FIDE Presidential Elections

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Re: Re : Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Felix Dumont View Post
    I must do the same. I am disappointed by the decision. That said, in response to Sasha's posts, I have nothing to say against how things were done. The executive did poll the governors and sent emails to all of them. A logical choice might have been to not support anyone, seeing how governors were polarized on this issue, but the executive made its decision. The best thing to do now is probably to move on.
    Hi Felix:

    Well said.

    I took the original CFC Handbook interpretation, that the FIDE Presidential vote was to be cast by the CFC Governors (as called at the time before Continuance), not the Executive. The majority of Governors never supported my position (they voted by their silence in the debate). I also had decided that it should be cast by the outgoing Governors, since I wanted CFC to endorse a candidate, so they could use the CFC endorsement in their campaign.

    However, the Executive straw vote of the Governors did show a majority for Ilyumzhinov. So even if my position had prevailed, the decision would have been the one made (I am a Kasparov supporter).

    So I agree - water under the bridge now. If there is any illegality here, the practical on the ground decision seems to trump that in my view (given the impossibility, in my view, of setting aside any "illegal" decision before the FIDE Presidential vote in August).

    Time to publicly disagree with the Executive/Governor majority decision, and then move on.

    Bob A

    P.S. I do note that the actual Executive decision was made "after" Continuance. So the new Constitutional documents, as I understand it, put the CFC Handbook into limbo - no legal status at the moment? Waiting re-adoption into the new regime? If so, then this raises therefore, the additional issue of whether my legal interpretation still stands under the new Constitutional documents, now in effect.
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 17th June, 2014, 09:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sasha Starr
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    This is an evidence of Kasparov's support by the English Chess Federation and why: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-co...-statement.pdf
    I'm asking one more time: those executives who voted for Ilumzhinov's endorsement by CFC please come forward and explain how this decision benefits Canadian Chess.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sasha Starr
    replied
    Re: Re : Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Felix Dumont View Post
    I must do the same. I am disappointed by the decision. That said, in response to Sasha's posts, I have nothing to say against how things were done. The executive did poll the governors and sent emails to all of them. A logical choice might have been to not support anyone, seeing how governors were polarized on this issue, but the executive made its decision. The best thing to do now is probably to move on.
    There is an upcoming election of the CFC executives and they should have wait to be reelected and only then to deal with the FIDE's election. And if they are not reelected then the newly elected executives would deal with the issue. The way they've done it BEFORE the AGM, taking away the decision from the Governors/Voting Members tells me that they had some motives to do it having nothing to do with the real interests of the Canadian Chess and the Members of CFC.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sasha Starr
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Ken Craft View Post
    Let me publicly state that I do not support the executive's endorsement. I find it an embarassment for the Federation.
    I kindly ask the executives to retract their endorsement of Ilumzhinov.

    Leave a comment:


  • Felix Dumont
    replied
    Re : Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Ken Craft View Post
    Let me publicly state that I do not support the executive's endorsement. I find it an embarassment for the Federation.
    I must do the same. I am disappointed by the decision. That said, in response to Sasha's posts, I have nothing to say against how things were done. The executive did poll the governors and sent emails to all of them. A logical choice might have been to not support anyone, seeing how governors were polarized on this issue, but the executive made its decision. The best thing to do now is probably to move on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ken Craft
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Let me publicly state that I do not support the executive's endorsement. I find it an embarassment for the Federation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sasha Starr
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
    Four more than supported G.K. and eight more than supported abstention. Forty voted with their feet not to get involved in the discussion or voting.
    This is an evidence of Kasparov's support by the English Chess Federation and why: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-co...-statement.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Nigel Hanrahan
    replied
    lurkers

    Originally posted by Bindi Cheng View Post
    Chesstalk is equivalent to a gossip column in the tabloids, it holds no power in any serious discussion.
    I'm not sure about that. The internet has a phenomena of what are called "lurkers". These are people who may never, or hardly ever, comment, but who follow those discussion boards that they care about quite carefully. A fascinating thing then takes place ... no one can say anything stupid or way out of line ...they just get smacked down mercilessly, and quickly, and the level of discussion gets raised, and genuine debate takes place.

    Despite the vigorous denunciation of my moderating style by a number of contributors, I like to think that Chesstalk is a bit like that. Larry Bevand's decision to make people identity themselves (mostly) with their own name on this discussion board had been the biggest improvement here. (Some of the anti-Semitism in the past was just despicable. And that wasn't all of it.) The bigotry is mostly gone, and I make a strong effort to smack down anything in that direction. I must confess that I don't follow the CFC Discussion Board as closely as I should, but I think that ChessTalk is where Canadians go to discuss chess. And I'm proud of that.

