PDA

View Full Version : 30. Motion 2011-E - DISCUSSION



Lyle Craver
01-15-2011, 02:05 AM
Motion 2011- E - No Proxy for Governors’ On-line Meetings

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim

- That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

" Proxies are not applicable to the non-AGM quarterly governors’ on-line meetings – this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). "

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, 09:48 AM
Armstrong/McKim Commentary in Favour of Motion 2011-E:

Bylaw # 3, s. 3. currently 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; 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.

It refers to the availability of “ proxy votes “.

Proxy votes make no sense at a quarterly governors’ on-line meeting.

We would argue that since proxy votes make no sense at an on-line meeting, " including proxy votes " only means, " if present at the meeting ". It need not be a command that there must be proxy votes available for an on-line meeting.

This interpretation is supported by looking at the section of the Rules and Regulations that authorizes proxies, s. 21.

PROXIES
21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy. ( emphasis added ).

This makes it clear that proxies are authorized for face-to-face meetings - " unable to be personally present " - " personally " shows that the proxy is where someone cannot physically attend the meeting. Governors do not " physically " attend an on-line meeting, so they cannot be “ unable to be personally present “.

So therefore s. 3(a), when referring to proxies, does not apply them to the on-line meeting. There are no proxies at an on-line meeting.

However, having said that there are no proxy votes in an on-line meeting, we feel it should be made much clearer that that phrase refers only to non-on-line AGM's. We agree it is much better that the wording of the Handbook be clear, than having to rely on some difficult interpretation argument to make a position.

We therefore feel, that for the sake of clarity, s. 21 of the Rules and Regulations should clearly state that the availability of proxies referred to in Bylaw# 3, s. 3 (a ), only applies to an AGM and not to non-AGM quarterly Governors’ On-line Meetings.. Thus we are adding the words :

“ Proxies are not applicable to the non-AGM quarterly governors’ on-line meetings – this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). "
".

We feel this sufficiently clarifies the situation, such that reliance on some tortured interpretation of the Handbook is no longer required to assert that there are no proxies at non-AGM on-line meetings.

Bob/Fred

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 11:20 AM
Motion 2011- E - No Proxy for Governors’ On-line Meetings

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim

- That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

" Proxies are not applicable to the non-AGM quarterly governors’ on-line meetings – this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). "

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-E 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-E 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

Lyle Craver
01-15-2011, 01:22 PM
I'm generally in favor of this one since most Governors have online access, and most communities have public machines in their public libraries which would accomodate those who don't.

I'm NOT in favor of extending this to AGMs at this point as we are discussing changes and it's not yet clear what these shall be. So until we do it's best not to make too many changes.

Bob Gillanders
01-15-2011, 05:34 PM
IMHO, this one is a no brainer. Simply put, we keep proxy votes for the AGM in July, but no proxy votes for the other quarterly online meetings in October, January, and April. Everyone has access to a computer (with a little effort), so there is no need for proxies for online meetings.

IMHO, this is a constitutional item due to the nature of it (ie. amending voting rights) irregardless of where it is in the handbook or whatever other legal arguments you may present. Thank God I am not a lawyer, and I have no interest in debating this! :)

Can we please pass this no brainer by a wide margin and avoid the whole debate whether it is constitutional or not. :)

Christopher Mallon
01-15-2011, 06:46 PM
No brainer yes, and I hope one day we can do away with AGM proxies as well, once the AGM is at least partially held online or with online access.

Francisco Cabanas
01-15-2011, 08:24 PM
While I agree with the spirit of this motion, proxies have no place in an online meeting, the wording is far too restrictive. I propose the following as an amendment:

That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

“Proxies are not applicable to a meeting of the governors that is conducted entirely online and over the Internet. – this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). “

The argument here is that the President may in the future call a special meeting online to deal with a particularly controversial issue, so we would have the situation where proxies were allowed in that very controversial issue where the potential of abuse was greatest. Also what happens if we decide to change the frequency of our online meetings at a future date? This of course would not apply to an AGM that had both in person and online participants.

By the way should my amendment fail I do still support the original motion.

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 08:40 PM
Hi Francisco:

For comparision:

Our addition in Motion 2011-E : " Proxies are not applicable to the non-AGM quarterly governors’ on-line meetings – this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). "

Your proposed amendment substitution : “Proxies are not applicable to a meeting of the governors that is conducted entirely online and over the Internet. – this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). “

Your argument is that there may be meetings other than just the AGM and " the non-AGM quarterly governors’ on-line meetings ", and the section will not speak to those meetings under the motion amendment.

Seems reasonable to me. If you bring the necessary amending motion, I will vote for it. I note that already, the AGM Modernization Subcommittee is proposing that the Spring 2011 ( April ) Quarterly Meeting, not be on-line, like the first three, but that it be changed to a model like the AGM one - some on-site governors, and the rest attending via internet ( will be a " free " trial run of the proposed modernization of the July AGM from the web corporation selling their conference meeting format ). So you are right that new meetings, and new formats for meetings should be anticipated in the amendment.

