Item # 20 – Elimination of Life Governors ( Motions 2010-03 & -04 ) Pt. I discussion

[Bob Armstrong]

Item # 20 – Elimination of Past President/Life Governors ( Motions 2010-03 & -04 ) – for discussion

This thread is for discussion of the motions only. Voting on the motions will not occur until 9:00 PM EDT on Monday, Oct. 4, when a separate “ voting “ agenda item will be posted as a sticky at the top of the screen.
These motions were originally brought at the start of the 2009-10 year. There was a straw vote of the governors on them during last year and both passed ( see motion commentaries below ). But they had to be officially voted on at the Toronto July CFC AGM. But when they came on for vote at the AGM, Les Bunning noted that he had given notice in one of last year’s GL’s that he intended a motion to amend Motion 2010 -03, to allow for a specific group of life governors to continue. But there was no formal motion for this before the AGM, so the motions were adjourned to the Fall Quarterly ( Oct. ) Governors’ On-line Meeting, so it could deal with the Bunning amending motion, before the vote on the main motion. As of yet, Lyle Craver, CFC Secretary, advises he has received no formal motion from Les. Under the meeting procedures, an amending motion must be raised at this meeting by Sunday night, Oct. 3, at 6:00 PM EDT. If there is no formal amending motion tabled, then Motions 2010-03 & -04 will go ahead for vote Monday night as planned.
The 2 motions are set out below:

1. Motion 2010-03, and Commentary:

Motion 2010-03 - Reduction of Past CFC President Governors

Revision # 10, June 20, 2010

( Submitted by the movers/seconders to the CFC Executive/Governors on behalf of the CFC Constitutional Coalition, a grassroots’ group of almost 40 CFC members/former members, commentary prepared by Bob Armstrong, Coalition Coordinator, CFC Life Member; Coalition members/supporters of these motions are named below ):

Motion :Moved: Governor Patrick McDonald; Seconded: Governor Paul Leblanc
.
Governors-at-Large – Past CFC Presidents: Section 6 of By-law # 2 is amended by deleting

“ the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least two full terms. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.”

and deleting

“ the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994. “

There shall be added after the words “ five years “ in the remaining section, the sentence “ A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.”

Commentary:

The current appointment of past CFC Presidents under the CFC Handbook is under section 6 of Bylaw 2, which states:

" 6.GOVERNORS AT LARGE

The following persons shall be known as Governors at large:

the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least two full terms. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.

the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least one full term in the immediately preceding five years.
.
.
the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994. "

The new revised section will now read ( as to the part referring to former Presidents ):

" 6. GOVERNORS AT LARGE

The following persons shall be known as Governors at large:…

the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least one full term in the immediately preceding five years. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next. “.


It is felt that it is undemocratic in this day and age for CFC to have “ Life “ governors. Even the Canadian senate now has an imposed retirement age. It unbalances the democratic principles on which the CFC is founded, to give someone a vote for life, where they are not accountable to any electorate any longer.
Thus this motion will eliminate all life governor presidents ( appointed on and before September 1994 and any past president who was elected more than five years ago and has served 2 consecutive terms )..
We do recognize the loss of experience in the Assembly our motion will cause, and the contributions life governors have made, but we have kept on the past presidents from the last 5 years. These are the presidents that have the most claim on some type of “ recently elected “ factor. And they are the most current past presidents, and so have been dealing with the newest issues facing the organization. As well, earlier past presidents can always run again for provincial governor if they want to stay active. Also, they can easily let it be known that they are more than ready to give advice when asked, or to serve as member volunteers on committees, etc. Finally, we are proposing that those governors removed by this motion, be reappointed as non-voting Governors at large for 10 years ( see our motion # 2010-04 ).
Currently there are 10 ( one apparently has asked to be removed but that hasn’t been done yet ) past president governors who are life governors under this section. The Life governors who would be eliminated are: Les Bunning, Francisco Cabanas, Nathan Divinsky, Yves Farges, Terry Fleming Phil Haley, Halldor Palsson, Maurice Smith ( he would still be a governor at large though as current Treasurer ), Peter Stockhausen and Bruce D. Thomas.. The potential number of such governors-at-large could be reduced to the most recent 5 presidents ( and Life Governors eliminated ), by deleting the 2 of three categories identified in the motion:

“ the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least two full terms “

and

“the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994. “

We feel that this will enhance the democratic nature of the CFC.

NOTES: [ see motion in GL ]

Later added Comment: Passed in a “ straw vote “ with more than 50% of governors voting, as per results in GL # 4:

Votes Yes (27):
Armstrong, Barron, Bluvshtein, Bond, Brodie, Coleman, Craft, Demian, Einarsson, Gladstone,
Hughey, Leblanc, Mallon, Marghetis, McDonald, McKim, Milicevic, Nadeau, Nunes, Pedersen,
Risi, Ritchie, Starr, Steer, Stringer, von Keitz, Zeromskis
Votes No (5):
Bunning, Craver, Dutton, Haley, Smith
Abstentions (2): Cabanas, Evans
Total Votes Cast: 34 (65.4%)

Continued in Part II below

[Bob Armstrong]

Continuation of introductory post:

2. Motion 2010-04 & Commentary:

Motion 2010-04 - Creating Non-Voting Governors at Large

Revision # 5 – June 20, 2010

- submitted by Governor Bob Armstrong, mover, and Governor Paul Leblanc , seconder, on behalf of the CFC Constitutional Coalition, a group of about 40 ordinary CFC members ( including a few governors ), named below.

Moved: Governor Bob Armstrong Seconded: Governor Paul Leblanc

There shall be added to Bylaw 2, if Motion # 2010-03 ( already filed on behalf of the Coalition ) is passed, the following new Section 6A:

“ 6A. NON-VOTING GOVERNORS AT LARGE

The following shall be known as non-voting Governors at large:

the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least two full terms prior to July 1, 2009. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.

And

the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994.

They shall have all governor rights, except the right to vote. They shall cease being governors on July 1, 2019. “

Commentary: Currently the section dealing with past president governors at large is section 6 of Bylaw 2, which states in the relevant part:

" 6.GOVERNORS AT LARGE

The following persons shall be known as Governors at large:

the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least two full terms. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.

the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least one full term in the immediately preceding five years.
.
.
the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994. "

The CFC Constitutional Coalition Motion #2 will eliminate all the existing life governors at large.. This is necessary because the concept is anti-democratic.
But it is not wanted to lose the experience of the five past president governors who would be eliminated. As well, we wish to recognize their contribution to the CFC over the years. Further, a commitment had been made to these governors of lifetime governorships, and it is felt CFC should go some way towards honouring that commitment to some extent.
Hence we are creating a time-limited special category of governor, the non-voting governor at large. Thus the existing governors affected by motion # 2010-03 will be retained in all respects by this Motion # 2010-04, except for their right to vote. It will allow these few past presidents to continue to be involved – they can attend the AGM and be recognized; they will continue as part of the Governors’ Discussion Board; they can be put on Committees; they can volunteer; they will still carry the title of Governor. Of course, it is always open to them to run again as a provincial representation governor candidate. This seems a suitable compromise and is an attempt at a kind of “ grandparenting “ under the change imposed by Motion # 2010-03. The Life Governors who will be moved to this new category are: Les Bunning, Francisco Cabanas, Nathan Divinsky, Yves Farges, Terry Fleming Phil Haley, Halldor Palsson, Maurice Smith ( he would still be a normal governor at large though as current Treasurer ), Peter Stockhausen and Bruce D. Thomas

Notes [ See motion in GL ]

Later added Comment: Passed in a “ straw vote “ with more than 50% of governors voting, as per results in GL # 4:

Vote Yes (23): Armstrong, Barron, Bluvshtein, Bond, Brodie, Coleman, Craft, Demian,
Einarsson, Gladstone, Leblanc, Mallon, McDonald, McKim, Milicevic, Nadeau, Nunes,
Pedersen, Starr, Steer, Stringer, von Keitz, Zeromskis
Vote No (8): Bunning, Craver, Dutton, Haley, Hughey, Marghetis, Ritchie, Smith
Abstain (3): Cabanas, Evans, Risi
Total Votes Cast: 34 (65.4%)

Please post here any comments you have either for or against the motions.

NOTE: my apologies on this topic - in error it didn't get posted at the start of the meeting, as intended. - Bob

[Lyle Craver]

Bob you are stating AS A MATTER OF FACT that the institution of life governors is un-democratic. That is your OPINION and some of us see things differently.

It is no more anti-democratic than the Canadian Senate with the difference that no one is appointed a Life Governor by the President but rather by one's own labours on behalf of the CFC.

While not all past presidents have been active, those that are work very hard on behalf of the Federation. Apologies in advance to anyone I overlook but there isn't a single member of the CFC Executive in recent years that hasn't valued the contributions of Les Bunning.

Similarly I personally have valued my regular contacts with Messrs. Farges, Stockhausen and Cabanas. Maurice Smith has served on the Executive in various roles since his term as President.

I see your point but at the same time I know very well that these men (no ladies yet!) are one of the most treasured resources of the Federation and I oppose this motion as it would tend to cut off this resource.

In short - I think it's a motion driven by ideology that makes little real sense in the real world that the CFC finds itself in.

[Les Bunning]

Essentially this motion calls for the removal of life governorships from former CFC presidents who served as presidents for at least 2 terms.This motion has been debated several times in recent years and has always been defeated. For the most part past presidents are more active than the average governor but with some exceptions. At the 2007 annual meeting in Ottawa 5 or 6 life governors attended out of about 26. At the 2008 annual meeting in Montreal 2 or 3 life governors attended out of about 18. At this years annual meeting 3 life governors attended. Life governors are often asked to do special tasks or serve on special committees. I am proposing an amendment to this motion . This amendment was published in last years governors letter #2 but got lost along the way. I have amended it slightly to take into account these online meetings. The effect of the amendment would be to eliminate those life governors who are not active but retain those who are active.
Moved Bunning/Craver section 6 of by law #2 is amended by replacing the current wording which reads "The past presidents of the federation who have served as president for at least 2 terms. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next" with the following wording" The past presidents of the federation who have served as President for at least 2 terms and continue to demonstrate that they are active governors by attending at any one annual meeting over a 2 year period or commenting or voting on not less than 3 governors motions in any two year period or attending at least 2 on line governors meetings over a two year period. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.
Les Bunning

[Stuart Brammall]

This seems very reasonable. There is absolutely no reason to exclude active volunteers.

And Democracy is not the best system when you are trying to get things done anyway ; )

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Stuart:

Those supporting motion 2010-03 also value the volunteer efforts of some of the life governors who have remained active. That is why we brought the companion Motion 2010-04, which makes all these life governors " non-voting governors at large for 10 years ". They can continue to participate fully - just not vote.

And why no vote - because they are not elected. No one should have a vote for life in the first place, but certainly not when not elected. It is undemocratic.

Les Bunning's competing motion to keep alive some category of Life Governor focusses on the " activity issue " - they must be active to keep their status. But this is not the MAIN issue - it is that anyone should have a life vote, and especially when they are not elected. Les' competing motion keeps this antiquated system alive.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Les:

Your motion only deals with one part of the section that deals with life governors.

You have not deleted the following in the original section 6:

“ the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994. “

I assume this is deliberate. Your motion intends to keep these life governors in place by leaving this part in the section 6. Thus, there will be no activity criteria for these 10, just for future, 2 term presidents, as I read the section as amended by you.

Bob

[Phil Haley]

Lyle Craver, Stuart Brammal and Les Bunning each make excellent points...we should support the Bunning/Craver amendment which makes good common sense....Phil Haley

[Les Bunning]

The only life governor who might be effected by this is Nathan Divinsky because I am not sure whether or not he has served 2 full terms. Considering the lifetime involvement of Nathan Divinsky in canadian chess I consider it to be mean spirited to remove him as a governor. Replying to the issue of democracy on the 4 occaisons that I was elected president it was known that I was also being elected as a life governor. Now what is undemocratic about that?

