PDA

View Full Version : Point of order resolution



Vladimir Drkulec
02-23-2021, 11:00 PM
The chair ruling on the point of order should be over-ruled.


EDIT: Not my opinion, just what we are voting on.

Christopher Mallon
02-23-2021, 11:12 PM
Wow, the first vote in the history of the CFC online with "No" as the first option instead of "Yes" ... any little trick to try to win, Vlad?

Also, no link to what's actually being voted on. So I'll provide!



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)


I second the motion to appeal.


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..

Egidijus Zeromskis
02-23-2021, 11:39 PM
This poll does not make sense if other 6. "THE VOTING BOOTH" Motion to enlarge the Executive" is going on simultaneously.

Fred McKim
02-23-2021, 11:50 PM
This poll does not make sense if other 6. "THE VOTING BOOTH" Motion to enlarge the Executive" is going on simultaneously.

I think the logic is that the "Motion to Enlarge the Executive" will be considered a valid "election" if the No side wins the "Appeal to Overturn the Chair's Ruling"

Lloyd Lombard
02-24-2021, 09:34 AM
Sorry Fred, this is made far too complicated for no reason. I agree with Chris and Egidijus, the "Motion" should be clearly provided in written form. This is a motion for Appeal and should be dealt with prior to the vote on the main motion. That, in my view, follows Roberts Rules of Order. In other words, the Motion should be written where the "Vote" is so that a person reading it clearly knows what they're voting for.

Egidijus Zeromskis
02-24-2021, 10:28 AM
The motion is doubled sided:

INCREASE THE BOARD

ELECT

That why it was called out of order.

Lloyd Lombard
02-24-2021, 11:38 AM
All I'm saying is that the Motion on the Point of Interest should be clear and unambiguous for those who plan to vote on the issue and should be placed at the "Vote" location, not in the parameters of the discussion where it has to looked for. Something like:

Vote "YES" if you consider that the Motion to expand the Executive is out of Order and cannot be dealt with during this Special Meeting.

Vote "NO" if you consider that the Motion to expand the Executive is in Order and can be dealt with during this Special Meeting.

Or, if I've misinterpreted the Motion, then the mover can correct me.

My thoughts.

Egidijus Zeromskis
02-24-2021, 11:47 AM
All I'm saying is that the Motion on the Point of Interest should be clear and unambiguous for those who plan to vote on the issue and should be placed at the "Vote" location, not in the parameters of the discussion where it has to looked for. Something like:

Vote "YES" if you consider that the Motion to expand the Executive is out of Order and cannot be dealt with during this Special Meeting.

Vote "NO" if you consider that the Motion to expand the Executive is in Order and can be dealt with during this Special Meeting.

Or, if I've misinterpreted the Motion, then the mover can correct me.

My thoughts.


With that I totally agree.

Michael Lo
02-24-2021, 11:52 AM
The voting on "Motion to enlarge the Executive" and "Point of order resolution" are not even simultaneous. The voting booth for the "Point of order resolution" opened almost two hours later. Which I would say is definitely out of order.

Vladimir Drkulec
02-24-2021, 11:53 AM
All I'm saying is that the Motion on the Point of Interest should be clear and unambiguous for those who plan to vote on the issue and should be placed at the "Vote" location, not in the parameters of the discussion where it has to looked for. Something like:

Vote "YES" if you consider that the Motion to expand the Executive is out of Order and cannot be dealt with during this Special Meeting.

Vote "NO" if you consider that the Motion to expand the Executive is in Order and can be dealt with during this Special Meeting.

Or, if I've misinterpreted the Motion, then the mover can correct me.

My thoughts.

Things could have been done better. I did ask that it be incorporated into the director election thread as a multi-section or multi-option vote but Lyle is busy and may have missed it in the many emails that he is receiving, a large number of which are from me.

Michael Lo
02-24-2021, 01:36 PM
Things could have been done better. I did ask that it be incorporated into the director election thread as a multi-section or multi-option vote but Lyle is busy and may have missed it in the many emails that he is receiving, a large number of which are from me.

This is not a matter of better or worse, it is a matter of right or wrong - breaking rules or not. I would like to request for a ruling on whether the two voting - "Motion to enlarge the Executive" and "Point of order resolution" are legitimate. Based on the following:

1) For the Motion on the Point of Interest, here is no clear & unambiguous description of what is being voted on.

2) Should a motion for Appeal and should be dealt with prior to the vote on the main motion. I am not an expert in the Roberts Rules of Order. Lyle, please clarify.

