Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: NOTICE: Deferred Motions

  1. #1

    Default NOTICE: Deferred Motions

    We will be having a special meeting later this month, in order to deal with McKim/Rekhson and Zeromskis/Mallon. Should the NFP Act Committee Report be rejected, Mallon/Denommee will be voted on at that time as well.

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

    Default

    Actually the NFP motion was an amendment, not a new motion - but I didn't have the text of what the actual motion was so I couldn't phrase it properly.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    Actually the NFP motion was an amendment, not a new motion - but I didn't have the text of what the actual motion was so I couldn't phrase it properly.
    My understanding of your intention is essentially for a new report to be presented in April, based on a mandate of covering the minimum requirements for compliance with the Act. It seems better to raise that question if this report is rejected.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Port Moody, BC
    Posts
    594
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    The really democratic way would have been to put this compliance to NFP under discussion first for at least one quarter...
    Valer Eugen Demian
    FIDE CM & Instructor, ICCF IM
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ches...593013634?mt=8

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael von Keitz View Post
    My understanding of your intention is essentially for a new report to be presented in April, based on a mandate of covering the minimum requirements for compliance with the Act. It seems better to raise that question if this report is rejected.
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    It's hard to say since we have no actual motion to amend. Just some hint that there will be a motion to ratify or accept the framework.

    Therefore, I will propose the following amendment to whatever that motion is:
    "
    I believe I was clear in my intention that this was an amendment. If I had had the actual wording of the motion, I would have been even more clear.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I believe I was clear in my intention that this was an amendment. If I had had the actual wording of the motion, I would have been even more clear.
    I am saying that requiring the committee to come back with a new report is not an amendment. If you aren't happy with the report, vote against it. A successful vote to table it is tantamount to those in opposition voting to disband the committee, as I am fairly certain this group will not be redrafting its proposals. As such, this vote should continue as is. If it's successful, great - Les can start redrafting the Constitution. If it's not, great - a new committee may form and present its own report.

Posting Permissions

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