4. Instructions/Questions/Comments on the On-line Meeting Procedures

[Lyle Craver]

Governors, this is the place you ask your questions concerning the conduct of this meeting and how things are to go

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Lyle:

We have been discussing the issue of my board status for this meeting in private messages. I just learned that I do not have permission to start a new thread for the two " new business " items I am responsible for:

14b. Member Volunteers Discussion (Bob Armstrong)
14c. CFC's 140th Anniversary Discussion (Bob Armstrong)

So could you please start a " 14. New Business " Thread for people to post suggestions.

Then post separate new threads for 14.b and 14.c, so I can then post my introductory discussion starter posts on these specific 2 items.

Thx.

Bob A

[Lyle Craver]

Done - and private message sent. LC

[Michael Barron]

Hi Lyle:

...
So could you please start a " 14. New Business " Thread for people to post suggestions.
...

Lyle,

I would second Bob's suggestion.

I would like to explore a possibility to organize Canadian Girls Championship alongside with Canadian Junior Championship which was awarded to CMA.

Could we create a separate thread for this topic?

[Michael von Keitz]

Lyle,

I would second Bob's suggestion.

I would like to explore a possibility to organize Canadian Girls Championship alongside with Canadian Junior Championship which was awarded to CMA.

Could we create a separate thread for this topic?

I was going to set it up for you, but I don't seem to have the permissions necessary to do so this time around. :( Lyle, can you grant me slightly more power to assist?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

6. Officer + Committee Reports
It should be separated into single reports.

[Christopher Mallon]

It should be separated into single reports.

Agreed, we had this discussion last time.

[Ellen Nadeau]

I see nothing concerning the Youth Committee activities or related issues.
When will this be posted?

[Bob Gillanders]

I see nothing concerning the Youth Committee activities or related issues.
When will this be posted?

Thanks Ellen. I would love to get a progress report on the CYCC2012. I just emailed Patrick and Ken (Jensen) to enquire. Hopefully they will be joining the meeting shortly.

I see an excellent website for the CYCC2012, but I am concerned about the rather short list of qualified kids. I am planning a CYCC qualifier in Mississauga for May 13, 2012, but I can't confirm that until I book the site.

As mentioned on another thread, I will have the financial report soon for the 2011 CYCC/WYCC cycle. I am 99% there, just checking a couple of numbers with Gerry today.

[Christopher Mallon]

I've been asked by the President to give a non-Governor access to the forums because he may have something to add to one of the discussions.

Given that the Governors have voted to keep meetings private - repeatedly - and given the new, much more stringent, rules and oversight coming in for Non-Profits, I'm very uncomfortable being asked to break the rules, especially when there is no grey area - two governor votes ( at least ) plus precedent of involved non-Governors having to participate via the public forum.

[Ken Craft]

I'm happy with making the proceedings of this meeting open to everyone. If that isn't going to happen, I believe this meeting should be restricted to Governors.

[Paul Leblanc]

The issue is regarding Roger Patterson, who did all the research and development for the new rating bonus formula. He does not have access to the discussion since he is not a governor. We can work around the access issue if I relay any technical questions offline to Roger. It will introduce a delay to the discussion of course but I'm willing to do it.

[Bob Gillanders]

The issue is regarding Roger Patterson, who did all the research and development for the new rating bonus formula. He does not have access to the discussion since he is not a governor. We can work around the access issue if I relay any technical questions offline to Roger. It will introduce a delay to the discussion of course but I'm willing to do it.

That certainly is acceptable to me, and I think most governors would agree.

[Michael von Keitz]

I've been asked by the President to give a non-Governor access to the forums because he may have something to add to one of the discussions.

Given that the Governors have voted to keep meetings private - repeatedly - and given the new, much more stringent, rules and oversight coming in for Non-Profits, I'm very uncomfortable being asked to break the rules, especially when there is no grey area - two governor votes ( at least ) plus precedent of involved non-Governors having to participate via the public forum.

To clarify, what I was ideally hoping for was that Roger Patterson could be granted restricted access to the thread in question, which I'm not certain is possible in the first place. It's difficult imagining that conversation going beyond the technical and I hardly think any governor would have an issue with his presence there (and only there).

[Lyle Craver]

I would like to be able to see that happen but do not know how given the software

[Christopher Mallon]

Sure, you could do it. You could create a second forum for the meeting containing only that thread, and give him special access to that forum. Apparently there is fear of people's head exploding if we have more than one forum to look at, however :eek:

[Bob Gillanders]

Sure, you could do it. You could create a second forum for the meeting containing only that thread, and give him special access to that forum. Apparently there is fear of people's head exploding if we have more than one forum to look at, however :eek:

Guys, lets avoid anyone head from exploding. An easy low tech solution is within grasp. Somebody (Paul has already volunteered) simply copies the recent posts into a pdf file and emails it to Roger. Do this maybe twice a day for the duration of the meeting. Simple, eh. Roger can email any posts he wants to make to Paul who posts on his behalf.