3) If a motion for Appeal can happen simultaneous with the main motion, and the voting for the motion for Appeal happened later (in this case about 2 hours later) than the voting of the main motion, is this out of order? In those two hours, voters may wonder whether there will be a voting on motion for Appeal and may affect their vote on the main motion. Again, Lyle, please clarify.

If the above is not the proper procedure to request for a ruling, please guild me through the proper procedure.

I will state again that I do not have any objection to Patricia Gamliel be elected as a Director At Large, but I am very concern on the whether the process is legitimate. The core foundation to have CFC operate smoothly is to operate according to the bylaws and relevant rules (e.g. the Roberts Rules of Order for things that are not covered by the bylaws). If we start to break rules, we are heading into a dangerous path of operating without rules. Not to mention that the current issue on hand is not even urgent and, IMHO, should not even be resolved in a special meeting. Handling this issue in a special meeting may not have broken any rule, but definitely is against normal practice, and should be strongly discouraged. Otherwise, we will be setting precedence and, in the future, people may call for special meetings on items that are not urgent and have no significant impact on CFC.

I would also like to point out that the "Motion to enlarge the Executive" has bundled two issues in one which should be, again IMHO, discuss and vote separately. First is the enlargement of the Executive, which on its own has pros and cons, and different options of enlargement - zero, one or two more directors. Second is how Patricia Gamliel should be elected as an Executive - through the President's recommendation of a single candidate and vote by the VMs, or through the normal practice of being nominated, and compete fairly with other nominees (if any) and be elected in the AGM. By bundling the two issues into one motion, it is not clear to voters on how to vote if say, one would like to enlarge the Executive but would like Patricia Gamliel to be nominated and elected at the AGM. Preferably, it would make it much easier and clearer if this is separated into two motions.

My 2 cents,
Michael

Garvin Nunes
02-24-2021, 02:39 PM
After reviewing the arguments I agree expanding the executive and approving a particular person should be separate votes.

The first vote needs to clearly define the new position and outline its roles and responsibilities in terms of a job description.

The second vote would determine if the candidate can do the job. We also have to consider if others can compete for the job etc.

I am getting a little concerned about rushing things/cutting corners/ignoring and violating procedures. Why not take a few extra weeks and do this properly?

Vladimir Drkulec
02-24-2021, 02:48 PM
This is not a matter of better or worse, it is a matter of right or wrong - breaking rules or not. I would like to request for a ruling on whether the two voting - "Motion to enlarge the Executive" and "Point of order resolution" are legitimate. Based on the following:

1) For the Motion on the Point of Interest, here is no clear & unambiguous description of what is being voted on.

2) Should a motion for Appeal and should be dealt with prior to the vote on the main motion. I am not an expert in the Roberts Rules of Order. Lyle, please clarify.

3) If a motion for Appeal can happen simultaneous with the main motion, and the voting for the motion for Appeal happened later (in this case about 2 hours later) than the voting of the main motion, is this out of order? In those two hours, voters may wonder whether there will be a voting on motion for Appeal and may affect their vote on the main motion. Again, Lyle, please clarify.

If the above is not the proper procedure to request for a ruling, please guild me through the proper procedure.

I will state again that I do not have any objection to Patricia Gamliel be elected as a Director At Large, but I am very concern on the whether the process is legitimate. The core foundation to have CFC operate smoothly is to operate according to the bylaws and relevant rules (e.g. the Roberts Rules of Order for things that are not covered by the bylaws). If we start to break rules, we are heading into a dangerous path of operating without rules. Not to mention that the current issue on hand is not even urgent and, IMHO, should not even be resolved in a special meeting. Handling this issue in a special meeting may not have broken any rule, but definitely is against normal practice, and should be strongly discouraged. Otherwise, we will be setting precedence and, in the future, people may call for special meetings on items that are not urgent and have no significant impact on CFC.

I would also like to point out that the "Motion to enlarge the Executive" has bundled two issues in one which should be, again IMHO, discuss and vote separately. First is the enlargement of the Executive, which on its own has pros and cons, and different options of enlargement - zero, one or two more directors. Second is how Patricia Gamliel should be elected as an Executive - through the President's recommendation of a single candidate and vote by the VMs, or through the normal practice of being nominated, and compete fairly with other nominees (if any) and be elected in the AGM. By bundling the two issues into one motion, it is not clear to voters on how to vote if say, one would like to enlarge the Executive but would like Patricia Gamliel to be nominated and elected at the AGM. Preferably, it would make be much easier and clearer if this is separated into two motions.

My 2 cents,
Michael

Roberts rules of order is a way to run meetings so that they are less unruly. If we go to Zoom meetings then we will follow Roberts rules scrupulously. They were never intended for this type of forum meeting. Short of deleting posts, there is no way for me to enforce those rules on a forum. We dispensed with requirements like seconders for nominations because of the rules in the NFP act which set fairly low thresholds for many functions.

You can't really stop an election once it is under way without consent of everyone involved. Ideally the appeal would have been dealt with in the options for the vote.

No to appeal Yes to expanding board to add Patricia Gamliel
No to appeal No to expanding board to add Patricia Gamliel
Yes to appeal, Yes to expanding board to add Patricia Gamliel
Yes to appeal, No to expanding board to add Patricia Gamliel
Abstain

Michael Lo
02-24-2021, 03:07 PM
Roberts rules of order is a way to run meetings so that they are less unruly. If we go to Zoom meetings then we will follow Roberts rules scrupulously. They were never intended for this type of forum meeting. Short of deleting posts, there is no way for me to enforce those rules on a forum. We dispensed with requirements like seconders for nominations because of the rules in the NFP act which set fairly low thresholds for many functions.

You can't really stop an election once it is under way without consent of everyone involved. Ideally the appeal would have been dealt with in the options for the vote.

No to appeal Yes to expanding board to add Patricia Gamliel
No to appeal No to expanding board to add Patricia Gamliel
Yes to appeal, Yes to expanding board to add Patricia Gamliel
Yes to appeal, No to expanding board to add Patricia Gamliel
Abstain

I am not appeal on the the options for the vote.

For 1) I am appealing on the voting should be considered invalid if the voting has no clear description. This can only happen after the voting was opened and the description can be seen.

For 2) & 3). I am appealing on whether the timing of events to deal with motion for Appeal has violated any rule(s). This violation, if any, can only be noticed after both voting booths were opened, which means the election must already be in progress. I find it not logical that if the sequence of events actually violates certain rule(s) and it cannot be appealed.

I sincerely hope that this will not increase your blood pressure or heart rate. My only purpose is trying to make sure things are done properly and according to rules.

Michael

Vladimir Drkulec
02-24-2021, 03:30 PM
We cannot change it in the middle of voting. If you want the point of order appeal to succeed and over-rule the chair vote yes. If you want to uphold the chair, vote no. If you want to abstain, abstain. In an in-person meeting it would simply be by show of hands.

It is quite likely that I will lose internet for a few hours again today as they are outside laying cable for Bell. When they did it for MNSi last year I was offline for a day. My closing address will be very short if I have to do it from my phone.

Michael Lo
02-24-2021, 03:37 PM
We cannot change it in the middle of voting.

Change what? Again, I am not appealing on the the options for the vote.

Michael Lo
02-24-2021, 05:06 PM
Change what? Again, I am not appealing on the the options for the vote.

I believe I explained clearly what I am appealing, but it does not seem to get through to the President. This is a bit frustrating, any advise? Thanks.

Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
02-24-2021, 08:01 PM
Mr. President - how is it that you have made a declaration while a Poll is in progress until tomorrow? You posted this "On the appeal to overturn the chair's ruling I vote: Voters 44 of the approximate 55 voters in attendance. This poll will close on 02-25-2021 at 07:05 PM"

Your recent post would appear to be premature as the Results of Elections and Vote on point of order - still have outstanding votes to be cast before this announcement can be made?

This is a fundamental point of order on a point of order. This is simply not correct at all.

Michael Lo questioned this matter earlier and he has been igored. "The voting on "Motion to enlarge the Executive" and "Point of order resolution" are not even simultaneous. The voting booth for the "Point of order resolution" opened almost two hours later. Which I would say is definitely out of order." - Michael Lo

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________

"Congratulations to Patricia Gamliel Director at Large and Victor Plotkin FIDE representative on their joining the board of directors of the Chess Federation of Canada. The vote on the point of order did not overturn the decision of the chair. This was a very raucous election. People need to calm down and get back to doing what we can do to help chess grow and prosper."

Vladimir Drkulec
02-25-2021, 02:35 AM
Mr. President - how is it that you have made a declaration while a Poll is in progress until tomorrow? You posted this "On the appeal to overturn the chair's ruling I vote: Voters 44 of the approximate 55 voters in attendance. This poll will close on 02-25-2021 at 07:05 PM"

Your recent post would appear to be premature as the Results of Elections and Vote on point of order - still have outstanding votes to be cast before this announcement can be made?

This is a fundamental point of order on a point of order. This is simply not correct at all.

Michael Lo questioned this matter earlier and he has been igored. "The voting on "Motion to enlarge the Executive" and "Point of order resolution" are not even simultaneous. The voting booth for the "Point of order resolution" opened almost two hours later. Which I would say is definitely out of order." - Michael Lo

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________

"Congratulations to Patricia Gamliel Director at Large and Victor Plotkin FIDE representative on their joining the board of directors of the Chess Federation of Canada. The vote on the point of order did not overturn the decision of the chair. This was a very raucous election. People need to calm down and get back to doing what we can do to help chess grow and prosper."

All polls were scheduled to close at 6 pm EST. You even posted this yourself.

Vladimir Drkulec
02-25-2021, 03:22 AM
This is not a matter of better or worse, it is a matter of right or wrong - breaking rules or not. I would like to request for a ruling on whether the two voting - "Motion to enlarge the Executive" and "Point of order resolution" are legitimate. Based on the following:

1) For the Motion on the Point of Interest, here is no clear & unambiguous description of what is being voted on.

2) Should a motion for Appeal and should be dealt with prior to the vote on the main motion. I am not an expert in the Roberts Rules of Order. Lyle, please clarify.

3) If a motion for Appeal can happen simultaneous with the main motion, and the voting for the motion for Appeal happened later (in this case about 2 hours later) than the voting of the main motion, is this out of order? In those two hours, voters may wonder whether there will be a voting on motion for Appeal and may affect their vote on the main motion. Again, Lyle, please clarify.

If the above is not the proper procedure to request for a ruling, please guild me through the proper procedure.

I will state again that I do not have any objection to Patricia Gamliel be elected as a Director At Large, but I am very concern on the whether the process is legitimate. The core foundation to have CFC operate smoothly is to operate according to the bylaws and relevant rules (e.g. the Roberts Rules of Order for things that are not covered by the bylaws). If we start to break rules, we are heading into a dangerous path of operating without rules. Not to mention that the current issue on hand is not even urgent and, IMHO, should not even be resolved in a special meeting. Handling this issue in a special meeting may not have broken any rule, but definitely is against normal practice, and should be strongly discouraged. Otherwise, we will be setting precedence and, in the future, people may call for special meetings on items that are not urgent and have no significant impact on CFC.

I would also like to point out that the "Motion to enlarge the Executive" has bundled two issues in one which should be, again IMHO, discuss and vote separately. First is the enlargement of the Executive, which on its own has pros and cons, and different options of enlargement - zero, one or two more directors. Second is how Patricia Gamliel should be elected as an Executive - through the President's recommendation of a single candidate and vote by the VMs, or through the normal practice of being nominated, and compete fairly with other nominees (if any) and be elected in the AGM. By bundling the two issues into one motion, it is not clear to voters on how to vote if say, one would like to enlarge the Executive but would like Patricia Gamliel to be nominated and elected at the AGM. Preferably, it would make it much easier and clearer if this is separated into two motions.

My 2 cents,
Michael

One point of order at a time. Are we going to do ten of them?

A point of order was raised in the meeting. I ruled it out of order. There was an appeal. The vote is on the matter of that appeal. The options are No, Yes and Abstain. "Point of Order: Draws attention to a breach of rules, improper procedure, breaching of established practices, etc." At times I feel that we are talking two different languages.

In a face to face meeting where there is a single thread of activity and a point of order is dealt with in a few minutes, yes that is how it would work. All discussion would stop and the point of order would be dealt with and then if the appeal was upheld discussion would stop. Discussion would stop until the appeal was dealt with. It is not possible to stop discussion in an online meeting of the type that we are having without lots of moderators. In this situation, Roberts rules cannot apply.

I intended that the point of order question would be part of the voting as outlined above. It didn't happen that way. By the time I realized it voting had already started. There have been several internet outages over the last two days because my street is full of digging machines and a company is laying fiber optic cable for super fast internet. There are multiple deep holes in the lawn of most of the houses on the block including the house I am posting from.

Roberts rules are meant to insure that the meeting is orderly with one person speaking at a time. In this type of meeting everyone is speaking at once all of the time because it is a text based medium. There is no requirement to follow Roberts rules of order in the NFP act, nor in our bylaws, nor in our articles. We do not follow Roberts rules of order since we stopped having in person meetings which may have been ten years ago.

The voting members assented to Patricia Gamliel joining the board. Given the craziness of this whole election, the question is whether she would wish to join such a dysfunctional group. I hope she will. We certainly need her. We did vote to add her to the board.