Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: 30. Motion 2011-E - DISCUSSION

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Prince George, BC
    Posts
    31

    Default Catch 22 and Quorum

    Very true but if 2011-D fails for lack of "quorum" then we are in a catch-22 situation.

  2. #22

    Default

    Hi Francisco:

    Note my argument under that motion that Motion 2011-D is not a " constitutional amendment " motion, since it only seeks to amend the " Rules and Regulations ", and is only correcting the On-line Meeting Procedures.

    I am hopeful Bob G will accept my characterization of the motion, and that it will be able to be passed by a simple majority.

    Bob

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Francisco Cabanas View Post
    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.
    1. The website has the correct wording of Bylaw 3(a). Unless my eyes are deceiving me, that is exactly the same as the wording you have posted. So I don't see the problem.

    2. The 50% quorum requirement does not apply to either the AGM nor the online governors meetings. It applies only to mail votes in 3(b).

    I have ruled this a constitutional matter since it affects voting rights. So a 2/3 majority of those in attendance are required to vote Yes. The 50% quorum rule do not apply. This is consistent with the ruling on the Life Governor motion back in October.

    Furthermore, even though we will be voting by email at this meeting, it will not be considered an email vote as per bylaw 3(b). It retains the status of an online governors vote since this is only a temporary measure until all the technical issues of online voting are resolved.

  4. #24

    Default

    Hi Bob:

    Thanks for the very clear explanation.

    Bob A

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    My 'special way' concerns voting not discussion - here's an example:

    Assume Motion A and Amendment B - rather than extending the Online meeting (or GL) further what we do is put the motion in the following form:

    Vote 1: Do you support Amendment B? (Y/N/A)

    Vote 2a: If Amendment B passes, I vote (Y/N/A) on the Amended Motion A
    Vote 2b: If Amendment B fails, I vote (Y/N/A) on the Original Motion A

    This mechanism has been done long before my tenure as CFC Secretary and was certainly not my creation. It works well when there is only one amendment but becomes problematic when there are more up for vote.

    (Both Bob G and I can initiate new threads though I try to defer to him as much as possible.)

    Speaking personally, I would NOT want to see 'no proxies' used for an in person AGM as we don't all have 3 full days to give to the meeting and thus online voters may miss much of the discussion that led to the vote. This formula where one can easily drop in periodically is a good compromise - and in my opinion the most important impact for the Executive even more than the motions are the wide feedback we/they get from these meetings.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Lyle: It's too bad the thread titles don't include what we're discussing. Can we be sure that when the vote thread is created it at least says what motion E is in the title.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Prince George, BC
    Posts
    31

    Default Motion and amendment

    Here is what we are discussing:

    Motion 2011- E - No Proxy for Governors’ On-line Meetings

    Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim

    - 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 the non-AGM quarterly governors’ on-line meetings – this is directed, beyond generally, at Bylaw # 3, s. 3 ( a ). "

    Amendment

    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."

    The essence of the amendment is that in order for there to be no proxies the meeting must be held entirely online and over the Internet. Proxies would be allowed in any meeting that had an in person component for example a hybrid AGM or one of the quarterly "online" meetings that had an in person component. On the other hand an AGM that was held entirely online as is this meeting and with no in person component would have no proxies. It also addresses a special meeting called by the President.

    The reference to Bylaw 3(a) is deleted. If this Bylaw needs to be amended then a separate motion would be required.

  8. #28

    Default

    Hi Francisco:

    Fred McKim and I are discussing whether we can accept your amendment and support it as mover/seconder of Motion 2011-E. We'll let you know.

    Bob

  9. #29

    Default Motion 2011-E - Proxies - Friendly Amendment?

    Hi Francisco/Egis:

    I, as mover, and Fred, as seconder, of motion 2011-E, accept your amendment of our motion, as set out above.

    Chair Ruling on Procedure Requested - given that Fred and I accept the proposed amendment, can you rule that we can now amend our motion to conform to the Cabanas/Zeromskis amendment, and that the motion 2011-E to be voted on will be our motion, as amended? This will avoid having to have 2 votes, one on the amendment, and then one on the main motion ( whether the amendment passed or didn't ).

    Francisco, is this acceptable to you and Egis?

    Bob

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Prince George, BC
    Posts
    31

    Default This is acceptable

    Of course this is acceptable. My understanding is that when an amendment is friendly, as is the case here, the motion as amended is voted on instead of the original motion. There is no vote on the amendment.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •