11b-1) Challenge Vote

[Christopher Mallon]

Only OUTGOING OCA Governors may vote.

The ruling:


After some careful thought as well as reading the posts including the response from the person who seconded the motion, as well as my personal understanding of the OCA constitution, the motion is more suited for the incoming governors. Egis was the member of the exec I was waiting on in terms of the exec vote on the matter. I also think this is a motion that is important and believe it needs to be changed which seems to be the general consensus from members as well. I do not want to see the motion shot down by the outgoing governors which I believe will happen. Again, it is also in our constitution that this should be handled by the incoming governors.

I see the choice as thus: on one hand we accept the constitutional allocation of governors and the GTCL loses a governor that they would possibly have if this motion were passed; on the other we have to go against our constitution as worded to pass a motion which would remove a governor from the EOCA retroactively.

It saddens me that Bob Armstrong isn't on the side I am. I doubt that there is anyone who is more suited to answer the question or anyone who's legal opinion in chess I value more. Without his help this meeting could not have happened. Unfortunately I have to go with my own personal understanding of the situation in combination with the decision of my exec who I have the utmost respect for.

The motion is best suited to the incoming governors and will be voted on by them.

The challenge


Hi Rob:

Thank you for your kind words on my involvement to date. It is the case that on issues, friends can differ, and still be OK.

Therefore, I am satisfied to bring the following ( and it is soley on an issue, not personal , basis ):

I challenge the ruling of the Chair, that the motion be tabled from the outgoing governors AGM to the incoming Governors AGM. I believe it is appropriately before the outgoing AGM. I ask that the ruling be overturned, and that the Chair put the question to the assembly. As I understand it, I do not need a seconder for a motion challenging the procedural ruling of the Chair, and requesting he put the question.

Bob A

Please vote YES to support the challenge and NO to vote against the challenge. The challenge requires 50%+1 support to pass.

Only OUTGOING OCA Governors may vote.

[Christopher Mallon]

To clarify: if the challenge succeeds, the motion is voted on by the outgoing governors and is made retroactive. If the challenge fails, the motion would be voted on by the incoming governors and takes effect as of the 2013 selections.

[Christopher Mallon]

Full list of Outgoing Governors who can vote on this item:


Armstrong, Bob
Barron, Michael
Birarov, Vladimir
Bluvshtein, Ilia
Brammall, Stuart
Clark, Rob
Field, Chris
Fielder, Brian
Laszlo, Robert
Mallon, Christopher
Marghetis, Aris
McDonald, Patrick
Nadeau, Ellen
Noritsyn, Nikolay
Nunes, Garvin
Pacey, Kevin
Ritchie, Gordon
von Keitz, Michael
Zeromskis, Egidijus

[Bob Armstrong]

I see that Michael von Keitz voted, and he is not entitled ( I'm risking all my friendships at this AGM!! LOL ). Could the moderator cancel his vote? Thanks.

Bob A

[Michael von Keitz]

I see that Michael von Keitz voted, and he is not entitled ( I'm risking all my friendships at this AGM!! LOL ). Could the moderator cancel his vote? Thanks.

Bob A

Can the moderator please keep the vote intact?

From the OCA Constitution:

OCA Governor – CFC Governors will be the OCA Governors for the year for which they are elected, in addition to the President, who becomes a governor-at-large ( if not already a governor ). Where an OCA Governor is elected the CFC President, thus becoming a CFC Governor-at-large, he shall nevertheless remain an OCA governor. As well, his Ontario replacement substitute CFC Governor, as such, will also be an OCA Governor.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

Oops - went by Chris' list, and didn't check the Constitution! Mea culpa! And of course there's no way my memory would work from back when I co-revised the OCA Constitution ( sigh - old age ).

Bob A

[Patrick McDonald]

I for one, think that the change SHOULD be voted on by the outgoing board ... the problem is the part about it being "Retroactive".

I DO NOT think it should be retroactive - hence the reason I HAD to vote NO.

Exact wording for motions is important, and it is necessary that motions deal with ONE thing at a time.

[Vladimir Birarov]

I for one, think that the change SHOULD be voted on by the outgoing board ... the problem is the part about it being "Retroactive".

I DO NOT think it should be retroactive - hence the reason I HAD to vote NO.

Exact wording for motions is important, and it is necessary that motions deal with ONE thing at a time.

