Halley Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 I don't think you are reading article 8 correctly and several heavy hitter lawyers and a retired jurist agree with my take. As I said - certainly possible, however: Article 8, Subsection 2: "A Special General Meeting shall be called within thirty (30) days following a written request signed by not less than one-third (1/3) of the Active and Associate Members" [emphasis mine]. This provides that the membership can request a meeting (though presummably not call one). In all of Section 8, only the Board of Directors is mentioned as having the power to actually call a meeting (that is: to actually set the date and time of the meeting). This is perhaps a triviality, but it is crucial to the entire argument. If Billings had no standing on the Board of Directors, he was in no position to determine the time and place of the meeting. There might even be a question as to whether the President has the authority to call the meeting independant of the BOD, but that grows even more complicated (and is certainly beyond my knowledge of such matters). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc64 Posted July 26, 2010 Author Share Posted July 26, 2010 As I said - certainly possible, however: Article 8, Subsection 2: "A Special General Meeting shall be called within thirty (30) days following a written request signed by not less than one-third (1/3) of the Active and Associate Members" [emphasis mine]. This provides that the membership can request a meeting (though presummably not call one). In all of Section 8, only the Board of Directors is mentioned as having the power to actually call a meeting (that is: to actually set the date and time of the meeting). This is perhaps a triviality, but it is crucial to the entire argument. If Billings had no standing on the Board of Directors, he was in no position to determine the time and place of the meeting. There might even be a question as to whether the President has the authority to call the meeting independant of the BOD, but that grows even more complicated (and is certainly beyond my knowledge of such matters). As per my previous post the CSA bylaws are much more specific about who actually calls the SGM. The ASA bylaws are vague in this area. Attacking the validity of the SGM on the basis of who scheduled the meeting is one of the weaker arguments being made by Mario and company (IMO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halley Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Saw that just after I posted. Agree with the difference there. Only reason it matters in my mind is because there were two SGMs called. One of those is invalid almost by definition I would think. In that case, it might be relevant who called the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1867 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Whether or not Chris called the meeting or not-there is no real precedent for this. What happens when a president is suspended illegally prior to any investigaton or hearing or even a proper board meetng to deal with the issue and in the meantime the usurping vice president and his cronies are called to task by the membership with an sgm request and the vpresident presumes to oversee his own removal vote? Perhaps some experts can advise as to what should have happened. In fact Marios first response to the SGM request was to call a "special meeting" to show everyone what a terrible guy Mr billings was-not even addressing the SGM sibject matter and he actually made further allegations and slandered the Ex director thereby incurring further liability for the ASA. Probably what should have happened is that CSA should have stepped in to overturn the "suspension" and then Chris could have run ASA until he was legally removed or cleared. All of ths qaugmire and so much after it was brave new territory and frankly other Boards would not presume to act as the charpentier group acted. My guess is they were given tacit approval by ther buddies at CSA and forged on regardless of common sense and the bylaws because they knew they were backed by their anti reform friends at the CSA exectutive. This is the only explanation I can come up with. I personally believe the SGM to remove them was legal and will likely stand legal scrutiny and CSA and the Charpentier group will not be able to ignore it. I was privy to the petition with 16 names of district heads on it and saw 15 district heads vote for removal. The fact that CSA executive sees fit to ratify the 'suspension" without legal basis and ignore a by the book SGM removal is galling. Why is one act ok but the other not? Why arent they calling for the SGM to be honored or going by the bylaws and calling for a new SGM? We can only speculate and that is what you see on this thread. If it happened in their province Ted and Richard would be cryng foul instead of glibly casting aspersions on the membershp of ASA on this thread. People have fought hard over the centuries for their democratic and legal rights-people leave other countries to come to Canada to enjoy them and just because some misguided people at CSA decide not to honor them and dictate who our leaders will be does not mean we should bow down to them-we have legal remedies and will exercise them if CSA chooses to gnore their own bylaws agasnt interfering wth the provinces rights to choose their own leadership. If people suggest we should live on our knees then that says more about them than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc64 Posted July 26, 2010 Author Share Posted July 26, 2010 Saw that just after I posted. Agree with the difference there. Only reason it matters in my mind is because there were two SGMs called. One of those is invalid almost by definition I would think. In that case, it might be relevant who called the meeting. It will be interesting to see the decision of the court and what they base their decision on. As a side note, I believe Mario was adjusting the agenda for his SGM (previously mentioned). This is also a violation of the bylaws but really insignificant as his meeting did not have quorum. I think, as I have previously stated, that if the judge rules the 9AM SGM was invalid the only available next step is to mandate an immediate SGM to deal with the agenda items demanded by the districts. I hope the courts rule the 9AM SGM was done legally and according to bylaws so this issue can be put to rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc64 Posted July 26, 2010 Author Share Posted July 26, 2010 Whether or not Chris called the meeting or not-there is no real precedent for this. What happens when a president is suspended illegally prior to any investigaton or hearing or even a proper board meetng to deal with the issue and in the meantime the usurping vice president and his cronies are called to task by the membership with an sgm request and the vpresident presumes to oversee his own removal