9. Any other business

[Lyle Craver]

Any other business may be posted here by all participants to the meeting

[Vladimir Drkulec]

kris-egis@XXXXXXXX (kris-egis@kris-egis.com)

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

[Vladimir Drkulec]

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.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Is that your ruling?

Than, I'm moving a motion to appeal.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Is that your ruling?

Than, I'm moving a motion to appeal.

The meeting has not started yet. Appeal when the meeting starts.

[Aris Marghetis]

Hello everyone, can we locking the CFC FIDE Representative thread, and opening a Second Part? It's just getting so complicated to track all the new posts.

Thanks for considering this, respectfully, Aris Marghetis.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Someone said there was a seconder to Egis's motion to appeal the ruling. My ruling was that voting yes to Patricia Gamliel is a vote to expand the board. Lets keep things together as it is already difficult to navigate through everything.

[Lyle Craver]

Someone said there was a seconder to Egis's motion to appeal the ruling. My ruling was that voting yes to Patricia Gamliel is a vote to expand the board. Lets keep things together as it is already difficult to navigate through everything.

If a seconder is needed I am willing to do so for discussion.

The alternative to doing so is for Vlad to urge those who think as Egis does to vote NO to the resolution and I am skeptical Vlad wants to do THAT. :)

[Vladimir Drkulec]

If a seconder is needed I am willing to do so for discussion.

The alternative to doing so is for Vlad to urge those who think as Egis does to vote NO to the resolution and I am skeptical Vlad wants to do THAT. :)

Okay, so now there is a properly seconded motion up for discussion. Lets discuss it. Egis?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Okay, so now there is a properly seconded motion up for discussion. Lets discuss it. Egis?

Where will we do that?

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Where will we do that?

Right here. It is new business.

[Lyle Craver]

My personal view is that a chair challenge on an agenda item is emphatically NOT new business but rather a questioning of whether a particular agenda item should actually proceed to a vote.

And anybody who knows anything about Roberts at all knows that a point of order MUST be resolved before the underlying matter proceeds to a vote. There is no legal authority at all for allowing a vote on an item with an unresolved point of order.

As such it properly belongs in the thread where the chair's decision is being challenged.

[Christopher Mallon]

My personal view is that a chair challenge on an agenda item is emphatically NOT new business but rather a questioning of whether a particular agenda item should actually proceed to a vote.

And anybody who knows anything about Roberts at all knows that a point of order MUST be resolved before the underlying matter proceeds to a vote. There is no legal authority at all for allowing a vote on an item with an unresolved point of order.

As such it properly belongs in the thread where the chair's decision is being challenged.


Someone said there was a seconder to Egis's motion to appeal the ruling. My ruling was that voting yes to Patricia Gamliel is a vote to expand the board. Lets keep things together as it is already difficult to navigate through everything.

It's not new business. But whatever, keep making up new rules as you go along.

Here are the relevant posts from the other thread. Which is where you announced your ruling, and where it was appealed.



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.


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...


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.



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)

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Apparently back on the original thread.

[Jeremy Clark]

Although I am a relatively new Voting Member, my time spent working in the public sector and participating in other volunteer-driven, bylaw-governed organizations leaves me appalled at what I have witnessed throughout this special meeting. I believe the President's conduct, including his admission of entertaining the notion of a bribe in exchange for Hal Bond's removal as our FIDE Representative, his obfuscation and incessant name-calling, and his seemingly intentional refusals to deal with routine matters such as addressing a point of order in a timely manner, indicate he is incapable of carrying out his duties as President.

I hereby move to remove Vlad Drkulec from office, pursuant to the provisions of the NFP Act:

Removal of directors

130 (1) The members of a corporation may by ordinary resolution at a special meeting remove any director or directors from office.

The facts speak for themselves and form a part of the public record as set out in this special meeting of the Voting Members.

So long as this motion is on the floor, I feel it is appropriate for Egis Zeromskis to act as Chair of this meeting. The President should recuse himself.
Is there a seconder to this motion?

[Pierre Dénommée]

Although I am a relatively new Voting Member, my time spent working in the public sector and participating in other volunteer-driven, bylaw-governed organizations leaves me appalled at what I have witnessed throughout this special meeting. I believe the President's conduct, including his admission of entertaining the notion of a bribe in exchange for Hal Bond's removal as our FIDE Representative, his obfuscation and incessant name-calling, and his seemingly intentional refusals to deal with routine matters such as addressing a point of order in a timely manner, indicate he is incapable of carrying out his duties as President.

I hereby move to remove Vlad Drkulec from office, pursuant to the provisions of the NFP Act:

Removal of directors

130 (1) The members of a corporation may by ordinary resolution at a special meeting remove any director or directors from office.

The facts speak for themselves and form a part of the public record as set out in this special meeting of the Voting Members.

So long as this motion is on the floor, I feel it is appropriate for Egis Zeromskis to act as Chair of this meeting. The President should recuse himself.
Is there a seconder to this motion?

That is out of order. We are in a Special meeting and we are legally constrained to vote only on the subjects on the Agenda.

The VM can remove a director, but must give him at least 21 days notice to prepare his defence, which means that it cannot be done during this meeting. I have also extensive experience in the Non-Profit sector, having been on at least one board of directors continuously since 1992. Unless it is an AGM and the directors are elected for more then one year, a surprise motion to remove a director is both rude and illegal.



Notice of business

(10) Notice of a meeting of members at which special business is to be transacted shall

(a) state the nature of that business in sufficient detail to permit a member to form a reasoned judgment on the business; and

[Jeremy Clark]

That is out of order. We are in a Special meeting and we are legally constrained to vote only on the subjects on the Agenda.

The VM can remove a director, but must give him at least 21 days notice to prepare his defence, which means that it cannot be done during this meeting. I have also extensive experience in the Non-Profit sector, having been on at least one board of directors continuously since 1992. Unless it is an AGM and the directors are elected for more then one year, a surprise motion to remove a director is both rude and illegal.

Thank you, Pierre.

I accept your interpretation and propose that my motion be addressed at a new special meeting, lasting seven days, beginning on Tuesday, March 16 and ending on Monday, March 22, chaired by Egis Zeromskis as it pertains to matters relating to our President, Vladimir Drkulec.

The agenda shall be as follows:

Agenda for the CFC Voting Members Meeting, Tuesday, March 16th to Monday, March 22

1) Agenda
2) Opening remarks of the Chair (Egis)
3) Vote - to remove the President from office
4) Other business
5) Closing remarks by the Chair
6) Adjournment

Do I have the support of four additional Voting Members?

[Christopher Mallon]

Although I am a relatively new Voting Member, my time spent working in the public sector and participating in other volunteer-driven, bylaw-governed organizations leaves me appalled at what I have witnessed throughout this special meeting. I believe the President's conduct, including his admission of entertaining the notion of a bribe in exchange for Hal Bond's removal as our FIDE Representative, his obfuscation and incessant name-calling, and his seemingly intentional refusals to deal with routine matters such as addressing a point of order in a timely manner, indicate he is incapable of carrying out his duties as President.

I hereby move to remove Vlad Drkulec from office, pursuant to the provisions of the NFP Act:

Removal of directors

130 (1) The members of a corporation may by ordinary resolution at a special meeting remove any director or directors from office.

The facts speak for themselves and form a part of the public record as set out in this special meeting of the Voting Members.

So long as this motion is on the floor, I feel it is appropriate for Egis Zeromskis to act as Chair of this meeting. The President should recuse himself.
Is there a seconder to this motion?

I moved your post and the two replies here as they are clearly new business and not part of the election.

[Richard Bérubé]

This is out of order.

This can only be done in a special meeting especially designed for this purpose. There is a time delay to be respected and the director in question is entitled to a defense.

Calling a special meeting has to be done according to section 160 (3) of the NFP act.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

That is out of order. We are in a Special meeting and we are legally constrained to vote only on the subjects on the Agenda.

The VM can remove a director, but must give him at least 21 days notice to prepare his defence, which means that it cannot be done during this meeting. I have also extensive experience in the Non-Profit sector, having been on at least one board of directors continuously since 1992. Unless it is an AGM and the directors are elected for more then one year, a surprise motion to remove a director is both rude and illegal.

I don't see anything rude. I am also genuinely concerned about matters described above, as I already mentioned in this thread to Vlad. Jeremy, you have my support. Regarding the date of the meeting, I believe there is already a scheduled spring meeting (dates?)

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Although I am a relatively new Voting Member, my time spent working in the public sector and participating in other volunteer-driven, bylaw-governed organizations leaves me appalled at what I have witnessed throughout this special meeting. I believe the President's conduct, including his admission of entertaining the notion of a bribe in exchange for Hal Bond's removal as our FIDE Representative, his obfuscation and incessant name-calling, and his seemingly intentional refusals to deal with routine matters such as addressing a point of order in a timely manner, indicate he is incapable of carrying out his duties as President.

I hereby move to remove Vlad Drkulec from office, pursuant to the provisions of the NFP Act:

Removal of directors

130 (1) The members of a corporation may by ordinary resolution at a special meeting remove any director or directors from office.

The facts speak for themselves and form a part of the public record as set out in this special meeting of the Voting Members.

So long as this motion is on the floor, I feel it is appropriate for Egis Zeromskis to act as Chair of this meeting. The President should recuse himself.
Is there a seconder to this motion?

You are out of order.

Egis pointed out this thread to me in a phone call.

[Jeremy Clark]

You are out of order.

