Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 127

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

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The final count is either 5 to 1 or 4 to 1 with one abstention. Consensus achieved

    Emails lower down are earlier in the thread.

    Lyle Craver

    Fri 2021-01-22 11:35 AM


    To: CFC Board; CFC office

    I certainly do not object to literary references and do get most of them.

    If the caveat was up front then all right. I'll let this slide but I say again to me this whole affair seems to be 'gaming the system' and I am quite uncomfortable when this sort of thing happens.

    So I gather the consensus is that we let this one go and let FIDE deal with it. With regret I tend to agree.

    I can see there are multiple agendas going on here particularly above the CFC level though I don't pretend to fully understand the ins and outs of this. Haven't decided whether to hold my nose and vote for this or abstain (am leaning to the latter)


    All my best, LC


    On 1/22/2021 12:23 AM, Vladimir Drkulec wrote:

    The caveat was right at the beginning in the title of the application. It was there from the very beginning in both versions of the application that were sent to me at the same time they were sent to Hal.

    Hal is not an idiot but he is not acting in a fully rational way. Anger is very taxing on the individual feeling that anger. There are layers of agendas being served here.

    People on the FIDE arbiters commission wanted Canada to expose itself to possibly dire consequences to spare them the embarrassment of denying this petition. ( Lets you and them fight.) Any decent lawyer would rip us to shreds because of the animus exhibited in certain emails. We do not have a problem in Canada.

    There is no reason that we should create a problem of many different levels in Canada when there is no need. This will be decided on the merits by people higher up the ladder.

    In investigating the backstory, I am somewhat annoyed at the perception of Canada as a troublemaker who is always splashing around in the FIDE pool. Their feeling is that the Anton Kovalyov situation was all our fault. My feeling is that they owe us a future 2700 player to make up for the one we lost in Anton. Mind you this occurred under the last FIDE administration but most of the same people are in place on the arbiter commission side. The current administration did try to fix it.

    I will take the hit for this if there is a hit for it.

    There is always the opportunity for self-destruction. See the fictional outcome for Javert in Les Miserables and Captain Ahab in Moby Dick.

    There is no way anyone could have seen the sudden turn over a cliff in this situation. Hal is not destroyed. He is not going to disappear from the chess scene. He simply decided that he did not want to deal with our decision not to rubber stamp his previous decision. He greatly over-reacted in the exchange with Mark.

    XXXXXXX is not an all seeing Moriarity. I'm really piling on with the literary villains and anti-heroes but in fiction is truth that real life often obscures.

    Vlad




    From: Lyle Craver
    Sent: January 22, 2021 1:30 AM
    To: CFC Board of directors and CFC Office
    Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application


    The single reason I am not at this time ADAMANTLY opposed to this is the part about not taking effect till her 5th IA anniversary.
    The whole thing seems too sketchy by half and I'm uncomfortable with it.
    In particular (and yes I'm shouting here) WHEN WAS THE CAVEAT MADE?
    Because I don't think Hal is an idiot and it would be idiotic to have resigned had that clause been IN THE OPEN FROM THE BEGINNING!
    What I think is a far more credible explanation is that a certain member of the applicant's household saw this as an opportunity to destroy Hal and slipped that clause in AFTER Hal resigned due to his perceived lack of support from the board. Maybe I'm being paranoid here but given past dealings between them to me that's a _very_ credible explanation. So PLEASE Mr President - when was that specific clause inserted - when did YOU first become aware of this. To me this is critical information as a highly respected member of the chess community has taken a very strong action based on the application and whatever else I am a happy camper I am NOT.
    I trust I make myself sufficiently clear to all of you.

    At this point I am extremely angry with how this matter has been pursued. LC


    On 1/21/2021 2:40 PM, Christina Tao wrote:

    I agree we should put this application forward.

    Thanks
    Christina


    On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 17:33, Fred McKim wrote:

    I am willing to let it go forward.




    From: Vladimir Drkulec
    Sent: January 21, 2021 5:53 PM
    To: CFC Board of Directors and CFC Office
    Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application


    It should be noted that she is not asking to jump the queue as the application is pending on serving the requisite time so it would not take effect until she had served five years. Apparently, FIDE is doing this in lots of situations like with the arbiters under the age of 21 as they changed the age requirement from 18 to 21 with some young arbiters having already achieved norms. There would be a decision saying that the upgrade would be awarded upon having served the requisite five years time as an IA without going inactive.


    Someone on the arbiters commission would like this squelched according to XXXX but apparently the arbiters commission are not the ones that decide whether this application succeeds or not. They only recommend one way or another. The decision is made at a higher pay grade.

    Mark's observation that we should not be the gatekeeper that prevents Canadians from proceeding with upgrading their credentials coincides with my belief. If we ever want to host a larger tournament or world event, like an olympiad, it would be a good idea to have more higher category arbiters.

