PDA

View Full Version : Item # 20B - Motion 2011-A - Activity Rule for Life Governors - for discussion



Bob Armstrong
10-04-2010, 08:58 PM
[B]Motion 2011-A - Amending Motion 2010-03 (Activity Rule for Life Governors )/B]

Moved: Bunning/Craver –

Motion 2010-03, dealing with Section 6 of by law #2, is amended

1. by deleting from the current motion 2010-03 the first word “ deleting “ and substituting for it the word “ replacing “; and

2. after the sentences "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", adding “ 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 ".

This thread is for discussion of the amending motion only. A separate motion voting thread for it will be posted at 9:00 PM EDT on Thursday, Oct. 7.

Note that the meeting has been extended to Tuesday, Oct. 12 at 10:00 PM for the purposes only of dealing with voting on this amending motion, and then the main motion or amended main motion and Motion 2010-04.

Bob

Fred McKim
10-04-2010, 09:19 PM
Les: Can you explain why this amendment is not being applied against the lifetime Governors before 1994. This is the last class of Governors at Large. Surely any of these that are not active would willingly step down.

Lyle Craver
10-04-2010, 09:21 PM
Our rules on Life Governors need revision - there is not even any provision for resignation and as our rules stand, any LG who resigned could take up his position again at any time.

There are all sorts of anomalies possible here.

Bob Armstrong
10-04-2010, 09:33 PM
Hi Fred:

There was some ambiguity I believe in Les' Motion 2011-A when first posted because of the uncertainty because of the wording, whether it was a motion amending Motion 2010-03, as he clearly intended, or whether it was a competing motion amending the original section directly.

I clarified this with Les by rewording his motion to his satisfaction as above. It now shows that the part of the original section dealing with life governors under " the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994. “ will be deleted under either the amending motion or the main motion.

So the only category left for life governors under the amending motion will be:

" 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 ".

It so happens that life governors by the deleted part, happen to also qualify under the new proposed part ( ie were also 2 term presidents ), except perhaps Nathan Divinsky, because Les is not certain he is a full two term president.

So effectively all life governors under the amending motion will be suject to the activity criterion.

Les can speak further to this if any of this is not correct.

Bob

Les Bunning
10-04-2010, 10:34 PM
By law #2 is our main operating Bylaw . I completely rewrote it in the early nineties. Before that time all CFC presidents became Life governors even if they were only president for a short period of time. This used to happen if a president resigned, then under the old rules the Vice president automatically became president- sometimes only for a few months. The early nineties constitutional amendment changed this proceedure so that if a president resigns now the executive appoints a new President. It also reduced the life governorship to CFC presidents who served as Presidents for 2 full terms. This generally meant that only the most comitted presidents were so honoured. Presidents serving less than 2 full terms were granted governor status for 5 years. The constitutional amendment was passed at the annual meeting in Winnipeg but the consensus at that meeting was that past presidents who had obtained life governor staus - e.g. Nathan Divinsky- should retain this status. That is how the reference to 1994 came about. I believe that only Bruce Thomas and perhaps Nathan Divinsky are effected by this 1994 reference. I believe Bruce thomas is inactive but I would strongly urge an exemption being made for Nathan Divinsky.
Les Bunning

Bob Armstrong
10-05-2010, 12:02 AM
This amending motion keeps alive the antiquated life governor system, trying to make it acceptable by applying an activity rule to the life governors. But it still KEEPS the life governor system.

If you want the life governor system, which gives the life governor a " vote for life " without being elected, to be eliminated totally, then you have to vote AGAINST this amending motion.

Then you will get to pass Motions 2010-03 & -04 to confirm the elimination of the life governor system.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
10-05-2010, 08:39 PM
I note that only 3 out of 10 life governors have attended this meeting: Les Bunning, Phil Haley and Halldor Palsson.

The fact that the other 7 are governors, and not attending, drags down our attendance potential at this meeting, and diminishes the appreciation of governor committment in the eyes of the membership. They will no longer be life governors and will no longer have a vote if you vote AGAINST this amending motion 2011-A. But Motion 2010-04, brought with Motion 2010-03, will seek to keep the 10 life governors on as " non-voting governors-at-large for 10 years ".

But more importantly, quite apart from the question of life governor activity or not, the issue is that there should be no " life govenor, with vote, without election" system at all. Voting AGAINST this amending motion will get rid of this antiquated system.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
10-05-2010, 08:43 PM
My feeling has always been that if they want to be active, that's great, there are plenty of either elected governor spots, or officer positions that would give them votes. And there is plenty of good they can do without voting too.

Bob Armstrong
10-07-2010, 01:15 AM
I am bumping this thread up to the top, because I think it needs more discussion, and will likey draw more attention later today, since Motion 2011-A will be being posted for vote this afternoon at 5:00 PM EDT.

Governors may want more discussion before the vote starts late this afternoon.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
10-07-2010, 07:00 AM
Here is part of the voting notice sent to all governors this morning, regarding discussion of, and voting on, Motion 2011-A:

There is one topic that has actually garnered relatively little attention so far this meeting – the elimination of the Past President/Life Governor system. There are now three motions involved in this topic, two that were originally on the agenda, and one that has formally arisen out of the meeting. They are described by Posting Secretary Lyle Craver ( he and I split the job this meeting ), in his summaries ( referring to the 2 agenda motions ), as :

“ the most contentious motions on the agenda “ !!

In his summary of the topic, he says:

“ the arguments are that

(a) life governors are anti-democratic;

vs

(b) no one becomes a life governor except by a long history of service to chess and these people are a resource we should not exclude.

