29. Motion 2011-D - DISCUSSION

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Lyle:

A Question:

The AGM has no constitutional amendment " quorum " requirement. We get at best maybe 15 governors actually in attendance ( there were 16 at the outgoing 2010 AGM ), yet they can pass consitutional amendments.

We have 35 governors present and active at this on-line meeting. There is much active debate. It is more representative than an AGM !! Why should the conditions here for passing a constitutional amendment be more restrictive than at the AGM? Why would we ever impose a constitutional amendment " quorum requirement " on this meeting, and not have it on the AGM??

Bob G has ruled that for this on-line meeting anyway, there is no constitutional amendment quorum requirement. Isn't that an indication there is no problem with on-line meeting constitutional amendments?

Purpose of the Motion

The Meeting Procedures wrongly referred to the 50% constitutional amendment quorum requirement - I drafted them and I take full responsibility for a mistake here. So this motion 2011-D only seeks to remove a reference that should never have been there in the first place, since there is no quorum requirement for on-line meetings in the Bylaw 3. The Meeting Procedures wrongly confused the issue, and need correction.

The Vote on Motion 2011-D - Constitutional Amendment Quorum

So all governors - please vote " Yes " to this motion to simply correct the Meeting Procedures ( it does not in any way touch the Bylaw 3 ).

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Governors have a right to vote or not vote as they choose and an abstention IS a vote. Non-attendence is not an abstention so I don't think Chris and I are in disagreement.

The ONLY thing that counts is the actual vote - no one has the right to impute decisions to Governors that they did not voluntarily choose to make.

http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#6

From Robert's Rules of Order:
The phrase "abstention votes" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an "abstention vote."

[Christopher Mallon]

I think we're getting a bit out of whack here.

My suggestion for a 50% meeting quorum would be an ADDITION, not trying to imply that that is the way it works now.

Having met the meeting quorum requirements, any constitutional amendments should still have to meet the other two requirements in the handbook: 2/3 majority (with abstentions NOT counting either way as per Robert's Rules, since they are not a "vote cast"), plus the 14 days notice. It's unclear if that notice should be before the meeting or before the vote itself starting.

[Lyle Craver]

Bob once again you are trying to have it both ways.

I quote directly from Section 2 of the Handbook where you (as the author of the original motion) state:

(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.

It seems very clear what you intended and now you are saying you've changed your mind and now favor the exact opposite.

Furthermore I very much wish you would stop referring to your subcommittee since while you may have written a report, Chris and I never consented to your recommendations. You have no right to continually assert that "silence means consent" since I certainly told you otherwise at the time.

Frankly I think you got it right the first time in 2010-18 (i.e. the text in red) and I urge all Governors to realize what the massive implications of adopting this motion are and vote to reject it.

Voting for this motion means adopting the AGM rules for constitutional amendments in EVERY SINGLE ONLINE MEETING.

That is totally wrong and it would be tragic if the Governors adopted this misguided motion.

Vote no on 2011-D.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Lyle:

I won't belabour the point - I have said:

1. I always intended that there be NO Constitutional quorum requirement for on-line meetings, and

2. that my insertion of " and 50% quorum for non-AGM constitutional amendments) " in the Meeting Procedures was a mistake, inadvertant, and that I didn't realize I was contradicting my intention.

I don't want it both ways. I want there to be NO constitutional quorum requirement for on-line meetings, exactly as there is none in the AGM. Hence the motion 2011-D needs to be passed to correct this and make my intention clear.

Bob