    On a separate note, I really need to register some level of opposition to the proposed new arbiter guidelines which could remove every one of our arbiters off the table for inactivity by the end of this year if Covid drags out. Tomorrow is the deadline for submissions.

    Right now it seems to me that sentiment is 3 (Mark, Fred and myself) to 2 (Lyle and Egis) to move this application forward. I may be misreading the room a bit as at first I thought Lyle might be trending to approve it. Am I correct in my assessment.




    From: Fred McKim
    Sent: January 19, 2021 7:29 PM
    To: CFC board of directors
    Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application


    Thanks for the detailed rationale Vlad. While I think we all know that Hal won't be happy with this, it would seem that our best move is to let it go forward and see how things play out.




    From: Vladimir Drkulec
    Sent: January 19, 2021 7:27 PM
    To: CFC Board of Directors
    Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application


    There is no implication that Hal has done anything incorrectly or that he has even come to the wrong conclusion.

    The only thing we are doing is avoiding unnecessary litigation and political embarrassment with the COC and the media.

    It is XXXXXX making this application.

    Aris is a very good friend of mine who I very much respect as an arbiter and was head arbiter in all of the large tournaments which I have been involved in organizing and probably all large tournaments which I will organize in the future but this is not really something where he can shed additional light on the situation unless you are trying to support a pre-determined outcome.

    Aris really doesn't want to get involved in this.

    The problem with both Hal and Aris is that in the event this application is passed on and is successful this results in more competition for arbiting gigs.

    There is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. If this should wind up in a court, that would probably play a role.

    If we involve Aris at this point then we recuse him from the NAC if this is somehow moved to that body.

    According to XXXX's email she argues that it is not our job to act as the gatekeeper for such requests but rather to move them forward. If we move this forward, the AC says no and this leads to litigation then the litigation will take place in a Swiss court and won't involve the CFC because we pushed it forward as much as we could. The rule is poorly written, and I recently read an article about lawsuits that went on for many years for want of a comma. There is even a story told by XXXXXXXXX about why he stopped being a lawyer because of a comma. XXXXXX's interpretation is at the very least plausible. If you want, you can blame it on me for any loss of face at the FIDE Arbiter Commission.



    Vlad


    From: Egis Zeromskis
    Sent: January 19, 2021 2:01 PM
    To:Board of Directors
    Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application


    Yes, we can ask Aris opinion too.

    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 04-14-2021 at 11:12 PM.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    The final count is either 5 to 1 or 4 to 1 with one abstention. Consensus achieved
    The "consensus" can not be used in the CFC decisions as it is not in its ByLaws.

    Act:
    "Meaning of consensus, etc.

    (2) By-laws that provide for consensus decision-making shall define the meaning of consensus, provide for how to determine when consensus cannot be reached and establish the manner of referring any matter on which consensus cannot be reached to a vote."[/I]


    Instead the CFC has this

    "Votes to Govern at Meetings of the Board of Directors

    At all meetings of the board, every question shall be decided by a majority of the votes cast on the question. In case of an equality of votes, the chair of the meeting in addition to an original vote shall have a second or casting vote
    ."

    It might look like a formality to finish the discussion with the vote but it is an important one.
    .*-1

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    The "consensus" can not be used in the CFC decisions as it is not in its ByLaws.

    Act:
    "Meaning of consensus, etc.

    (2) By-laws that provide for consensus decision-making shall define the meaning of consensus, provide for how to determine when consensus cannot be reached and establish the manner of referring any matter on which consensus cannot be reached to a vote."[/I]


    Instead the CFC has this

    "Votes to Govern at Meetings of the Board of Directors

    At all meetings of the board, every question shall be decided by a majority of the votes cast on the question. In case of an equality of votes, the chair of the meeting in addition to an original vote shall have a second or casting vote
    ."

    It might look like a formality to finish the discussion with the vote but it is an important one.
    Regardless, this is the method that we have used for every decision for some time. Any reasonable person would be of the opinion that the vote was either 5 to 1 or possibly 4 to 1 with one abstention. You can slice and dice any which way you want it was quite reasonable of me to assume that it was the will of the executive that I proceed as I did. I await your next serve which I will similarly bat right back across the net at you.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Regardless, this is the method that we have used for every decision for some time. Any reasonable person would be of the opinion that the vote was either 5 to 1 or possibly 4 to 1 with one abstention. You can slice and dice any which way you want it was quite reasonable of me to assume that it was the will of the executive that I proceed as I did.
    You can tell that it was supported but you shall not tell that it was voted on.

    I hope the practice will be eliminated and we all follow the bylaws.
    .*-1

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Regardless, this is the method that we have used for every decision for some time. Any reasonable person would be of the opinion that the vote was either 5 to 1 or possibly 4 to 1 with one abstention. You can slice and dice any which way you want it was quite reasonable of me to assume that it was the will of the executive that I proceed as I did. I await your next serve which I will similarly bat right back across the net at you.
    You are a very difficult person to converse. Egis raised a relatively minor point:

    "Directors' opinions on the matter not equals their votes on the resolution. The properly passed resolution binds all directors unless the dissent is submitted by the director voting against."

