Right here. It is new business.
Printable View
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Apparently back on the original thread.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFP Law
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?
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.
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?)