Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 127

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

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Chairman Freyd asked me to withdraw the application. I declined to do so based on the previous decision of the CFC board.
    So, the President obeys the CFC Board's decisions when he likes them, and ignores Board's decisions when he doesn't.

    Given these rules, why does the CFC need a Board of Directors at all?

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    Those were two different applications by two different persons.
    I understand that. Each of these 2 applications was filed 4 years early.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    President, on what grounds have you started to release directors' communications publicly? The head of the organization shall be the example how to act. Shall I start picking cherries?
    When members of the board start commenting on board matters they are the ones that have pierced board confidentiality. Releasing the actual emails shows the truth of what happened rather letting people fill the spaces with conjecture. Lots of legal cases to support my interpretation. At this point I am free to release anything as pertains to Hal Bond and this situation without ethical concerns. You can't pretend that I did not proceed with board knowledge and demand I meekly accept my fate while people continue to spin what actually happened.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Itkin View Post
    I understand that. Each of these 2 applications was filed 4 years early.
    Nope. One was many years ago, other only in December. Clearer?
    .*-1

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    When members of the board start commenting on board matters they are the ones that have pierced board confidentiality. Releasing the actual emails shows the truth of what happened rather letting people fill the spaces with conjecture. Lots of legal cases to support my interpretation. At this point I am free to release anything as pertains to Hal Bond and this situation without ethical concerns. You can't pretend that I did not proceed with board knowledge and demand I meekly accept my fate while people continue to spin what actually happened.
    There were hundreds of emails sent and received between board members.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    When members of the board start commenting on board matters they are the ones that have pierced board confidentiality. Releasing the actual emails shows the truth of what happened rather letting people fill the spaces with conjecture. Lots of legal cases to support my interpretation. At this point I am free to release anything as pertains to Hal Bond and this situation without ethical concerns. You can't pretend that I did not proceed with board knowledge and demand I meekly accept my fate while people continue to spin what actually happened.
    You're the chair who keeps this house on a fire.

    But, one point -- there was no vote on the Diana Tsypina's application what so ever. The discussion was still going on when Hal Bond resigned and even afterwords. You were shooting down requests for outside evaluation of the application. You've submitted the application without putting the question to directors to vote on. And now you're writing that the board voted. Nope, it did not.

    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.
    .*-1

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    One manipulation... one misleading information... another manipulation. Enough is enough.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    One manipulation... one misleading information... another manipulation. Enough is enough.
    Indeed. Another example of requiring the rules be followed in every detail when that achieves a desired outcome, and ignoring them (and then putting out misleading statements in defense) when they don't suit.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    You're the chair who keeps this house on a fire.

    But, one point -- there was no vote on the Diana Tsypina's application what so ever. The discussion was still going on when Hal Bond resigned and even afterwords. You were shooting down requests for outside evaluation of the application. You've submitted the application without putting the question to directors to vote on. And now you're writing that the board voted. Nope, it did not.

    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.
    Finally, the Directors got involved in the discussion. Thank you.

    Better late than never.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Bérubé View Post
    Hi Lyle,

    My reeding of the period 1979-83 when the FQE was desaffiliated by the CFC is quite different, but let the past be the past. It’ more important to look forward. The Motion to be voted is according to me irrelevant and a lost of time since elections are coming soon. It’s more important to prepare the AGM properly.
    My motion was submitted on March 2nd, and the Special Meeting could have happened already, many months before the AGM, however, to quote Fred McKim:

    "It was the choice of the Executive not to help the members, by discussing the deficiencies with them. While I don't support the removal of the President, at the time of our meeting I was disappointed with how we handled this, as it simply seemed to be throwing up roadblocks/technicalities to fully resolving this and begin a healing process."

    The issue of electing a new FIDE Representative was deemed to be an urgent, important issue. As well, we have elected Patricia Gamliel and enlarged the executive by one person, instead of waiting for the AGM. Surely, you would agree that the issue of the President's behaviour and troubles with following the law are just as, if not more important, to deal with urgently without waiting for the AGM (and not at all irrelevant).

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •