Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 127

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

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    While they can they are not required. Especially the each and every one as you write.

    For the proposal to get on the notice:

    "(a) state the nature of that business in sufficient detail to permit a member to form a reasoned judgment on the business;"



    The persons submitting the motion could discuss during the meeting but that would be far from statements.

    Only the director who is under the question of removal may submit the statement opposing the removal.

    Statement of director

    131 (1) Subject to the by-laws, a director is entitled to submit to the corporation a written statement giving reasons for resigning or for opposing the removal or replacement of the director if a meeting is called for that purpose.

    Circulating statement

    (2) A corporation shall immediately give notice to the members of the statement in the manner referred to in section 162.

    Statement to Director

    (3) A corporation shall immediately send a copy of the statement to the Director.



    (FYI: Director here is a special Government one.)

    They have to make a clear statement of the charges. Violations of Roberts Rules of Order do not necessarily make the cut.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    They have to make a clear statement of the charges. Violations of Roberts Rules of Order do not necessarily make the cut.
    Where have you found the requirement for charges?
    .*-1

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    There are additional requirements for removal of a director. Calling a meeting with the support of a director is different than calling a meeting with no director support. I was only one vote on the executive in the case of your proposal but you got zero votes beyond two abstentions.
    Vlad, where do you get such things for "a meeting with the support of a director"? Directors don't need to support the requisition for the special meeting. They need to obey Act and Bylaws. The initial requisition lacked details. It was communicated to the Noritsyn etc, however for the fact it was done after he submitted his second request. There was even the third one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Why do you suppose that no one on the executive supported your motion at either the first or the second meeting when it was put to the executive?
    Vlad, you're misleading members with this question. The request was put on "agenda" to be discussed on the following boards meeting, and you know better how that meeting has not happened at all. The meeting what happened later was in principle too late (21 day has passed).
    .*-1

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    Where have you found the requirement for charges?
    With all due respect, I am not sure I understand your statement. Are you trying to say that anyone in a society governed by the Rule of Law, a motion against an officer of a Corporation could stand without charges to be 1) detailed 2) proven with evidence?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Again, clarifications here would be great: A member can bring up a motion.
    Any motion must follow a specific format and content. Sufficient to say that these requirements are established by the law
    enacted by Parliament.
    Up to this minute, neither the original motion or its subsequent amendments are valid. The Board of directors of the CFC have considered carefully the original motion and found that it did not respect either the format and / or the content of the law. Its following amendments were similarly flawed and, therefore, did not deserve further discussion.
    As for whatever I read here until now, I respectfully submit that the whole effort of a motion remains blurry with regard to legal standard. Unless people start reading the Act (it is bilingual), there is no motion on the floor.
    Last edited by Patricia Gamliel; 04-12-2021 at 12:20 AM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patricia Gamliel View Post
    With all due respect, I am not sure I understand your statement. Are you trying to say that anyone in a society governed by the Rule of Law, a motion against an officer of a Corporation could stand without charges to be 1) detailed 2) proven with evidence?
    It would not be the first time that he argued that.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    Vlad, where do you get such things for "a meeting with the support of a director"? Directors don't need to support the requisition for the special meeting. They need to obey Act and Bylaws. The initial requisition lacked details. It was communicated to the Noritsyn etc, however for the fact it was done after he submitted his second request. There was even the third one.



    Vlad, you're misleading members with this question. The request was put on "agenda" to be discussed on the following boards meeting, and you know better how that meeting has not happened at all. The meeting what happened later was in principle too late (21 day has passed).
    How can you mislead with a question?

    He does not get to pepper the board with motions which are continually being edited while continuing to ignore the requirements. At a certain point it becomes harassment.

    The 21 day time limit became irrelevant when a meeting was called and notification for that meeting took place. There was nothing in the amended motion which addressed the deficiencies in the motion which we discussed in the first and the second zoom meeting of the board. This thread is going to be very long if I have to repeat myself. We are discussing the merits of removal. I would suggest that they have not made their case.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 04-12-2021 at 02:46 AM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    From Vlad's initial post "Everyone should refrain from making defamatory statements about anyone as many lawyers have already been consulted and this and many related situations may result in litigation".

    I fully agree with the first part (about defamatory statements). However, I do have a serious problem with the second part (about lawyers and litigation). I think, everything should remain inside the "chess circle" (CFC, CMA, FQE, FIDE).

    Very likely, I will not give my support to a person who starts a legal action or even just make a threats to do so for achieving his goals. Most likely, I will use my personal vote and my influence against him.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patricia Gamliel View Post
    Up to this minute, neither the original motion or its subsequent amendments are valid. ... Unless people start reading the Act (it is bilingual), there is no motion on the floor.
    At this moment it is insufficient, is Nikolay's motion valid or not. This meeting is already underway, and we officially confirmed that we agree to play by the rules proposed by Vlad (even though we have some reservations regarding these rules).

    Vlad proposed his own Motion, which is included in section 5B of this meeting's agenda as Motion 1. The vote on this Motion should take place soon.

    We did not hear directly from Christina Tao yet, if she is willing to second the Motion 1. In order to speed up the process, and to make sure that the vote on the Motion 1 will take place at this meeting,

    I SECOND VLAD's MOTION.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patricia Gamliel View Post
    With all due respect, I am not sure I understand your statement. Are you trying to say that anyone in a society governed by the Rule of Law, a motion against an officer of a Corporation could stand without charges to be 1) detailed 2) proven with evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Patricia Gamliel View Post
    Again, clarifications here would be great: A member can bring up a motion.
    Any motion must follow a specific format and content. Sufficient to say that these requirements are established by the law enacted by Parliament.

    I'm asking. You might answer as well -- where does the Non for profit Act set requirements for the motion of the removal like charges or whatever shall be in the motion? If it is not in the Act, please provide other Act/Law where it would have a process (procedure) of the removal of the director of the non for profit organization.

    I'm a chess player -- I want to see variations, not just the evaluation of the position
    .*-1

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •