have no quorum requirement for constitutional amendments, the same way previously there was no such requirement for the AGM.

Bylaw 3, s.3 now states ( amendments in bold ):

BY-LAW NUMBER THREE OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA

ANNUAL MEETING AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

1.

2.

3. Any amendment or revision of these By-Laws; any matter pertaining to any international agreement between the Federation and any international or foreign Chess Federation or Association; and any matter pertaining to the payment of dues to the Fédération International des Echecs may be made,

(a) at any Annual Meeting or Governors’ On-line Meeting of the Assembly, providing that a notice of intention to submit such matter to a vote has been received by the Secretary at least 30 days prior to the date of such Annual Meeting or Governors’ On-line Meeting and has been transmitted by the Secretary to each Governor at least 14 days prior to the date of such Annual Meeting or Governors’ On-line Meeting and that any resolution pertaining to such matter shall be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the votes of those present and entitled to vote, including proxy votes.

(b) at any time through a mail vote of Assembly, providing that the exact wording of such proposed amendments or revision, or of the resolution to be passed by the Board through mail vote is submitted to each Governor at least fourteen days before the expiry of the time limit specified by the President for the receipt of the votes by the Secretary, and that at least one-half of the number of votes eligible to be cast has been received by the Secretary, and there is a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes cast in favour of the proposed amendment or revision or resolution.

Abstentions shall not be included in determining whether a two-thirds majority has been attained in (a) or (b) above provided only that the number of votes cast in favour must exceed the sum of the number of votes cast against and of the number of abstentions cast.

However, inadvertently, the procedures themselves under the Rules and Regulations, introduced an ambiguity on this issue.
They state in Section 2 of the Handbook, s. 22A,:

5. Vote Results

As soon after the close of voting on motions as possible, the Posting Secretary will post the results of all motions, giving the names of governors and their vote, and confirm whether the motion passed or failed ( e.g. whether constitutional amendments achieved the 2/3 majority needed, and 50% quorum for non-AGM constitutional amendments ), on the Governors’ Discussion Board and the members’ CFC Chess Forum.

In fact, no reference should have been made to any motions requiring “ 50% quorum for non-AGM constitutional amendments “ because there are to be no such motions in a non-AGM on-line meeting. Thus the phrase “, and 50% quorum for non-AGM constitutional amendments “ is being deleted, to remove the ambiguity.

Bob/Michael

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 09:07 AM
Motion 2011 – D – On-line Meeting Procedures Amendment to s. 5 – Constitutional Amendments

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Michael von Keitz

- that SECTION 2 –Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings, s. 5, :be amended by deleting the words: “, and 50% quorum for non-AGM constitutional amendments “.

NOTICE TO GOVERNORS: As a Constitutional Amendment motion this is subject to the Handbook requirements for Constitutional Amendments and takes effect if passed at the close of this meeting

Not a Constitutional Amendment Motion

It is my submission to the Chair and Secretary that the note attached to this motion, declaring that it is a " Constitutional Amendment " is wrong, and must be deleted.

Bylaw 3, s.3 states :

BY-LAW NUMBER THREE OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA

ANNUAL MEETING AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

1.

2.

3. Any amendment or revision of these By-Laws;

Motion 2011-D does NOT seek to amend any of CFC Bylaws 1, 2, nor 3. It seeks to amend only the Meeting Procedures. These are not contained in the Bylaws, but rather in the Section setting out " Rules and Regulations ":

CFC Handbook SECTION 2 – Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings.

Therefore this Motion 2011-D is NOT a " Constitutional Amendment ", and can be passed by a simple majority - it does not have to meet any of the higher criteria standards for a constitutional amendment.

Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-16-2011, 11:12 PM
I am unclear as to why this is constitutional amendment since its purpose is to make a regulation consistent with a bylaw. By the way I am in favour.

Lyle Craver
01-17-2011, 01:17 PM
The point is that anything amending a bylaw (as the original enabling motion 2010-18) covered in Sections 1 and 2 of the Handbook is 'constitutional' as has been explained several times in January and again now.

This is very definitely a major motion as it changes how the constitution can be amended.

My personal view is that the original authors of our Bylaws deliberately intended to make constitutional amendments difficult so they would not be swiftly changed and that requiring a 50% vote of Governors is not unduly onerous.