Egis pointed out this thread to me in a phone call.

Thank you for the prompt reply, Vlad.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I moved your post and the two replies here as they are clearly new business and not part of the election.

While you do have the power to do this as administrator of the board, you do not have the right to do this in the context of this meeting as you are not presiding at this meeting. Your role here is that of a voting member only and by the evidence a very partisan voting member.

What is done is done. There is no need to undo it.

I note that suddenly it is possible to approve people for posting privileges very quickly.

[Christopher Mallon]

I note that suddenly it is possible to approve people for posting privileges very quickly.

I always approve people very quickly during meetings as I am checking multiple times per day... do you have a problem with that?

[Don Parakin]

May I suggest a proactive practice for the future (fire prevention instead of fire fighting)? Shortly after every AGM, when the list of incoming VMs is known, an email be sent to every VM not yet registered on chesscanada.info encouraging them to do so asap. Include an explanation that if they don't they may not be able to participate or vote in quarterly or special meetings (nor complain about not be able to do so).

[Vladimir Drkulec]

May I suggest a proactive practice for the future (fire prevention instead of fire fighting)? Shortly after every AGM, when the list of incoming VMs is known, an email be sent to every VM not yet registered on chesscanada.info encouraging them to do so asap. Include an explanation that if they don't they may not be able to participate or vote in quarterly or special meetings (nor complain about not be able to do so).

Excellent suggestion. We may also have to implement a policy where anyone not registered by a certain date cannot vote.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

FYI from recent news channels

About a several time Canadian Olympiad team member Alexandra Botez


How this 25-year-old makes six figures a year playing chess on Twitch

Thu, Feb 18 2021

Alexandra Botez, 25, is a professional Twitch streamer who makes six figures playing chess online. She and her sister Andrea Botez, 18, have over 650,000 followers and are signed with Team Envy, a global esports and entertainment company. 2020 was a big year for chess as the popular Netflix show ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ attracted millions of new users to chess.com.

The text and video https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/02/18/how-alexandra-botez-makes-six-figures-a-year-playing-chess-on-twitch.html


There are many other well knows Canadian chess streamers, a special mentioning of other Olympiad team members - Canadian Brahs lead by grandmasters Eric Hansen and Aman Hambleton.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

FYI from recent news channels

About a several time Canadian Olympiad team member Alexandra Botez



The text and video https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/02/18/how-alexandra-botez-makes-six-figures-a-year-playing-chess-on-twitch.html


There are many other well knows Canadian chess streamers, a special mentioning of other Olympiad team members - Canadian Brahs lead by grandmasters Eric Hansen and Aman Hambleton.


Thanks for sharing that. Excellent video.

[Aris Marghetis]

Thanks for sharing that. Excellent video.

I know this will seem corny, but my goodness, I so appreciate the last two posts above, where Egis posts a great Canadian chess story, and Vlad thanks him.

I hope we can get this "worst CFC meeting ever" over and done with, and REBUILD.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I know this will seem corny, but my goodness, I so appreciate the last two posts above, where Egis posts a great Canadian chess story, and Vlad thanks him.

I hope we can get this "worst CFC meeting ever" over and done with, and REBUILD.

There are a lot of great Canadian chess stories. We have to start telling them.

[Jeremy Clark]

There are a lot of great Canadian chess stories. We have to start telling them.

Nice to see a series of posts no one will disagree with.

[Pierre Dénommée]

I know this will seem corny, but my goodness, I so appreciate the last two posts above, where Egis posts a great Canadian chess story, and Vlad thanks him.

I hope we can get this "worst CFC meeting ever" over and done with, and REBUILD.

I agree, we must rebuild together.

[Lloyd Lombard]

I guess the only place I can put this is here because the other threads are closed. I waited to vote until tomorrow (as stated, the vote was supposed to conclude tomorrow, February 26th. I didn't have a chance to vote. I find this a bit frustrating ...

[Brian Clarke]

I agree with Lloyd. I was able to vote on the first two motions, but The 'Point of order resolution' motion was closed too early. I wasn't able to vote on it. I believe this to be highly improper; a form of voter suppression.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

I agree with Lloyd. I was able to vote on the first two motions, but The 'Point of order resolution' motion was closed too early. I wasn't able to vote on it. I believe this to be highly improper; a form of voter suppression.

Whats new? I'd like to see a poll done for the governors (surely we can do that, or is that out of order too?) on

"I believe the President's conduct, including his admission of entertaining the notion of a bribe in exchange for Hal Bond's removal as our FIDE Representative, his obfuscation and incessant name-calling, and his seemingly intentional refusals to deal with routine matters such as addressing a point of order in a timely manner" + closing of polls early, with people still voting

ie, a simple 'do you find this acceptable or no'. Surely, there are others that are concerned about matters above?

