Motion 2010-06 - First Time CFC'er Discount - Abandoned

[Bob Armstrong]

The Grassroots' Campaign, on whose behalf this motion was brought, is now abandoning the motion. Here is my recent letter to CFC Secretary Lyle Craver:

" As you may know, Motion 2010-06 – First Time CFC’er Discount ( replacing the Tournament Playing Fee ) was on for straw vote at the recent Quarterly Governors’ On-line Meeting. Here were the results of the voting:

# 11A – Voting on Motion 2010-06 – First-Time CFC’er Discount - Results

View Poll Results: Motion 2010-06 Replacing the TPF with a First Time CFC'er Discount Should Be Adopted

Yes :
Alick Tsui, Bob Armstrong, Mark Bluvshtein, Patrick McDonald, Paul Leblanc
- 5 - 16.13%

No :
Christopher Mallon, Egidijus Zeromskis, Ellen Nadeau, Fred McKim, Garvin Nunes, Gordon Ritchie, Hal Bond, Halldor P. Palsson, Herb Langer, Hugh Brodie, Ilia Bluvshtein, Jason Lohner, John Coleman, John Erickson, Ken Craft, Ken Einarsson, Les Bunning, Mark S. Dutton, I.A., Michael Barron, Michael von Keitz, Simon Ong, Stijn De Kerpel, Valer Eugen Demian, Vlad Rekhson - 24
- 77.42%

Abstain :
Bill Evans, Eric Van Dusen - 2 - 6.45%

Motion is defeated



I realize that this was only a straw vote. I realize that this motion is currently being voted on in the GL system – voting started Monday, April 12, and runs to Friday, April 23 ( deadline for GL # 5 submissions ). But the Grassroots’ Campaign, on whose behalf this motion was brought, wishes to be realistic, and to respect the opinion of the governors at the on-line meeting. The motion is not wanted by the governors.

So I, as mover of the motion, and Gary Gladstone, as seconder, are now officially withdrawing our support for the motion, and are withdrawing as mover and seconder.

I am uncertain what happens in this case, when this is done in the middle of voting. I suppose it will have to be referred to Eric – he may rule the vote should be concluded, and counted, and the outcome determined anyway; or maybe he’ll rule the vote must now be cancelled in the light of our withdrawal. I am not expert enough on the rules of procedure to know what is supposed to happen. We will leave that up to you and Eric.

Thanks – we are sorry the governors did not support this motion – we felt it was of benefit to CFC.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

I'm not sure where this "withdrawing as mover/seconder" thing started, but it's not in any way legal nor does it matter. The motion remains the "property" of the "meeting" and your names still get recorded as the mover/seconder. In fact, seconding a motion does not even necessarily indicate support for it, merely support for the discussion of a motion.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

I had heard that this was possible, so that the record would show that the mover/seconder no longer supported the motion they had originally brought. The motion might stll be the property of the meeting, and might still be voted on, but the minutes will have to show the withdrawal during voting of the mover and seconder.

You are right though that a person can " second " for discussion purposes only, and then vote against the motion.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

You can withdraw your support for the motion but you are still the mover of the motion.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

Well, there is a precedent. Motion 2010-01 ( Duties of the Executive ) was brought by David Lavin, seconded by Maurice Smith. Maurice withdrew as seconder.

The motion was going to be ruled out of order by Eric, and so Lyle came forward and substituted himself for Maurice, as seconder, so the motion could be discussed ( he did not in fact support the motion ).

The motion went forward on this basis and got published. Then Lyle withdrew as seconder, because he did not support it, and no longer wanted it discussed.

The " meeting " was not informed of this, nor given a chance to put forward another substitute seconder. Instead, Eric just ruled the motion out of order for lack of a seconder, and it was taken off the table.

How does this precedent square with what you say the rule is. Was Eric wrong in the way he dealt with Motion 2010-01??

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Just because a rule isn't followed doesn't mean it's a precedent.

After all, in that case there would be a precedent that a CFC Prez is allowed to rule a motion censuring him out of order for no particular reason.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

Well, I guess we'll see what Eric does this time !! I'm going at some point to have to go get one of those Roberts Rules of Order, so I can look this stuff up, rather than guessing based on what I've heard in the past.

I'll wager that this time Eric rules the way you said - the mover/seconder cannot withdraw; the motion continues ahead for voting and resolution since it is the property of the meeting; the minutes will note that the mover/seconder withdrew their support part way through the voting.

Would this ruling be correct in your view??

Bob

[Peter McKillop]

I'm not sure where this "withdrawing as mover/seconder" thing started, but it's not in any way legal nor does it matter. The motion remains the "property" of the "meeting" and your names still get recorded as the mover/seconder. In fact, seconding a motion does not even necessarily indicate support for it, merely support for the discussion of a motion.

If the motion is the property of the meeting then I think there's an easy way to resolve this. Give the motion to Eric Van Dusen and wait until he assesses it as being worthless and then destroys it. I've heard that Eric has a talent for destroying other people's/organization's property without consulting with them first.

[Ken Craft]

Chris is correct. The CFC should not be the arbiter of rules; ther are far too many past examples of incorrect rulings. We need an independent CFC parliamentarian would would transcend administration changes.