Passage of this motion would effectively make EVERY Online meeting an "AGM" for the purposes of amending our Bylaws (which I remind you are the 'constitution' part of the Handbook) and thus this is by no means a minor discussion. Just the opposite - it's about as big a motion as could be!

I do not think that making things so fluid that the Handbook can be turned upside down with a single Online meeting serves the purposes of the CFC and urge a heavy vote to defeat this ill-considered motion.

Francisco Cabanas
01-17-2011, 09:39 PM
Actually Bylaw 3(a) does not require a 50 % quorum for constitutional amendments in the online meeting and treats the online meeting as an AGM already. I asked the chair to rule on the discrepancy between Bylaw 3(a) and the rules and regulations in motion 2011-E and he has already ruled that the 50% quorum does not apply to the online meetings. This motion actually changes nothing, all it does is clean up the handbook. The change for better or for worse occurred when Bylaw 3(a) was changed. For reference I include a copy of Bylaw 3(a) from the handbook on the CFC website. Bold my emphasis.

3. Any amendment or revision of these By-Laws; any matter pertaining to any international agreement between the Federation and any international or foreign Chess Federation or Association; and any matter pertaining to the payment of dues to the Fédération International des Echecs may be made,
(a) at any Annual Meeting of the Assembly or Online Governors' Meeting, providing that a notice of intention to submit such matter to a vote has been received by the Secretary at least 30 days prior to the date of such Meeting and has been transmitted by the Secretary to each Governor at least 14 days prior to the date of such Meeting and that any resolution pertaining to such matter shall be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the votes of those present and entitled to vote, including (if applicable) proxy votes. [Motion 2010-18]

So I repeat my question: Why is this a constitutional amendment?

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 09:51 PM
....This motion actually changes nothing, all it does is clean up the handbook.....

So I repeat my question: Why is this a constitutional amendment?

You are right on both counts Francisco:

1. the motion cleans up the Meeting Procedures by eliminating a phrase that was wrongly inserted, and created some ambiguity;

2. the motion only amends the Meeting Procedures, under Rules and Regulations, and does not affect Bylaw 3, and hence is NOT a constitutional amendment.

Could Francisco and I get a ruling from Bob G, that this motion does not involve a constitutional amendment, as the agenda wrongly indicates, and that it needs only a simple majority to pass?

Bob

Bob Gillanders
01-17-2011, 10:30 PM
Could Francisco and I get a ruling from Bob G, that this motion does not involve a constitutional amendment, as the agenda wrongly indicates, and that it needs only a simple majority to pass?

Bob

No. :mad:

I already wasted two hours last night wading thru all the arguments to rule on motion 2011-E. Which is related to this issue and when reviewed together with motion 2011-D clearly indicates flaws and inconsistencies with motion 2010-18. So now I must question whether my ruling yesterday is correct with regards to the 50% quorum issue.

So I will not be making any more rulings regarding constitutional issues for the duration of this meeting. Can we please debate the real issues.

I have already ruled that motions 2011-D, 2011-E, 2011-F are constitutional amendments. End of discussion! :mad:

Francisco Cabanas
01-17-2011, 10:57 PM
No. :mad:

I already wasted two hours last night wading thru all the arguments to rule on motion 2011-E. Which is related to this issue and when reviewed together with motion 2011-D clearly indicates flaws and inconsistencies with motion 2010-18. So now I must question whether my ruling yesterday is correct with regards to the 50% quorum issue.

So I will not be making any more rulings regarding constitutional issues for the duration of this meeting. Can we please debate the real issues.

I have already ruled that motions 2011-D, 2011-E, 2011-F are constitutional amendments. End of discussion! :mad:

For the record I fully support the ruling of the chair on this issue and I would also support the chair should the chair reverse the ruling on the 50% quorum issue. The one thing I do ask is that bylaw 3 reflect whatever the ruling on the chair on this issue may be.

The question I am left in my mind here is did the assembly intend to vote for the 50% quorum for the online meetings when they passed 2010-18 given how poorly worded 2010-18 was?

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 11:25 PM
Hi Francisco:

The Governors' Voting Modernization Subcommittee, that I chaired ( and I drafted the Meeting Procedures, though far from perfectly ), deliberately amended Bylaw 3 and specifically paragraph 3 ( a ) so that the 50% quorum rule would NOT apply to an on-line meeting, the same way it doesn't apply to an AGM.