This is similar to what I did for the competing organizers (Toronto & Richmond Hill) who were bidding on the CYCC2011. I wanted the organizers to speak "directly" to the governors.

[Michael von Keitz]

Now, a separate issue. I still don't have the permissions necessary to open new threads. We have a motion from the floor (2- vs. 3-person committee) that should perhaps be under discussion presently and an amendment to a motion (cap at 2199) that has a mover/seconder and should have been up for vote as of yesterday. We also have requests for additional threads under new business and that agenda item 6 be split over multiple threads. I attempted to contact Lyle privately, but no success. Given that he's been active in the meeting in the interim, I'm hoping he sees this message and acts immediately. As I've said before, I would do it myself, if someone were to give me the permissions to do so.

[Bob Armstrong]

Handbook, Section 2, Rules and Regulations, Para 22A - On-line Meeting Rules

(3) The Role of the Posting Secretary:

(iv) Motions – .... No voting on motions can occur until after 9:00PM on the 4th, to allow for initial discussion, and the filing of amending motions. After voting on motions has commenced, there can be no amending of the motion. .....

Voting has generally started at 9:00 PM EDT tonight ( the 4th day ) under the above paragraph of the Handbook. Is that the plan, or has there been a rescheduling?

Personally, I'd like votiing to start because I will be going away for the Easter weekend early Fri. AM, and will not be accessing a computer until my return early on Monday morning ( and generally the meeting closes on Saturday night - the 7th day ).

Thx.

Bob A

[Hugh Brodie]

I have a similar problem as Bob. I'm leaving town tomorrow morning (Thursday, April 5), and may not have access to a computer until the 15th.

[Lyle Craver]

Voting has started on the amendment for the rating motion and goes through the start of voting on the main motions which is scheduled for day 5 (Thursday) @ 9 ET.

Concerning the specific points raised by Bob and Hugh:

I will do my best to comply with these deadlines though I normally am still at work at 6pm in Vancouver - so I find the time deadlines rather "Western Hostile". Bob and Hugh are not the only ones frustrated with the overly strict timeline of the motion creating the online meetings (though in fairness Bob was the original mover of the motion establishing them). In fact I voted against the original motion for the very good reason that by placing the regulations on the Online Meetings into section 1 it made them part of the Constitution and thus requiring a super-majority to amend.

And make no mistake about it - having them on the first week of each quarter DOES create administrative headaches that the Executive is powerless to change as the regulations do not give the Executive (including the President and Secretary) the leeway to do so.

I pointed all this out at the time and the Governors saw fit to pass it anyway - I thought then as now that the idea was right but that the overly strict regulations created a straightjacket that was bound to cause grief.

Had it been MY choice I would either have not specified a time or specified midnight ET (or even PT) as it better reflects the realities that we are all volunteers who do this in our spare time and that most of us are employed during the day across the time zones that make up this country.

I think a good solution would be to have a frank and open discussion on the Online Meeting regulations with a view to presenting something either at the AGM or the first online meeting of the new year.

[Kevin Pacey]

Just to verify what I believe I understand from Section 2 of the Handbook, am I correct that it is now too late (since 6pm yesterday) to propose an amendment to an existing motion (or for that matter to propose any new motion), no matter how much the existing motion has been discussed?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Kevin:

As drafter of the meeting rules, I can advise that that is what the rules say - no amendment of agenda motions after 6:00 PM EDT on day # 3.

The idea is that there has to be time to discuss any amendments before voting. So day # 4 would be available to discuss the amending motion, before voting on it. And the rules also state that the amending motion is to be voted on, along with all other agenda motions, at 9:00 PM EDT on day # 4.

Initially at an earlier meeting, there was some chaos when this rule was forgotten, and an amendment allowed late, and then the whole issue of when to discuss it , and how long, and when to vote on it, and when to vote on the main motion ( amended or not ) all blew up, and caused a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

What then happens under the rules, is that when the result of the amending motion is known at 6:00 PM EDT on day # 7 ( along with the results of all the agenda motions ), the meeting is then extended for 3 more days to day # 10. The vote on the main motion ( amended of not ) starts on day # 7, and closes at 6:00 PM EDT on day # 10.

This system was approved by the governors when the rules were passed, and has been used in one of the prior meetings.

But subsequently the Presidents and Secretary have departed from the rules, and improvised with respect to amending motions, sometimes having them voted on earlier than the start of voting on all motions, as is happening with the motion to amend 2012-S on the Bonus Points. Voting is happening now, and is to close at the time when voting starts on all agenda motions ( tomorrow at 9:00 PM ET ), so that the main motion ( amended or not ) can be voted on with the other agenda motions.

So I guess the President will have to rule whether he and the Secretary are going to depart from the " amendment timing rule ", and still allow amendments after 6:00 PM EDT yesterday ( day # 3 ).

Bob A

[Lyle Craver]

My understanding is that we are past the point for amendments though motions may be withdrawn or of course voted down.

