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

[Jeremy Clark]

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 ?

You're not alone in your initial confusion. We discussed this as well. My own conclusion is that it's an attempt to make an end-run around the established process to call a special meeting. A vote of all VMs was never required to call the special meeting. However, the request was met with tactics to stall the matter (followed by claims that we're now close enough to the AGM for it not to matter - fancy that!), pejorative language in the email establishing the agenda ("Should Noritsyn manage" - the 'manage' is clearly meant to derisively), and general bad behaviour. This agenda item was not something we advocated for, but felt forced by Vlad's insistence on interpreting things as his own needs dictate.

[Victor Plotkin]

Before we start playing the game, we should know the rules.

1. When exactly the voting starts?
2. When exactly the voting finishes?
3. Is it a public or a secret ballot?

[Victor Itkin]

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 ?

Fred,

I like Nikolay's version better. But if take your version as the base, I would modify it as follows:

Vote NO
if you have already decided that the President should remain in office

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

ABSTAIN
if you don't know how you'd vote in the special meeting, but are tired and don't want to participate in further voting on this

[Victor Itkin]

You're not alone in your initial confusion. We discussed this as well. My own conclusion is that it's an attempt to make an end-run around the established process to call a special meeting. A vote of all VMs was never required to call the special meeting. However, the request was met with tactics to stall the matter (followed by claims that we're now close enough to the AGM for it not to matter - fancy that!), pejorative language in the email establishing the agenda ("Should Noritsyn manage" - the 'manage' is clearly meant to derisively), and general bad behaviour. This agenda item was not something we advocated for, but felt forced by Vlad's insistence on interpreting things as his own needs dictate.

Jeremy,

You are correct in your general assessment of this vote. However, we have agreed in the beginning of this thread to play by Vlad's rules and to give him a head start (he needs to win only this one Motion to stay in office, but we need to win twice in a row to remove him).

So, let's focus on the Motion's wording now.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

You're not alone in your initial confusion. We discussed this as well. My own conclusion is that it's an attempt to make an end-run around the established process to call a special meeting. A vote of all VMs was never required to call the special meeting. However, the request was met with tactics to stall the matter (followed by claims that we're now close enough to the AGM for it not to matter - fancy that!), pejorative language in the email establishing the agenda ("Should Noritsyn manage" - the 'manage' is clearly meant to derisively), and general bad behaviour. This agenda item was not something we advocated for, but felt forced by Vlad's insistence on interpreting things as his own needs dictate.

"Should Noritsyn manage to present a legal motion"
Long ago, I learned to smile at these mini insults, and to hope that readers will be able to see who is who for themselves.

Did voting member Drkulec manage to present a legal motion to kickstart the February Special Meeting though?

[Aris Marghetis]

I'll try to explain our position one more time.

There is no question that we have the right to call for a Special Meeting. We can go to a lawyer and meet the legal requirement. If there will be no vote on Motion 1 taken at this meeting, this will be exactly our next step.

But, of course, we are not sure, will the majority support Vlad's removal or not. That's why, to save everybody's time and efforts, we suggest to vote on Motion 1 at this meeting. We are already here, discussion is coming to its end, and it is easy to put this Motion for vote and see the results.

If the majority will vote in favour of Vlad, we will respect (unlike Vlad did several times) the majority decision and we will not exercise our right to call for a Special Meeting.

I hope, our position should be more clear now.

I would like to point out that some people will not base their vote solely on whether they think Vlad should be removed. Some people will consider the continuing damage of letting this situation fester, and vote for having a meeting to just resolve things. I respectfully submit it never seems to help to extend lack of clarity.

ADDED: I see that Victor Itkin has addressed this more in his recent reply to Fred.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

This is a removal attempt based in pure mischief and without a plan based simply on generalized anger. They can't articulate any complaint that can't easily be refuted by a simple examination of the facts surrounding whatever allegation of the day that they have settled on. I can live with the fact that they don't like me. They aren't the first. They won't be the last.

I am willing to continue to do my best for the CFC and I think my best is pretty good. If you really think that you would rather go in another direction, that is also fine. I will take some time off and work on other things. I will probably find other chess related organizations to expend my energies on. Three or four that come to mind are FIDE, the CMA and the Michigan Chess Association and maybe even the USCF. I will wish the CFC well and pass on everything that is currently on my plate to Fred McKim though he probably doesn't have the time to follow up on all of it. I will continue to be a voting member.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Before we start playing the game, we should know the rules.

1. When exactly the voting starts?
2. When exactly the voting finishes?
3. Is it a public or a secret ballot?

It should be a public ballot or there should be an audit of the results. The other side tried to cheat on the point of order vote last time packing the vote with at least one ineligible voter.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Jeremy,

You are correct in your general assessment of this vote. However, we have agreed in the beginning of this thread to play by Vlad's rules and to give him a head start (he needs to win only this one Motion to stay in office, but we need to win twice in a row to remove him).

So, let's focus on the Motion's wording now.

You would also have to present a valid motion.

[Victor Itkin]

This is a removal attempt based in pure mischief and without a plan based simply on generalized anger. ... I can live with the fact that they don't like me. They aren't the first. They won't be the last.

I can't speak for all our group. But my own only intention is to have the CFC President who will obey the law, respect the majority rule, and keep the CFC independent.

I don't have any personal issues with Vlad. I was voting for him at all AGMs including the last one. I supported him until he changed his management style.

I also would like to assure the Voting Members that I don't have any personal interest in Vlad's removal. I will not run for CFC President or for any other Director's position in future.