The error was to make reference to the 50% quorum rule in the Meeting Procedures - it should never have been there - it was a mistake, and has caused the problem of ambiguity as to the intention re on-line meetings.

Thus the motion 2011-D:

- that SECTION 2 –Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings, s. 5, :be amended by deleting the words: “, and 50% quorum for non-AGM constitutional amendments “.



Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 12:59 AM
I am glad to see that the errors in 2010-18 are recognized.

The motion 2010-18 was presented to the assembly and ruled out of order by the chair on the advice of legal counsel. Surely this is an opportunity to review the motion and fix the errors. instead the chair was challenged! Granted after reading the reasons given in support of the out of order ruling I can see why the chair was overturned, but the fact remains the motion needed re-wording before presentation a second time to the assembly.

The re-wording is actually very simple and answers two simple questions:
1) How does the bylaw or regulation read now?
2) How will it read should the motion be successful?

This should be apparent from reading the motion itself without having to refer to to other documents.

Had the bylaw 3(a) being presented in its entirety as it read before the motion and would read after the motion the errors and inconsistencies would have been readily apparent and easily fixed, and this mess would have been avoided.

Ken Craft
01-18-2011, 07:35 AM
Bob G wrote: So I will not be making any more rulings regarding constitutional issues for the duration of this meeting. Can we please debate the real issues.

I have already ruled that motions 2011-D, 2011-E, 2011-F are constitutional amendments. End of discussion!

Ken replies with all due respect that this is an example of why the position of President should not also be that of Chair. As to "end of discussion" rulings of the Chair can always be challenged. I appreciate your frustration Bob G. but the role of Chair is one that requires neutrality and patience. That's why I support the President having a vote but I do not support the President chairing meetings. There is too much tension between the role of Chairing and the role of leading.

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 10:37 AM
If you wanted to challenge the ruling, you had to immediately post "I challenge this ruling" ... you didn't, so it's effectively constitutional now. Hinting about challenging his reiteration of the ruling - days later - doesn't count.

I'm now completely confused as to what the wording was and now is, but the way it SHOULD be is that a 2/3 majority with at least 50% of governors in attendance should be required at an online meeting. (The quorum should thus be for the meeting itself, not for each individual vote)

Ken Craft
01-18-2011, 10:42 AM
I have no interest in challenging his ruling. My point is the tension between being Chair and being President.
Quorum is indeed for a meeting not a vote, Chris, as you point out.

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 10:49 AM
Well next time let's find someone with experience who is willing to be a non-voting Chair perhaps? Then the President can do as he wishes with his vote and not really offend anyone.

Something like when Maurice Smith ran the AGM a couple times... I frequently disagreed with his rulings, but since he wasn't on the new Exec, that disagreement had zero chance of growing into anything actually bad.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 10:54 AM
Hi Chris and Ken:

Is it the case that the constitutional amendment quorum rule is: the votes cast must total at least 50 % of the eligible voters ( whether present of not )? In our case then, that means 30 votes ( 1/2 of 60 governors )?

Note: Bob G has ruled already that this does not apply to On-line Meetings under Bylaw 3, s. 3 ( a ).

Also, you are saying that the enhanced majority rule for constitutional amendments at CFC meetings is ? : a motion must gather a total of at least 2/3 of those attending ( which at our on-line meeting means " signed in " ), regardless of number of votes actually cast ( ie. even if everyone does not vote ).

Is so, then thanks for clarifying these important procedural points.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 11:01 AM
No, I'm saying a motion needs to have 2/3 of those voting in support, and the meeting needs to have a 50% quorum to be able to do anything more than discuss things.

The way it's written now, an abstention is FAR more powerful of a NO vote than actually voting NO!

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 11:14 AM
Hi Chris:

Sorry to belabour this, but these constitutional amendment criteria are not easy to understand by all of us:

1. Quorum Requirement - there are 60 governors. If this requirement applies ( which it does only to CFC e-mail votes ), then the meeting must have an attendance of 1/2 ( = 50 % [ this percent sign doesn't seem to work on this board ] ), or 30 governors.

Question - Is it assumed in an e-mail vote, where ballots are sent out to all 60 governors, that all 60 are " present at the meeting "? If so, then isn't the quorum requirement always met in an e-mail vote?

2. Enhance Majority Requirement - a motion to pass must garner a total of 2/3 of those actually voting ( regardless of number of persons attending ). And an abstention is a vote, and thus raises the total needed to pass.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 11:25 AM
Hi Chris:

Sorry to belabour this, but these constitutional amendment criteria are not easy to understand by all of us:

1. Quorum Requirement - there are 60 governors. If this requirement applies ( which it does only to CFC e-mail votes ), then the meeting must have an attendance of 1/2 ( = 50 % [ this percent sign doesn't seem to work on this board ] ), or 30 governors.

Question - Is it assumed in an e-mail vote, where ballots are sent out to all 60 governors, that all 60 are " present at the meeting "? If so, then isn't the quorum requirement always met in an e-mail vote?

2. Enhance Majority Requirement - a motion to pass must garner a total of 2/3 of those actually voting ( regardless of number of persons attending ). And an abstention is a vote, and thus raises the total needed to pass.

Bob

1. It has been the precedent with the CFC to only count those who actually vote in an email vote towards the "quorum" ...

2. An abstention is NOT a vote. As it currently works though, it is more powerful than voting no - If everyone opposed to a motion refuses to vote on it, given normal CFC Governor activity levels the motion will fail due to lack of quorum. However, in a meeting situation, you do not need to "formally" abstain - if you are present and you do not vote yes or no, then you have abstained from voting, but you still count towards a quorum for that meeting.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 12:00 PM
2. An abstention is NOT a vote.... If everyone opposed to a motion refuses to vote on it, given normal CFC Governor activity levels the motion will fail due to lack of quorum. However, in a meeting situation, you do not need to "formally" abstain - if you are present and you do not vote yes or no, then you have abstained from voting, but you still count towards a quorum for that meeting.

Hi Chris:

Re Quorum requirement:

1. When you say " If everyone opposed to a motion refuses to vote on it, " you are referring to a situation where everyone opposed theoretically abstained, and since an abstention is NOT a vote, one could say they " refused " to vote on it , even though they cast a ballot?

2. Quorum requires 50% of those eligible to attend,to attend or the vote fails. You say that in the situation above, " given normal CFC Governor activity levels the motion will fail due to lack of quorum ". Are you saying that in an e-mail vote, since abstentions are not counted as voting, their ballots will not be counted towards the number " attending ". And without them, the total Yes/NO votes will llikely fall below 30, and the motion will fail for lack of sufficient attendance, or quorum?

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 12:02 PM
Hi Chris:

Re Quorum requirement:

1. When you say " If everyone opposed to a motion refuses to vote on it, " you are referring to a situation where everyone opposed theoretically abstained, and since an abstention is NOT a vote, one could say they " refused " to vote on it , even though they cast a ballot?

2. Quorum requires 50% of those eligible to attend,to attend or the vote fails. You say that in the situation above, " given normal CFC Governor activity levels the motion will fail due to lack of quorum ". Are you saying that in an e-mail vote, since abstentions are not counted as voting, their ballots will not be counted towards the number " attending ". And without them, the total Yes/NO votes will llikely fall below 30, and the motion will fail for lack of sufficient attendance, or quorum?

Bob

These are now both basically the same question. And it's happened, there was if I'm not mistaken a vote in the past couple of years that was in the area of 25-2, but failed due to quorum requirements.

Lyle Craver
01-18-2011, 01:10 PM
That's fine if we're talking about a constitutional amendment.

Please note en passant that assuming 60 Governors a 21-8 vote would fail while 21-9 or 21-8 with 1 abstention would pass - it's not 50% of the Governors voting FOR the constitutional motion but 50% voting period. (An abstention is definitely considered a vote)

The whole point is that constitutional changes are supposed to be difficult as they are considered of exceptional importance to the organization. As such it's even more important than usual to get as many participating as possible.

Can we get back to the merits or otherwise of the motion?

Personally I think the idea of abandoning the quorum for constitutional amendments at Online Meetings is a terrible idea as it puts 'everything on the table' in every single online meeting on the same basis as an AGM. Meaning most any motion gets handled on nearly the same basis as an ordinary motion and that I think goes way way too far.

If the intention is to make the Online Meetings de facto AGMs then let us be clear on that. My understanding is that they were intended to supplement the Governors' Letters and speed decision-making on routine matters. That's a totally different matter than holding an AGM every 3 months!

If that's the intent then please say so so all of us know exactly what direction the proponents want to move the CFC.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 01:19 PM
That's fine if we're talking about a constitutional amendment.

Please note en passant that assuming 60 Governors a ...21-8 with 1 abstention would pass - it's ...50% voting period. (An abstention is definitely considered a vote)



Who is going to solve this impasse re constitutional amendments and 50% quorum? :

Chris - An abstention is not a vote, and in an e-mail vote, will not be counted as an attendance for quorum purposes.

Lyle - An abstention is a vote and is counted as an attendance for quorum purposes.

Bring back Maurice Smith out of retirement !!

Bob

Ken Craft
01-18-2011, 01:36 PM
I think they are saying two differnt things Bob A.

Chris is saying one can refrain (abstain) from voting.
Lyle is saying one can cast a vote called yes, no or abstain.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 01:52 PM
I think they are saying two differnt things Bob A.

Chris is saying one can refrain (abstain) from voting.
Lyle is saying one can cast a vote called yes, no or abstain.

I'm finding the wording confusing:

Chris says: One can cast a ballot either as Yes, No or abstain. But if you cast an " abstain " ballot , it is not considered a " vote " for e-mail purposes, in counting whether there is quorum attendance. Only Yes/No votes are counted as indicating an eligible voter attendance.

Lyle says: all ballots are considered " votes " ( barring spoiled ones I guess ) for the purpose of counting the presence of eligible voters for quorum purposes.

So in the case of a 28-1-1 vote by e-mail:

Chris - the motion fails for lack of quorum - only 29 " votes " and you need 30;

Lyle - the motion passes - there are 30 " votes ", and that indicates 30 eligible governors " attended " = quorum made.

They are exactly opposite positions.

Again I appeal to Life Governor still, though retired, Maurice Smith, for an opinion !!

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 01:55 PM
Bob,

My point was, Lyle counts an abstention as being present in an email vote only if the Governor physically replies stating that they abstain. That's usually a case of can't decide or don't care. Many people simply do not vote. This is still abstaining, but is NOT counted as "present and/or voting". Even though you can reasonably assume they received the email and simply chose not to vote for whatever reason.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 02:05 PM
Hi Chris:

I can only say then that if a governor receives a ballot, and doesn't e-mail back a ballot with one of the three options on it, they are irrelevant for all purposes, except that we have to count them in the total of eligible voters, to determine if a quorum requirement has been met.

What is the practical purpose of claiming in that case they have " abstained "? I think abstention usually only refers to those who actually cast an " abstention " ballot, not those who didn't vote.

So I take it you agree with Lyle that if a governor physically returns an " abstention " ballot, then it is a " vote " and should be counted as indicating an attendance when we calculate if quorum has been met?

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 02:15 PM
No, what I'm actually saying is there should be no further need to have email votes at all, and for quorum purposes we just see how many people are present at the actual meeting, and any who do not vote are considered to have abstained.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 02:42 PM
Hi Chris:

1. I think e-mail votes may be necessary in an emergency between meetings. I'm not sure we should call a special on-line meeting every time an emergency vote comes up. So we need clear rules, understood by all, as to how constitutional amendment motions are treated in e-mail votes.

2. There is no constitutional motion quorum required at on-line meetings, so we have no issue there at this time ( so ruled earlier in the meeting by Bob G ).

3. I don't think we should consider governors present and not voting as being deemed to have cast an " abstention ballot ", the same way as those do who physically submit an abstention ballot. This trivializes those who do actually come and take the time to vote, even if abstaining for some reason of uncertaintly or not caring or whatever.

Also, it confuses the enhanced majority requirement for constitutional amendment motions. We only want to have to achieve 2/3 of all votes. So I don't want non-voters to be considered as part of the total " votes " cast when I go to calculate the 2/3 !!

Bob

Lyle Craver
01-18-2011, 02:52 PM
No - I catagorically reject the idea that Governors who have signed in but do not vote are counted for quorum requirements.

Governors have a right to vote or not vote as they choose and an abstention IS a vote. Non-attendence is not an abstention so I don't think Chris and I are in disagreement.

The ONLY thing that counts is the actual vote - no one has the right to impute decisions to Governors that they did not voluntarily choose to make.

