Point of order resolution

[Michael Lo]

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.

This is not a matter of better or worse, it is a matter of right or wrong - breaking rules or not. I would like to request for a ruling on whether the two voting - "Motion to enlarge the Executive" and "Point of order resolution" are legitimate. Based on the following:

1) For the Motion on the Point of Interest, here is no clear & unambiguous description of what is being voted on.

2) Should a motion for Appeal and should be dealt with prior to the vote on the main motion. I am not an expert in the Roberts Rules of Order. Lyle, please clarify.

3) If a motion for Appeal can happen simultaneous with the main motion, and the voting for the motion for Appeal happened later (in this case about 2 hours later) than the voting of the main motion, is this out of order? In those two hours, voters may wonder whether there will be a voting on motion for Appeal and may affect their vote on the main motion. Again, Lyle, please clarify.

If the above is not the proper procedure to request for a ruling, please guild me through the proper procedure.

I will state again that I do not have any objection to Patricia Gamliel be elected as a Director At Large, but I am very concern on the whether the process is legitimate. The core foundation to have CFC operate smoothly is to operate according to the bylaws and relevant rules (e.g. the Roberts Rules of Order for things that are not covered by the bylaws). If we start to break rules, we are heading into a dangerous path of operating without rules. Not to mention that the current issue on hand is not even urgent and, IMHO, should not even be resolved in a special meeting. Handling this issue in a special meeting may not have broken any rule, but definitely is against normal practice, and should be strongly discouraged. Otherwise, we will be setting precedence and, in the future, people may call for special meetings on items that are not urgent and have no significant impact on CFC.

I would also like to point out that the "Motion to enlarge the Executive" has bundled two issues in one which should be, again IMHO, discuss and vote separately. First is the enlargement of the Executive, which on its own has pros and cons, and different options of enlargement - zero, one or two more directors. Second is how Patricia Gamliel should be elected as an Executive - through the President's recommendation of a single candidate and vote by the VMs, or through the normal practice of being nominated, and compete fairly with other nominees (if any) and be elected in the AGM. By bundling the two issues into one motion, it is not clear to voters on how to vote if say, one would like to enlarge the Executive but would like Patricia Gamliel to be nominated and elected at the AGM. Preferably, it would make it much easier and clearer if this is separated into two motions.

My 2 cents,
Michael