|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > February 2005 > Crossville Move -- Point of Order
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Crossville Move -- Point of Order
|
|
| George John 2005-01-28, 3:46 am |
| All,
Someone else wrote what I'm posting below, but I think it's well worth
reading and discussing. Comments are welcome, particularly from any of our
resident bylaws experts.
Best regards,
George John
*******************
A point of order. The bylaws clearly state "The Executive Board shall be
subject to the authority of the Board of Delegates, and none of its acts
shall conflict with actions taken by the Board of Delegates." The Brady
motion, which reopened the bidding was clearly in conflict with actions
ratified by the Board of Delegates. This is a breach of the bylaws and the
transaction therefore must be set aside. Even the Board of Delegates cannot
approve an action which breaches the bylaws. They can however change the
bylaws.
| |
| Hal Terrie 2005-01-28, 3:46 am |
| On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:29:54 GMT, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
wrote:
quote:
>All,
>
>Someone else wrote what I'm posting below, but I think it's well worth
>reading and discussing. Comments are welcome, particularly from any of our
>resident bylaws experts.
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
>
>*******************
>A point of order. The bylaws clearly state "The Executive Board shall be
>subject to the authority of the Board of Delegates, and none of its acts
>shall conflict with actions taken by the Board of Delegates." The Brady
>motion, which reopened the bidding was clearly in conflict with actions
>ratified by the Board of Delegates. This is a breach of the bylaws and the
>transaction therefore must be set aside. Even the Board of Delegates cannot
>approve an action which breaches the bylaws. They can however change the
>bylaws.
Your point of order is moot, since the move to Crossville is
taking place as authorized by the Delegates previously. In the end,
the practical impact of the Brady motion was nil.
If you want to discuss endlessly the Bylaws ramifications or
to assign blame, feel free. However, nobody should think that this is
grounds for delaying (or halting) the move to Crossville now under
way.
-- Hal Terrie
| |
| Petrel 2005-01-28, 3:46 am |
|
"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:6djKd.77345$Ta2.45161@fe2.texas.rr.com...
quote:
> Someone else wrote what I'm posting below, but I think it's well worth
> reading and discussing. > *******************
> A point of order. The bylaws clearly state "The Executive Board shall be
> subject to the authority of the Board of Delegates, and none of its acts
> shall conflict with actions taken by the Board of Delegates." The Brady
> motion, which reopened the bidding was clearly in conflict with actions
> ratified by the Board of Delegates. This is a breach of the bylaws and the
> transaction therefore must be set aside.
Bill Goichberg and George John have already had this argument about the
effect of the Delegates' "ratifying" actions of the EB, and in my opinion
Bill had the best of it. The question is whether "ratification" means (a)
"We, the Delegates, agree that the EB had the right to take this action,",
or (b) "We, the Delegates, adopt this action as our own and forbid the EB to
reverse it without our approval." I vote for (a). I think that position
(b) has unreasonable consequences.
Suppose, for example, that in spring the EB argues about what kind of coffee
to buy for the coffee machine, and they settle it by voting to buy Maxwell
House coffee. Then, at the annual meeting, the Delegates ratify this along
with everything else. Does this mean that the EB is stuck with Maxwell
House coffee until the next meeting of the Delegates?? Suppose the new
board majority hates Maxwell House? Why does the autumn board have less
freedom to change the brand of coffee than the spring board did?
It doesn't make sense to me to say that once the Delegates have "ratified"
the EB's past actions, all at once the EB is now bound by myriad strictures
and is no longer free to make the decisions that it was free to make earlier
that year. It doesn't make sense to say that in January the EB is free to
decide to move to Crossville, in March it is free to decide not to, in April
it is free to decide to do it after all, in May it is free to move the
discussion back to square one, etc., which may all be bad business but is
not a violation of the bylaws, but then after August when the Delegates pass
their "ratification" motion this settles everything and the EB has no more
freedom of action.
Of course the Delegates COULD bind the EB to move or not move to Crossville
by passing the appropriate directive.
Petrel
| |
| curtains 2005-01-28, 3:46 am |
|
Just in case anyone wonders, I'm very very anti-drug testing, and
would support and endorse any public statement that denounces the
practice.
Petrel wrote:
quote:
> "George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6djKd.77345$Ta2.45161@fe2.texas.rr.com...
worth[vbcol=seagreen]
shall be[vbcol=seagreen]
acts[vbcol=seagreen]
Brady[vbcol=seagreen]
actions[vbcol=seagreen]
and the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Bill Goichberg and George John have already had this argument about
the
quote:
> effect of the Delegates' "ratifying" actions of the EB, and in my
opinion
quote:
> Bill had the best of it. The question is whether "ratification"
means (a)
quote:
> "We, the Delegates, agree that the EB had the right to take this
action,",
quote:
> or (b) "We, the Delegates, adopt this action as our own and forbid
the EB to
quote:
> reverse it without our approval." I vote for (a). I think that
position
quote:
> (b) has unreasonable consequences.
>
> Suppose, for example, that in spring the EB argues about what kind of
coffee
quote:
> to buy for the coffee machine, and they settle it by voting to buy
Maxwell
quote:
> House coffee. Then, at the annual meeting, the Delegates ratify this
along
quote:
> with everything else. Does this mean that the EB is stuck with
Maxwell
quote:
> House coffee until the next meeting of the Delegates?? Suppose the
new
quote:
> board majority hates Maxwell House? Why does the autumn board have
less
quote:
> freedom to change the brand of coffee than the spring board did?
>
> It doesn't make sense to me to say that once the Delegates have
"ratified"
quote:
> the EB's past actions, all at once the EB is now bound by myriad
strictures
quote:
> and is no longer free to make the decisions that it was free to make
earlier
quote:
> that year. It doesn't make sense to say that in January the EB is
free to
quote:
> decide to move to Crossville, in March it is free to decide not to,
in April
quote:
> it is free to decide to do it after all, in May it is free to move
the
quote:
> discussion back to square one, etc., which may all be bad business
but is
quote:
> not a violation of the bylaws, but then after August when the
Delegates pass
quote:
> their "ratification" motion this settles everything and the EB has no
more
quote:
> freedom of action.
>
> Of course the Delegates COULD bind the EB to move or not move to
Crossville
quote:
> by passing the appropriate directive.
>
> Petrel
| |
| George John 2005-01-28, 3:46 am |
| Hal,
Let me assure you that I have no interest in endlessly discussing
anything. -smile-
I'm really not interested in assigning blame. My main goals are trying
to understand what happened, identify what went wrong, and discuss how
the process can be positively improved.
If the author's point of order idea is correct, the move to Crossville
is even more compelling, because the Brady motion would have been
rendered moot.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| George John 2005-01-28, 3:46 am |
| P,
Is it correct to say that in you estimation any future Executive Board
has effectively unlimited power to undo any and all of the actions of
any prior Executive Board? If the Board of Delegates wishes to prevent
a future Executive Board from undoing something, they will need to pass
the same motion the Executive Board previously passed?
I have never thought the Brady motion was illegal, only that it was
poor policy to reverse the course set into motion by the prior
Executive Board and Board of Delegates. What I remain mostly concerned
about is a major policy decision made by a EB, one that was supported
by the BoD by their having passed a capital budget in support of that
policy, was overturned by a subsequent EB without any official
explanation. I'm now wondering if allowing motions to pass by
Objection Procedure is such a good idea.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-28, 3:46 am |
| "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> writes:
quote:
>Bill Goichberg and George John have already had this argument about the
>effect of the Delegates' "ratifying" actions of the EB, and in my opinion
>Bill had the best of it. The question is whether "ratification" means (a)
>"We, the Delegates, agree that the EB had the right to take this action,",
>or (b) "We, the Delegates, adopt this action as our own and forbid the EB to
>reverse it without our approval." I vote for (a). I think that position
>(b) has unreasonable consequences.
Harold Winston gives a speech every year at the Delegates Meeting in which
he reminds the Delegates that the annual motion to ratify the published
actions of the Executive Board does not mean or imply agreement with
the actions of the EB, just acknowledgement by the Delegates that those
actions were within the Board's authority to take.
That also means that ratification does not bind the Board against taking
subsequent actions which differ from those earlier ones. Should the
Delegates wish to override the actions of the Board, they do so directly.
My favorite example of this was in the mid 90's when the Policy Board
created the title of 'National Grandmaster', which the Delegates
subsequently eliminated. However, at that meeting first the Delegates
ratified the actions of the Board for the past year, including the
motion creating the title of National Grandmaster, then they eliminated
the title, overriding the action of the PB.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-01-28, 6:44 am |
| Hal,
Has any stick of furniture been moved? A computer? A staff member?
What do you mean underway?
It sounds to me as if the delay tactics of some have worked to this point
and the move has been stalled if not completely halted.
At what date, sure and certain, does the Federation open its doors for
business in Crossville, under any extent plan?
Thank you in advance for your answers, and I apologize if I have missed the
answers in another thread prior to this posting.
Tom Klem
"Hal Terrie" <halNOSPAMterrie@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rjijv05akeveeisu36qtd8iufpqrjuri7o@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:29:54 GMT, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
> wrote:
>
our[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
cannot[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Your point of order is moot, since the move to Crossville is
> taking place as authorized by the Delegates previously. In the end,
> the practical impact of the Brady motion was nil.
>
> If you want to discuss endlessly the Bylaws ramifications or
> to assign blame, feel free. However, nobody should think that this is
> grounds for delaying (or halting) the move to Crossville now under
> way.
>
> -- Hal Terrie
>
| |
| Petrel 2005-01-28, 12:32 pm |
| "George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1106896137.516997.86810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> P,
>
> Is it correct to say that in you estimation any future Executive Board
> has effectively unlimited power to undo any and all of the actions of
> any prior Executive Board?
Yes, basically (leaving aside questions of good business, contract law,
etc.).
In fact, let me ask you an analogous question: does any Board of Delegates
have effectively unlimited power to undo any and all of the actions of any
prior Board of Delegates? Under the bylaws, the EB is basically a caretaker
subcommittee of the Board of Delegates, whose purpose is to manage the USCF
between Board of Delegates meetings. This means that it has the powers of
the Board of Delegates, EXCEPT where the Board of Delegates has specifically
given them orders.
Of course that isn't how we act around here, but that's a subject for
another post.
quote:
> If the Board of Delegates wishes to prevent
> a future Executive Board from undoing something, they will need to pass
> the same motion the Executive Board previously passed?
Yes, basically. Is this rare around here? Yes, because the Delegates have
gotten out of the habit of acting like the highest governing body of the
USCF. But that's a subject for another post!
petrel
| |
| George John 2005-01-28, 10:21 pm |
| Petrel wrote:
P,
[SNIP]
quote:
> In fact, let me ask you an analogous question: does any Board of
Delegates
quote:
> have effectively unlimited power to undo any and all of the actions
of any
quote:
> prior Board of Delegates?
I think the answer is yes; although, they might have to change the
Bylaws to do so. As you correctly pointed out, they are additionally
constrained by any existing legal agreements and prevailing laws (for
example the 1986 Illinois Not-for-Profit Act.
quote:
> Under the bylaws, the EB is basically a caretaker
> subcommittee of the Board of Delegates, whose purpose is to manage
the USCF
quote:
> between Board of Delegates meetings. This means that it has the
powers of
quote:
> the Board of Delegates, EXCEPT where the Board of Delegates has
specifically
quote:
> given them orders.
For those who may not know, the 'exceptions' can be found in the
published Bylaws of the USCF, and something called "Delegate Actions of
Continuing Interest". Both are posted to the USCF Website.
quote:
> Of course that isn't how we act around here, but that's a subject for
quote:
> another post.
USCF governance and the office do not have a stellar record of
following the Bylaws and Delegate motions, for example the timely
posting audio recordings of meetings to the USCF Website.
quote:
>From time to time, I have recommended we create a compliance process,
which might be accomplished by a new committee, an exisiting committee,
and/or professional staff.
The intent would be a positive, supportive process, where specific
individuals would be tasked with helping make certain the posted Bylaws
and relevant BoD motions are kept up to date (too often they are not),
review of advance agenda items, and the minutes, notification of the
USCF President if something appears to be going out of whack, etc.
Other not-for-profits have this. I think the USCF could benefit from
something similar.
quote:
>
pass[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yes, basically. Is this rare around here? Yes, because the
Delegates have
quote:
> gotten out of the habit of acting like the highest governing body of
the
quote:
> USCF. [SNIP]
I think you are correct on all points.
What I hope for is Executive Boards that make a strong effort to
achieve true consensus on policy, and then act as one voice. Any
future Executive Board should be very cautious about overturning the
major policies of the prior Board unless of course they have been
directed to do so by the Board of Delegates. Poor policy should
certainly be overturned. But, good policy probably should not unless
there are compelling reasons to do so.
Finally, our leadership must at all times firmly resist the influence
of special interests and insiders. Many think that may be the single
greatest problem the USCF has had. OMOV seems to have helped open up
USCF governance somewhat, but IMHO we are still nowhere close where we
should be.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-28, 10:21 pm |
| "George John" <george@neosoft.com> writes:
quote:
>which might be accomplished by a new committee, an exisiting committee,
>and/or professional staff.
quote:
>The intent would be a positive, supportive process, where specific
>individuals would be tasked with helping make certain the posted Bylaws
>and relevant BoD motions are kept up to date (too often they are not),
>review of advance agenda items, and the minutes, notification of the
>USCF President if something appears to be going out of whack, etc.
But what if someone is found not to be in compliance? You still don't
have an answer to the "or else you'll do what?" question. All your
compliance committee could do is carp incessantly about what isn't
being done. Plenty of people already do that, why will another committee
make any difference?
The USCF doesn't need more overseers, it needs more people actually willing
to do some work.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-01-28, 10:21 pm |
| >But what if someone is found not to be in compliance? You still don't
have an answer to the "or else you'll do what?" question. All your
compliance committee could do is carp incessantly about what isn't
being done. Plenty of people already do that, why will another
committee make any difference?
Wouldn't it be useful for the USCF website to include a compliance
committee page which listed all people who failed to perform their
duties adequately? Certainly there would then be political costs for
failing to perform.
- Tom Martinak
| |
| Spam Scone 2005-01-29, 3:46 am |
|
Tom Martinak wrote:
quote:
don't[vbcol=seagreen]
> have an answer to the "or else you'll do what?" question. All your
> compliance committee could do is carp incessantly about what isn't
> being done. Plenty of people already do that, why will another
> committee make any difference?
>
>
> Wouldn't it be useful for the USCF website to include a compliance
> committee page which listed all people who failed to perform their
> duties adequately? Certainly there would then be political costs for
> failing to perform.
>
> - Tom Martinak
It's already posted!
http://www.uschess.org/about/uscfeb1.php
| |
| George John 2005-01-29, 3:46 am |
|
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:cten20$h5i$1@gw.tssi.com...
Mike,
quote:
> But what if someone is found not to be in compliance? You still don't
> have an answer to the "or else you'll do what?" question. All your
> compliance committee could do is carp incessantly about what isn't
> being done. Plenty of people already do that, why will another committee
> make any difference?
I think most people would appreciate being told politely they aren't in
compliance and given an opportunity to correct their deficiency. After
given a reasonable chance to correct the deficiency, those given the duty to
track compliance should report to the appropriate supervisory body for those
who do not.
quote:
> The USCF doesn't need more overseers, it needs more people actually
> willing
> to do some work.
