Straw poll

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G, Lyle, Chris and Fred:

It is my position that regardless of what has been done in the past at CFC, or what the majority would like to do at CFC, or what Robert's Rules of Order say, CFC MUST follow its Handbook, which now says about On-line Meetings:

CFC Handbook SECTION 2 –Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings:

1. The Meeting

( i ) ...
( ii ) ...
( iii ) There shall be a quorum of 15 governors to constitute a meeting.
( iv ) Motions will be passed during meetings, and such meeting extensions as may be required due to amending motions.
( v ) The President, or someone designated by him/her as an alternate, shall chair the meeting.
( vi ) ...
( vii ) ....The President shall publish the agenda as soon as possible, before the meeting.

2. The Role of the Chairperson

( i ) The Chair will decide on procedural matters such as motions of order, when to close agenda items, whether to add items to the agenda after the deadline, adjournment, etc..

( ii ) The President shall initially abstain on all motion votes[ emphasis added ]. However, in case of a tie vote on motions or elections, s/he shall have the tie-breaking vote.

We may disagree with the merits of the Procedures, but we are suppposed to follow them, no??? Unfortunately, CFC has a history littered with administration not bothering to follow CFC rules, and all the problems it has caused.

If someone doesn't like a rule - we know what to do - bring an amendment motion.

Bob G. has only taken a " straw poll " on this issue. Is he just testing the waters to see if he will bring an amending motion? Or is he proposing to ride roughshod over the rules if the majority want him to in the " straw poll "??

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

We may disagree with the merits of the Procedures, but we are suppposed to follow them, no??? Unfortunately, CFC has a history littered with administration not bothering to follow CFC rules, and all the problems it has caused.

If someone doesn't like a rule - we know what to do - bring an amendment motion.

Bob G. has only taken a " straw poll " on this issue. Is he just testing the waters to see if he will bring an amending motion? Or is he proposing to ride roughshod over the rules if the majority want him to in the " straw poll "??

Bob

I had several reasons for the straw poll.
1. Just curious. The question was simple on purpose. I didn't mention any rules, I just wanted everyone first reaction. Possibly an indicator of the President's approval rating?
2. I was wondering if anyone even knew the rules. I voted at the last online meeting, clearly violating (not on purpose) the rules, and nobody said a word. Clearly indicating we are over governed.
3. To highlight the fact that motion 2010-18 is flawed.
4. To canvass for my voting rights!

FYI - I will not be voting. If I was intending to vote, I wouldn't have brought it up! Would anyone have noticed?

[Bob Gillanders]

The suggestion was that the President should get an initial vote, and THEN a vote to break a tie...

No no no! That is not my proposal.

My proposal is that the President gets a vote same as other governors. In the case of a tie, the motion fails.

[Bob Gillanders]

I don't have difficulty with the president voting as long as we're clear that a tie vote fails.

Then you support my proposal, yes?

My proposal is:

The President gets to vote same as other governors. In the case of a tie, the motion fails.

[Bob Armstrong]

I had several reasons for the straw poll.
3. To highlight the fact that motion 2010-18 is flawed.

FYI - I will not be voting. If I was intending to vote, I wouldn't have brought it up! Would anyone have noticed?

Hi Bob G:

1. The Meeting Procedures are not perfect - agreed. And we are bringing some clean-up amendments.

But they had to cover a lot of issues, and are somewhat lengthy. I dispute that they are soooooooooo flawed. We have had 3 most successful meetings under them now ! And we had nothing before them but the AGM and the cumbersome, antiquated GL system.

2. I'm glad to hear you will follow the Meeting Procedures this time. Sorry that I didn't catch that you voted last time - I would have objected then ! And I would object now if you did again !

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

Though Les agrees with you apparently, I think you must follow the Meeting Procedures in the Handbook on Chair voting this time.

You can always put your proposal into the form of a motion though, here at this meeting, and file it, to amend s. 22A ( the Meeting Procedures ), and get it voted on for next time ! ( I'd be voting against it ! )

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

You can always put your proposal into the form of a motion though, here at this meeting.....( I'd be voting against it ! )
Bob A

Really?
Then I would have to endure the endless debate about it being a conflict of interest.

No thanks.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

I'd like to accomodate and say I'd bring your proposal for you if you want.

But our procedural legal beagle Ken Craft ( I think it was him ) advised that there is an obligation on the mover to vote for their motion ( don't know what happens if they rebel and try to vote against it ! ). And since I in good conscience can't support your proposal, you'll have to look elsewhere for someone to assist you.

Actually, based on the straw vote comments and poll, it appears your motion would successfully pass, and you'd get your vote !!

Bob A

[Lyle Craver]

Just as long as you don't require the SECONDER to vote for the motion!

When a Governor writes me with a proposed motion I routinely second it if I feel it warrants a broader discussion by the Governors. Sometimes I'm for it, sometimes against, and sometimes just plain am undecided - but in every case when I do so I'll second to ensure it gets a speedy discussion which I think is in everybody's interests.

Other than saying 'I think this needs further drafting before it goes to the Governors' I think I've only said no twice in five years.

[Christopher Mallon]

No, according to RRO seconding a motion merely implies you feel it has merit worthy of discussion. I've actually seconded a motion while sending in my anti-motion paragraph at the same time!