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

[Vladimir Drkulec]

The special meeting was called based on the procedure which was used in approximately the last thirty meetings over the past seven and a half years. Our working theory was that we were still using policies from the handbook which was still the policy of the CFC. Judging questions of whether my actions were proper under one set of rules while ignoring the rules we were operating under for thirty years is quite unfair. I am okay going with that theory of our operation from now on but the implications of that is that we are not bound by that bylaw in any way. I don't think that is what anyone wants. It certainly gives much more power to the executive.

[Jeremy Clark]

I remain somewhat unconvinced that an obsession with every iota of the rules when it comes to making motions, and calling special meetings with attention only to 'the way things have always been done' makes much sense. Certainly I have respect for things that have always worked, and would have had no issue with it were it not for being confronted with repeated insistence that other people follow all the rules at all times, to the smallest of detail. It gives off the appearance of playing either side when it best suits.

[Victor Itkin]

The special meeting was called based on the procedure which was used in approximately the last thirty meetings over the past seven and a half years...

Based on the CFC Archive, the previous Special Meeting (before this February) under your Presidency was held in February 2014. CFC was not yet under the NFP Act at that time.

All other meetings under your Presidency were regular Quarterly Meetings and AGMs. Unless something is missed in the Archive.

[Michael Barron]

Am I the only voting member to be bothered by this?

Victor,

For the better or worse - looks like it's the case (and I told you so...)

Better put your time and energy for something more constructive...

[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.

Another working day of this meeting is coming to an end, but there are still no answers to my two questions. Each Voting Member has the right to interpret this collective silence in his/her own way.

But the lack of an answer is also the answer. As the lawyers would say, according to the balance of probabilities, Vladimir Drkulec did not submit ANY written requisition to the Board of Directors – as required by the NFP Act and the CFC bylaw - in order to convene February Special meeting. Otherwise, some would have confirmed this long ago. It is also pretty clear from Vlad’s own posts and from the post of CFC Secretary Lyle Craver that there was no written requisition(s):

I contacted various voting members and asked them what they thought of it probably starting with Nikolay Noritsyn. I was contacted by many more voting members including Michael Barron and Ian Findlay. I asked them what they thought and most were in favour of putting it to the voting members. Five percent of the voting members can call a meeting and I had more than five percent of the voting members asking for a meeting.

Our bylaw states that 5% of the voting members can call for a special meeting. More than 5% asked for a special meeting. Blame it on the government.

By my reckoning that is three people that have requested a vote in this forum. I also request a meeting. This is well beyond the 5% threshold to call a special meeting. I hereby declare that we shall have a special meeting Sunday February 21, 2021 through Thursday February 25, 2021.

Thus I conclude that holding a poll on the best way to replace Hal Bond and acting on the result of the poll is outside the specifications of our bylaws.

I have multiple times in e-mails described this as "Playing Fischer Random with the Handbook"

I have been making this point several times in private e-mails with the executive since the resignation of Mr. Bond. And there was a solid consensus on the Executive for a candidate.

That's all I'm willing to say since being on the Executive does require some discretion but there's no question I am far from the only irate Director at this point.

If the absence of a written requisition for convening the February Special meeting is not refuted before the voting on Motion 1, I will consider it to be circumstantial evidence of the CFC President’s gross violation of the NFP Act and of his abuse of power when calling the February meeting.

I believe that this reason alone is sufficient to justify the need to remove Vladimir Drkulec from office.

Moreover, while he did not produce any written requisition for the February Special meeting, in a similar situation he found fault with supposedly some bureaucratic nuances in Nikolay’s written requisition which no one has yet bothered to name specifically.

During the February Special meeting, there were other – less significant – violations on the part of Vlad, but there is no point of wasting time on their discussion (unless the absence of written requisition(s) for the February Special meeting is refuted).

[Victor Plotkin]

I don't want to sound as though I know the NFP and CFC Handbook better than the President, but I am certain that many violations relating to the election of Patricia Gamliel were committed before and during the voting process.

[Patricia Gamliel]

The only violation I witnessed during the said voting process was much more serious than a bylaw or a law: It was a Canadian Charter violation. It was stated that a woman (me) who is proposed for election should not be elected because the only part of her short bio that should noticeable is her motherhood. Not her extended professional knowledge, her wide and long term experience with non-profit organisations that she could bring to the CFC community. No: It was her being a mother that was stated as a reason not to vote her in, to join the board. Parenthood would have never been raised if a man would have been up for a vote, that is sure!

[Vladimir Drkulec]

The only violation I witnessed during the said voting process was much more serious than a bylaw or a law: It was a Canadian Charter violation. It was stated that a woman (me) who is proposed for election should not be elected because the only part of her short bio that should noticeable is her motherhood. Not her extended professional knowledge, her wide and long term experience with non-profit organisations that she could bring to the CFC community. No: It was her being a mother that was stated as a reason not to vote her in, to join the board. Parenthood would have never been raised if a man would have been up for a vote, that is sure!

This statement which you are referring to was offensive. I received several complaints about this statement from women voting members and female CFC members. There were several statements made in the meeting which were offensive. We need more women involved in chess as players, arbiters, voting members and members of the board. People need to be educated on what is acceptable in a just society, unfortunately.

In addition, at least one ineligible person was allowed to cast a vote in support of the motion to overrule the chairperson on the point of order ruling.

I have not checked the validity of the other votes but I believe that votes should be public or at the very least should be checked carefully for ineligible voters.

[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

In my view you have to show more than a disagreement. You have to spell out the misconduct or show some type of malfeasance. You have not done this.
Les Bunning

[Victor Plotkin]

The only violation I witnessed during the said voting process was much more serious than a bylaw or a law: It was a Canadian Charter violation. It was stated that a woman (me) who is proposed for election should not be elected because the only part of her short bio that should noticeable is her motherhood. Not her extended professional knowledge, her wide and long term experience with non-profit organisations that she could bring to the CFC community. No: It was her being a mother that was stated as a reason not to vote her in, to join the board. Parenthood would have never been raised if a man would have been up for a vote, that is sure!

During the meeting, I didn't participate in discussions about your election/appointment. Honestly, I was just too busy with another election. So your post is already wrong, or at least misleading. But let's take a look at what I actually said. "Patricia was never involved in CFC. She has 3 kids playing chess... Good for her. My wife also has 3 kids playing chess, so what? (And a husband)."

What does this mean? I didn't see it fit to elect her not because she is a mother, that's great, but actually because she has never been involved with the CFC and being an expert in other matters was not a good enough reason for me to deem her qualified.

I would also like to note that I fail to see any violations of the Canadian Charter. In fact, what I found truly offensive was you comparing yourself to my wife in a degrading manner and also your disrespectful comments about a strong chess player, (during the Director's meeting) only because he is involved with the removal of the CFC President.