Thanks.

Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-15-2011, 09:00 PM
Thanks Bob for your support. I am prepared to present the following motion: That motion 2010-E be amended to read:

That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

“Proxies are not applicable to a meeting of the governors that is conducted entirely online and over the Internet. – this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). “

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 09:10 PM
Hi Francisco:

Your motion seems good. I'll vote for it when it comes up.

You need though to still find a seconder, and then you need to engage Lyle, as meeting Posting Secretary, in creating a new thread for you with the Amending Motion. He has a special way he likes to deal with motions amending a motion on the floor.

Also, I believe Bob G has decided not to use the Board voting format, although he has not yet confirmed this. And I don't know if Chris has yet altered the Board voting format to disengage the " view results " option BEFORE voting, if it is used. I think Bob G wants to vote by e-mail this meeting. You will need to clarify this with Bob G and Lyle.

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-15-2011, 10:00 PM
I would second Mr. Cabanos wording of this motion if the part "– this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). " is deleted.

The clause is about PROXIES, and not about online meetings (aka Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a )). What is "s."? (Such abbreviation is not defined in the Handbook.)

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 10:09 PM
Hi Egis and Francisco:

If Francisco accepts Egis' amendment to his motion, I will not vote for it then. The whole problem has been Lyle's determination initially to interpret s.3 (a) as somehow fudging the issue of Proxies - it was due to Lyle's original position that Fred and I felt it necessary to bring our motion 2011-E in the first place. However, Lyle now seems agreeable to motion 2011-E as originally framed, and accepts that no proxies makes sense. But I still want the reference to s. 3 ( a ) left in for this particular reason.

( " s. " is usually used conventionally as the short form for " section " )

Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-15-2011, 10:11 PM
I would second Mr. Cabanos wording of this motion if the part "– this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). " is deleted.

The clause is about PROXIES, and not about online meetings (aka Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a )). What is "s."? (Such abbreviation is not defined in the Handbook.)

I am fine with the change as it makes the wording much better. The amendment now reads:

Moved Francisco Cabanas, Seconded Egidijus Zeromskis, That motion 2010-E be amended to read:

That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

“Proxies are not applicable to a meeting of the governors that is conducted entirely online and over the Internet."

Francisco Cabanas
01-15-2011, 10:34 PM
Bob does make a valid point but this is best addressed by removing the ambiguity from the bylaw it self. By replacing “including proxy votes” in 3(a) with “including proxy votes, should proxy votes be permitted by regulation”

We need to then need amend both bylaw 3(a) and section 21

I would consider the following wording a friendly amendment to the amendment:

That bylaw 3(a) be amended by replacing:

“including proxy votes” with “including proxy votes, should proxy votes be permitted by regulation”

and

That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

“Proxies are not applicable to a meeting of the governors that is conducted entirely online and over the Internet. “

This also clarifies the concern that this is indeed a constitutional amendment

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 10:59 PM
Hi Francisco:

My motion had specifically been drafted so as to not be a constitutional amendement. This avoids the need for not only a 2/3 majority, but a 50% quorum of the governors ( 60 of us ). In fact, the Governors' Voting Modernization Subcommittee that drafted the Meeting Procedures, and the Procedures' Committee , that got it passed at the 2010 AGM, deliberately put the Meeting Procedures into the " Rules and Regulations ", specifically to avoid having to amend it by " constitutional amendment ".

You didn't attend the 2010 Fall Quarterly Meeting, I believe, and so you may be unaware that a key vote on your status as " Life Governor " failed ( or because of that you may be aware of it ! ), despite an overwheming majority of those voting, because it failed to make quorum.

Also, only 11 governors have signed in so far out of 60 ( I can't check that at the moment, and the upgraded meeting board we are using has no " edit " button, so I can't correct it later if I'm misremembering ), and as I understand the Bob G/Lyle position for this meeting, only governors who actually sign in will be counted as attending. Even if a governor attends, but doesn't sign in, he is not considered to have attended. So asfaras I can tell, if you don't sign in, your vote, should you attempt it by e-mail ( if that's what we're doing this meeting ), will be disregarded. Is this an indication of the size of voting we are going to get on the meeting motions? If so, constitutional amendments are going to fail for lack of quorum.

So I am not particularly enamoured of your broadening your motion to now make it clearly amending a Bylaw, and clearly a constitutional amendment motion.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-15-2011, 11:13 PM
Bob,

Any motion which amends a part of the handbook that SPECIFICALLY can affect the success or failure of a constitutional motion is clearly itself constitutional. As Bob G stated, it was just put into the handbook in a poor place.

Francisco Cabanas
01-15-2011, 11:24 PM
My amendment as duly seconded on the floor is not a constitutional amendment as far as I can see, since after Egidijus's change this was made perfectly clear. The chair may of course rule otherwise.

The original motion on the other hand has already been ruled the as a constitutional matter by the chair, so I fail to see whey making the constitutional change explicit with my suggested wording is such a problem.

By the way I did not attend the last meeting because I was not provided with access even though I made repeated requests for access.

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 11:59 PM
Hi Francisco:

I agree that your motion ( as amended by Egis ) was not itself a " constitutional amendment " motion. And I won't support it without the reference to s. 3 ( a ).

As to Motion 2011-E itself, I think the chair ruled that the issue of its being a " constitutional amendment " is a bit of a tough nut, and he hopes to simply avoid having to rule on that, by getting both a quorum and enhanced majority to pass the motion, and he'll never decide if it was or was not a " constitutional amendment motion " since it will be passed in either case. I expect that it will get a majority, and fail for quorum, if it is ruled a constitutional amendment motion. I prefer it be ruled not such a motion, and that if passes with a simple majority. Thus I have a problem with your further amended motion, since it clearly now envisages a " constitutional amendment " motion 2011-E.

However, I will vote for your new amending motion, because as redrafted, I think it does solve all problems - and I think, as a motion amending Motion 2011-E, it itself is still not a " constitutional amendment motion.

Once it passes however, it clearly makes 2011-E, as amended, a constitutional amendment motion. Should it end up in that final form, I will vote for it, since it does seem to solve all problems - I'll just worry that it is going to fail for lack of quorum.

Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-16-2011, 11:26 PM
There are some very significant discrepancies between the bylaw 3(a) as it is published in the CFC Handbook on chess.ca (http://chess.ca/section_2.shtml) and how it is quoted in this motion. The other issue is that the PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNORS' ONLINE MEETINGS as published in the CFC Handbook on chess.ca (http://chess.ca/section_2.shtml) contradict bylaw 3(a) when it comes to the question of quorum for constitutional amendments as Bylaw 3(a) does not require a 50% quorum but (5) in the PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNORS' ONLINE MEETINGS implies that a 50% quorum is required.

I am therefore requesting that the chair rule on the following matters:

1) The correct wording of Bylaw 3(a)
2) Whether bylaw 3(a) takes precedence over the PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNORS' ONLINE MEETINGS in particular whether the 50% quorum requirement applies to constitutional motion in this meeting.

Bylaw 3 From CFC Handbook (http://chess.ca/section_2.shtml)

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]

(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.

Bylaw 3(a) as quoted on this motion

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.

PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNORS' ONLINE MEETINGS from CFC Handbook (http://chess.ca/section_2.shtml)

(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.

Bob Armstrong
01-16-2011, 11:45 PM
Hi Francisco:

I will await Bob G's ruling as requested.

I can add the following :

1. Re wording of section 3 - My motion was based on an unofficial updated version of the section, after Motion 2010-18 was passed. So that is what is quoted in the motion. Subsequently, the Handbook Updating Subcommittee has officially updated the Handbook section, and that is what is now on the website.

2. The Constitutional Amendment Quorum Conflict - this was recognized subsequent to the 2010 Fall Meeting, and so Motion 2011-D, on this agenda, deals with it:

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 “.

Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-17-2011, 12:00 AM
Very true but if 2011-D fails for lack of "quorum" then we are in a catch-22 situation.

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 12:22 AM
Hi Francisco:

Note my argument under that motion that Motion 2011-D is not a " constitutional amendment " motion, since it only seeks to amend the " Rules and Regulations ", and is only correcting the On-line Meeting Procedures.

I am hopeful Bob G will accept my characterization of the motion, and that it will be able to be passed by a simple majority.

Bob

Bob Gillanders
01-17-2011, 01:46 AM
I am therefore requesting that the chair rule on the following matters:

1) The correct wording of Bylaw 3(a)
2) Whether bylaw 3(a) takes precedence over the PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNORS' ONLINE MEETINGS in particular whether the 50% quorum requirement applies to constitutional motion in this meeting.


1. The website has the correct wording of Bylaw 3(a). Unless my eyes are deceiving me, that is exactly the same as the wording you have posted. So I don't see the problem.

2. The 50% quorum requirement does not apply to either the AGM nor the online governors meetings. It applies only to mail votes in 3(b).

I have ruled this a constitutional matter since it affects voting rights. So a 2/3 majority of those in attendance are required to vote Yes. The 50% quorum rule do not apply. This is consistent with the ruling on the Life Governor motion back in October.

Furthermore, even though we will be voting by email at this meeting, it will not be considered an email vote as per bylaw 3(b). It retains the status of an online governors vote since this is only a temporary measure until all the technical issues of online voting are resolved.

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 02:15 AM
Hi Bob:

Thanks for the very clear explanation.

Bob A

Lyle Craver
01-17-2011, 02:46 PM
My 'special way' concerns voting not discussion - here's an example:

Assume Motion A and Amendment B - rather than extending the Online meeting (or GL) further what we do is put the motion in the following form:

Vote 1: Do you support Amendment B? (Y/N/A)

Vote 2a: If Amendment B passes, I vote (Y/N/A) on the Amended Motion A
Vote 2b: If Amendment B fails, I vote (Y/N/A) on the Original Motion A

This mechanism has been done long before my tenure as CFC Secretary and was certainly not my creation. It works well when there is only one amendment but becomes problematic when there are more up for vote.

(Both Bob G and I can initiate new threads though I try to defer to him as much as possible.)

Speaking personally, I would NOT want to see 'no proxies' used for an in person AGM as we don't all have 3 full days to give to the meeting and thus online voters may miss much of the discussion that led to the vote. This formula where one can easily drop in periodically is a good compromise - and in my opinion the most important impact for the Executive even more than the motions are the wide feedback we/they get from these meetings.

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 02:52 PM
Lyle: It's too bad the thread titles don't include what we're discussing. Can we be sure that when the vote thread is created it at least says what motion E is in the title.

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 12:51 AM
Here is what we are discussing:

Motion 2011- E - No Proxy for Governors’ On-line Meetings

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim

- That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

" Proxies are not applicable to the non-AGM quarterly governors’ on-line meetings – this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). "

Amendment

Moved Francisco Cabanas, Seconded Egidijus Zeromskis, That motion 2010-E be amended to read:

That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

“Proxies are not applicable to a meeting of the governors that is conducted entirely online and over the Internet."

The essence of the amendment is that in order for there to be no proxies the meeting must be held entirely online and over the Internet. Proxies would be allowed in any meeting that had an in person component for example a hybrid AGM or one of the quarterly "online" meetings that had an in person component. On the other hand an AGM that was held entirely online as is this meeting and with no in person component would have no proxies. It also addresses a special meeting called by the President.

The reference to Bylaw 3(a) is deleted. If this Bylaw needs to be amended then a separate motion would be required.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 01:15 AM
Hi Francisco:

Fred McKim and I are discussing whether we can accept your amendment and support it as mover/seconder of Motion 2011-E. We'll let you know.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 10:22 AM
Hi Francisco/Egis:

I, as mover, and Fred, as seconder, of motion 2011-E, accept your amendment of our motion, as set out above.

Chair Ruling on Procedure Requested - given that Fred and I accept the proposed amendment, can you rule that we can now amend our motion to conform to the Cabanas/Zeromskis amendment, and that the motion 2011-E to be voted on will be our motion, as amended? This will avoid having to have 2 votes, one on the amendment, and then one on the main motion ( whether the amendment passed or didn't ).

Francisco, is this acceptable to you and Egis?

Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 10:59 AM
Of course this is acceptable. My understanding is that when an amendment is friendly, as is the case here, the motion as amended is voted on instead of the original motion. There is no vote on the amendment.

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 11:29 AM
http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#8

Just saying. The whole "Friendly Amendment" thing gets used way too much around the CFC, for something that doesn't even officially exist.

Ken Craft
01-18-2011, 11:33 AM
I agree with, Chris. Friendly amendments are a myth.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 11:43 AM
Hi Chris and Ken:

Then you say : I, as mover, should ask Bob G to ask the assembly if there is any " objection " to the amendment?

If none comes forth, then the assembly has effectively amended the motion. Then Fred and I redraft it accordingly, or Lyle does, and it then proceeds to a vote as amended.

Seems fine to me. Is it OK with Francisco?

Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 11:30 PM
I stand corrected on the "friendly amendment" matter.

Yes the correct procedure in this case is for the chair to ask if there is any objection to the amendment and accept the amendment if there is no objection. Otherwise put the amendment to a vote.

Lyle Craver
01-19-2011, 12:26 AM
This is functionally equivalent to withdrawing a motion and re-submitting it as amended.

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 01:22 AM
Hi Lyle:

As mover of motion 2011-E ( Proxies ), I am in your hands as Posting Secretary as to how you want to get the motion and amendment through. Fred, Francisco and Egis and I are all in agreement that whatever is simplest for you is fine for us.

I can send you a copy of the amended motion 2011-E by e-mail if you'd like, if that will help, approved by all of us.

Just let me know whether you need us to do anything, and if so, what you need from us. Our agreement is now on the board here, since Francisco has posted his amendment, and Fred and I have agreed with it.

Bob

Lyle Craver
01-19-2011, 02:04 AM
Please check my 'voting instructions' and get back to me if you feel this does not properly reflect the amended motion - LC