14b) Vote on Motion 2012-A

[Christopher Mallon]

Please vote only if you are an incoming Governor.



(moved by Michael Barron, seconded by Egidijus Zeromskis)

Paragraph 8.8 of OCA Constitution will be replaced by:
"8.8 The membership-fee equivalents shall be calculated according to current formula used by the CFC."


Please note that as per ruling of the Chair, this motion does not affect 2012 governor calculations.

Full discussion of the motion: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=2585

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I think, it should be clearly stated that it is a Constitution amendment (a Special Resolution) which requires 2/3 positive votes to pass.

"5.4 Any amendment to the Constitution or to these Bylaws shall be approved by at least a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the votes of those present and entitled to vote, including proxy votes."

[Vladimir Drkulec]

It is difficult to ascertain who is actually present at the point that voting takes place. I would suggest that anyone who doesn't vote shouldn't be considered present for that vote (as is likely the case).

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Vlad:

As a procedural comment, I believe the section states that the requirement is 2/3 of those present and " entitled " to vote, not 2/3 of those actually voting. So that would mean, as I see it, 2/3 of those who have signed in at any time.

But this section may inadvertantly have been made to conflict with s. 1.2 Definitions ( the co-drafter takes responsiblitly if this is an error ):

Special Resolution – a resolution passed by two-thirds of the votes cast at a Meeting of the Board .

I admit, I am now not sure whether s.5.4 is the standard 2/3 test, or where more regularly, it is just 2/3 of those voting, as in 1.2. It is my recollection that generally it is framed as 2/3 of votes cast. If the latter is the proper regular standard, then it may be our Bylaw s.5.4 needs amending, since it is too high a standard being required, and the conflict must be eliminated.

Bob A

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Votes cast should be the deciding criteria in all cases where a meeting drags on for more than a single day. It seems to me that the software for these forums also keeps track of who is present so that might also be accessible but simplicity is always the best policy. If someone declines to vote yes, no or abstain then for purposes of an online meeting they are not here anyway.

[Rob Clark]

Votes cast should be the deciding criteria in all cases where a meeting drags on for more than a single day. It seems to me that the software for these forums also keeps track of who is present so that might also be accessible but simplicity is always the best policy. If someone declines to vote yes, no or abstain then for purposes of an online meeting they are not here anyway.

I disagree Vlad, there are people who have voted on other polls or discussed things on the forum, but not in this motion. If someone abstains then their vote is not counted towards the 2/3rds support. Therefore these people didn't wish to vote either way but abstained. People who abstain are in fact present for the meeting. There was also enough participation that I can safely say that the motion did not reach the required 2/3rds required. The definition of "Special Resolution" should be changed though, I agree Bob. However, the wording of section 5.4 is very explicit.

I would also like to state that when you look at other parts of the meeting, it is not that there was not enough participation for this motion to be able to pass, only not enough participation with this motion specifically. I think people will end up unfairly blaming the length of the meeting for the entirety of the failure here, I just think it was an incredibly complicated issue with the length of the meeting not helping.

The motion fails.

[Christopher Mallon]

The massive size of the discussion thread including many almost-OT posts probably scared a few people away too.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

The massive size of the discussion thread including many almost-OT posts probably scared a few people away too.

It is possible to check by their attendance time in the Members List - they were scared or just did not vote. (it is slightly spoiled as many would come now to see results)

[Marcus Wilker]

I would also like to state that when you look at other parts of the meeting, it is not that there was not enough participation for this motion to be able to pass, only not enough participation with this motion specifically. I think people will end up unfairly blaming the length of the meeting for the entirety of the failure here, I just think it was an incredibly complicated issue with the length of the meeting not helping.

The motion fails.

Of the four items voted on at the end of the meeting by the incoming governors, none received less participation than this one. It seems at least a couple people who voted on at least one other item stayed away from this one.

Motion 2012-A ... 12 votes (9 in favour)
Motion 2012-B ... 13 votes
CFC governors ... 14 votes
Budget approval . 12 votes

It could be argued that not all 19 who announced their presence at the beginning of the meeting were actually present at the end. But it doesn't make any difference. It seems there were at least 14 present ... and 9/14 is still less than 2/3.

The only chance for the motion is to argue that carrying 2/3 of the actual voters on that motion is enough to satisfy our rules for a constitutional amendment. In that case, 9/12 is greater than or equal to 2/3. But in fact I think the rules currently in force stipulate the stricter criterion, 2/3 of those present, for constitutional changes.

So I agree with Rob that the motion fails.