29. Motion 2011-D - DISCUSSION

[Francisco Cabanas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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