    I've been involved with some impressive discussion boards and our little one here ain't so bad. Good debate has the power to change our views, and make us think twice, and that's all that can be asked.
    Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Tuesday, 17th June, 2014, 01:10 AM. Reason: example given

    Leave a comment:


  • Sasha Starr
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
    Are you asking me to delay the incoming AGM meeting so that you can make a member proposal?

    https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc...g/cs05006.html

    Generally, the directors are responsible for setting the agenda of members meetings. However, members have a right to add items to the agenda by submitting a notice – known as a “proposal” – to the corporation 90 to 150 days before the anniversary of the previous annual meeting of members.

    ...

    It should be noted that directors are not obliged to include the proposal if:

    the submission of the proposal does not meet the requirements above; or
    the proposal is improper, in that:
    it is intended to enforce a personal claim or redress a personal grievance against the corporation, or its directors, officers, members or debt obligation holders;
    it does not relate in a significant way to the activities or affairs of the corporation;
    not more than 2 years before the receipt of the proposal, the member failed to raise the matter covered by the proposal at a meeting of members;
    it is substantially the same as a proposal previously submitted to members less than 5 years ago and it did not receive the minimum required support at that meeting Footnote 6; or
    the rights to submit proposals are being abused to secure publicity.
    No, I did not ask you to delay the AGM, nor I'm making a member proposal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Sasha Starr View Post
    Your so called endorsement must be retracted. There an AGM and the INCOMING Voting Members, Executive Board and President will determine whom Canada will vote for.
    Are you asking me to delay the incoming AGM meeting so that you can make a member proposal?

    https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc...g/cs05006.html

    Generally, the directors are responsible for setting the agenda of members meetings. However, members have a right to add items to the agenda by submitting a notice – known as a “proposal” – to the corporation 90 to 150 days before the anniversary of the previous annual meeting of members.

    ...

    It should be noted that directors are not obliged to include the proposal if:

    the submission of the proposal does not meet the requirements above; or
    the proposal is improper, in that:
    it is intended to enforce a personal claim or redress a personal grievance against the corporation, or its directors, officers, members or debt obligation holders;
    it does not relate in a significant way to the activities or affairs of the corporation;
    not more than 2 years before the receipt of the proposal, the member failed to raise the matter covered by the proposal at a meeting of members;
    it is substantially the same as a proposal previously submitted to members less than 5 years ago and it did not receive the minimum required support at that meeting Footnote 6; or
    the rights to submit proposals are being abused to secure publicity.
    Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Monday, 16th June, 2014, 10:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    Thus how many Governors supported K.I out of the total Governors number?
    Four more than supported G.K. and eight more than supported abstention. Forty voted with their feet not to get involved in the discussion or voting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sasha Starr
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
    I can confirm publicly as president of the Chess Federation of Canada that the endorsement of Kirsan by the directors of the CFC is quite valid. Any further embarrassment will be your own. I will engage with anyone who wishes to discuss it sensibly but I will not be going around the hamster wheel with you unless you start making some sense. I have a new policy of getting to bed at a sensible hour. At the moment I have a more important decision as to whether I will be taking a plane, train or automobile to CYCC and the Canadian Open. The plane option disappears in a little over two hours.
    This vote is not valid. Please stop embarrassing Canada in the eyes of the civilized World.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sasha Starr
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
    If you are referring to the governors vote, it was a non-binding on the executive straw poll. You will be able to see it and the debate yourself once you are confirmed as a governor at the time of the AGM. With regard to the deliberations of the board they were in a series of emails, telephone and skype conversations and in some cases face to face communications between members of the board.
    Your so called endorsement must be retracted. There an AGM and the INCOMING Voting Members, Executive Board and President will determine whom Canada will vote for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Sasha Starr View Post
    I've heard that there was a straw vote, a discussion, etc... To avoid further embarrassment please confirm publicly that this so-called endorsement is null and void.
    I can confirm publicly as president of the Chess Federation of Canada that the endorsement of Kirsan by the directors of the CFC is quite valid. Any further embarrassment will be your own. I will engage with anyone who wishes to discuss it sensibly but I will not be going around the hamster wheel with you unless you start making some sense. I have a new policy of getting to bed at a sensible hour. At the moment I have a more important decision as to whether I will be taking a plane, train or automobile to CYCC and the Canadian Open. The plane option disappears in a little over two hours.

    Leave a comment:


  • Egidijus Zeromskis
    replied
    Re: FIDE Presidential Elections

    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
    What do you think the math says? Which candidate received more votes out of the two?

    24 governors voted

    Endorse Garry 7 votes
    Vote for but do not endorse Garry 1 vote
    Abstain 4 votes
    Vote for but do not endorse Kirsan 4 votes
    Endorse Kirsan 8 v.
    Thus how many Governors supported K.I out of the total Governors number?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X