    You choose to engage, (while ignoring other, larger points made by Victor Itkin and Jeremy Clark above) you post pages upon pages of private emails, which may or not be interesting to outsiders but are largely irrelevant to Egis' point.

    After all that, of course, the objection still stands. I guess the hope is maybe it gets forgotten with all the information being thrown out? Evade, ignore, distract.
    Last edited by Nikolay Noritsyn; 04-14-2021 at 05:54 PM.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Noritsyn View Post
    You are a very difficult person to converse. Egis raised a relatively minor point:

    "Directors' opinions on the matter not equals their votes on the resolution. The properly passed resolution binds all directors unless the dissent is submitted by the director voting against."

    You choose to engage, (while ignoring other, larger points made by Victor Itkin and Jeremy Clark above) you post pages upon pages of private emails, which may or not be interesting to outsiders but are largely irrelevant to Egis' point.

    After all that, of course, the objection still stands. I guess the hope is maybe it gets forgotten with all the information being thrown out? Evade, ignore, distract.
    Yes, I am a difficult person because I can show when someone is prevaricating because I have all the information about what we did and why we did it at my fingertips. If I was not a difficult person you guys would eat me for breakfast.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    You can tell that it was supported but you shall not tell that it was voted on.

    I hope the practice will be eliminated and we all follow the bylaws.
    It was voted upon as can be seen in that thread and as we have done with every other question in the last 7.5 years.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default Understanding the Motion

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    Can someone explain the motion to me ?

    If I understand this correctly we are being asked whether a Special Meeting should be called if the Noritsyn call for a meeting can be legally presented ? Am I missing something here, because if they are able to legally call a meeting why would we vote NO to having it ? Voting Yes only implies that they have met the legal requirement, not how you would vote at the meeting - or am I way off here ??
    OK. Here is my present understanding of the vote -- which is kind of like a straw poll

    Vote NO
    a) if you have already decided that the President should remain in office
    or
    b) if you don't know how you'd vote in the special meeting, but are tired of this and are just happy for it to go away

    Vote YES
    a) if you have already decided that the President should be removed from office
    or
    b) if you don't know how you'd vote at the moment, and want to see how the special meeting goes before deciding.

    I'm still not particularly happy with the wording of this motion ..........

    Comments ?
    Last edited by Fred McKim; 04-14-2021 at 06:49 PM.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    "Right now it seems to me that sentiment is 3 (Mark, Fred and myself) to 2 (Lyle and Egis) to move this application forward. I may be misreading the room a bit as at first I thought Lyle might be trending to approve it. Am I correct in my assessment."

    According to the President, "sentiment" and "may be misreading the room a bit" counts as a properly executed "vote" (not opinion).

    By the way, points made earlier today and yesterday by Victor Itkin and Jeremy Clark are still ignored - or prevaricated, if you prefer.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    OK. Here is my present understanding of the vote -- which is kind of like a straw poll

    Vote NO
    a) if you have already decided that the President should remain in office
    or
    b) if you don't know how you'd vote in the special meeting, but are tired of this and are just happy for it to go away

    Vote YES
    a) if you have already decided that the President should be removed from office
    or
    b) if you don't know how you'd vote at the moment, and want to see how the special meeting goes before deciding.

    I'm still not happy at all with the wording of this motion .......... Comments ?
    This particular motion was out over a month ago. As soon as the President posted it, our criticism was made public.

    "4. We believe that Vlad’s Motion to vote at the Spring Quarterly Meeting is not legal. As noted above, this issue (whether or not to convene a Special Meeting) cannot be the subject of a vote – the law does not provide such an opportunity. This is a gross procedural violation, and much more serious than was committed at the February meeting (which is what was one of the reasons for our call to remove President from office). We respectfully urge Vlad to remove his Motion from the agenda of the Spring Quarterly Meeting. This topic may be discussed there within Section 5A but shouldn’t be put to a vote in the Section 5B. We would recommend Vlad to obtain independent legal advice on this subject, and not from the CFC lawyer, who may have a conflict of interest in this situation. If Vlad’s Motion is put to a vote at the Spring Quarterly Meeting, the voting results will be void ab initio, and they will not be legally binding. Members of our group will consider such a vote as an abuse of office (malpractice) and as a deliberate infliction of damage to the CFC with all the ensuing consequences."

    I think its a little late to discuss the absurdity of the wording of this motion.

    Vote NO

    - if you think the issues raised in this thread are insignificant and there is not enough reason to consider removing the President from office

    Vote YES

    - if you think the issues raised in this thread are significant and give enough reason to consider removing the President from office.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 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
  •