Bob Armstrong
04-16-2010, 03:21 AM
Here is the letter I just sent out to the CFC Constitutional Coalition, on whose behalf Motion 2010-05 was originally brought:
Hi to All CFC Constitutional Coalition Members:
The CFC Governors held their Spring Quarterly On-line Meeting ( the first ever ) from April 8-14. On the agenda was our Motion 2010-05 – Governor Activity Rule. Here are the Minutes ( still to be approved ) on this agenda item:
# 10 – Discussion of Motion 2010-05 – Governor Activity Rule
Motion 2010-05 – Governor Activity Rule
Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Jason Lohner
There shall be added to CFC By-law # 2, a new section 23 as follows:
“ 23. Governor Inactivity Rule
Any governor, no matter whether provincial representative governor, or governor at large, including the Executive, appointees, etc., who does not vote, move/second a motion, or make a comment ( on a motion or generally ), in two consecutive Governors’ Letters, shall be removed from office, and their position shall no longer be part of a quorum until their replacement, if any. Should it happen that in a GL there are no motions for either discussion or vote, then that GL shall not be counted for the purposes of this section. Once removed, the Governor and his provincial body/appointing body shall be notified. A request that a by-election be held to fill the vacancy shall also be made to the provincial/territorial organization or that the appointing body appoint a replacement, for the balance of the removed governor’s term. "
Some felt that there had to be some penalty to non-participation by Governors – termination. But some saw the criterion in the motion as being too strict. There was also some discussion of what standard will be demanded if quarterly on-line meetings are adopted, like this one. Will zero tolerance be too strict – don’t appear for the meeting and you are terminated as a governor? A number of governors said “ zero tolerance “ would be too strict.
# 10A – Voting on Motion 2010-05 – Governor Activity Rule – Results
This motion, amending Bylaw 2, is considered a “ constitutional “ amendment: Because there is no legislation yet authorizing on-line voting, as we have done in this meeting, the vote must be treated as if it were a “ mail vote “ under section 3 ( b ) of Bylaw 3 ( it is not an “ Annual Meeting “ vote ):
BY-LAW NUMBER THREE OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA
ANNUAL MEETING AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
3. Any amendment or revision of these By-Laws;……………may be made,
(a) at any Annual Meeting of the Assembly, providing that a notice of intention to submit such matter to a vote has been received by the Secretary at least 30 days prior to the date of such Annual Meeting and has been transmitted by the Secretary to each Governor at least 14 days prior to the date of such Annual Meeting and that any resolution pertaining to such matter shall be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the votes of those present and entitled to vote, including proxy votes.
(b) at any time through a mail vote of Assembly, providing that the exact wording of such proposed amendments or revision, or of the resolution to be passed by the Board through mail vote is submitted to each Governor at least fourteen days before the expiry of the time limit specified by the President for the receipt of the votes by the Secretary, and that at least one-half of the number of votes eligible to be cast has been received by the Secretary, and there is a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes cast in favour of the proposed amendment or revision or resolution.
Abstentions shall not be included in determining whether a two-thirds majority has been attained in (a) or (b) above provided only that the number of votes cast in favour must exceed the sum of the number of votes cast against and of the number of abstentions cast.
As such, it has to meet the 50% quorum rule. As well, it must have the enhanced majority of 2/3 of the votes cast.
Results of voting:
Eligible Voters – 60
Voters Present - 36
Votes Cast -29
View Poll Results: Motion 2010-05 Instituting a new " Governor Activity Rule " Should be Adopted.
Yes :
Alick Tsui, Bob Armstrong, Christopher Mallon, Herb Langer, Hugh Brodie, Ilia Bluvshtein, Jason Lohner, John Coleman, Ken Craft, Michael Barron, Michael von Keitz, Patrick McDonald, Paul Leblanc - 13 - 44.83%
No :
Bill Evans, Egidijus Zeromskis, Ellen Nadeau, Fred McKim, Garvin Nunes, Gordon Ritchie, Halldor P. Palsson, John Erickson, Les Bunning, Mark Bluvshtein, Mark S. Dutton, I.A., Simon Ong, Stijn De Kerpel, Valer Eugen Demian, Vlad Rekhson - 15 - 51.72%
Abstain :
Eric Van Dusen - 1 - 3.45%
The motion is defeated – it has met the quorum requirement 30 voters were required to be present ( since there are 60 governors ), and there were 36.
However the motion fails to meet the enhanced 2/3 majority requirement.
It must be remembered, however, that the votes taken in this meeting are only “ straw votes “, since there is as of yet, no Handbook section that allows this kind of “ on-line “ voting by Governors.
So the motion will still now go on to the next GL or AGM voting as already scheduled, to be voted on again.
So these minutes confirm that our motion will still go on to be officially voted on in future ( since this meeting vote was only a “ straw vote “ ) – we have requested, and it has been accepted, that the motion will be on the Toronto July CFC AGM agenda.
But we must be realistic. Our motion required 19 “ Yes “ votes to pass ( 2/3 of votes cast, or 67 % ), and only got 13. ( 46% ). If we are to win the vote next time, we must find out why so many governors voted against the motion. So I will be posting an inquiry on the Governors’ Discussion Board, asking if anti-governors will advise us why they objected to the motion – are they against any type of activity rule – no forcing of governor participation? Or was it the wording of our motion ? If so, what wording amendments might they want us to consider, to get their vote? I don’t know if we will get any responses – the governors have proven not great at publicly taking positions. But it is a try to make the motion more acceptable. I’d suggest that if we get suggestions that seem good, we amend our motion and keep pursuing it in the amended form.
There is one other alternative we could consider ( but I’ll still go ahead with questioning the Governors as I said above ). That option takes into account that the governors are now going to pass a Handbook amendment, implementing the new on-line meetings. This will do away with the Governors’ Letters as we now know them. No longer will the debate on motions, and voting, take place within the GL system. So in fact our motion will be out-of-date as soon as it is passed, if the Governors also pass the on-line meeting legislation at the July AGM. It will then be necessary to think of “ activity “ as attending “ on-line meetings “. As you can see from the minutes, some governors were against “ zero tolerance “ – that would be – don’t attend the meeting; you get the boot. They saw that as too strict. But we could maybe make it non-attendance at two consecutive meetings. Maybe that would be more acceptable. And next time I’d build in an escape clause that says the President can waive the default if presented with a strong reason why the governor failed to attend two consecutive meetings ( allow for ill-health for example; or being on a massive work project that was under deadline; etc. ). But in fact I don’t recommend this option. We can do it if and when the Governors actually pass the on-line legislation. There may be some unexpected delay, and then our motion would remain relevant.
Which course would you prefer:
1. Going ahead with our current motion in an amended form? And if and when the governors implement quarterly meetings, then produce a new motion amending the activity rule ( assuming we got the first one through )?
2. Abandoning our current motion altogether, and drafting one like I have proposed, based on the assumption that quarterly meetings become the new governor decision-making system?? It would be speculative, since we won’t know for sure when the on-line meeting legislation might actually get passed. We would then simply wait and bring it on as soon as the governors passed the new on-line meeting legislation. In the meantime, there would be no activity rule at all.
Let me know.
Thanks.
Bob, Coordinator
.
Hi to All CFC Constitutional Coalition Members:
The CFC Governors held their Spring Quarterly On-line Meeting ( the first ever ) from April 8-14. On the agenda was our Motion 2010-05 – Governor Activity Rule. Here are the Minutes ( still to be approved ) on this agenda item:
# 10 – Discussion of Motion 2010-05 – Governor Activity Rule
Motion 2010-05 – Governor Activity Rule
Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Jason Lohner
There shall be added to CFC By-law # 2, a new section 23 as follows:
“ 23. Governor Inactivity Rule
Any governor, no matter whether provincial representative governor, or governor at large, including the Executive, appointees, etc., who does not vote, move/second a motion, or make a comment ( on a motion or generally ), in two consecutive Governors’ Letters, shall be removed from office, and their position shall no longer be part of a quorum until their replacement, if any. Should it happen that in a GL there are no motions for either discussion or vote, then that GL shall not be counted for the purposes of this section. Once removed, the Governor and his provincial body/appointing body shall be notified. A request that a by-election be held to fill the vacancy shall also be made to the provincial/territorial organization or that the appointing body appoint a replacement, for the balance of the removed governor’s term. "
Some felt that there had to be some penalty to non-participation by Governors – termination. But some saw the criterion in the motion as being too strict. There was also some discussion of what standard will be demanded if quarterly on-line meetings are adopted, like this one. Will zero tolerance be too strict – don’t appear for the meeting and you are terminated as a governor? A number of governors said “ zero tolerance “ would be too strict.
# 10A – Voting on Motion 2010-05 – Governor Activity Rule – Results
This motion, amending Bylaw 2, is considered a “ constitutional “ amendment: Because there is no legislation yet authorizing on-line voting, as we have done in this meeting, the vote must be treated as if it were a “ mail vote “ under section 3 ( b ) of Bylaw 3 ( it is not an “ Annual Meeting “ vote ):
BY-LAW NUMBER THREE OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA
ANNUAL MEETING AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
3. Any amendment or revision of these By-Laws;……………may be made,
(a) at any Annual Meeting of the Assembly, providing that a notice of intention to submit such matter to a vote has been received by the Secretary at least 30 days prior to the date of such Annual Meeting and has been transmitted by the Secretary to each Governor at least 14 days prior to the date of such Annual Meeting and that any resolution pertaining to such matter shall be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the votes of those present and entitled to vote, including proxy votes.
(b) at any time through a mail vote of Assembly, providing that the exact wording of such proposed amendments or revision, or of the resolution to be passed by the Board through mail vote is submitted to each Governor at least fourteen days before the expiry of the time limit specified by the President for the receipt of the votes by the Secretary, and that at least one-half of the number of votes eligible to be cast has been received by the Secretary, and there is a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes cast in favour of the proposed amendment or revision or resolution.
Abstentions shall not be included in determining whether a two-thirds majority has been attained in (a) or (b) above provided only that the number of votes cast in favour must exceed the sum of the number of votes cast against and of the number of abstentions cast.
As such, it has to meet the 50% quorum rule. As well, it must have the enhanced majority of 2/3 of the votes cast.
Results of voting:
Eligible Voters – 60
Voters Present - 36
Votes Cast -29
View Poll Results: Motion 2010-05 Instituting a new " Governor Activity Rule " Should be Adopted.
Yes :
Alick Tsui, Bob Armstrong, Christopher Mallon, Herb Langer, Hugh Brodie, Ilia Bluvshtein, Jason Lohner, John Coleman, Ken Craft, Michael Barron, Michael von Keitz, Patrick McDonald, Paul Leblanc - 13 - 44.83%
No :
Bill Evans, Egidijus Zeromskis, Ellen Nadeau, Fred McKim, Garvin Nunes, Gordon Ritchie, Halldor P. Palsson, John Erickson, Les Bunning, Mark Bluvshtein, Mark S. Dutton, I.A., Simon Ong, Stijn De Kerpel, Valer Eugen Demian, Vlad Rekhson - 15 - 51.72%
Abstain :
Eric Van Dusen - 1 - 3.45%
The motion is defeated – it has met the quorum requirement 30 voters were required to be present ( since there are 60 governors ), and there were 36.
However the motion fails to meet the enhanced 2/3 majority requirement.
It must be remembered, however, that the votes taken in this meeting are only “ straw votes “, since there is as of yet, no Handbook section that allows this kind of “ on-line “ voting by Governors.
So the motion will still now go on to the next GL or AGM voting as already scheduled, to be voted on again.
So these minutes confirm that our motion will still go on to be officially voted on in future ( since this meeting vote was only a “ straw vote “ ) – we have requested, and it has been accepted, that the motion will be on the Toronto July CFC AGM agenda.
But we must be realistic. Our motion required 19 “ Yes “ votes to pass ( 2/3 of votes cast, or 67 % ), and only got 13. ( 46% ). If we are to win the vote next time, we must find out why so many governors voted against the motion. So I will be posting an inquiry on the Governors’ Discussion Board, asking if anti-governors will advise us why they objected to the motion – are they against any type of activity rule – no forcing of governor participation? Or was it the wording of our motion ? If so, what wording amendments might they want us to consider, to get their vote? I don’t know if we will get any responses – the governors have proven not great at publicly taking positions. But it is a try to make the motion more acceptable. I’d suggest that if we get suggestions that seem good, we amend our motion and keep pursuing it in the amended form.
There is one other alternative we could consider ( but I’ll still go ahead with questioning the Governors as I said above ). That option takes into account that the governors are now going to pass a Handbook amendment, implementing the new on-line meetings. This will do away with the Governors’ Letters as we now know them. No longer will the debate on motions, and voting, take place within the GL system. So in fact our motion will be out-of-date as soon as it is passed, if the Governors also pass the on-line meeting legislation at the July AGM. It will then be necessary to think of “ activity “ as attending “ on-line meetings “. As you can see from the minutes, some governors were against “ zero tolerance “ – that would be – don’t attend the meeting; you get the boot. They saw that as too strict. But we could maybe make it non-attendance at two consecutive meetings. Maybe that would be more acceptable. And next time I’d build in an escape clause that says the President can waive the default if presented with a strong reason why the governor failed to attend two consecutive meetings ( allow for ill-health for example; or being on a massive work project that was under deadline; etc. ). But in fact I don’t recommend this option. We can do it if and when the Governors actually pass the on-line legislation. There may be some unexpected delay, and then our motion would remain relevant.
Which course would you prefer:
1. Going ahead with our current motion in an amended form? And if and when the governors implement quarterly meetings, then produce a new motion amending the activity rule ( assuming we got the first one through )?
2. Abandoning our current motion altogether, and drafting one like I have proposed, based on the assumption that quarterly meetings become the new governor decision-making system?? It would be speculative, since we won’t know for sure when the on-line meeting legislation might actually get passed. We would then simply wait and bring it on as soon as the governors passed the new on-line meeting legislation. In the meantime, there would be no activity rule at all.
Let me know.
Thanks.
Bob, Coordinator
.