Procedurally, the matter is being handled as one motion amending another. So the amending motion comes to a vote first. So Motion 2011-A, which seeks to amend Motion 2010-03, will be the first of the three motions voted on. It will be posted for vote tonight at 5:00 PM EDT ( advanced a bit from the earlier scheduled posting time ).

My description of the situation, which I think is close to Lyle’s, is :

( a ) Motion 2010-03 seeks to totally eliminate the Life Governor system; the companion Motion 2010-04 seeks to keep the current 10 Life Governors, by making them non-voting Governors-at-large for 10 years;

vs

( b ) Motion 2011-A, on which voting starts late this afternoon EDT , seeks to change Motion 2010-03 into a motion, by amendment, which would instead, seek to keep the Life Governor system, only subject it to an activity rule.

So, this is what your vote means:

1. A vote AGAINST Motion 2011-A – you wish Motion 2010-03 not to be amended, and to continue to seek the elimination of the Life Governor system,.

2. A vote FOR Motion 2011-A - you wish Motion 2010-03, by amendment, to instead seek to keep the Life Governor system, subject to an activity rule,

Though Motion 2010-03 is a “ constitutional “ amendment, since Motion 2011-A is only an “ amending “ motion, it only requires a simple majority to pass ( someone can post a correction for me if I’m wrong on this ).

If you want to discuss this motion before the vote, it is:

Item # 20B - Motion 2011-A - Activity Rule for Life Governors - for discussion

You have the right, and obligation, to decide this “ contentious “ issue. Please come out and discuss it and vote on it.

Voting on this amending Motion 2011-A closes at 1100 PM on Saturday, Oct. 9.

The meeting was specifically extended from Thursday, Oct. 7 to Tuesday, Oct. 12 at 11:59 PM EDT to deal with these three motions. Please make use of this meeting extension time by discussing, and then voting on, this motion, and then subsequently, Motions 2010-03 & -04.

Michael von Keitz
10-07-2010, 10:13 AM
My feeling has always been that if they want to be active, that's great, there are plenty of either elected governor spots, or officer positions that would give them votes. And there is plenty of good they can do without voting too.

I am in total agreement with Chris and the related rationale of Bob. I am opposed to the amendment and will be voting against it, but I will vote in favour of the original motion.

Lyle Craver
10-07-2010, 02:21 PM
Essentially the situation boils down to:

Bob (who supports elimination of Life Governors) urges you to vote YES to -03 and -04 and NO to -11

while I (who supports continuation of the Life Governor system) urge you to vote NO to -03 and -04 and have not made up my mind on -11

My view is that I think the present system with the input from past Presidents has served the CFC well and see them as a valued resource rather than an anti-democratic nuisance. The average Governor does not see much of this since their input is often at the Executive level.

It would probably cause the gentleman some embarassment but my personal opinion is that Les Bunning's contributions (particularly since his tenure as President) go well beyond anything seen since Messrs. Prentice and Pugi with his only serious rival being Jonathan Berry who was never of course a CFC President. His most important contributions have been behind the scenes in areas the average Governor never sees (such as the Charitable Status matter) but are hugely valuable nonetheless.

Michael von Keitz
10-07-2010, 02:48 PM
There is no question that some Past Presidents have contributed a great deal to the CFC since the completion of their tenures; however, the existence of a vote for life is anti-democratic, regardless of whether the individuals concerned are considered to be a nuisance or not. If these individuals wish to hold onto their voting rights, there is nothing preventing them from standing for election to the general governorship of the organization. In fact, if they fail to secure a position, it seems a strong indication that they do not represent the views of the members of which they would otherwise be assumed to be the voice. Being realistic, however, we can be sure that those indicating a desire to run would be elected out of respect for their track records. If they don't feel inclined to pursue legitimate voting rights, as long as they have voices, nothing is preventing them from using them outside of the vote.

Garland Best
10-07-2010, 02:53 PM
I agree that Les Bunning's contributions as legal consul greatly benefit the CFC.

That being said:

1) Does Les need to be a governor to continue contributing in the manner he has? I don't see necessarily see it. One does not have to be a Governor to be a volunteer for the CFC.
2) Les would likely automatically be acclaimed as a CFC governor at every EOCA meeting if that was the required process.

Either way, I don't think we would be losing out if Bob's motions were carried. If a Life governor is performing valuable work for the CFC and this work is recognized by his peers, then election each year occurs naturally.

I want to emphasize that my comments are not specific to Les, nor any other specific life governor. Contributions to the CFC from anyone are greatly valued. I just think that granting life-long voting priviledges as an award for contributing is not necessarily the best method to show that appreciation.

Patrick McDonald
10-07-2010, 08:47 PM
My view is this: the mere existance of the Life Governor is not democratic.
If someone wants to contribute, great! Let them be a governor, it is often hard to find people willing to stand as governors anyway.

The point is that with all the governors and life governors and other voting members, it is sometimes hard to get enough participation to gain quorum.

If we do get to the point of too many people wishing to be governors for positions available, then GREAT! those that get the positions are even more likely to actuall do something with the position!

Let's eliminate the Life Governor positions and have those that want to help and participate do so as elected governors.

Lyle Craver
10-07-2010, 09:06 PM
While what you say may hold water in Ontario, in smaller provinces this prevent new blood from coming in as a Life Governor if he had to be re-elected every year would tend to make up the province's quota.

One question I've never heard adequately addressed by the other side is what malicious impact they feel our former Presidents have had on the Governors?

Because "anti-democratic" is a powerful, loaded word I don't see being appropriately used with respect to some of the top volunteers in the organization.

(By the way, Les' contributions go well beyond legal advice.)

Fred McKim
10-08-2010, 09:59 AM
I feel that we should modify this to retain active Life Governors, but ensure there are no further life governors. I think this compromise is the best.

Perhaps we can move this for the next meeting depending on what happens over the next few days.