View Poll Results: On the appeal to overturn the chair's ruling I vote:

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    22 50.00%
  • Yes

    20 45.45%
  • Abstain

    2 4.55%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Point of order resolution

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,886
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Point of order resolution

    The chair ruling on the point of order should be over-ruled.


    EDIT: Not my opinion, just what we are voting on.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 02-24-2021 at 08:42 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,221
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    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!

    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I second the motion to appeal.
    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..
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,662

    Default

    This poll does not make sense if other 6. "THE VOTING BOOTH" Motion to enlarge the Executive" is going on simultaneously.
    .*-1

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,120
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    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"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    101

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,662

    Default

    The motion is doubled sided:

    INCREASE THE BOARD

    ELECT

    That why it was called out of order.
    .*-1

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    101

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd Lombard View Post
    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.
    .*-1

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    103

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,886
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd Lombard View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •