30. Motion 2011-E - DISCUSSION

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I would second Mr. Cabanos wording of this motion if the part "– this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). " is deleted.

The clause is about PROXIES, and not about online meetings (aka Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a )). What is "s."? (Such abbreviation is not defined in the Handbook.)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis and Francisco:

If Francisco accepts Egis' amendment to his motion, I will not vote for it then. The whole problem has been Lyle's determination initially to interpret s.3 (a) as somehow fudging the issue of Proxies - it was due to Lyle's original position that Fred and I felt it necessary to bring our motion 2011-E in the first place. However, Lyle now seems agreeable to motion 2011-E as originally framed, and accepts that no proxies makes sense. But I still want the reference to s. 3 ( a ) left in for this particular reason.

( " s. " is usually used conventionally as the short form for " section " )

Bob

[Francisco Cabanas]

I would second Mr. Cabanos wording of this motion if the part "– this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). " is deleted.

The clause is about PROXIES, and not about online meetings (aka Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a )). What is "s."? (Such abbreviation is not defined in the Handbook.)

I am fine with the change as it makes the wording much better. The amendment now reads:

Moved Francisco Cabanas, Seconded Egidijus Zeromskis, That motion 2010-E be amended to read:

That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

“Proxies are not applicable to a meeting of the governors that is conducted entirely online and over the Internet."

[Francisco Cabanas]

Bob does make a valid point but this is best addressed by removing the ambiguity from the bylaw it self. By replacing “including proxy votes” in 3(a) with “including proxy votes, should proxy votes be permitted by regulation”

We need to then need amend both bylaw 3(a) and section 21

I would consider the following wording a friendly amendment to the amendment:

That bylaw 3(a) be amended by replacing:

“including proxy votes” with “including proxy votes, should proxy votes be permitted by regulation”

and

That Rules and Regulations, s. 21, Proxies, be amended by adding after the words

“21. Any Governor who is unable to be personally present at a meeting of the Assembly may appoint any person to act as his proxy.”

the following sentence:

“Proxies are not applicable to a meeting of the governors that is conducted entirely online and over the Internet. “

This also clarifies the concern that this is indeed a constitutional amendment

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Francisco:

My motion had specifically been drafted so as to not be a constitutional amendement. This avoids the need for not only a 2/3 majority, but a 50% quorum of the governors ( 60 of us ). In fact, the Governors' Voting Modernization Subcommittee that drafted the Meeting Procedures, and the Procedures' Committee , that got it passed at the 2010 AGM, deliberately put the Meeting Procedures into the " Rules and Regulations ", specifically to avoid having to amend it by " constitutional amendment ".

You didn't attend the 2010 Fall Quarterly Meeting, I believe, and so you may be unaware that a key vote on your status as " Life Governor " failed ( or because of that you may be aware of it ! ), despite an overwheming majority of those voting, because it failed to make quorum.

Also, only 11 governors have signed in so far out of 60 ( I can't check that at the moment, and the upgraded meeting board we are using has no " edit " button, so I can't correct it later if I'm misremembering ), and as I understand the Bob G/Lyle position for this meeting, only governors who actually sign in will be counted as attending. Even if a governor attends, but doesn't sign in, he is not considered to have attended. So asfaras I can tell, if you don't sign in, your vote, should you attempt it by e-mail ( if that's what we're doing this meeting ), will be disregarded. Is this an indication of the size of voting we are going to get on the meeting motions? If so, constitutional amendments are going to fail for lack of quorum.

So I am not particularly enamoured of your broadening your motion to now make it clearly amending a Bylaw, and clearly a constitutional amendment motion.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Bob,

Any motion which amends a part of the handbook that SPECIFICALLY can affect the success or failure of a constitutional motion is clearly itself constitutional. As Bob G stated, it was just put into the handbook in a poor place.

[Francisco Cabanas]

My amendment as duly seconded on the floor is not a constitutional amendment as far as I can see, since after Egidijus's change this was made perfectly clear. The chair may of course rule otherwise.

The original motion on the other hand has already been ruled the as a constitutional matter by the chair, so I fail to see whey making the constitutional change explicit with my suggested wording is such a problem.

By the way I did not attend the last meeting because I was not provided with access even though I made repeated requests for access.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Francisco:

I agree that your motion ( as amended by Egis ) was not itself a " constitutional amendment " motion. And I won't support it without the reference to s. 3 ( a ).

As to Motion 2011-E itself, I think the chair ruled that the issue of its being a " constitutional amendment " is a bit of a tough nut, and he hopes to simply avoid having to rule on that, by getting both a quorum and enhanced majority to pass the motion, and he'll never decide if it was or was not a " constitutional amendment motion " since it will be passed in either case. I expect that it will get a majority, and fail for quorum, if it is ruled a constitutional amendment motion. I prefer it be ruled not such a motion, and that if passes with a simple majority. Thus I have a problem with your further amended motion, since it clearly now envisages a " constitutional amendment " motion 2011-E.

However, I will vote for your new amending motion, because as redrafted, I think it does solve all problems - and I think, as a motion amending Motion 2011-E, it itself is still not a " constitutional amendment motion.

Once it passes however, it clearly makes 2011-E, as amended, a constitutional amendment motion. Should it end up in that final form, I will vote for it, since it does seem to solve all problems - I'll just worry that it is going to fail for lack of quorum.

Bob

[Francisco Cabanas]

There are some very significant discrepancies between the bylaw 3(a) as it is published in the CFC Handbook on chess.ca and how it is quoted in this motion. The other issue is that the PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNORS' ONLINE MEETINGS as published in the CFC Handbook on chess.ca contradict bylaw 3(a) when it comes to the question of quorum for constitutional amendments as Bylaw 3(a) does not require a 50% quorum but (5) in the PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNORS' ONLINE MEETINGS implies that a 50% quorum is required.

I am therefore requesting that the chair rule on the following matters:

1) The correct wording of Bylaw 3(a)
2) Whether bylaw 3(a) takes precedence over the PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNORS' ONLINE MEETINGS in particular whether the 50% quorum requirement applies to constitutional motion in this meeting.

Bylaw 3 From CFC Handbook

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]

(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.

Bylaw 3(a) as quoted on this motion

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.

PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNORS' ONLINE MEETINGS from CFC Handbook

(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.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Francisco:

I will await Bob G's ruling as requested.

I can add the following :

1. Re wording of section 3 - My motion was based on an unofficial updated version of the section, after Motion 2010-18 was passed. So that is what is quoted in the motion. Subsequently, the Handbook Updating Subcommittee has officially updated the Handbook section, and that is what is now on the website.

2. The Constitutional Amendment Quorum Conflict - this was recognized subsequent to the 2010 Fall Meeting, and so Motion 2011-D, on this agenda, deals with it:

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 “.

Bob