CYCC 2011 voting result

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Vote or No Vote for the Chair?

Hi Fred:

Maybe this issue is one for the Procedures' Committee ( myself, Chair, & CFC President, Bob Gillanders ) to look into, with consultation of a few others? We could try to draft some key Handbook amendments to clear all this up.

Bob

[Fred McKim]

Re: Vote or No Vote for the Chair?

I do not participate in such meetings, thus am not 'booked up' on RR's.
But either way, Pres Bob should not have a vote that counted in the initial, or non-tie-breaking procedure.

I was reviewing a number of RRO interpretation and FAQ sites yesterday.

First off, it is clear that organizations can adopt their own variations on these rules.

Secondly, it is also clear the handbook needs to be updated to account for all circumstances.

In the normal RRO, the Chair will only vote if it makes a difference, so for example to break a tie vote or to make a tie (and thus defeat an ordinary motion).

What's not clear is what happens when the vote is a choice between tournament bids or people in an election, if the President can then vote to make a tie. There is no discussion of this.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Vote or No Vote for the Chair?

Hi David:

Just for the record - it wouldn't have made a difference.

If Bob G didn't vote for or against the first time, the vote would have been tied 14-14. Then Bob G would have had the tie-breaking vote, and he would have voted for Richmond Hill ( as he did vote ). So RH would have won anyway.

Still the the point is important for future votes, where it might make a difference.

Bob

[David McTavish]

Re: Vote or No Vote for the Chair?

I do not participate in such meetings, thus am not 'booked up' on RR's.
But either way, Pres Bob should not have a vote that counted in the initial, or non-tie-breaking procedure.

[Bob Armstrong]

Vote or No Vote for the Chair?

Hi David:

There is the wonderful technical question of whether the Chair initially has NO VOTE, and only gets one if there is a tie OR whether the Chair initially HAS a vote, but MUST abstain. Then in the case of a tie, he gets a SECOND tie-breaking vote.

Which do you think is the case? What do others think? Anyone know how Robert's Rules of Order handles it?

Bob

[David McTavish]

Re: Bid Conflict of Interest & President's Voting

Other than the circus-like atmosphere of not being able to count or check emails properly, it would seem evident that Gillanders should NOT have voted, and then only after a tie decided in favour of RH. Double jeapordy?

[Steve Karpik]

Re: Advertisement - New Governors Needed

Hmmmmmm........

Governor Karpik
Governor Ferreira

They have a nice ring about them - is it the GTCL AGM next Spring for the 2 of you?????

Bob

I think Alex has made an excellent point. Being a governor of an organization like the CFC (or similarly being a member of the executive) is a responsibility that takes time and energy. Out of the pool of CFC members, there may not be 60 people who can really throw themselves at it to the extent that is required. It may well be that many potential good governors have been burned out and disillusioned by previous experiences.

Maybe restricting the number of governors to a smaller number of really committed people would be better. The CFC has suffered through some difficult times over the past few years and there's a lot of work to do. Work that I think requires energy and commitment. It is no small job and maybe you'd have to be a bit crazy to take it on.

I volunteer my time in a number of ways to chess and other things but I'm very careful not to over commit. If I'm going to volunteer in some capacity, I want to do a good job. Right now my life is more than full and consequently you won't be seeing any Governor Karpik.:)

[Bob Armstrong]

Advertisement - New Governors Needed

Hmmmmmm........

Governor Karpik
Governor Ferreira

They have a nice ring about them - is it the GTCL AGM next Spring for the 2 of you?????

Bob

[Alex Ferreira]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

In my opinion it is a positive sign that two groups presented strong bids for the CYCC. Each bid was distinctive and presented compelling reasons why their model for the 2011 CYCC was best. This is good for chess in Canada.

What is not good is that only 26 of the 60 CFC governors voted. Not even 50%. Voting turnouts in municipal, provincial and federal elections tend to be low but you get on the voters list by virtue of having Canadian citizenship and a pulse. Not too high a bar to get over. Consequently I can understand why we see voter apathy in Canadian elections. But I do not see why the turnout to vote on the CYCC bids was so low.

