View Poll Results: BIRT Motion 2012-L be tabled to the April meeting

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    21 87.50%
  • No

    2 8.33%
  • Abstain

    1 4.17%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: 12. 2012-L CFC Governors Ethics and Code of Conduct Motion (Pierre Dénommée)

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    There is no Freedom of Speech issue her.
    If you are requiring people to defend decisions that they fundamentally disagree with and prevent discussion between governors outside of regularly scheduled meetings then there is indeed a Freedom of Speech issue here.

    The CFC is a Legal Person. A Legal Persons speaks through its organs (Assembly of Governors, Executive) and through authorized persons (President and Public Relation Coordinators) The CFC has Freedom of Speech when speaking through the proper authorized channels.

    Freedom of Speech is not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. Some limits must be imposed on Freedom of Speech for th greeter good of others and of the CFC.
    Who gets to decide what the greater good is?

    The public image of the CFC could be adversely affected by public declaration from Governors.

    In Quebec, we have our own version of apparent authority under which the CFC could be held liable for action committed by a person with the apparent authority to preform an action. In Quebec, for non-profit, the Constitution and By-Laws are NOT public. A person of good faith dealing at arms length with a non-profit may not have access to any of those documents. Because of that, this person could not easily access the real authority of the person that he is speaking with. Furthermore, the Law assumes that this person has never read those document unless there is a proof that he did.

    The core purpose of Quebec Law is to protect third parties of good faith dealing at arms length with others. So, if a CFC Governor buys a 2 000$ computer for the CFC, it is very likely that the court would condemn the CFC to pay the computer. The judge will add that the CFC has the right to sue the Governor to recover its money.
    I think it would be more likely that the governor of your scenario could be charged with fraud than that the CFC would be liable for his or her misrepresentations.

    Word utters by a Governor could create legal obligations for the CFC. This is very simple and has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.
    How does this code of conduct in any way modify a Governor's alleged ability to create legal obligations?

    We must protect ourselves from liabilities and preserve our reputation.
    The document before us does that how exactly?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default We have a motion to table motion 2012-l

    OK we have a motion here:

    Moved: Michael Barron; Seconded: Bob Gillanders

    Be it resolved that Motion 2012-L be laid on the table until the Spring Quarterly Meeting.

    As is the case with all motions prior to a final vote, voting goes through midnight Wednesday night.

    (By the way for those unfamiliar with the abbreviations, BIRT = "Be it resolved that ..." and BIFRT = "Be it further resolved that ..." - my apologies for anyone confused by the abbreviation!)
    Last edited by Lyle Craver; 01-04-2012 at 02:25 AM.

  3. #23

    Default

    I voted to table. I'll be opposing any code of conduct that contains the essential substance of this motion.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    694

    Default

    I'm not opposed to having a Code of Conduct but it would appear wise to give the sponsor time to take in the comments from our discussion and re-work the motion.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Voting Member

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    Okay, that sounds like a good idea.
    Mr. President - I propose we table this motion for discussion and defer the vote, if there are no objections.
    Objections are irrelevant. The motion to table is not debatable. Source http://www.robertsrules.org/motions.htm

  6. #26

    Default

    Since the seconder is moving to table, I believe that it is better to table then to have the motion defeated. It will be easier to discuss this important issue if we do not proceed from a failed vote. A motion having the same intent then a defeated motion would required that the original motion be rescinded or reconsidered.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    Objections are irrelevant. The motion to table is not debatable. Source http://www.robertsrules.org/motions.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    Since the seconder is moving to table, I believe that it is better to table then to have the motion defeated. It will be easier to discuss this important issue if we do not proceed from a failed vote. A motion having the same intent then a defeated motion would required that the original motion be rescinded or reconsidered.
    Way to follow your own rule there Pierre
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •