5A1 Noritsyn, Itkin et al campaign to remove the CFC president

[Les Bunning]

I have not followed this matter in detail but the call to remove the president did not provide any reason why. If a valid reason was given then it should be debated and yoted on by the voting members otherwise it should wait until the annual meeting where the position of president can be contested.
Les Bunning

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

I have not followed this matter in detail but the call to remove the president did not provide any reason why. If a valid reason was given then it should be debated and yoted on by the voting members otherwise it should wait until the annual meeting where the position of president can be contested.
Les Bunning

Hi Les,

If you take a look at the pdf of the motion, the very first sentence reads

"Whereas the president's conduct in the February 2021 Special Meeting of Voting Members calls into question his ability to continue carrying out his duties as President" ...

I agree, this of course should be debated and vote upon (at the requested Special Meeting).

Best Regards,
Nikolay

[Roger Langen]

The entire conversation, on this occasion as in the last, does not inspire confidence.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Vlad, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up partially fictitious past events which have absolutely nothing to do with you or your conduct as CFC President. So beyond this one paragraph, I'm not going to respond to any of it - unless you want to continue defaming me by blaming me for the loss of the CFC's charitable status, in which case I might go speak with a lawyer myself. I believe Kevin Spraggett's blog is the appropriate location for unfounded conspiracy theories.

I am not blaming you for the loss of charitable status. I am pointing out that you presided over the CFC when there were irregularities in giving receipts for charitable donations for transactions that were not charitable donations. Now I don't claim that this was your fault though if you really want to make an issue of it I could ask Revenue Canada to supply all correspondence from this period. I have talked to a number of people about this situation over the years and have a general idea of what happened. I notice that you were careful not to deny the portion of my statement that actually could be construed as defamatory if untrue and chose to concentrate on the portion about the eventual consequences of the poor management of the CFC at the time. The CFC chose to not challenge the ruling over loss of charitable status because there had not been very many charitable donations which would justify fighting to keep that status though it would be nice to have that status now as I am pretty sure that we could do very well soliciting donations if we were a charity still. Your tenure may have driven a nail or two into that coffin but there were lots of nails in that coffin and it was a decision based on the cost/benefit analysis appropriate to the time. We are likely to try to revive that status or something closely akin to it. I have been through such a lawsuit and have a pretty good idea of what is and isn't defamation except in Quebec where everything is defamatory even if true. I have talked to lots of people about this situation including Hal Bond, Michael von Keitz, and several others who are well acquainted with what transpired. It is water under the bridge but you too should not be giving any high and mighty lectures on governance when you live in a glass house.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

With respect to what transpired at the last special meeting my participation was hobbled by Bell Canada digging and installing fibre internet cable in my neighbourhood and cutting my Cogeco internet cable. I was offline several times, once more than a day over the course of the meeting. I did make requests and provide instructions as to how the vote should be conducted which were not followed probably because emails were not read on a timely basis or perhaps did not arrive as some of the internet outages were abrupt as cutting a cable tends to be.

[Patricia Gamliel]

It’s true that the Board of Directors of the CFC has an important role to play. It must ensure that the organization is well managed, that laws are upheld and that high standards of transparency and integrity are applied, but its role goes well beyond this fiduciary responsibility. The directors actively contribute to the development of the organization’s long-term vision. This vision should appear in a strategic plan. The directors are involved not only in preparing, developing and implementing the planning process, but also in monitoring its implementation. From the perspective of democratic governance, the members’ participation in defining the organization’s orientations is crucial. As such, the Board of Directors should, where necessary, establish consultation practices that encourage such participation.

In that regard, the FQE is very pleased with the recent meetings between both CFC and FQE Presidents. Other CFC Directors should take notice of the importance of those consultations.

Thank you for redirecting this forum to its real goals. There is so many important items to deal with. I welcome the positive advancement of Chess through these consultations.

[Jeremy Clark]

Thank you for redirecting this forum to its real goals. There is so many important items to deal with. I welcome the positive advancement of Chess through these consultations.

In a thread made specifically to discuss this motion, you welcome redirecting this discussion to another topic - one that already has its own thread? Meanwhile, in the thread dedicated to that discussion, Vlad is bringing up the topic of THIS thread.

[Aris Marghetis]

Originally Posted by Patricia Gamliel
Thank you for redirecting this forum to its real goals. There is so many important items to deal with. I welcome the positive advancement of Chess through these consultations.

In a thread made specifically to discuss this motion, you welcome redirecting this discussion to another topic - one that already has its own thread? Meanwhile, in the thread dedicated to that discussion, Vlad is bringing up the topic of THIS thread.

My goodness Jeremy, one of the best posts EVER --- now I gotta clean up the coffee I laugh-sprayed all over my desk LOL

[Vladimir Drkulec]

In a thread made specifically to discuss this motion, you welcome redirecting this discussion to another topic - one that already has its own thread? Meanwhile, in the thread dedicated to that discussion, Vlad is bringing up the topic of THIS thread.

This thread is for the topic of whether it is a good idea to remove me. Why do you want to remove me?

I understand that you are friendly with Hal Bond and I would very much caution you that you should refrain from making defamatory statements based only on what you have heard from him. I have very carefully gone through all of the correspondence that was exchanged around the time of the FIDE election and also the emails that I sent which show my understanding of the situation. I have discussed and shared some of these with FIDE president Arkady Dvorkovich. People are making allegations that are not based on evidence but only inferences and anonymous sources who, in some cases, are lying.

I would suggest that everyone give at least as much attention to some of the other threads particularly the FQE letter which could be very significant for the future progress of chess in Canada. The Sport Tourism Canada thread is very significant to our future prospects post-pandemic.

[Jeremy Clark]

This thread is for the topic of whether it is a good idea to remove me. Why do you want to remove me?

I understand that you are friendly with Hal Bond and I would very much caution you that you should refrain from making defamatory statements based only on what you have heard from him. I have very carefully gone through all of the correspondence that was exchanged around the time of the FIDE election and also the emails that I sent which show my understanding of the situation. I have discussed and shared some of these with FIDE president Arkady Dvorkovich. People are making allegations that are not based on evidence but only inferences and anonymous sources who, in some cases, are lying.

I would suggest that everyone give at least as much attention to some of the other threads particularly the FQE letter which could be very significant for the future progress of chess in Canada. The Sport Tourism Canada thread is very significant to our future prospects post-pandemic.

I didn't diminish the importance of the discussions with FQE. I merely pointed out that Patricia Gamliel 'welcomed' redirecting the discussion of the topic of this thread to another, while that other topic has its own thread. And in the thread regarding FQE consultations, you referenced the campaign to remove you as president, as though the two cannot happen at the same time.

Along with Nikolay and Victor, I reference your behaviour in the recent special meeting as adequate grounds for your removal. Your behaviour here has not distinguished you any further. You bring up irrelevancies from the past of others in some misguided attempt to defend yourself.