Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 77

Thread: 4. Proposal to Enlarge the Executive

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    You continue to ignore the properly seconded appeal.

    Where is it properly seconded? Whoever did so should properly second it in the other business thread.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Hmm seems the post I was responding to (by one of the new VMs) has been deleted.

    As for Vlad's point about reaching consensus before calling a vote Vlad knows there WAS a consensus on the FIDE rep position but because Vlad disagreed with the 5-1 consensus he refused to call the Executive vote and instead took it to the Forum.

    I have already posted the link to the post-NFP regulations, members can judge for themselves the constitutionality of that procedure.
    Last edited by Lyle Craver; 02-21-2021 at 06:17 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    You may or may not have a point but given what the resolution actually is it's clear to me that anybody voting yes to the resolution is voting yes to increasing the size of the board from 7 to 8.

    Logically how could it be otherwise? It would be nonsensical to elect her but not seat her right?
    That would be my opinion along with that of some lawyers. I think your logic is impeccable.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    I was joking when I said that.

    Logically the very idea of actually doing that is completely laughable. Sorry if my jest was not obvious to all.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Where is it properly seconded? Whoever did so should properly second it in the other business thread.
    The relevant posts are below. It is NOT new business, it is a point of order relating to this motion and must be voted on before this motion proceeds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I would also like to add to the point of order:

    The Agenda, which was sent out as part of the notice of meeting, lists Patricia Gamliel as a candidate for the position of Director at Large. Which I believe is the position already occupied by Mark Dutton. It makes no mention of a motion to increase the size of the Executive. So we saw no motion in advance, and we still haven't seen a motion, just a rambling description by Vlad.

    I also note the notice of meeting was NOT within the legally required timeline (as it was sent out 19.5 days before the meeting started when the required amount in our bylaws is 21 days, potentially making this entire meeting illegal). This is in the LEGAL paperwork filed with the Government of Canada, which Vlad is always using to try to scare us if we break the NFP rules...


    You know, Vlad, an easier way to get a woman on the Exec would be for you to resign, opening up a space and the Exec could just appoint someone...
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I second the motion to appeal.



    You are being more presumptuous than usual this morning, telling everyone why they are opposed and then attacking that reason. The problem is, you are rarely correct in your presumptions. This motion is flawed, the process is flawed, and I would vote against it no matter who had been selected.
    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post

    Is it your ruling as a Chair for my Point of Interest?


    Then, I move a motion to appeal.


    Reasoning:

    The procedure shall be first to increase the number. Call for nominations. Discuss. Vote.

    As the matter is before the Voting Members, the board of directors "right" to appoint is not valid here. The board of directors don't elect anyone. They appoint. Nobody from directors has called the board of directors' meeting to appoint anyone as well.

    (If the motion need the seconder, someone definitely will support it)
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    kris-egis@XXXXXXXX

    Sat 2021-02-20 9:28 PM

    President,
    Secretary,

    cc to the rest of CFC directors



    As the special meeting will start soon and it is done electronically
    simultaneously in all threads, I'm sending my request to include this
    Point of Order matter for the special meeting agenda in advance.

    (numbers are to the items on the Agenda as in the text bellow)


    Point of order

    Regarding the (3) and (5).

    Class A members had not a resolution to increase the current number of
    directors from 7 to 8.




    With best regards,
    Egidijus Zeromskis

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    If the voting members approve Patricia Gamliel to be part of the board then that is a resolution to add someone to the board and increase the number of directors from 7 to 8.


    So this is the proper venue for your point of order. I have already ruled on your point of order. You want to challenge my ruling. What is your reasoning?

    Your point of order is ruled not well taken. Can we move on now?
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 02-21-2021 at 06:58 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    So this is the proper venue for your point of order. I have already ruled on your point of order. You want to challenge my ruling. What is your reasoning?

    Your point of order is ruled not well taken. Can we move on now?

    Are you seriously going to pretend that you haven't seen the reasoning Egis posted, or the reasoning that I added when I seconded it, even after it was directly pointed out to you multiple times?

    A seconded appeal must be put to immediate vote. Will you do so?
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    Are you seriously going to pretend that you haven't seen the reasoning Egis posted, or the reasoning that I added when I seconded it, even after it was directly pointed out to you multiple times?

    A seconded appeal must be put to immediate vote. Will you do so?
    I also agree with Egis' reasoning. This issue must be put for a vote for the voting members, just like the matter of FIDE Representative. There is no reason to follow procedure in one case and not the other.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Noritsyn View Post
    I also agree with Egis' reasoning. This issue must be put for a vote for the voting members, just like the matter of FIDE Representative. There is no reason to follow procedure in one case and not the other.
    Fine. Lyle how do we do this in an electronic meeting? What is the time frame for the overturn of the chair's ruling?

  10. #40

    Default

    Despite of its potential merit, this challenge is rather childish. Another meeting with the right question could be called in 21 days and the sole merit of this challenge would have been to delay things by 21 days. Is this really in the best interest of the CFC? We refer to such methods as dilatory tactics which are favoured by the Opposition in Parliaments all over the word.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •