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

[Vladimir Drkulec]

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.

I think you have to be a bit more specific than that. Currently Mr. Itkine and Mr. Noritsyn are throwing a lot of irrelevancies against the wall and hoping that some of them will stick. In the case of Mr. Itkine he makes mistaken assumptions about my duties as CFC president. He does not understand fiduciary duty which requires me to do the exact opposite of what he is saying I am required to do. The fiduciary duty is not to the members of the board. The fiduciary duty is to the non-profit corporation, the CFC. I used to teach introductory finance and these concepts at university for a number of years. I understand fiduciary duty. I don't want to get too far into the weeds here but I am probably the only one who kept this fiduciary duty in mind throughout these situations. That fiduciary duty left me no other options.

Mr. Noritsyn thinks that just because someone asks me to post defamatory material about the FIDE president and I refuse that is grounds for removal. I have great respect for Mr. Bareev but I could not as CFC president post that with what it said about the FIDE president without burning all bridges which were only recently available to us because we reached out to FIDE after Mr. Bond's resignation.

[Victor Itkin]

I have 2 questions. I address these questions not to Vlad, but to the other five (at a time of the February Special meeting) CFC Directors: Egis Zeromskis, Lyle Craver, Fred McKim, Christina Tao, and Mark Dutton:

1. Did the CFC Voting Member Vladimir Drkulec submit any written requisition to the Board of Directors in order to convene the February Special meeting?
Please respond briefly, preferably in the “Yes” or “No” format.

2. Did the CFC Voting Member Vladimir Drkulec submit any written requisition to the Board of Directors in order to include into the February Special meeting’s agenda his Motion to enlarge the Executive by the addition of Patricia Gamliel as Director At Large?
Please respond briefly, preferably in the “Yes” or “No” format.

Dear CFC Directors!
Please do not shy away from a direct and honest answer to these questions. This is important for the topic under discussion.

None of the five CFC Directors answered these simple questions in 24 hours.

Isn’t disturbing? Am I the only voting member to be bothered by this?

[Victor Itkin]

I think you have to be a bit more specific than that. ... In the case of Mr. Itkine he makes mistaken assumptions about my duties as CFC president. He does not understand fiduciary duty which requires me to do the exact opposite of what he is saying I am required to do. The fiduciary duty is not to the members of the board. The fiduciary duty is to the non-profit corporation the CFC. I used to teach introductory finance and these concepts at university for a number of years. I understand fiduciary duty. I don't want to get too far into the weeds here but I am probably the only one who kept this fiduciary duty in mind throughout these situations. That fiduciary duty left me no other options.

The fiduciary duty issue was already dropped in the previous thread. The accusation in breaching CFC bylaws and NFP Act stays. We'll be more specific after receiving Director(s)' answers to my questions asked in the previous post.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

The fiduciary duty issue was already dropped in the previous thread. The accusation in breaching CFC bylaws and NFP Act stays. We'll be more specific after receiving Director(s)' answers to my questions asked in the previous post.

You don't investigate after you have launched a removal action. You cannot remove me for doing things which are within my authority whether current or recent past practice. The meeting and motions followed the same practices that we followed for the past seven and a half years.

[Jeremy Clark]

You don't investigate after you have launched a removal action. You cannot remove me for doing things which are within my authority whether current or recent past practice. The meeting and motions followed the same practices that we followed for the past seven and a half years.

I don't see where asking the executive for information is out of line. You're insistent that rules be followed to the letter to protect the CFC, but there are outstanding questions about whether or not you yourself followed the rules. Shutting down Victor's line of questioning here is simply running away from the issue.

[Victor Itkin]

You don't investigate after you have launched a removal action.

Removal action was declined by the Board of Directors.

We are now in the process of discussion before voting on your Motion 1.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

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.

I very much appreciate the help and contributions of the FQE in organizing events and contributing to the CFC's financial health as you have with the recent payment under the CFC-FQE agreement. There is a much more comprehensive arrangement which the FQE has proposed in the letter which is the subject of one of the threads in this meeting. The FQE is strong in part because of the support they receive from the Quebec government but also because of their ambitious programs some of which the CFC needs to incorporate into its own thinking.

