Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: 9. Any other business

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    Where will we do that?
    Right here. It is new business.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post

    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)
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Apparently back on the original thread.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    25

    Default

    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?

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy Clark View Post
    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
    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
    Last edited by Pierre Dénommée; 02-23-2021 at 09:19 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    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?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy Clark View Post
    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.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    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?)

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •