PDA

View Full Version : Straw poll



Bob Gillanders
01-17-2011, 02:30 AM
Should the President be allowed to vote?

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 12:47 PM
Although I am fine with either option, I prefer that the chair be totally neutral - this is best achieved if he has no first vote, but just chairs the meeting/vote. If he has a first vote like everyone else, he is not neutral.

Then, in case of a tie, the Chair will have a vote to break the tie - then the President can get what he wants.

Bob

Bob Gillanders
01-17-2011, 01:29 PM
Pretending the chair is neutral in any debate is to stick your head in the sand. The President will always have an opinion, and will always be accused of favouring one side anyways. We may as well be honest about that, and allow him to vote.

To only vote in cases of ties, well how often does that happen? Duh. And if he voted in the first place, well he would have won anyway. So, no benefit.

I propose the following change,

President gets to vote like all the other governors. A motion needs 50% plus 1 votes to pass. This eliminates the need to break any ties and doesn't treat the President as a second class governor!

Do I have a mover and seconder for this motion? :)

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 01:31 PM
The only thing needed to be clarified is what happens in votes for elections and votes for tournament bids, where it's not a yes or no motion.

I think in those cases, the President only votes to break a tie.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-17-2011, 01:42 PM
President gets to vote like all the other governors.

When has the President lost a right to vote?



"needs 50% plus 1 votes to pass."

A wrong formula:
total number of voters:7
results: +4-3=1;
%50 = 3.5
%50+1=4.5 < 4 motion fails

A >50% would pass :)

Bob Gillanders
01-17-2011, 01:51 PM
%50+1=4.5 < 4 motion fails


When did 4.5 become less than 4? :D

Paul Leblanc
01-17-2011, 01:55 PM
Surely the President's vote would be a well informed vote, probably more so than most of the governors therefore I feel he should vote.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-17-2011, 02:04 PM
When did 4.5 become less than 4? :D

Edited version:

total number of voters:7
results: +4 -3;
%50 = 3.5
%50+1=4.5 > 4 motion fails

Ken Craft
01-17-2011, 02:09 PM
I support the President voting. I think the Federation should have a non-voting Chair.

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 04:48 PM
Hi Bob G.:

Agreed that Chairs always have opinions.

What we try to do is to structure things to maximize the pressure on them to be neutral - in my view, such as not giving them a first vote at all - only a tie-breaking vote.

I agree the results are the same in either case - but the optics are important, and having no vote does encourage the Chair to remember neutrality.

Having said all that, the " NO's " are going down in flames.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-17-2011, 08:13 PM
I wish to qualify my "No" vote.

The President should not have an initial vote when he is acting as the Chair. I see no reason he could not choose to cast a (non-decisive) vote at the end to show support for a motion that has passed, and of course having the option to cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. And should someone else be the (non-voting) Chair, I see no reason why the President should not vote.

Les Bunning
01-17-2011, 10:04 PM
In most organisations the president only votes to break a tie.This has nothing to do with neutrality as the president is free to voice his opinion. If the president is allowed to vote what do we do in case of a tie? a tied vote means the motion did not pass which leaves the status quo as is. If the tie is for an election then their is a problem as their is no winner. The president would not normally be allowed to vote and also break a tie as this would give him 2 votes.
Les Bunning

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 10:14 PM
In most organisations the president only votes to break a tie.This has nothing to do with neutrality as the president is free to voice his opinion. If the president is allowed to vote what do we do in case of a tie? a tied vote means the motion did not pass which leaves the status quo as is. If the tie is for an election then their is a problem as their is no winner. The president would not normally be allowed to vote and also break a tie as this would give him 2 votes.
Les Bunning

1) Robert's Rules of Order explains than the President need only vote on motions to break a tie or make a tie (which defeats the motion).

2) We will have to make our own rules for elections and tournament bids. I think the most common method is that somebody (presumably the President) would only vote to break a tie.