vote? Perhaps some experts can advise as to what should have happened. In fact Marios first response to the SGM request was to call a "special meeting" to show everyone what a terrible guy Mr billings was-not even addressing the SGM sibject matter and he actually made further allegations and slandered the Ex director thereby incurring further liability for the ASA. Probably what should have happened is that CSA should have stepped in to overturn the "suspension" and then Chris could have run ASA until he was legally removed or cleared. All of ths qaugmire and so much after it was brave new territory and frankly other Boards would not presume to act as the charpentier group acted. My guess is they were given tact approval by ther buddies at CSA and forged on regardless of common sense and the bylaws because they knew they were backed by their anti reform friends at the CSA exectutive. This is the only explanation I can come up with. I personally believe the SGM to remove them was legal and will likely stand legal scrutiny and CSA and the Charpentier group will not be able to ignore it. i was privy to the petition with 16 names of district heads on t and saw 15 distrcts heads vote for removal. The fact that CSA executive sees fit to ratify the 'suspension" without legal basis and ignore a by the book SGM removal is galling. Why is one act ok but the other not? Why arent they calling for the SGM to be honored or going by the bylaws and calling for a new SGM? We can only speculate and that is what you see on this thread. If it happened in their province Ted and Richard would be cryng foul instead of glibly casting aspersions on the membershp of ASA on this thread. This mostly conforms to my opinion as well and with the legal opinions I have been fortunate enough to read and hear. (with the exception of the Gowlings legal opinion of course). I also know anecdotally that this opinion is consistent with the legal opinions and advice given to staff by a myriad of legal council. If anyone should be conducting an appeal to CSA and the sports resolution council it should be Mario and his group attempting to appeal their dismissal at the SGM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1867 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Yes-where is the "gowlings" legal opinion that Mario based his suspension on but refuses to show anyone-he was happy to show the "gowlings" opinion on the SGM that relied on bylaws 8 years out of date but would never show his vaunted Gowlings suspension opinion-if any of his friends have it please post it-if it exists or is grounded in actual fact. My guess s it doesnt exist. I have seen a bennet jones opinion from CASA and this was very cogent and convincing on the various illegalities of the suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halley Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 I think, as I have previously stated, that if the judge rules the 9AM SGM was invalid the only available next step is to mandate an immediate SGM to deal with the agenda items demanded by the districts. Agree completely with this. Especially given that the "second" SGM most certainly did not acheive quorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1867 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 The fact that there was either a legal sgm to remove board members or at the least there needs to be another one if quorum was in dispute is not in debate-it is one or the other-CSA and the charpentier group conveniently ignore this. It wont go away no matter how hard they plug their ears and ignore it-unfortunately it will require a Judge to say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Folks in Alberta... need to continue to be focussed on the critical issue...which is to democratically elect a new board that will be transparent ( government speak for honest ) and focus on improving soccer in Alberta... that means, making decisions that ... 1. Make the game played on the field better. 2. Make the quality of referee's better. If a decision does not do one of the above dont implement the decision, so strip away rules that control people but dont make the game better .... Keep fighting ... to reform soccer in Alberta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 www.reformalbertasoccer.com A_Coach_In_AB has done a bang up job. Still a bit more to add and if anyone has the 1998 bylaws in digital format please send it to him at acoachinab@gmail.com This is a site to give to people for background info on the dispute and all the various positions and documents he could get. It is fact based and backed up by the documents and interviews by the people involved. Spread it around to all your contacts. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc64 Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 www.reformalbertasoccer.com A_Coach_In_AB has done a bang up job. Still a bit more to add and if anyone has the 1998 bylaws in digital format please send it to him at acoachinab@gmail.com This is a site to give to people for background info on the dispute and all the various positions and documents he could get. It is fact based and backed up by the documents and interviews by the people involved. Spread it around to all your contacts. Thanks Very well done. I appreciate the effort. I hope it gets people involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonm Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 www.reformalbertasoccer.com A_Coach_In_AB has done a bang up job. Still a bit more to add and if anyone has the 1998 bylaws in digital format please send it to him at acoachinab@gmail.com This is a site to give to people for background info on the dispute and all the various positions and documents he could get. It is fact based and backed up by the documents and interviews by the people involved. Spread it around to all your contacts. Thanks Incredible job, keep up the good work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeg51 Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Thanks Coach - I shall be joining that groups as soon as I get away from internet cafes ad road trips. Just a note on that Article 8 discussion. The way I read it, once an SGM is asked for by a mogority of members (in this case it was), the bylaw reads "an SGM shall be called." It is silet on who does the calling. In this case the "cabal" as I call them, failed to do the right thing and call it. The "reformers" did call the meeting. The issue of quorum and notification is interesting. If the 98 bylaws stand, (and I don't have the wording) CSF were the only (?) Calgary reps. This also calls into question the elections held in January and whether the Board of Directors were a "properly constituted Board" per existing bylaws. It does give the Justice a way out - all Boards elected since...19XX have not been properly constituted and the Justice could order an Extraordinary SGM, based on the registered bylaws. This will be interesting because it will force the Calgary and Edmonton voted to be cast in a block (CSF and ESA) which was a primary beef of MC over the voting system. (Most of this is conjecture as I don't have the exact test with me to quote) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 www.reformalbertasoccer.com A_Coach_In_AB has done a bang up job. Still a bit more to add and if anyone has the 1998 bylaws in digital format please send it to him at acoachinab@gmail.com This is a site to give to people for background info on the dispute and all the various positions and documents he could get. It is fact based and backed up by the documents and interviews by the people involved. Spread it around to all your contacts. Thanks Wow Coach, A+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Spiers Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Another article for the collection - from the St. Albert Gazette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustFixIt Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Still a bit more to add and if anyone has the 1998 bylaws in digital format please send it to him Note that the EIYSA appeal at the bottom of the Documents page does contain the 1998 bylaws, in Tab 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc64 Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 Another article for the collection - from the St. Albert Gazette. I love when Mr. Charpentier is quoted in the article as saying they would never punish the little kids just because the adults aren't getting along. He must have a very short memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1867 Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Mario is a man of contradictions-he relies on others having a short memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kj52 Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Mario is a man of contradictions-he relies on others having a short memory. Some of the contradictions are truly extraordinary such as first suspending Mr. Billings pending an investigation then later claiming that an investigation had been ongoing for four months prior to the suspension. Which was it? It can't be both so one pretty much has to be a deliberate lie. How many more of these self-induced "contradictions" are there in this saga? The reformalbertasoccer website is going to be invaluable for anyone researching this dispute and wanting to be part of doing something to help fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc64 Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 Some of the contradictions are truly extraordinary such as first suspending Mr. Billings pending an investigation then later claiming that an investigation had been ongoing for four months prior to the suspension. Which was it? It can't be both so one pretty much has to be a deliberate lie. How many more of these self-induced "contradictions" are there in this saga? The reformalbertasoccer website is going to be invaluable for anyone researching this dispute and wanting to be part of doing something to help fix it. Do you know what the 1998 bylaws say about suspending individuals? We have rehashed what the current (2009 ) bylaws say or don't say about suspensions. I looked at the 2006 bylaws at it states that if a person stands suspended pending a hearing that the hearing must be schedule within 15 days of receipt of the misconduct report and held within 25 days of the receipt of misconduct report (It think it says working days). This is the only reference I have been able to find stating that it is OK to suspend someone pending a hearing, and it is in a copy of the bylaws that are invalid by anyones argument. It is all very bizarre to me. Mario and his group seem to pick and choice which bylaws they want to pay attention to. They claim devotion to some bylaws, ignore others, misrepresent (IMO) others, and even disregard some of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1867 Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 OC Re: contradictions: Apparently when you are the protector of virtue and the self annointed budget protector you can do whatever you want-and it helps to have Traficante and freinds on the CSA executive. They appreciate a good contradicton. They say they dont interfere in Provincials matters but jump in to uphold Billings "suspension" right before their own CSA meetings and ignore SGMs that would remove Charpentier et al. They also are exactly the same guys who told EIYSA in 2008 that CSAs appeals committee was not allowed to rule on provincial matters but then jumped in to protect Colin and Mario again. For info on this there are posts on this thread and info on the reform site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc64 Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 OC Re: contradictions: Apparently when you are the protector of virtue and the self annointed budget protector you can do whatever you want-and it helps to have Traficante and freinds on the CSA executive. They appreciate a good contradicton. They say they dont interfere in Provincials matters but jump in to uphold Billings "suspension" right before their own CSA meetings and ignore SGMs that would remove Charpentier et al. They also are exactly the same guys who told EIYSA in 2008 that CSAs appeals committee was not allowed to rule on provincial matters but then jumped in to protect Colin and Mario again. For info on this there are posts on this thread and info on the reform site. The reform site has been great. I thought I was fairly well informed but there were several documents that were new to me. I'm starting to gain a greater appreciation for the actions of Billings and why he chose to just declare the suspension invald instead of jump through the hoops of the appeals process. Time will tell if that was the correct decision, but at least I know know that he did his due diligence before deciding on a course of action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1867 Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Why have a hearing before a board that was removed by the membership? Hopefully the Alan Beattie report will be up and the Bennet jones legal opinion on the suspension will be up and a better understanding will be available to those who wish to see. If the charpentier group has that Gowlings opinion that they hinged the legality of the suspension prior to a hearing argument we are all waiting to see that. Post it please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc64 Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 If the charpentier group has that Gowlings opinion that they hinged the legality of the suspension prior to a hearing argument we are all waiting to see that. Post it please. It's strange that they have shared other legal opinions from Gowlings but this one remains hidden away. It really makes you wonder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.