Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: 5.1 Appointment of Class A Voting Members (Garland Best)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    The bylaws that were approved by the members can be found here: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...ing-on-Item-6A

    I cannot see and explicit statement that a director needs to be a member, only that "Subject to the Regulations under the Act, any proposal may include nominations for the election of directors if the proposal is signed by not less than 1% of members entitled to vote at the meeting at which the proposal is to be presented."

    Looks like another hole to be fixed.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasha Starr View Post
    Please refer me to the relevant bylaws.
    Sasha, as a point of order, you should not be posting in the Outgoing Meeting, as I believe you are only a member of the Incoming board.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garland Best View Post
    I cannot see and explicit statement that a director needs to be a member
    If your motion would pass, then these take effect:

    "The Directors as elected or acclaimed at the Annual General Meeting or otherwise shall be considered Class A members."
    +
    Any class A member who has failed to maintain class B membership status shall have his/her voting privileges suspended. Once suspended, the member and related provincial association shall be notified and requested to bring his/her membership into good standing not later that 30 days from his/her expiration of membership. In the event that the membership is still not in good standing 30 days after suspension, the Class A voting membership will be revoked.

    and a director shall be kicked out of the office or the board.

    My suggestion was that any person willing to stand the office/board must be a member immediately.
    .*-1

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    We seem to have a problem with the permissions for the outgoing meeting. I have deleted the posts made in error.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Yes, so my motion would for the most part fix the issue. And one would have to be particulary obtuse to elect someone knowing that said person would almost immediately lose priviledge. Still, it allows for a "savior" situation where someone comes riding in on a white horse, gets voted in, and applies for CFC membership to close the formality. As absurb as this scenario is, I don't think it's one that would ultimately be a problem.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    What are current rules about amendments? HOW, WHEN, etc.
    I believe we should use Roberts Rules of Order as we have in the past. I have just received my copy of three different versions including the full handbook, the brief handbook and a version that Sasha would agree is completely appropriate for me. You can propose for consideration an amendment. It seems to me that we have the same flexibility about amending motions as we had before. The amendment does have to be germane. When we vote on it we will do it with options. We can also defer to the next meeting if necessary. We could even defer to a rules committee which would have to happen at the next meeting. We should probably get it done before the next AGM.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 07-08-2014 at 05:05 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garland Best View Post
    The bylaws that were approved by the members can be found here: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...ing-on-Item-6A

    I cannot see and explicit statement that a director needs to be a member, only that "Subject to the Regulations under the Act, any proposal may include nominations for the election of directors if the proposal is signed by not less than 1% of members entitled to vote at the meeting at which the proposal is to be presented."

    Looks like another hole to be fixed.
    Membership Dues
    Members may by checking the Chess Federation of Canada website know when their membership expires and will also be able to check the dues payable which are a combination of provincial association dues and Chess Federation of Canada dues and, if any are not paid within one (1) calendar month of the membership renewal date the members in default shall automatically cease to be members of the Corporation.

    It seems to me that the above clause covers the situation.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    I move to amend the paragraph:

    "In any year the number of class A voting members eligible per province or territory will be one class A member for the first fifty or part thereof of class B members in said province or territory as of April 30 of the immediately proceeding fiscal year, and one additional class A member for each subsequent fifty or part thereof."

    to

    "In any year the number of class A voting members eligible per province or territory will be one class A member for the first hundred or part thereof of class B members in said province or territory as of April 30 of the immediately proceeding fiscal year, and one additional class A member for each subsequent hundred or part thereof."

    The main reason - reduction of a class A members' number. Quality over quantity.

    Need a seconder and a support in voting.

    Probably it can be used only the next year (2015/16).
    .*-1

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    I move to amend the paragraph:

    "In any year the number of class A voting members eligible per province or territory will be one class A member for the first fifty or part thereof of class B members in said province or territory as of April 30 of the immediately proceeding fiscal year, and one additional class A member for each subsequent fifty or part thereof."

    to

    "In any year the number of class A voting members eligible per province or territory will be one class A member for the first hundred or part thereof of class B members in said province or territory as of April 30 of the immediately proceeding fiscal year, and one additional class A member for each subsequent hundred or part thereof."

    The main reason - reduction of a class A members' number. Quality over quantity.

    Need a seconder and a support in voting.

    Probably it can be used only the next year (2015/16).
    I would like to see some discussion on this. Perhaps a list of who would no longer be governors under this provision that is now a governor. That would probably help us determine if this was a good or bad idea. If the jettisoned governors don't show up we aren't losing anything. If they are people who are contributing to the meeting then maybe not so good. I will probably second it if no one else will but would rather someone else did.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    I would like to see some discussion on this. Perhaps a list of who would no longer be governors under this provision that is now a governor. That would probably help us determine if this was a good or bad idea. If the jettisoned governors don't show up we aren't losing anything. If they are people who are contributing to the meeting then maybe not so good. I will probably second it if no one else will but would rather someone else did.

    Well, we wouldn't know who wouldn't be a Governor, but only know how many Governors every province would lose. Quebec is a special case as they have been allotted 3 Governors (which was their norm) since the agreement was signed. To fall in line with the other provincial adjustments, this should go to 2.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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