11b-1) Challenge Vote

[Christopher Mallon]

Only OUTGOING OCA Governors may vote.

The ruling:

After some careful thought as well as reading the posts including the response from the person who seconded the motion, as well as my personal understanding of the OCA constitution, the motion is more suited for the incoming governors. Egis was the member of the exec I was waiting on in terms of the exec vote on the matter. I also think this is a motion that is important and believe it needs to be changed which seems to be the general consensus from members as well. I do not want to see the motion shot down by the outgoing governors which I believe will happen. Again, it is also in our constitution that this should be handled by the incoming governors.

I see the choice as thus: on one hand we accept the constitutional allocation of governors and the GTCL loses a governor that they would possibly have if this motion were passed; on the other we have to go against our constitution as worded to pass a motion which would remove a governor from the EOCA retroactively.

It saddens me that Bob Armstrong isn't on the side I am. I doubt that there is anyone who is more suited to answer the question or anyone who's legal opinion in chess I value more. Without his help this meeting could not have happened. Unfortunately I have to go with my own personal understanding of the situation in combination with the decision of my exec who I have the utmost respect for.

The motion is best suited to the incoming governors and will be voted on by them.

The challenge

Hi Rob:

Thank you for your kind words on my involvement to date. It is the case that on issues, friends can differ, and still be OK.

Therefore, I am satisfied to bring the following ( and it is soley on an issue, not personal , basis ):

I challenge the ruling of the Chair, that the motion be tabled from the outgoing governors AGM to the incoming Governors AGM. I believe it is appropriately before the outgoing AGM. I ask that the ruling be overturned, and that the Chair put the question to the assembly. As I understand it, I do not need a seconder for a motion challenging the procedural ruling of the Chair, and requesting he put the question.

Bob A

Please vote YES to support the challenge and NO to vote against the challenge. The challenge requires 50%+1 support to pass.

Only OUTGOING OCA Governors may vote.

[Christopher Mallon]

To clarify: if the challenge succeeds, the motion is voted on by the outgoing governors and is made retroactive. If the challenge fails, the motion would be voted on by the incoming governors and takes effect as of the 2013 selections.

[Christopher Mallon]

Full list of Outgoing Governors who can vote on this item:

• Armstrong, Bob
• Barron, Michael
• Birarov, Vladimir
• Bluvshtein, Ilia
• Brammall, Stuart
• Clark, Rob
• Field, Chris
• Fielder, Brian
• Laszlo, Robert
• Mallon, Christopher
• Marghetis, Aris
• McDonald, Patrick
• Nadeau, Ellen
• Noritsyn, Nikolay
• Nunes, Garvin
• Pacey, Kevin
• Ritchie, Gordon
• von Keitz, Michael
• Zeromskis, Egidijus

[Bob Armstrong]

I see that Michael von Keitz voted, and he is not entitled ( I'm risking all my friendships at this AGM!! LOL ). Could the moderator cancel his vote? Thanks.

Bob A

[Michael von Keitz]

I see that Michael von Keitz voted, and he is not entitled ( I'm risking all my friendships at this AGM!! LOL ). Could the moderator cancel his vote? Thanks.

Bob A

Can the moderator please keep the vote intact?

From the OCA Constitution:

OCA Governor – CFC Governors will be the OCA Governors for the year for which they are elected, in addition to the President, who becomes a governor-at-large ( if not already a governor ). Where an OCA Governor is elected the CFC President, thus becoming a CFC Governor-at-large, he shall nevertheless remain an OCA governor. As well, his Ontario replacement substitute CFC Governor, as such, will also be an OCA Governor.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

Oops - went by Chris' list, and didn't check the Constitution! Mea culpa! And of course there's no way my memory would work from back when I co-revised the OCA Constitution ( sigh - old age ).

Bob A

[Patrick McDonald]

I for one, think that the change SHOULD be voted on by the outgoing board ... the problem is the part about it being "Retroactive".

I DO NOT think it should be retroactive - hence the reason I HAD to vote NO.

Exact wording for motions is important, and it is necessary that motions deal with ONE thing at a time.

[Vladimir Birarov]

I for one, think that the change SHOULD be voted on by the outgoing board ... the problem is the part about it being "Retroactive".

I DO NOT think it should be retroactive - hence the reason I HAD to vote NO.

Exact wording for motions is important, and it is necessary that motions deal with ONE thing at a time.

Hi Patrick,

I value your opinion, and therefore would like to ask why do you think this motion should not be retroactive. If majority of us agree that this change has to be made, what is the reason to postpone the implementation of it for 1 year, and to live this 1 year with wrong (yes, I read Rob's post when he says "if it is in Constitution it can not be wrong" but, sorry, I cannot really accept it - even after 20+ years it sounds like a part of some communist slogan - no offense) allocation of governors.

And can we, in fact, call it "retroactive"? As long as we are in outgoing governors' part of the meeting, the list of incoming is not approved yet - is that right? If yes, then it definitely sounds like the place and time to fix this mistake.

[Marcus Wilker]

I for one, think that the change SHOULD be voted on by the outgoing board ... the problem is the part about it being "Retroactive".

I DO NOT think it should be retroactive - hence the reason I HAD to vote NO.

Exact wording for motions is important, and it is necessary that motions deal with ONE thing at a time.

In that case, shouldn't you vote YES to Bob Armstrong's challenge (this motion) that the outgoing board has the right to make constitutional amendments at an AGM, and then NO to this particular, retroactive constitutional amendment (when it comes to the outgoing board), and then YES to the going-forward constitutional amendment (when it comes to the incoming board)?

Didn't this challenge arise because Rob Clark (and Egis Zeromskis) interpreted the constitution to mean that constitutional amendments couldn't be made at an AGM by an outgoing board? Isn't it Bob Armstrong's challenge to this interpretation that you're supposed to be voting on?

[Rob Clark]

Hi Patrick,

I value your opinion, and therefore would like to ask why do you think this motion should not be retroactive. If majority of us agree that this change has to be made, what is the reason to postpone the implementation of it for 1 year, and to live this 1 year with wrong (yes, I read Rob's post when he says "if it is in Constitution it can not be wrong" but, sorry, I cannot really accept it - even after 20+ years it sounds like a part of some communist slogan - no offense) allocation of governors.

And can we, in fact, call it "retroactive"? As long as we are in outgoing governors' part of the meeting, the list of incoming is not approved yet - is that right? If yes, then it definitely sounds like the place and time to fix this mistake.

Communism? What? My point is that the constitution is what dictates procedure. Communism...must be some weird new form of Godwin's law