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 10:21 PM
Am I sensing some momentum back toward the " NO " side?? Any " Yes'ers " want to change their vote?

Bob

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 11:04 PM
Am I sensing some momentum back toward the " NO " side?? Any " Yes'ers " want to change their vote?

Bob

Bob: The straw vote is too simple... My response is - "It depends"

Lyle Craver
01-18-2011, 02:38 PM
Go back and read the original regulations for the Online Meetings - there they make it clear the chair is expected to break ties but not otherwise vote.

I happen to think that is sound but I understand the issues on both sides.

On our local municipal council, the mayor does vote but a tie motion automatically fails. (You only get ties when one member of council is absent)

On the other hand in the House of Commons the Speaker breaks tie votes. This hardly happens of course since there are 300+ MPs

Our local council has only 7 members so ties happen more often.

I don't have difficulty with the president voting as long as we're clear that a tie vote fails.

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 02:51 PM
Well if it's in the rules Lyle...

What is the point in even having rules like this, and like the one saying voting takes place on the forum, if we're just going to ignore them whenever the chair feels like it?

Fred McKim
01-18-2011, 03:08 PM
I don't have difficulty with the president voting as long as we're clear that a tie vote fails.

I believe Robert's Rules of Order allow the President to vote to make a tie, causing the motion to fail.

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 03:13 PM
The suggestion was that the President should get an initial vote, and THEN a vote to break a tie...

Fred McKim
01-18-2011, 03:24 PM
The only thing we need to decide on is how to break a tie in elections and tournament bids.

In those kinds of votes the President should only vote if there is a tie or else we flip a coin or something.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 03:26 PM
Hi Bob G, Lyle, Chris and Fred:

It is my position that regardless of what has been done in the past at CFC, or what the majority would like to do at CFC, or what Robert's Rules of Order say, CFC MUST follow its Handbook, which now says about On-line Meetings:

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

1. The Meeting

( i ) ...
( ii ) ...
( iii ) There shall be a quorum of 15 governors to constitute a meeting.
( iv ) Motions will be passed during meetings, and such meeting extensions as may be required due to amending motions.
( v ) The President, or someone designated by him/her as an alternate, shall chair the meeting.
( vi ) ...
( vii ) ....The President shall publish the agenda as soon as possible, before the meeting.

2. The Role of the Chairperson

( i ) The Chair will decide on procedural matters such as motions of order, when to close agenda items, whether to add items to the agenda after the deadline, adjournment, etc..

( ii ) The President shall initially abstain on all motion votes[ emphasis added ]. However, in case of a tie vote on motions or elections, s/he shall have the tie-breaking vote.

We may disagree with the merits of the Procedures, but we are suppposed to follow them, no??? Unfortunately, CFC has a history littered with administration not bothering to follow CFC rules, and all the problems it has caused.

If someone doesn't like a rule - we know what to do - bring an amendment motion.

Bob G. has only taken a " straw poll " on this issue. Is he just testing the waters to see if he will bring an amending motion? Or is he proposing to ride roughshod over the rules if the majority want him to in the " straw poll "??

Bob

Bob Gillanders
01-18-2011, 04:03 PM
We may disagree with the merits of the Procedures, but we are suppposed to follow them, no??? Unfortunately, CFC has a history littered with administration not bothering to follow CFC rules, and all the problems it has caused.

If someone doesn't like a rule - we know what to do - bring an amendment motion.

Bob G. has only taken a " straw poll " on this issue. Is he just testing the waters to see if he will bring an amending motion? Or is he proposing to ride roughshod over the rules if the majority want him to in the " straw poll "??

Bob

I had several reasons for the straw poll.
1. Just curious. The question was simple on purpose. I didn't mention any rules, I just wanted everyone first reaction. Possibly an indicator of the President's approval rating?
2. I was wondering if anyone even knew the rules. I voted at the last online meeting, clearly violating (not on purpose) the rules, and nobody said a word. :o Clearly indicating we are over governed.
3. To highlight the fact that motion 2010-18 is flawed.
4. To canvass for my voting rights!

FYI - I will not be voting. If I was intending to vote, I wouldn't have brought it up! Would anyone have noticed? :p

Bob Gillanders
01-18-2011, 04:07 PM
The suggestion was that the President should get an initial vote, and THEN a vote to break a tie...

No no no! That is not my proposal. :(

My proposal is that the President gets a vote same as other governors. In the case of a tie, the motion fails. :D

Bob Gillanders
01-18-2011, 04:11 PM
I don't have difficulty with the president voting as long as we're clear that a tie vote fails.

Then you support my proposal, yes?

My proposal is:

The President gets to vote same as other governors. In the case of a tie, the motion fails. :D

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 04:35 PM
I had several reasons for the straw poll.
3. To highlight the fact that motion 2010-18 is flawed.

FYI - I will not be voting. If I was intending to vote, I wouldn't have brought it up! Would anyone have noticed? :p

Hi Bob G:

1. The Meeting Procedures are not perfect - agreed. And we are bringing some clean-up amendments.

But they had to cover a lot of issues, and are somewhat lengthy. I dispute that they are soooooooooo flawed. We have had 3 most successful meetings under them now ! And we had nothing before them but the AGM and the cumbersome, antiquated GL system.

2. I'm glad to hear you will follow the Meeting Procedures this time. Sorry that I didn't catch that you voted last time - I would have objected then ! And I would object now if you did again !

Bob

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 04:41 PM
Hi Bob G:

Though Les agrees with you apparently, I think you must follow the Meeting Procedures in the Handbook on Chair voting this time.

You can always put your proposal into the form of a motion though, here at this meeting, and file it, to amend s. 22A ( the Meeting Procedures ), and get it voted on for next time ! ( I'd be voting against it ! )

Bob A

Bob Gillanders
01-18-2011, 04:54 PM
You can always put your proposal into the form of a motion though, here at this meeting.....( I'd be voting against it ! )
Bob A

Really? :(
Then I would have to endure the endless debate about it being a conflict of interest. :rolleyes:

No thanks. :(

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 05:10 PM
Hi Bob G:

I'd like to accomodate and say I'd bring your proposal for you if you want.

But our procedural legal beagle Ken Craft ( I think it was him ) advised that there is an obligation on the mover to vote for their motion ( don't know what happens if they rebel and try to vote against it ! ). And since I in good conscience can't support your proposal, you'll have to look elsewhere for someone to assist you.

Actually, based on the straw vote comments and poll, it appears your motion would successfully pass, and you'd get your vote !!

Bob A

Lyle Craver
01-18-2011, 07:45 PM
Just as long as you don't require the SECONDER to vote for the motion!

When a Governor writes me with a proposed motion I routinely second it if I feel it warrants a broader discussion by the Governors. Sometimes I'm for it, sometimes against, and sometimes just plain am undecided - but in every case when I do so I'll second to ensure it gets a speedy discussion which I think is in everybody's interests.

Other than saying 'I think this needs further drafting before it goes to the Governors' I think I've only said no twice in five years.

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 07:54 PM
No, according to RRO seconding a motion merely implies you feel it has merit worthy of discussion. I've actually seconded a motion while sending in my anti-motion paragraph at the same time!

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 08:04 PM
So if someone will agree to move Bob G's proposal as a motion, I'll then agree to second it, so that we can have a full motion debate on it ( even though I will then be arguing against it ).

I only ask that the mover first contact me and provide their motion, so that I can approve the wording ( if not the concept ). Is anyone willing to move it for Bob G at this meeting now?

Bob A

Bob A

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-18-2011, 08:40 PM
provide their motion

What about this one:

Motion to delete the clause 22A(2)(ii) from the Handbook.
22A(2)(ii) - "The President shall initially abstain on all motion votes. However, in case of a tie vote on motions or elections, he shall have the tie-breaking vote."


Thus, the President as a member of the Board, i.e., an officer would have a voting right:


"20. OFFICERS ARE GOVERNORS
With the exception of the Executive Directors those Officers who are not members of the incoming Assembly of Governors shall: enjoy the same rights as the members of the incoming Assembly during their term of office and they shall be regarded as Governors at large not representing any particular province,"

OFFICERS The Officers of the Federation shall be the members of the Board of Directors"

"10. BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Board of Directors shall be elected at the Annual Meeting of the Assembly and shall be constituted by seven persons, namely, the President,"

(My emphasizes )

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 09:01 PM
Hi Egis:

Doesn't do it for me as a potential seconder.

I want an explicit statement right in the On-line Meeting Procedures as to what voting power the chair has.

I thought Bob G in his last post on this had a pretty clear statement, and that it reflected the apparent text of Robert's Rules of Order.

I'd second a motion that had that type of wording, and was embedded in the Meeting Procedures.

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-18-2011, 09:13 PM
I want an explicit statement right in the On-line Meeting Procedures as to what voting power the chair has.

I would prefer to see uniformity for the AGM, online meetings, and rushed votes.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 09:21 PM
Hi Egis:

I agree on uniformity. There's no reason though why it can't be in more than one place. I want it easy to access when using the Meeting Procedures.

I think we can't dance !

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-18-2011, 09:32 PM
I'll wait for other dancer ;)

Bob Gillanders
01-18-2011, 11:33 PM
You guys really can't agree on a motion? :(

IMHO, a motion should never see the light of day unless at least two governors support it, the mover and seconder. If you can't get that, realistically what chance does it have? That does not mean it can't be discussed. I realize I am reading from the book of common sense instead of the official Robert rules of whatever, so just call me a rebel. :D

Too late anyways, straw poll is now 13 yes and 7 no, only 65%, not enough for the required 2/3 majority. Oops, subtract my vote, 12 yes, 7 no. 2 more yes votes required. :)

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 11:50 PM
The President should be allowed to vote but not when acting as the chair. If the President feels strongly enough about a matter before the assembly then the President can pass the chair to another officer typically the Vice President for that matter and be in a position to debate and vote on the matter without affecting the objectivity of the chair.

Lyle Craver
01-21-2011, 06:44 PM
That's impressive.

I've even submitted a motion once or twice in my career when a non-Governor presented an idea I thought was worthy of adoption.

Of course the all-time record has to be the time I gave proxy instructions saying "Vote against any motion moved or seconded by Governor John Doe" and John Doe was given my proxy!

I had a really interesting chat with the then President after that that started "Uh ______, didn't you READ my proxy before you gave it to John Doe????"

Christopher Mallon
01-21-2011, 09:57 PM
Of course the all-time record has to be the time I gave proxy instructions saying "Vote against any motion moved or seconded by Governor John Doe" and John Doe was given my proxy!

I had a really interesting chat with the then President after that that started "Uh ______, didn't you READ my proxy before you gave it to John Doe????"

The exact same thing happened to me... and not only that, but given the vote counts, that person used my proxy specifically against its instructions.

That's why I think for the AGM there should be two types of proxies - one is an actual proxy, and the other is just a list of votes, to be handled by the secretary. Of course an online AGM would render either moot.

Lyle Craver
01-23-2011, 08:33 PM
No - actually the Governor (who I had told to vote against any motions moved or seconded by him) who got my proxy voted it exactly as requested and that gives him a level of respect with me he didn't have before that.

He probably didn't like the instructions much, but he did everything I could have asked for.

Halldor P. Palsson
01-24-2011, 10:18 AM
We should follow Robert's Rules of Order.

If the President is chairing a meeting he votes to break a tie. If there is another chair he votes like any other governor.

The level of proceedural finesse in the CFC is reaching truely astonishing hights.