Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: 29. Motion 2011-D - DISCUSSION

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default 29. Motion 2011-D - DISCUSSION

    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

  2. #2

    Default Armstrong/von Keitz Commentary in Favour of Motion 2011-D

    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

  3. #3

    Default Motion 2011-D NOT a " Constitutional Amendment " Motion

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Prince George, BC
    Posts
    31

    Default Why is this a constitutional amendment?

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default 2011-D *IS* constitutional in nature

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Prince George, BC
    Posts
    31

    Default This change is already in Bylaw 3(a)

    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?

  7. #7

    Default Motion 2011-D - Not a Constitutional Amenement Motion??

    Quote Originally Posted by Francisco Cabanas View Post
    ....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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    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.

    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!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Prince George, BC
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    No.

    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!
    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?

  10. #10

    Default Intention that Constitutional Quorum Rule NOT Apply

    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

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •