Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: 7A. ( Best / Gordon ) CFC Employees

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,203
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garland Best View Post
    Searching through the handbook shows the following section (Section 2, Bylaw 1, Paragraph 13):

    13. Any Ordinary or Life Member, who is a Canadian Citizen or a landed immigrant in Canada, and who is 18 years of age or over, is eligible to be nominated and elected to the position of Governor [as amended by Motion 84-24; see GL November 1983, p. 16] representing the organization of the Province in which he resides. The Executive Director, full-time employees of the Chess Federation of Canada, and any part-time employees who receive a substantial fraction of their income from such employment, may not become Governors or Officers of the Chess Federation of Canada.

    The intent of my motion is that Officers of the Chess Federation of Canada cannot later become the Executive Director, a full-time employee of the Chess Federation of Canada, or a part-time employee who receives a substantial fraction of their income from such employment, so this section seems relevant.

    On the other hand, there are motions like Section 3, 331. Officer Eligibility: The clause in the constitution (By-law 2, 14.) prohibiting persons involved in a chess-related business from being elected or appointed as a general officer is interpreted as being "No person may be elected or appointed as a general officer if he earns a substantial portion of his income from a chess-related business".

    So based on this it appears that either one might be appropriate. Given that, I would prefer section 3, as it would then not need to be a constitutional change.
    It should be pointed out that there are clauses which specifically exempt chess professionals, instructors or organizers. I am not sure who is really left. For example Article two clause 14 continues:

    A professional chess player, chess teacher, chess coach, tournament director, or a player who writes chess books, a chess column, articles for a newspaper(s) or magazine(s) shall not be excluded from being a Director by this clause.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,142
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    It should be pointed out that there are clauses which specifically exempt chess professionals, instructors or organizers. I am not sure who is really left. For example Article two clause 14 continues:

    A professional chess player, chess teacher, chess coach, tournament director, or a player who writes chess books, a chess column, articles for a newspaper(s) or magazine(s) shall not be excluded from being a Director by this clause.
    I always saw that as the "Larry Bevand can never be a Governor" rule, as it really didn't seem to exclude anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    MEMO TO ALL GOVERNORS: (not specifically aimed at Garland)

    Motions go smoother if they specifically reference an existing Handbook paragraph or if new, where they should go in the Handbook. Mr Z's question is legitimate and has recurred numerous times in Governors' motions in the last few years.

    Leaving this info out means folks like me, Les Bunning, Bob Gillanders and the other nameless heroes who have taken previous Handbook revisions get to work extra hard. Gee thanks!

    I remember Presidents and Secretaries making this point as far back as the Presidency of Francisco Cabanas so it's not a new issue!
    The Chair could always just start ruling motions out of order if they are not properly formatted indicating which sections of the handbook they will update.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,203
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    The Chair could always just start ruling motions out of order if they are not properly formatted indicating which sections of the handbook they will update.
    I don't think this is a well thought out motion but I would have to declare a conflict of interest before ruling it out of order since it deals with the executive. I'm not sure how it will fit in with the new not for profit rules which supersede our bylaws so we will probably have to do it twice. If voting had not already started I would suggest tabling it for next meeting at which point it could be formatted to indicate properly just what was being modified in the handbook.

  4. #14

    Default

    Why is debate continuing after voting has begun? The debate threads should be closed when voting begins.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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