There are some who have an uninformed hawkish demeanour on things FQE but they are not considering the larger picture. We almost did not get Canadian Olympic Committee recognition (from which flowed all the benefits of Sport Tourism Canada) because the COC was concerned about our relationship to the FQE and the reason that Quebec got only 3 voting members. My response was that this was all that they wanted. The FQE are an excellent resource for the CFC as a source of ideas and organizer energy. What we need from the FQE is their help to become a more bilingual organization. There are many measures in the letter which suggest a path forward in this regard. The problem with the issues raised by this thread is that some people for whatever reason are just intent on starting fires which we then have to waste time and energy in order to put out while having our attention diverted from the many opportunities that we have uncovered in just the last few days.

[Jeremy Clark]

I very much appreciate the help and contributions of the FQE in organizing events and contributing to the CFC's financial health as you have with the recent payment under the CFC-FQE agreement. There is a much more comprehensive arrangement which the FQE has proposed in the letter which is the subject of one of the threads in this meeting. The FQE is strong in part because of the support they receive from the Quebec government but also because of their ambitious programs some of which the CFC needs to incorporate into its own thinking.

There are some who have an uninformed hawkish demeanour on things FQE but they are not considering the larger picture. We almost did not get Canadian Olympic Committee recognition (from which flowed all the benefits of Sport Tourism Canada) because the COC was concerned about our relationship to the FQE and the reason that Quebec got only 3 voting members. My response was that this was all that they wanted. The FQE are an excellent resource for the CFC as a source of ideas and organizer energy. What we need from the FQE is their help to become a more bilingual organization. There are many measures in the letter which suggest a path forward in this regard. The problem with the issues raised by this thread is that some people for whatever reason are just intent on starting fires which we then have to waste time and energy in order to put out while having our attention diverted from the many opportunities that we have uncovered in just the last few days.

Why do you insist on this behaviour, Vlad? There's an entire separate thread for discussing consultations between the FQE and the CFC. I don't believe anyone in this thread is attacking the discussions with the FQE. In one post you tell us we shouldn't ask questions related to this thread's purpose, and in the next you drag in an unrelated matter - which has its own thread.

Please confine discussions to their relevant threads. It's entirely possible for people to be alarmed by your behaviour while also supporting current initiatives, including discussions with the FQE.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Why do you insist on this behaviour, Vlad? There's an entire separate thread for discussing consultations between the FQE and the CFC. I don't believe anyone in this thread is attacking the discussions with the FQE. In one post you tell us we shouldn't ask questions related to this thread's purpose, and in the next you drag in an unrelated matter - which has its own thread.

Please confine discussions to their relevant threads. It's entirely possible for people to be alarmed by your behaviour while also supporting current initiatives, including discussions with the FQE.

I am entitled to respond to posts within this thread whether you like the posts or not. I and not you am presiding over this meeting. You have still not answered my question on why you think that I should be removed.

[Jeremy Clark]

Of course you're allowed to respond as you wish I was merely asking if you could confine discussion to the stated topics, instead of dragging things off-topic. And yes, I did answer your question. Your behaviour in the February special meeting was abhorrent. We'd like to discuss behaviour and whether or not rules in calling the special meeting were followed, but Victor's attempts on that front have been met with you attempting to shut down the discussion.

In just the last couple of pages in this thread here you've made part of the case. Appealing to your own authority with "I'm in charge and you're not", as though that has anything to do with how irrelevant your posts are. You keep trying to drag on-topic discussions that don't favour you away from their stated topic. You know full well the reasons this motion exists at all - it was in the motion itself - your behaviour!

You brought up issues with Hal Bond yourself, and seem frustrated when none of us will engage. You warn us against defamatory statements, but bristle when we don't provide any.

Attempting to denigrate the individuals pursuing this motion does not serve you, or the CFC.