11. Results of voting

[Ken Craft]

I am moving to appeal the Chair's ruling on the binding nature of FQE/CFC agreement Chair vote.

[Bob Gillanders]

Just a minute folks!

We are proposing to change the makeup of the Trust created by the CFC/FQE agreement by adding a chairperson. Do we not need this to be ratified by the FQE?

[Ken Craft]

It was also not part of the motion of the amended FQE/CFC agreement that we ratified. It should have been treated as an amemndment to this motion so that those voting on the amended agreement could either support or reject it and then vote on the FQE/CFC agreement as amended (by adding some type of ) or not. Instead we voted on the FQE/CFC agreement (as amended by the FQE) and then participated in some sort of parallele process where we were asked to decide if we favoured a non-voting chair, a chair, no chair and then were asked to vote on an individual to be our candidate for this position in the eventuality that either of those votes passed. To say the least that process was extremely flawed and should not be binding. Instead the four trustees should determine whether or not they want to avail themselves of the services of a chair, be s/he be voting or non-voting.

[Bob Gillanders]

It was also not part of the motion of the amended FQE/CFC agreement that we ratified. It should have been treated as an amemndment to this motion so that those voting on the amended agreement could either support or reject it and then vote on the FQE/CFC agreement as amended (by adding some type of ) or not. Instead we voted on the FQE/CFC agreement (as amended by the FQE) and then participated in some sort of parallele process where we were asked to decide if we favoured a non-voting chair, a chair, no chair and then were asked to vote on an individual to be our candidate for this position in the eventuality that either of those votes passed. To say the least that process was extremely flawed and should not be binding. Instead the four trustees should determine whether or not they want to avail themselves of the services of a chair, be s/he be voting or non-voting.

Thank you Ken.
I was returning to my keyboard to say something similar.
We were voting to ratify the agreement, but concurrently voting to amend it.
I would think the vote on the chairperson issue is thus "out of order".

ps. Reading Michael's closing remarks, I see he acknowledges the issue of chairperson needs to be approved by the FQE. That satisfies my concerns.

[Michael von Keitz]

It was also not part of the motion of the amended FQE/CFC agreement that we ratified.

To say the least that process was extremely flawed and should not be binding. Instead the four trustees should determine whether or not they want to avail themselves of the services of a chair, be s/he be voting or non-voting.

Process flawed? Probably. Consider this a recommendation to the Trustees, as opposed to binding? Not a problem.

I will rescind the otherwise irrelevant tiebreak vote and leave the decision to them.

[Fred McKim]

Presumably as a CFC Governor, Marc is reading this and as FQE President will notify us once the two FQE trustees are selected.

He can let the FQE know that we are quite prepared to accept him as a non-voting Chair of the committee, if that's something the FQE is interested in.

If he intends to be one of the two FQE representatives, perhaps Hugh Brodie would be a good "neutral" person to act as a non-voting Chair.

[Michael von Keitz]

I'm going to close this thread and deflect further commentary to the private governors' forum. Feedback on who will be serving as the FQE's Trustees, and what the four Trustees decided on the question of there being a Chair, will be provided as soon as it has been resolved.