Originally Posted by
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.
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
Originally Posted by
Vladimir Drkulec
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.
Originally Posted by
Christopher Mallon
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...
Originally Posted by
Christopher Mallon
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.
Originally Posted by
Egidijus Zeromskis
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