The oversight of compliance could be assigned to those people we already
have, or new volunteers. Yes, they would need to be willing to do the work.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Hal Terrie 2005-01-29, 11:47 am |
| On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:29:54 GMT, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
wrote:
quote:
>All,
>
>Someone else wrote what I'm posting below, but I think it's well worth
>reading and discussing. Comments are welcome, particularly from any of our
>resident bylaws experts.
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
>
>*******************
>A point of order. The bylaws clearly state "The Executive Board shall be
>subject to the authority of the Board of Delegates, and none of its acts
>shall conflict with actions taken by the Board of Delegates." The Brady
>motion, which reopened the bidding was clearly in conflict with actions
>ratified by the Board of Delegates. This is a breach of the bylaws and the
>transaction therefore must be set aside. Even the Board of Delegates cannot
>approve an action which breaches the bylaws. They can however change the
>bylaws.
Your point of order is moot, since the move to Crossville is
taking place as authorized by the Delegates previously. In the end,
the practical impact of the Brady motion was nil.
If you want to discuss endlessly the Bylaws ramifications or
to assign blame, feel free. However, nobody should think that this is
grounds for delaying (or halting) the move to Crossville now under
way.
-- Hal Terrie
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-29, 11:47 am |
| "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> writes:
quote:
>Bill Goichberg and George John have already had this argument about the
>effect of the Delegates' "ratifying" actions of the EB, and in my opinion
>Bill had the best of it. The question is whether "ratification" means (a)
>"We, the Delegates, agree that the EB had the right to take this action,",
>or (b) "We, the Delegates, adopt this action as our own and forbid the EB to
>reverse it without our approval." I vote for (a). I think that position
>(b) has unreasonable consequences.
Harold Winston gives a speech every year at the Delegates Meeting in which
he reminds the Delegates that the annual motion to ratify the published
actions of the Executive Board does not mean or imply agreement with
the actions of the EB, just acknowledgement by the Delegates that those
actions were within the Board's authority to take.
That also means that ratification does not bind the Board against taking
subsequent actions which differ from those earlier ones. Should the
Delegates wish to override the actions of the Board, they do so directly.
My favorite example of this was in the mid 90's when the Policy Board
created the title of 'National Grandmaster', which the Delegates
subsequently eliminated. However, at that meeting first the Delegates
ratified the actions of the Board for the past year, including the
motion creating the title of National Grandmaster, then they eliminated
the title, overriding the action of the PB.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-01-29, 5:46 pm |
| Hal,
Has any stick of furniture been moved? A computer? A staff member?
What do you mean underway?
It sounds to me as if the delay tactics of some have worked to this point
and the move has been stalled if not completely halted.
At what date, sure and certain, does the Federation open its doors for
business in Crossville, under any extent plan?
Thank you in advance for your answers, and I apologize if I have missed the
answers in another thread prior to this posting.
Tom Klem
"Hal Terrie" <halNOSPAMterrie@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rjijv05akeveeisu36qtd8iufpqrjuri7o@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:29:54 GMT, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
> wrote:
>
our[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
cannot[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Your point of order is moot, since the move to Crossville is
> taking place as authorized by the Delegates previously. In the end,
> the practical impact of the Brady motion was nil.
>
> If you want to discuss endlessly the Bylaws ramifications or
> to assign blame, feel free. However, nobody should think that this is
> grounds for delaying (or halting) the move to Crossville now under
> way.
>
> -- Hal Terrie
>
| |
| George John 2005-02-01, 6:47 am |
| Hal,
Let me assure you that I have no interest in endlessly discussing
anything. -smile-
I'm really not interested in assigning blame. My main goals are trying
to understand what happened, identify what went wrong, and discuss how
the process can be positively improved.
If the author's point of order idea is correct, the move to Crossville
is even more compelling, because the Brady motion would have been
rendered moot.
Best regards,
George John
|
| |
|
|