[Fred McKim]

I agree with Lloyd. I was able to vote on the first two motions, but The 'Point of order resolution' motion was closed too early. I wasn't able to vote on it. I believe this to be highly improper; a form of voter suppression.

I have brought this to the attention of the Secretary (no answer yet). I suspect it was closed once Patricia Gamliel received a majority of possible votes -- however, it's not clear what next steps would have happened if the President's decision was overturned. As well, the vote had closed to within only a 2 vote difference.

I believe this was improper.

Fred

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I have brought this to the attention of the Secretary (no answer yet). I suspect it was closed once Patricia Gamliel received a majority of possible votes -- however, it's not clear what next steps would have happened if the President's decision was overturned. As well, the vote had closed to within only a 2 vote difference.

I believe this was improper.

Fred

All votes were supposed to be finished at six. At least one ineligible voter (not a voting member) voted yes. The plurality was six votes at 6 pm if you strike the ineligible voter.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

The worst part is that it was known in advance that the coming motion had flaws. Even publicly http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?5572-Special-Meeting-of-Voting-Members-Sunday-February-21-to-Thursday-February-25&p=36266#post36266



Pierre Dénommée
02-15-2021, 09:08 PM

A simple majority is enough, but no vote on this subject is on the agenda. This is important because after such a vote, the VM may hold an election for the new position or let the Executive appoint someone.

(the part to appoint by directors is granted already in Articles)

[Lloyd Lombard]

Two things:

1. My comment was not a slight at Lyle or anyone else for that matter. It was an observation which will hopefully result in a better format for announcing votes, times and dates of votes. Lyle, as I’m sure all of the Executive work very hard and I don't want to take away from that. I know Lyle's had a difficult last couple of weeks with not much of a break in his personal life.

2. I'd like to make a suggestion that the Executive consider appointing two (not sure what to call them), Auditors, Referee, Reviewers ??? to maintain watch on the forums when we have VM meetings so that we don’t get this type of “Battle Royale” affaire occur again. The process would be:

a) If someone says something offensive, disparaging, or whatever is deemed inappropriate, the two discuss it and determine whether it meets the “inappropriate guideline”;
b) The Director/VM is given a written warning on the forum site identifying the inappropriate comment with an indication that if it happens again, that they will be disconnected from the Forum for the whole of the meeting;
c) If there’s a second questionable posting, the two Referees would again confer and make the decision whether the posting violates the guideline. If it does, the Director/VM is advised and Chris Mallon is requested to remove the person from the forum.

This is a good opportunity for an Arbiter to get their feet wet in making difficult decisions. If the Executive decides this is a good idea, I’ll throw my hat in. I’m not a chess arbiter (I looked on the CFC website to see what the qualifications are but don’t see anything posted yet), but I am a golf referee (if that counts for anything). Something to consider.

[Lloyd Lombard]

Actually, I prefer Vlad's idea that we have our meetings via Zoom. Civility and Roberts Rules of Order would be easy to enforce.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I have brought this to the attention of the Secretary (no answer yet). I suspect it was closed once Patricia Gamliel received a majority of possible votes -- however, it's not clear what next steps would have happened if the President's decision was overturned. As well, the vote had closed to within only a 2 vote difference.

I believe this was improper.

Fred

It was a three vote difference as one of the votes for overturning was ineligible. I'm not sure if there is a way to audit the time of the votes but every vote after 6 pm should have been impossible.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Two things:

1. My comment was not a slight at Lyle or anyone else for that matter. It was an observation which will hopefully result in a better format for announcing votes, times and dates of votes. Lyle, as I’m sure all of the Executive work very hard and I don't want to take away from that. I know Lyle's had a difficult last couple of weeks with not much of a break in his personal life.

2. I'd like to make a suggestion that the Executive consider appointing two (not sure what to call them), Auditors, Referee, Reviewers ??? to maintain watch on the forums when we have VM meetings so that we don’t get this type of “Battle Royale” affaire occur again. The process would be:

a) If someone says something offensive, disparaging, or whatever is deemed inappropriate, the two discuss it and determine whether it meets the “inappropriate guideline”;
b) The Director/VM is given a written warning on the forum site identifying the inappropriate comment with an indication that if it happens again, that they will be disconnected from the Forum for the whole of the meeting;
c) If there’s a second questionable posting, the two Referees would again confer and make the decision whether the posting violates the guideline. If it does, the Director/VM is advised and Chris Mallon is requested to remove the person from the forum.

This is a good opportunity for an Arbiter to get their feet wet in making difficult decisions. If the Executive decides this is a good idea, I’ll throw my hat in. I’m not a chess arbiter (I looked on the CFC website to see what the qualifications are but don’t see anything posted yet), but I am a golf referee (if that counts for anything). Something to consider.

It is a very good suggestion. Thank you for volunteering.