Bob Armstrong
12-08-2008, 10:12 AM
The soap opera chronicle of this debacle is:
1. July 22, 2008 - CFC AGM - Without any prior notice, Governor Les Bunning, seconded by Governor Peter Stockhausen, introduced a motion that, among other things, lowered the CFC annual membership fees, and raised the CFC rating fees. These changes are to come into effect on January 1, 2009. This was passed by the incoming Governors.
2. early September - The Executive, in their wisdom, to head off the fees changes before January 1, 2009, filed Motion 2009-06. It seeks to rescind the AGM motion. The reason given is that the Executive wants to carry out a full fees review, in the light of current CFC finances, and, that the motion was hastily passed without due consideration.
3. September 17 - The Grassroots' Campaign, unaware of Motion 2009-06, filed 3 motions on CFC Fees : 2009-07 - elimination of tournament playing fee ( " tournament membership " ); 2009-08 - 40% discount on annual membership to first time CFC'ers; 2009-09 - lowering the projected Junior Rating Fee from $ 5/player/tournament, to $ 1. These motions achieved this by amendments to the July AGM passed motion.
4. About October 10 - GL # 2 - The Grassroots' Campaign first became aware of the conflict of motions - the 3 Grassroots' Motions were trying to amend a motion that was sought to be rescinded, and therefore were redundant.
5. November 5 - The Grassroots' Campaign, though in some ways satisfied with parts of the July AGM motion, decided to accept the Executive rationale for rescission of the AGM motion, and decided to support Motion 2009-06. It advised CFC Secretary Lyle Craver that the Grassroots' Movers/Seconders were withdrawing their motions as redundant, to await the outcome of the vote on Motion 2009-06.
6. November 7 - CFC Treasurer Chris Mallon and Governor Ken Craft took the position that under Roberts Rules of Order, the motions could not be withdrawn. They said it was necessary to have the movers/seconders bring three brand new motions that requested that the motions be withdrawn. The Grassroots' Campaign wrote to Lyle Craver asking if the withdrawal of the 3 motions by the movers/seconders was effective. There was no reply.
7. December 5 - The Grassroots' Campaign again wrote to Lyle Craver as follows:
Hi Lyle:
On November 7 I wrote you asking whether our notice to you that the movers and seconders of the three grassroots’ motions ( 2009-7 to 9 ) withdraw their motions was effective? I received no reply.
The reason I asked was that Chris and Ken Craft had suggested it was not. They suggested that our movers/seconders had to bring new motions to withdraw the 3 motions and let the governors vote on these three new motions. If they voted to allow the withdrawal, then the 3 original motions were withdrawn. I hope this is not necessary, and that you will allow the movers/seconders to simply withdraw their motions.
However, if there is still a problem, there is a precedent for the President allowing motions to be withdrawn, where desired by the movers/seconders, “ subject to objection by any governor “. Below is my correspondence with Chris and Ken on this precedent, pointed out by Governor Egis Zeromskis. If there is a problem in your view, then we ask that you ask the President to grant that the motions be withdrawn.
However we hope this additional step is not really necessary.
Thanks, and would you please advise what you intend to do.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Armstrong [mailto:bobarm@sympatico.ca]
Sent: November 7, 2008 10:40 PM
To: Ken Craft (kcraft@unbsj.ca); Chris Mallon (cmallon@chess.ca)
Subject: Grassroots' Campaign: " Withdrawing " 3 Motions
Hi Ken & Chris:
Further developments:
Egidijus Zeromskis , CFC Governor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon
" Ken is correct, once a motion has been properly moved/seconded it can't be "withdrawn" in any fashion other than a) ruled out of order or b) by a vote.
Of course a motion to withdraw a motion made by the mover/seconder would almost always succeed for obvious reasons but that's the rule..."
There is the "third" conditional way which was demonstrated by President in the CFC practice:
Quote:
"Halldor Palsson: I rule: Unless there is an objection I grant Mr. Barron permission to withdraw 2005-13. The comments by Mr. Dixon go into the GL and he or any other Governor may object to the withdrawal of 2005-13. RONR (10th ed.), p.285.]"
Was Halldor correct in his ruling, granting permission to withdraw a motion, subject to Governor objection?
Can we use this as an alternate to bringing three new motions to withdraw the three existing motions?
Bob
8. Today, December 8 - No reply has yet been received from Lyle Craver as to whether the motions are effectively withdrawn. The Motion 2009-06 has not yet been voted on and the July AGM motion fees changes are slated to become effective next month, January 1, 2009. GL # 3 has not yet been released, wherein the disposition of the motions will be stated.
And we wonder why, sometimes, the CFC seems to make no progress !
Bob
1. July 22, 2008 - CFC AGM - Without any prior notice, Governor Les Bunning, seconded by Governor Peter Stockhausen, introduced a motion that, among other things, lowered the CFC annual membership fees, and raised the CFC rating fees. These changes are to come into effect on January 1, 2009. This was passed by the incoming Governors.
2. early September - The Executive, in their wisdom, to head off the fees changes before January 1, 2009, filed Motion 2009-06. It seeks to rescind the AGM motion. The reason given is that the Executive wants to carry out a full fees review, in the light of current CFC finances, and, that the motion was hastily passed without due consideration.
3. September 17 - The Grassroots' Campaign, unaware of Motion 2009-06, filed 3 motions on CFC Fees : 2009-07 - elimination of tournament playing fee ( " tournament membership " ); 2009-08 - 40% discount on annual membership to first time CFC'ers; 2009-09 - lowering the projected Junior Rating Fee from $ 5/player/tournament, to $ 1. These motions achieved this by amendments to the July AGM passed motion.
4. About October 10 - GL # 2 - The Grassroots' Campaign first became aware of the conflict of motions - the 3 Grassroots' Motions were trying to amend a motion that was sought to be rescinded, and therefore were redundant.
5. November 5 - The Grassroots' Campaign, though in some ways satisfied with parts of the July AGM motion, decided to accept the Executive rationale for rescission of the AGM motion, and decided to support Motion 2009-06. It advised CFC Secretary Lyle Craver that the Grassroots' Movers/Seconders were withdrawing their motions as redundant, to await the outcome of the vote on Motion 2009-06.
6. November 7 - CFC Treasurer Chris Mallon and Governor Ken Craft took the position that under Roberts Rules of Order, the motions could not be withdrawn. They said it was necessary to have the movers/seconders bring three brand new motions that requested that the motions be withdrawn. The Grassroots' Campaign wrote to Lyle Craver asking if the withdrawal of the 3 motions by the movers/seconders was effective. There was no reply.
7. December 5 - The Grassroots' Campaign again wrote to Lyle Craver as follows:
Hi Lyle:
On November 7 I wrote you asking whether our notice to you that the movers and seconders of the three grassroots’ motions ( 2009-7 to 9 ) withdraw their motions was effective? I received no reply.
The reason I asked was that Chris and Ken Craft had suggested it was not. They suggested that our movers/seconders had to bring new motions to withdraw the 3 motions and let the governors vote on these three new motions. If they voted to allow the withdrawal, then the 3 original motions were withdrawn. I hope this is not necessary, and that you will allow the movers/seconders to simply withdraw their motions.
However, if there is still a problem, there is a precedent for the President allowing motions to be withdrawn, where desired by the movers/seconders, “ subject to objection by any governor “. Below is my correspondence with Chris and Ken on this precedent, pointed out by Governor Egis Zeromskis. If there is a problem in your view, then we ask that you ask the President to grant that the motions be withdrawn.
However we hope this additional step is not really necessary.
Thanks, and would you please advise what you intend to do.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Armstrong [mailto:bobarm@sympatico.ca]
Sent: November 7, 2008 10:40 PM
To: Ken Craft (kcraft@unbsj.ca); Chris Mallon (cmallon@chess.ca)
Subject: Grassroots' Campaign: " Withdrawing " 3 Motions
Hi Ken & Chris:
Further developments:
Egidijus Zeromskis , CFC Governor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon
" Ken is correct, once a motion has been properly moved/seconded it can't be "withdrawn" in any fashion other than a) ruled out of order or b) by a vote.
Of course a motion to withdraw a motion made by the mover/seconder would almost always succeed for obvious reasons but that's the rule..."
There is the "third" conditional way which was demonstrated by President in the CFC practice:
Quote:
"Halldor Palsson: I rule: Unless there is an objection I grant Mr. Barron permission to withdraw 2005-13. The comments by Mr. Dixon go into the GL and he or any other Governor may object to the withdrawal of 2005-13. RONR (10th ed.), p.285.]"
Was Halldor correct in his ruling, granting permission to withdraw a motion, subject to Governor objection?
Can we use this as an alternate to bringing three new motions to withdraw the three existing motions?
Bob
8. Today, December 8 - No reply has yet been received from Lyle Craver as to whether the motions are effectively withdrawn. The Motion 2009-06 has not yet been voted on and the July AGM motion fees changes are slated to become effective next month, January 1, 2009. GL # 3 has not yet been released, wherein the disposition of the motions will be stated.
And we wonder why, sometimes, the CFC seems to make no progress !
Bob