[Bob Armstrong]

We have done many things in the past, that ought not to be continued into the present. Democracy can improve on itself. We used to have Canadian Life Senators - we decided that needed to be improved and modified the system. Some think we should go further and elect our senators.

I think it is time CFC became more democratic, and no longer elected people for life ( even if we did do it in the past ).

Bob

[Fred McKim]

I would like to hear from others out there who agree with Bob A on this. It's been pretty well a one man crusade in this discussion thread.

While in agreement with this at one time, I am open to a compromise that allows "active" Past Presidents to stay on.

[Stuart Brammall]

Come on Bob, you know how governors are "elected"--- you show up at the league meeting and don't decline when its offered to you. As far as I can see anyone who is active in the community should have a vote.

[Bob Armstrong]

I have now written to the Chair, Bob G, on this motion of Les Bunning/Lyle Craver, as follows:

" Hi Bob G:

Les has now specified the wording he wants for the section, as an alternative to the wording proposed in Motion 2010-03. I trust that Les has reviewed the full section and that his wording works with the remaining parts of the section.

I therefore propose that we procedurally deal with this by asking the following poll question as a vote on Monday evening:

Regarding Life Governors, I vote for – 3 options ( exclusive ) – 1. Motion 2010-03; 2. Motion 2011-A ( Bunning Motion ); 3. Neither of the above.

I suggest this because Les is not really amending Motion 2010-03 – his wording makes no reference to the wording of that motion. It is rather a competing motion asking to amend the original section differently. This seems fine however, and I think my proposal for how to proceed handles it."

I am currently awaiting confirmation from Bob G that this seems an acceptable way to deal with the 2 competing motions.

Motion 2011-A will be:

Moved Bunning/Craver - Section 6 of by law #2 is amended by replacing the current wording which reads "The past presidents of the federation who have served as president for at least 2 terms. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next" with the following wording: " The past presidents of the federation who have served as President for at least 2 terms and continue to demonstrate that they are active governors by attending at any one annual meeting over a 2 year period or commenting or voting on not less than 3 governors motions in any two year period or attending at least 2 on line governors meetings over a two year period. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next ".


Bob

[Fred McKim]

I think that the compromise is only useful if it refers to all Past Presidents outside of the 5 year range. I would like to see someone amend Les motion to replace both the first and the last phrase in the section.

It should allow us to weed out inactive PP's as soon as their 5 years are up.

[Ken Craft]

I support Bob A's motion. Assuming the CFC Presidency should not grant gubernatorial voting rights for life.

[Christopher Field]

I agree with Phil Haley and support this amendment.

The CFC has never been a "democracy".
In fact, in my experience, governors representing provincial associations or regional associations are selected and approved at an AGM which involves very few members.

It is obvious that many of those selected are unable to devote sufficient time to governance. I have been in that situation in the past myself.

We need all provincial associations to continue working to find more representatives who care about chess and the CFC, and who have the time to attend to matters such as governors' meetings and discussions.

[Bob Armstrong]

Posted on the Procedures' Questions/Comments thread:

Oct. 4, 2010, 04:51 PM

Bob Armstrong - CFC Governor

Meeting Extension

Les Bunning has brought a motion 2011-A to amend motion 2010-03 re Life Governors. Procedure dictates that an amending motion must be voted on first, and then, according to the outcome of that vote, the man motion/amended main motion is then voted on. The meeting procedures now allow for a 3 day extension of this meeting to accomodate this reality.

But Bob G feels there has been still insufficient discussion on Les' amending motion and has therefore ruled that it will be put up " for discussion " initially, rather than for immediate voting tonight at 9:00 PM EDT. The discussion will then go on for a while and then there will be time set aside for voting on it, and then time allocated to voting on the main motion. The exact dates for this will be posted here once the actual wording of Les' motion has been decided upon and it has been posted.

As a result, Motions 2010-03 and 2010-04 will not be posted for vote at 9:00 PM tonight, but both will await the outcome of the eventual vote on Motion 2011-A. Once that is known, then both Motion 2010-03 ( or the amended motion ) and Motion 2010-04 will be posted for vote.

Bob.

[Lyle Craver]

"we used to have Canadian life senators"

True - now we make them retire at age 75 with a nice fat pension which is a much better deal for them when their position really was for life.

As for past presidents attending AGMs most of these do if in the Toronto area. Outside the GTA the percentage is much lower as should be expected.

If by some chance Dr. Divinsky were to be removed by this motion (I'm not taking the time right now to look it up) I would promote a motion to restore the Life Governorship to him for his services to chess anyhow.

Given his advanced age and his service to chess in pretty much every CFC job except executive director around it would be churlish to do otherwise.

Either way I share Les' view on this motion and will be voting accordingly.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Lyle:

As you know, I will be voting against the amending motion 2011-A.

However, should it pass, and the main motion then pass as amended, I would support your motion granting life governor status again to Nathan Divinsky, if he is terminated because of the motion.

Bob

[Michael Barron]

I support Bob A's motion. Assuming the CFC Presidency should not grant gubernatorial voting rights for life.

I support Bob A's motion as well.

I know, such Governors like Maurice Smith, Les Bunning, Phil Haley, Nathan Divinsky always will be elected by their provinces as long as they wish it.
We all appreciate everything that they did and continue to do for Canadian chess community!

But they still should be elected every year, rather than be a Governors for life.

[Lyle Craver]

That's a reasonable position though one I strongly disagree with since I feel elected Governors have responsibilities both ways to the membership. Most of the Life Governors are retired or semi-retired and thus aren't expected to be as active.

One thing I really value in my role on the Executive is being able to get contributions from past presidents (I've mentioned previously I hear from Messrs Farges, Cabanas, Divinsky and until last year Stockhausen 3 or 4 times a year on a fairly regular basis and would like to hear more from all of them) and have NEVER felt their input was anything other than extremely valuable. I've really missed the monthly phone calls from Peter Stockhausen that used to always come in the first week of each month long after he left the presidency.

On this particular amendment, my seconding of it was pro forma as I commonly do for proposals which I think have merit enough to warrant debating by the Governors as a whole which I want to advance wherever possible. I do not really agree with the amendment since my own view is that the existing Life Governor rules have served the CFC well and I would not want to change them. However if my view does NOT carry the day then Mr. Bunning's amendment is better than the unamended motion.

[Ken Craft]

The ideal compromise might have been to grandparent the current Life governors subject to an activity clause while ceasing to create further Life Governors.

[Garland Best]

I would vote in favor of this.

If we want to follow this concept, then one could vote for Les's ammended motion, with the intent of introducing a new motion in the next meeting to eliminate the creation of new life [governors].

[Phil Haley]

Ken Craft and Garland Best make a common sense proposal...it is unfortunate that this whole topic did not start with this idea.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

"we used to have Canadian life senators"

True - now we make them retire at age 75 with a nice fat pension which is a much better deal for them when their position really was for life.

As for past presidents attending AGMs most of these do if in the Toronto area. Outside the GTA the percentage is much lower as should be expected.

If by some chance Dr. Divinsky were to be removed by this motion (I'm not taking the time right now to look it up) I would promote a motion to restore the Life Governorship to him for his services to chess anyhow.

Given his advanced age and his service to chess in pretty much every CFC job except executive director around it would be churlish to do otherwise.

Either way I share Les' view on this motion and will be voting accordingly.

In special cases as the one of Dr. Divinsky we should offer instead a honorary membership in an advisory committee! This way any such member will not be pressured by daily challenges and would be able to contribute on selected important issues only. Anyone interested in such action?

[Lyle Craver]

I would vote in favor of this.

If we want to follow this concept, then one could vote for Les's ammended motion, with the intent of introducing a new motion in the next meeting to eliminate the creation of new life members.

I hope this is a simple typo since this discussion is about Life Governors - I'm not aware that anyone is advocating eliminating Life Members which are simply about being willing to pay the appropriate fee and offer no special membership privileges.

Unlike our American neighbors the CFC has always properly handled Life Member funds in a financially responsible way.

[Garland Best]

Post Ammended.