By being CFC governors, these individuals are saying implicitly that they are interested in seeing chess and the CFC prosper. However, their actions say quite the opposite. I would go so far to say that by not voting they are insulting the hard work that the bidders put into their proposals.

So why would someone want to be a CFC Governor and not want any input into one of the most important decisions of the year? Maybe the pool of Governors is too big.

Hi Steve,

You put it in a much cleaner, more polite way than I could have. I mentioned in the CFC Forum a couple of days ago how this low-voter turn-out looks pretty awful. It astonishes me how... governor positions get thrown around like nothing because not many people want to be a governor. I'd rather see 20 active governors and 40 vacancies, than a bunch of filled up positions by people who clearly don't care.

Alex F.

[Ken Craft]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

Kevin weighs in on the bidding process. http://kevinspraggett.blogspot.com/

[Bob Armstrong]

Bid Conflict of Interest & President's Voting

Hi Gary:

1. Conflict of Interest - this issue was raised some time ago, at the start of the debate, by the Richmond Hill team. My answer was that governors have in the past been part of the organizing teams of national tournament bids, and no one has ever challenged their right to bid as governors, when the bids came up for vote. I have not yet decided on this - I do not wnat to inhibit governors from becoming part of a bid organizing team. And if they directly assist a team, but then formally keep their name off the organizing team list, so they can vote, are we really any farther ahead? What do others think of this issue? For the CO bids, we had governors on teams and directly involved in teams, even if not named as such, and they all were entitled to bid, and some ( most ) did.

The only CFC Handbook section I can find on " Conflict of Interest " related only to " officers " of the corporation, in Section 2 of the Handbook on Letters Patent and Bylaws:

BY-LAW NUMBER TWO OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA15. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

s. 15. Whenever a proposal is being considered which puts any CFC officer in a potential conflict of interest he shall declare the conflict and abstain from discussion, voting or other involvement in the matter.

So the question is did any of the Executive have to declare a conflict of interest, and abstain from voting on the Toronto CO bid, which was solely an executive decision, because there were no competing bids. And does this section have any relevance to governor voting on the CYCC competing bids?

2. Tie breaking vote on " Competing Bid " Votes -The vote was announced originally as Richmond Hill - 14; Toronto - 12. Then Lyle Craver found 2 more Toronto votes in his e-mail that he had " missed ", making it a tie vote. At this point I understand the Executive got a bit perplexed. What did they do now? Bob G, the president, and chair of the e-mail vote meeting, had decided not to abstain initially, and felt he could vote. So he had voted for the Richmond Hill bid. So did he now have a second tie-breaking vote, and if so, where in the CFC Handbook did it say this? And did it confirm that Bob G didn't have to abstain in the original vote? ( note - a third " missed " vote was also subsequently found which made it Richmond Hill - 15; Toronto - 14 ).

Here is what I find in the CFC Handbook:

Bylaw 3

DUTIES OF OFFICERS

PRESIDENT

4. The President shall be the chief executive Officer of the Federation. He shall preside at all meetings of the Assembly of Governors, or of the Board of Directors, when he is personally present.

Nothing there about how the President is to vote.

Rules and Regulations

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT

13. Immediately upon the convening of the Incoming Assembly, the Chairman shall call for the election of a President for the ensuing term, and in this matter the retiring President shall have a deliberate vote.

Question - if this section is seen as necessary to clarify that the President has a vote in the election of a new President at an AGM, is it a negaive way of saying that at all other times the President does not vote, but abstains? And if so, does there need to be somewhere an additional section to give him an extra tie-breaking vote? Or is this simply implied by the fact that he is directed to abstain initially?

Rules and Regulations

PRESIDENT A GOVERNOR AT LARGE

14. Immediately upon his election, the President shall cease to be a voting Governor for his Provincial Organization, and he shall have power to appoint an acting Governor in his stead, if necessary to ensure full representation for the Province he represented, and such appointment shall be for the balance of the Annual General Meeting then in session, and subject to the subsequent nomination of a Governor by his Provincial Organization, as otherwise provided for. In all matters to be decided by a vote of the Board, the President shall have a casting vote in the event the voting would otherwise be tied.

s. 15 makes clear that " Board " above means the Assembly of Governors :

CONSTITUTION OF ASSEMBLY
15. The President, together with appointed Governors, shall constitute the Board for the ensuing term, and shall hold office until their successors are appointed or elected.

Question - Does s. 14 above make clear whether the President is allowed to vote intially, or whether he must abstain? What is the implication of the president having a " casting vote in the event the voting would otherwise be tied."? Does casting vote mean he did have an initial vote as well? And if so, where does it say he must abstain?

So my bottom line on all this business of the President's vote, abstention and tie-breaking, is that the Handbook is deficient. Guess I may have to go back to the drafting board and look at bringing some Handbook amendment motion to clean this up.

Anyone got any advice on this? Did I miss anything in the Handbook that relates to this issue?

Bob

[David McTavish]

Re: Likelihood of CYCC and CO in Ontario

Bob,

If the bidders were voting, is it not a conflict of interest?

The president votes to break a tie. Take away the biders votes.

Didn't you say chess isn't a democracy Gary?:)
Bob's silence is telling; esp from a 'long retired ' paralegal.

[Steve Karpik]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

This was posted by Bob Gillanders on the CFC board:

Congratulations to Richmond Hill.

I [Bob G.] posted this message from Lyle on the governors board in the wee hours this morning:


Gentlemen, this has been the closest vote in recent CFC history!

Richmond Hill (14) Armstrong, Bond, Brammall, Craft, Gillanders, Haley, Jin, Mallon, Marghetis, McDonald, Moore, Nadeau, Nunes, von Keitz

Toronto (12) Barron, Birarov, I Bluvshtein, M Bluvshtein, Craver, Dutton, Field, Leblanc, McKim, Palsson, Smith, Zeromskis

Abstentions: none

Good luck to the Richmond Hill organizers and I hope they have a great tournament!

Lyle Craver
Secretary, Chess Federation of Canada


ps. The Executive are now exploring a Canadian Open only bid from the Toronto team.

In my opinion it is a positive sign that two groups presented strong bids for the CYCC. Each bid was distinctive and presented compelling reasons why their model for the 2011 CYCC was best. This is good for chess in Canada.

What is not good is that only 26 of the 60 CFC governors voted. Not even 50%. Voting turnouts in municipal, provincial and federal elections tend to be low but you get on the voters list by virtue of having Canadian citizenship and a pulse. Not too high a bar to get over. Consequently I can understand why we see voter apathy in Canadian elections. But I do not see why the turnout to vote on the CYCC bids was so low.

By being CFC governors, these individuals are saying implicitly that they are interested in seeing chess and the CFC prosper. However, their actions say quite the opposite. I would go so far to say that by not voting they are insulting the hard work that the bidders put into their proposals.

So why would someone want to be a CFC Governor and not want any input into one of the most important decisions of the year? Maybe the pool of Governors is too big.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

There's actually more to the story. After the vote, Chess Institute of Canada presented a bid for the Canadian Open only, at the Westin Harbour Castle in Toronto. CFC Executive is deliberating. As Hal graciously offered to withdraw the Guelph bid while they do so, we are expecting the Open to be in Toronto again, and for CYCC and CO groups to work together to promote chess. Happy endings all around.

David :-)

That is great news. The Westin location is excellent and very accessible.

[David Cohen]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

There's actually more to the story. After the vote, Chess Institute of Canada presented a bid for the Canadian Open only, at the Westin Harbour Castle in Toronto. CFC Executive is deliberating. As Hal graciously offered to withdraw the Guelph bid while they do so, we are expecting the Open to be in Toronto again, and for CYCC and CO groups to work together to promote chess. Happy endings all around.

David :-)