Hi Patrick,

I value your opinion, and therefore would like to ask why do you think this motion should not be retroactive. If majority of us agree that this change has to be made, what is the reason to postpone the implementation of it for 1 year, and to live this 1 year with wrong (yes, I read Rob's post when he says "if it is in Constitution it can not be wrong" but, sorry, I cannot really accept it - even after 20+ years it sounds like a part of some communist slogan :) - no offense) allocation of governors.

And can we, in fact, call it "retroactive"? As long as we are in outgoing governors' part of the meeting, the list of incoming is not approved yet - is that right? If yes, then it definitely sounds like the place and time to fix this mistake.

[Marcus Wilker]

I for one, think that the change SHOULD be voted on by the outgoing board ... the problem is the part about it being "Retroactive".

I DO NOT think it should be retroactive - hence the reason I HAD to vote NO.

Exact wording for motions is important, and it is necessary that motions deal with ONE thing at a time.

In that case, shouldn't you vote YES to Bob Armstrong's challenge (this motion) that the outgoing board has the right to make constitutional amendments at an AGM, and then NO to this particular, retroactive constitutional amendment (when it comes to the outgoing board), and then YES to the going-forward constitutional amendment (when it comes to the incoming board)?

Didn't this challenge arise because Rob Clark (and Egis Zeromskis) interpreted the constitution to mean that constitutional amendments couldn't be made at an AGM by an outgoing board? Isn't it Bob Armstrong's challenge to this interpretation that you're supposed to be voting on?

[Rob Clark]

Hi Patrick,

I value your opinion, and therefore would like to ask why do you think this motion should not be retroactive. If majority of us agree that this change has to be made, what is the reason to postpone the implementation of it for 1 year, and to live this 1 year with wrong (yes, I read Rob's post when he says "if it is in Constitution it can not be wrong" but, sorry, I cannot really accept it - even after 20+ years it sounds like a part of some communist slogan :) - no offense) allocation of governors.

And can we, in fact, call it "retroactive"? As long as we are in outgoing governors' part of the meeting, the list of incoming is not approved yet - is that right? If yes, then it definitely sounds like the place and time to fix this mistake.

Communism? What? My point is that the constitution is what dictates procedure. Communism...must be some weird new form of Godwin's law

[Rob Clark]

In that case, shouldn't you vote YES to Bob Armstrong's challenge (this motion) that the outgoing board has the right to make constitutional amendments at an AGM, and then NO to this particular, retroactive constitutional amendment (when it comes to the outgoing board), and then YES to the going-forward constitutional amendment (when it comes to the incoming board)?

Didn't this challenge arise because Rob Clark (and Egis Zeromskis) interpreted the constitution to mean that constitutional amendments couldn't be made at an AGM by an outgoing board? Isn't it Bob Armstrong's challenge to this interpretation that you're supposed to be voting on?

In these matter I go by the constitution. In this instance it says verbatim that this is to be seen to by the incoming board. I see no objection in principle to having this voted on by the outgoing board but very much do to having this motion be retroactive.

[Vladimir Birarov]

My point is that the constitution is what dictates procedure.

Yes. However constitution, as well as President's decision, can be changed if found wrong by majority. My apologies if you got offended by this remark - as I said, no offense intended.

Although my post was addressed to Patrick, I'll appreciate if you can answer my questions too.

[Rob Clark]

Yes. However constitution, as well as President's decision, can be changed if found wrong by majority. My apologies if you got offended by this remark - as I said, no offense intended.

Although my post was addressed to Patrick, I'll appreciate if you can answer my questions too.

My apologies if I was a bit rash, no offence is taken it is unfortunate that this has taken a personal turn. In response to your question:

And can we, in fact, call it "retroactive"? As long as we are in outgoing governors' part of the meeting, the list of incoming is not approved yet - is that right? If yes, then it definitely sounds like the place and time to fix this mistake.

It is genuinely a very good question. I'll explain my feelings on it. At this point with the governor allocations being voted on and supported by the exec, with the leagues being notified and with this being raised at the AGM, to change the issue now would in my opinion be retroactive. With the matter also being slated for the incoming governors as per our constitution I believe that any change is for the incoming governors and will therefore be retroactive. This is how I see the matter.

[Vladimir Birarov]

This is from you post in another thread:

Shenanigans, there was no exec decision at that point I had simply sent out the email in an attempt to aid the leagues by getting the numbers out as fast as possible, the exec then voted on my numbers later.

