Vlad, where do you get such things for "a meeting with the support of a director"? Directors don't need to support the requisition for the special meeting. They need to obey Act and Bylaws. The initial requisition lacked details. It was communicated to the Noritsyn etc, however for the fact it was done after he submitted his second request. There was even the third one.
Vlad, you're misleading members with this question. The request was put on "agenda" to be discussed on the following boards meeting, and you know better how that meeting has not happened at all. The meeting what happened later was in principle too late (21 day has passed).
.*-1
Again, clarifications here would be great: A member can bring up a motion.
Any motion must follow a specific format and content. Sufficient to say that these requirements are established by the law
enacted by Parliament.
Up to this minute, neither the original motion or its subsequent amendments are valid. The Board of directors of the CFC have considered carefully the original motion and found that it did not respect either the format and / or the content of the law. Its following amendments were similarly flawed and, therefore, did not deserve further discussion.
As for whatever I read here until now, I respectfully submit that the whole effort of a motion remains blurry with regard to legal standard. Unless people start reading the Act (it is bilingual), there is no motion on the floor.
Last edited by Patricia Gamliel; 04-12-2021 at 12:20 AM.
How can you mislead with a question?
He does not get to pepper the board with motions which are continually being edited while continuing to ignore the requirements. At a certain point it becomes harassment.
The 21 day time limit became irrelevant when a meeting was called and notification for that meeting took place. There was nothing in the amended motion which addressed the deficiencies in the motion which we discussed in the first and the second zoom meeting of the board. This thread is going to be very long if I have to repeat myself. We are discussing the merits of removal. I would suggest that they have not made their case.
Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 04-12-2021 at 02:46 AM.
From Vlad's initial post "Everyone should refrain from making defamatory statements about anyone as many lawyers have already been consulted and this and many related situations may result in litigation".
I fully agree with the first part (about defamatory statements). However, I do have a serious problem with the second part (about lawyers and litigation). I think, everything should remain inside the "chess circle" (CFC, CMA, FQE, FIDE).
Very likely, I will not give my support to a person who starts a legal action or even just make a threats to do so for achieving his goals. Most likely, I will use my personal vote and my influence against him.
At this moment it is insufficient, is Nikolay's motion valid or not. This meeting is already underway, and we officially confirmed that we agree to play by the rules proposed by Vlad (even though we have some reservations regarding these rules).
Vlad proposed his own Motion, which is included in section 5B of this meeting's agenda as Motion 1. The vote on this Motion should take place soon.
We did not hear directly from Christina Tao yet, if she is willing to second the Motion 1. In order to speed up the process, and to make sure that the vote on the Motion 1 will take place at this meeting,
I SECOND VLAD's MOTION.
I'm asking. You might answer as well -- where does the Non for profit Act set requirements for the motion of the removal like charges or whatever shall be in the motion? If it is not in the Act, please provide other Act/Law where it would have a process (procedure) of the removal of the director of the non for profit organization.
I'm a chess player -- I want to see variations, not just the evaluation of the position
.*-1