I do not particularly like that but that's how I interpret the rules.

After a couple of disastrous meeting extensions in 2010-2011 where Governor participation really fell off during the extension (the fact that it was Thanksgiving probably had a lot to do with that), I have on different occasions recommended to the President that where there are motions with amendments we have conditional votes (e.g. a - voting on the amendment, b - if the amendment passes count my vote as ___, c - if the amendment fails count my vote as ___) or alternately to defer a matter to the next meeting.

The President often follows my recommendations but certainly is not bound to.

There is of course no perfect solution - but we do our best and I have at times recommended to Governors that my own view was 'we can't now vote on an amendment and my personal opinion is that if we can't amend this one we had best defeat it and try again in 3 months'.

The essential problem is that the 2010-18 motion that created the Online Meetings was ultra-rigid and removed presidential discretion in ways that I don't think were or are good for the Federation. I don't pretend to have all the answers but we can definitely improve on the status quo.

[Michael Barron]

message moved to own thread.

[Kevin Pacey]

My understanding is that we are past the point for amendments though motions may be withdrawn or of course voted down.
...
I do not particularly like that but that's how I interpret the rules.
...
The President often follows my recommendations but certainly is not bound to.

As you may have noticed, I (undaunted) proposed an amendment to Motion 2012-H in its thread, which was then seconded. I am making this post to increase my chances that the chair (the President) won't miss my request for a ruling on whether to allow a vote on this amendment before this meeting is over.

[Michael von Keitz]

For those unable to vote within the meeting itself, for whatever reason, I'm certain either Lyle or myself would be happy to take your vote by e-mail.

[Michael von Keitz]

As you may have noticed, I (undaunted) proposed an amendment to Motion 2012-H in its thread, which was then seconded. I am making this post to increase my chances that the chair (the President) won't miss my request for a ruling on whether to allow a vote on this amendment before this meeting is over.

As I just received the permissions I wanted as of today, I'm inclined to do the following: I will post a sticky, notifying the meeting of your amendment and the vote on 2012-H will be structured something like below.

I am:

A) FOR amendment; FOR motion
B) FOR amendment; AGAINST motion
C) FOR amendment; ABSTAIN motion
D) AGAINST amendment; FOR motion
E) AGAINST amendment; AGAINST motion
F) AGAINST amendment; ABSTAIN motion
G) ABSTAIN amendment; FOR motion
H) ABSTAIN amendment; AGAINST motion
I) ABSTAIN amendment; ABSTAIN motion

[Christopher Mallon]

A) FOR amendment; FOR motion
B) FOR amendment; AGAINST motion
C) FOR amendment; ABSTAIN motion
D) AGAINST amendment; FOR motion
E) AGAINST amendment; AGAINST motion
F) AGAINST amendment; ABSTAIN motion
G) ABSTAIN amendment; FOR motion
H) ABSTAIN amendment; AGAINST motion
I) ABSTAIN amendment; ABSTAIN motion

Unfortunately I don't think that covers all the options... you might be FOR amendment, FOR motion with amendment but AGAINST motion without amendment.

[Lyle Craver]

I independently reached the same conclusion as Chris (and provided in private e-mail to the President an example of a recent motion I would have voted yes to an amendment on but to which I voted no to the main motion) which is why I have written the note on the sticky concerning how the amended motion is to be dealt with.

Basically the correct method is:
Vote 1 - on the amendment
Vote 2a - on the amended motion if amendment passed
Vote 2b - on the original motion if amendment failed

One of 2a or 2b will be disregarded but we cannot yet know which one. This method allows a Governor to support the amended motion but not the original or vice versa.

It is complicated but really the only fair way.

I wish I could put the amendment vote and the two motion votes in a single thread but vBulletin only allows one poll per thread.

[Paul Leblanc]

In fact Hugh will be here for the Grand Pacific Open!

[Michael von Keitz]

Unfortunately I don't think that covers all the options... you might be FOR amendment, FOR motion with amendment but AGAINST motion without amendment.

Yes, I cheated a little, assuming that in this particular case the amendment would have no effect on a governor's opinion of the original motion, although I intentionally said "something like" as opposed to just "will be," as I was hoping to come up with something more appropriate. What Lyle has implemented was another solution I had considered, but it introduces the possibility of spoiled ballots, which is a situation that might best be prevented. Keeping the vote to a single poll is ideal, but it's difficult to cover every contingency when you're tied to only 10 options. The alternative would have been to extend the meeting, I suppose, but I don't like that option either. For future reference, is it possible for the administrators to allow for more polling options?

[Christopher Mallon]

For future reference, is it possible for the administrators to allow for more polling options?

Ask and ye shall receive. Poll options are now unlimited, but hopefully that doesn't get abused...

[Michael von Keitz]

Ask and ye shall receive. Poll options are now unlimited, but hopefully that doesn't get abused...

Wow! I obviously would have asked from the get-go, if I knew this was possible. Thanks, Chris! :D