Why would you send out numbers without execs voted on them? I wonder what constitution has to say about this procedure ... :)


At this point with the governor allocations being voted on and supported by the exec, with the leagues being notified and with this being raised at the AGM, to change the issue now would in my opinion be retroactive. Yes, it will retroactively change execs decision (which was based on outdated constitution). But it is not like you have to ask someone to step down. As we saw from emails exchange and posts on this forum, #9 in GTCL list and #4 in EOCA list were well aware they might need to drop.


With the matter also being slated for the incoming governors as per our constitution I believe that any change is for the incoming governors and will therefore be retroactive.. I'm not sure if you can claim it this way - this is exactly what is challenged by Bob A., isn't it? Also you've said: "I see no objection in principle to having this voted on by the outgoing board ...".

[Patrick McDonald]

Hi Patrick,

I value your opinion, and therefore would like to ask why do you think this motion should not be retroactive. If majority of us agree that this change has to be made, what is the reason to postpone the implementation of it for 1 year, and to live this 1 year with wrong (yes, I read Rob's post when he says "if it is in Constitution it can not be wrong" but, sorry, I cannot really accept it - even after 20+ years it sounds like a part of some communist slogan :) - no offense) allocation of governors.

And can we, in fact, call it "retroactive"? As long as we are in outgoing governors' part of the meeting, the list of incoming is not approved yet - is that right? If yes, then it definitely sounds like the place and time to fix this mistake.

The reason we cannot make (in my opinion) this a retroactive decision is that we have to have everyone coming to the table with an understanding of what the rules are coming in. You cannot bring people to a meeting and then change the rules on them after they are already there.
If the decision is that the rules need to be changed, then change them by all means, but change them on a "go forward" basis. That way, everyone is on the same page and has the same understanding of the way things are working. Then, next year we will be under the new agreed-upon rules.

Does this make sense?

[Vladimir Birarov]

The reason we cannot make (in my opinion) this a retroactive decision is that we have to have everyone coming to the table with an understanding of what the rules are coming in. You cannot bring people to a meeting and then change the rules on them after they are already there.
If the decision is that the rules need to be changed, then change them by all means, but change them on a "go forward" basis. That way, everyone is on the same page and has the same understanding of the way things are working. Then, next year we will be under the new agreed-upon rules.

Does this make sense?

I'm not sure ...

What we have right now is the assembly of outgoing governors. The fact that it is online meeting and incoming governors were allowed to be part of it, is more of a bug than a feature. Are you saying that under no circumstances outgoing assembly can make a decision that will affect incoming governors?

The motion is to change the allocation of the governors for the next year - isn't it a "go forward'?

[Marcus Wilker]

In these matter I go by the constitution. In this instance it says verbatim that this is to be seen to by the incoming board. I see no objection in principle to having this voted on by the outgoing board but very much do to having this motion be retroactive.

But Bob's objection, as I took it, was that just because the constitution says the incoming board can discuss constitutional amendments, this should not be taken as saying that the outgoing board cannot also do so. (Just as if I have a book which says that birds can fly, I need not understand it to mean that bees cannot.)

In fact if anyone is able to amend the constitution at this point insofar as the proper shape of the current, incoming board is concerned, it seems most logical for that to be the outgoing board. Of course just because the outgoing board CAN approve such a change doesn't mean it SHOULD. But that's a matter for the vote itself. It makes more sense to me for the outgoing board to decide that it COULD change the constitution effective immediately, a power it must have up until it passes the reigns to the incoming board, but it chooses not to in this case. That would mean voting YES on Bob's motion and NO on the ensuing amendment it allows.

[Christopher Field]

I feel that it is indeed for the outgoing governors to fix the constitution and see that the numbers of incoming governors reflect the actual CFC membership situation.
I believe that this is one case in which it is not only permissible to be retroactive, but also necessary, so that the numbers of governors truly reflect the current CFC membership situation.

Chris Field.

[Christopher Field]

I tried to vote.
I understood from email that voting would close at 9 pm.
It is 8:18 pm now, and I am unable to vote.

As stated, I vote in favour of Bob Armstrong's challenge.

Chris Field.

[Christopher Mallon]

With that vote also counted I see the vote as being 10-5 against the challenge, with the Chair abstaining and three votes not used. So the challenge fails and the motion will be considered by the incoming governors to take effect as of 2013.

[Bob Armstrong]

Thanks to all who voted ...either way. I think it is a good indication of the health of the OCA, that we can have good debate, and decision-making, with some governor interest and participation.

It seems that the vote of the incoming governors is somewhat of a foregone conclusion, if debate on the challenge is any indication - it seems that we do want to update our governor formula, to correspond with CFC"s - a good thing.

I'll be voting for the motion in the incoming governor's meeting.

Bob A

[Rob Clark]

This is from you post in another thread:


Why would you send out numbers without execs voted on them? I wonder what constitution has to say about this procedure ... :)

Yes, it will retroactively change execs decision (which was based on outdated constitution). But it is not like you have to ask someone to step down. As we saw from emails exchange and posts on this forum, #9 in GTCL list and #4 in EOCA list were well aware they might need to drop.

I'm not sure if you can claim it this way - this is exactly what is challenged by Bob A., isn't it? Also you've said: "I see no objection in principle to having this voted on by the outgoing board ...".

I sent the numbers to the leagues as soon as possible. Voting would have taken days and the meeting was coming up soon. That's fair if you want to challenge me based on that but I was trying to help out the leagues and acted in the best interest of the leagues (I believe). There was no exec decision to be made, I was the one who made the calculations.

I thought your point was that you believed it to not be retroactive?

Yes and the challenge failed, it also received no support from anyone outside the GTCL. But I can certainly explain that it was my understanding and that I made the decision based on my understanding. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[Patrick McDonald]

I guess, then, what the question is, is: what does "Retroactive" mean?

To me retroactive means going back to a certain date, which is certainly not "going forward".

[Rob Clark]

But Bob's objection, as I took it, was that just because the constitution says the incoming board can discuss constitutional amendments, this should not be taken as saying that the outgoing board cannot also do so. (Just as if I have a book which says that birds can fly, I need not understand it to mean that bees cannot.)

In fact if anyone is able to amend the constitution at this point insofar as the proper shape of the current, incoming board is concerned, it seems most logical for that to be the outgoing board. Of course just because the outgoing board CAN approve such a change doesn't mean it SHOULD. But that's a matter for the vote itself. It makes more sense to me for the outgoing board to decide that it COULD change the constitution effective immediately, a power it must have up until it passes the reigns to the incoming board, but it chooses not to in this case. That would mean voting YES on Bob's motion and NO on the ensuing amendment it allows.

The constitution addresses the matter to the incoming governors. Egis summed it up well: `

"The motion in a Constitutional amendment thus it follows with:
"9.1 Special Resolution – The Constitution and Bylaws of the Corporation may be amended, revised, repealed or added to only by a Special Resolution at an Annual Meeting or a General Meeting for which proper notice has been given."
The Agenda for AGM directs it to INCOMING governors:
B. Matters for the incoming Board
14) Consideration of any Special Resolutions, including proposals to amend the Constitution and Bylaws"

The agenda clearly slates this to the incoming governors and there is no place for this to be raised in the agenda of the outgoing governors. Your analogy is false and inappropriate.

[Marcus Wilker]

The agenda clearly slates this to the incoming governors and there is no place for this to be raised in the agenda of the outgoing governors. Your analogy is false and inappropriate.

In any case, the votes have now been counted, your interpretation is upheld, and happily we can turn our attention to other matters.

[Christopher Mallon]

I might try to come up with a clarification motion that will prevent this confusion in the future...

[Marcus Wilker]

I might try to come up with a clarification motion that will prevent this confusion in the future...

I would propose we allow this "confusion" in the future. I agree that most constitutional amendments naturally fall to the incoming board, but I think there could be cases in the future where the OCA might want to put a constitutional amendment before the outgoing board. Let's not tie their hands. (I could try to come up with a compelling for-instance if you're unconvinced.)

[Bob Armstrong]

I agree with Marcus because you never know which AGM meeting may be best to deal with a constitutional amendment.

I think, sometimes, if the problem is the fault of the outgoing governors ( a wrong amendment during their term; an omission of failure to amend when required by events moving forward ), then they should clean it up.

Also, sometimes you want the experience of the outgoing board to be used, since they have lived with the Constitution, and maybe the problem, over the year, and they have the most experience to deal with the constitutional amendment - the new assembly may be hesitant for lack of experience.

If any amendment is to be brought, I'd suggest that handling constitutional amendments be included in the matters for the outgoing board, specifically, as it is for the incoming board ( an oversight when we revised the Constitution, leading to some " interpretation " being needed - better to be clearer ).

Bob A