I think the issue is 'attendence quorum' vs 'voting quorum' - without the required number of Governors in attendence a meeting cannot legally make decisions - that's the former. A particular motion requires a certain percentage to pass (either 50%+1 or 2/3 depending on the motion) and may or may not require votes by the required number of Governors. In the latter case 'quorum' is a poor choice of words since the word means the number actually attending - not the number voting.

The latter is specifically what this motion seeks to eliminate. I think it's a very very bad idea so urge Governors to vote against it.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 03:13 PM
Hi Lyle:

A Question:

The AGM has no constitutional amendment " quorum " requirement. We get at best maybe 15 governors actually in attendance ( there were 16 at the outgoing 2010 AGM ), yet they can pass consitutional amendments.

We have 35 governors present and active at this on-line meeting. There is much active debate. It is more representative than an AGM !! Why should the conditions here for passing a constitutional amendment be more restrictive than at the AGM? Why would we ever impose a constitutional amendment " quorum requirement " on this meeting, and not have it on the AGM??

Bob G has ruled that for this on-line meeting anyway, there is no constitutional amendment quorum requirement. Isn't that an indication there is no problem with on-line meeting constitutional amendments?

Purpose of the Motion

The Meeting Procedures wrongly referred to the 50% constitutional amendment quorum requirement - I drafted them and I take full responsibility for a mistake here. So this motion 2011-D only seeks to remove a reference that should never have been there in the first place, since there is no quorum requirement for on-line meetings in the Bylaw 3. The Meeting Procedures wrongly confused the issue, and need correction.

The Vote on Motion 2011-D - Constitutional Amendment Quorum

So all governors - please vote " Yes " to this motion to simply correct the Meeting Procedures ( it does not in any way touch the Bylaw 3 ).

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 04:00 PM
Governors have a right to vote or not vote as they choose and an abstention IS a vote. Non-attendence is not an abstention so I don't think Chris and I are in disagreement.

The ONLY thing that counts is the actual vote - no one has the right to impute decisions to Governors that they did not voluntarily choose to make.

http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#6


From Robert's Rules of Order:
The phrase "abstention votes" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an "abstention vote."

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 04:03 PM
I think we're getting a bit out of whack here.

My suggestion for a 50% meeting quorum would be an ADDITION, not trying to imply that that is the way it works now.

Having met the meeting quorum requirements, any constitutional amendments should still have to meet the other two requirements in the handbook: 2/3 majority (with abstentions NOT counting either way as per Robert's Rules, since they are not a "vote cast"), plus the 14 days notice. It's unclear if that notice should be before the meeting or before the vote itself starting.

Lyle Craver
01-18-2011, 11:47 PM
Bob once again you are trying to have it both ways.

I quote directly from Section 2 of the Handbook (http://chess.ca/section_2.shtml) where you (as the author of the original motion) state:

(5) Vote Results As soon after the close of voting on motions as possible, the Posting Secretary will post the results of all motions, giving the names of governors and their vote, and confirm whether the motion passed or failed (e.g. whether constitutional amendments achieved the 2/3 majority needed, and 50% quorum for non-AGM constitutional amendments), on the Governors’ Discussion Board and the members’ CFC Chess Forum.

It seems very clear what you intended and now you are saying you've changed your mind and now favor the exact opposite.

Furthermore I very much wish you would stop referring to your subcommittee since while you may have written a report, Chris and I never consented to your recommendations. You have no right to continually assert that "silence means consent" since I certainly told you otherwise at the time.

Frankly I think you got it right the first time in 2010-18 (i.e. the text in red) and I urge all Governors to realize what the massive implications of adopting this motion are and vote to reject it.

Voting for this motion means adopting the AGM rules for constitutional amendments in EVERY SINGLE ONLINE MEETING.

That is totally wrong and it would be tragic if the Governors adopted this misguided motion.

Vote no on 2011-D.

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 12:31 AM
Hi Lyle:

I won't belabour the point - I have said:

1. I always intended that there be NO Constitutional quorum requirement for on-line meetings, and

2. that my insertion of " and 50% quorum for non-AGM constitutional amendments) " in the Meeting Procedures was a mistake, inadvertant, and that I didn't realize I was contradicting my intention.

I don't want it both ways. I want there to be NO constitutional quorum requirement for on-line meetings, exactly as there is none in the AGM. Hence the motion 2011-D needs to be passed to correct this and make my intention clear.

Bob