Bergen Chess Mates Blog

All right, so we had 2 scholastic members on Sunday. However, I come to Monday meetings regularly. I only see the kid from New York there. But even given that we have 2 Scholastic members, that is still too small a number to have a Scholastic Director. If we hadlike, 7 or more, that I could understand. But to create a new position just because we have 2 kids is a stretch. Get more kids, and then having the Scholastic Director position would be more feasible.

I don’t want to see a situation of too many Chiefs and too few Indians.

Article IV:

Sec. 1: The line of succession to the Presidency is Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, Chief Tournament Director, Assistant Tournament Director, Member-at-Large.

Sec. 2: If the officer upon whom the Presidential succession falls, declines the Presidency, the next eligible officer shall be eligible to become President.

Sec. 3: After an officer has become President, his vacant position shall be filled by nomination. The President shall nominate, and the Board confirm or reject, a replacement to the vacant position.

Question 1:
Is it true that the president can vote only to break a tie?

Answer:
No, it is not true that the president can vote only to break a tie. If the president is a member of the assembly, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, speak in debate and to vote on all questions. However, the impartiality required of the presiding officer of an assembly (especially a large one) precludes exercising the right to make motions or debate while presiding, and also requires refraining from voting except (i) when the vote is by ballot, or (ii) whenever his or her vote will affect the result.

When will the chair’s vote affect the result? On a vote which is not by ballot, if a majority vote is required and there is a tie, he or she may vote in the affirmative to cause the motion to prevail. If there is one more in the affirmative than in the negative, he or she can create a tie by voting in the negative to cause the motion to fail. Similarly, if a two-thirds vote is required, he or she may vote either to cause, or to block, attainment of the necessary two thirds. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 392-93; see also Table A, p.190 of RONR In Brief.]Source: robertsrules.com/faq.html#1

I think that proxy votes should be allowed, but on a limited basis. This would allow those of us who have work to give their votes to another Board member and have them cast it. For instance, Mark and Ted have work obligations. If we were to have a proxy vote, our Board colleagues would still be able to participate in Board meetings and make their vies and votes known.

To all of the board members:

I am shocked by the rage and the abusive language in Ron’s and Lawrence’s E-mails.

All of us are frustrated by the tedious process of revising the constitution. I understand that Ron is even more frustrated than the most of us since he wrote the draft of the new constitution. However, those of us who were generally satisfied with the present constitution are just as frustrated as Ron is since if our view prevailed we wouldn’t even have meetings to revise the constitution.

Anyway, with the one exception when Lawrence vented his frustration with me ( & I simply left the room & went home) we have all been careful to be civil (or close to it).

The outbursts by Ron and Lawrence were improper. In particular, the venom directed at Lev’s polite and reasoned memo was particularly odious and uncalled for. Ron & Lawrence, don’t have to agree with Lev and if they are irritated by any long windedness on his part they always have the time saving option of not responding.

By the way, I am not complaining about “having” to write this response after Midnight because I could simply have ignored the comments by Ron & Lawrence. In particular, I will ignore the characterizations of Lev and/or myself of being “stupid”, “illogical”, “piddling” “asinine” and an “idiot”.

Now I want to clarify some factual errors:

1. I never said that I was not available on weekends. On a few occasions, I said that “I was not available on that particular weekend because I have my kids”. I only have my kids every other weekend. So you just have to catch me on the right weekend. Aside from that, Lawrence knows that I left my kids alone one time to attend a lengthy Friday evening meeting.
2. Contrary to what was alleged, I have avoided being the 1^st one to respond and say that I could not make a meeting to discuss the constitution. I try to weigh in at the end when other people have said “no”. The only “near” exception was today’s meeting but when I said that I would not be at the club it was in response to a meeting to discuss when we could have the next meeting & it was not in response to a constitution revision meeting. It was a total distortion to say that Lev & I were always the 1^st to respond no. Lev actually was the last one to beg out of the last meeting.
3. Regarding the supposed lack of help moving the club furniture to the new location, I offered to do the entire job during business hours with the help of Neil Marcus who had just lost his job. Lawrence never responded to me.
4. It is not true that I only attended the 1^st rd of the Strickland tournament. I was at the club for the 3^rd (& final) rd last week. I arrived around 7:30 & I did not leave until aome time after the final game was done. So when I miss tonight’s meeting that will be one in a row. Also, I did not miss 5 weeks of the Iron Knights this summer. I think that I missed only 2 or 3 meetings.
5. Regarding the disliked guy whose name I will not mention, Ron, why not regard my support for him the same way that you regard the ACLU’s support of disliked people and groups. On principle, I will not legislate against an individual. If you want to throw the guy out follow the legal procedure. In any event, if you would never mention his name again I don’t think that you are likely to hear about him let alone see him at our club. At our club, his memory lives on only on the lips of the club treasurer and president!

In closing, let me point out that our last two meetings moved quickly compared to the previous ones. Why not be encouraged by that?

Mark Schwarcz

We should keep the assistant TD on the Board because it is a significant post going to the heart of what we do – play chess.

We have so few scholastic members that it does not warrant a spot on the board.  It also does not warrant mention in the constitution.  Any board can appoint someone to the post.  If scholastic membership grows sufficiently we can elect the scholastic director to an at large position on the board.  There is no historic basis for a formal or a board position.  New developments do not belong in a constitution until they are proven to work

We should honor all of the life memberships that have been granted and they should continue to be allowed to vote.  We should not legislate for or against any individual.  If we want someone to be removed from the club, we should use the legal procedures.

We should keep the 1 year terms of all officers.  It is the essence of democracy as is dealing with the “trouble” of holding free elections.

I agree with Lev’s suggestion for an order of succession.  It is well reasoned.