PDA

View Full Version : 31. Motion 2011-F - DISCUSSION



Lyle Craver
01-15-2011, 02:06 AM
Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Ken Einarsson


- that CFC Handbook SECTION 2 – Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings be amended as follows:

1. Section 1, The Meeting, subsection (i ) be amended by deleting the words “

the CFC Governors’ Discussion Board “ and substituting for them the following:

“ a special public CFC Discussion Forum. However the limitations shall be:

1. only governors will be able to post;
2. the public will be able to see all posts, replies, polls, etc. seen by the Governors, but shall have “ view-only “ status; they will be unable to post.

Where the governors vote that a matter is “ confidential “ in nature, and should be dealt with “ in camera “, the Chairperson shall direct that the meeting be adjourned to such Private CFC Discussion Forum as may be available, including the Governors’ Discussion Board. In such a case, after the confidential matter has been dealt with, the Chair shall direct that the meeting resume in the public forum.

2. Section 3, Role of the Posting Secretary, s.5, Vote Results, and s. 6, Meeting Minutes, be amended by substituting for the words “ Governors’ Discussion Board “ wherever they occur, the words “ meeting Discussion Board “

NOTICE TO GOVERNORS: As a Constitutional Amendment motion this is subject to the Handbook requirements for Constitutional Amendments and takes effect if passed at the close of this meeting

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 09:43 AM
Armstrong/Einarsson Commentary on Motion 2011-F :

At present, the non-AGM Quarterly Governors’ On-line Meetings are “ confidential “, ie. not open to the public. This is because the On-line Meeting Procedures state that the meetings are to be held on the Governors’ Discussion Board, which is “ private “, ie. confidential.
There has been discussion among the governors and the CFC members about making the non-AGM Quarterly Governors’ On-line Meetings “ public view-only ‘, as set out in the motion above. A list of arguments has been developed on both sides of this issue, as follows:

PRO's

1. Transparency: The Governors need to be more transparent in their governing, and this is achieved by " public view-only " on-line meetings. This in turn gives the CFC more transparency.

2. Member Interest: This will increase member interest in the affairs of the CFC. It is recognized that many CFC members are rather apolitical, and would likely not come to an open meeting. But we have seen from the members’ CFC Chess Chat Forum, that there are at least 100 what we might term “ hardcore CFC supporters “ , who monitor the board regularly, and are willing to wade through not all that exciting policy posts, and comment on them. If we could generate even more interest in this group, CFC might increase its pool of volunteers, including for non-executive officer volunteer positions, and perhaps even candidates for CFC governorship.

3. Confidentiality Issues: The meeting can always be adjourned to a private forum temporarily if " confidential " matters arise.

4. Governor Activity Monitoring: Though posting of summaries gives some information on the meeting, they are very truncated, and don't reveal which governors took what positions. Members may be interested in how their own local governors contributed. Public view-only meetings allow the members to measure their local governor activity.

5. AGM: the AGM, to which the quarterly non-AGM governors’ on-line meetings are quite similar, is open to the public. So the quarterly on-line meetings should be too.

CON's

1. Decrease in quality of meeting: Governors may become more reticent than they already are to give opinions or take public positions. This decreases the quality of governance.

2. Parallel " Out of Context " Discussions : Because of copying/pasting, governor comments can be taken out of context and posted on other discussion boards, where CFC may get slagged, and it will be unable to respond. Or if it can respond, it will require some coordination of response, which will take energy away from the meeting.

3. Confidentiality: The issue of confidentiality could be raised on numerous occasions. Arguments will have to be made each time, and this will take valuable time away from the meeting. As well, confidential information could inadvertently be disclosed BEFORE the issue of going " in camera " gets raised, and this information could then be posted elsewhere.

4. Summaries - The fact that the procedures state that " minutes " ( interpreted as " summaries " ) are to be posted on the CFC website almost immediately after the meeting, meets the test of having a " public " component to the meeting.

I ( Bob ) attempted to investigate this issue further by doing a poll of both the governors, and the CFC members/public. The result was that a slight majority of the non-executive governors who voted ( 11 voted, or were deemed to have voted ) favoured opening the meeting. However, the executive who voted, unanimously voted against opening the meeting ( but less than 50% of the executive voted ). In the members/public vote, those voting ( 10 voted out of, in my estimation, about 100 ), voted almost unanimously to open the meeting, by indicating that they would attend an open governors’ on-line meeting.

It is our view that the Pro’s on this issue, outweigh the Con’s. The benefits of an open meeting are such that we should take the risks which are pointed out by those against opening the meeting, and deal with them as best we can.

We have therefore amended the on-line meeting procedures so the meetings will now be held in a special public forum, but on a “ public view-only “ basis.

We feel this is the next progressive step in governance, now that we have the on-line meeting procedures in place in the CFC Handbook, and have proved they work successfully to a very high degree ( though admittedly they are not perfect, and can use some “ tweaking “ here and there ). As a non-profit corporation, we should be as “ public accessible “ as is compatible with successful running of the organization. This change makes CFC more accessible, and contributes to CFC running more successfully.

Bob/Ken

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 11:25 AM
Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Ken Einarsson


- that CFC Handbook SECTION 2 – Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings be amended as follows:

1. Section 1, The Meeting, subsection (i ) be amended by deleting the words “

the CFC Governors’ Discussion Board “ and substituting for them the following:

“ a special public CFC Discussion Forum. However the limitations shall be:

1. only governors will be able to post;
2. the public will be able to see all posts, replies, polls, etc. seen by the Governors, but shall have “ view-only “ status; they will be unable to post.

Where the governors vote that a matter is “ confidential “ in nature, and should be dealt with “ in camera “, the Chairperson shall direct that the meeting be adjourned to such Private CFC Discussion Forum as may be available, including the Governors’ Discussion Board. In such a case, after the confidential matter has been dealt with, the Chair shall direct that the meeting resume in the public forum.

2. Section 3, Role of the Posting Secretary, s.5, Vote Results, and s. 6, Meeting Minutes, be amended by substituting for the words “ Governors’ Discussion Board “ wherever they occur, the words “ meeting Discussion Board “

NOTICE TO GOVERNORS: As a Constitutional Amendment motion this is subject to the Handbook requirements for Constitutional Amendments and takes effect if passed at the close of this meeting

Motion 2011-F - NOT a Constitutional Amendment Motion

It is my submission to the Chair and Secretary that the note attached to this motion, declaring that it is a " Constitutional Amendment " is wrong, and must be deleted.

Bylaw 3, s.3 states :

BY-LAW NUMBER THREE OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA

ANNUAL MEETING AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

1.

2.

3. Any amendment or revision of these By-Laws;

Motion 2011-F does NOT seek to amend any of CFC Bylaws 1, 2, nor 3. It seeks to amend only the Meeting Procedures. These are not contained in the Bylaws, but rather in the Section setting out " Rules and Regulations ":

CFC Handbook SECTION 2 – Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings.

Therefore this Motion 2011-F is NOT a " Constitutional Amendment ", and can be passed by a simple majority - it does not have to meet any of the higher criteria standards for a constitutional amendment.

Bob

Michael von Keitz
01-17-2011, 06:20 PM
I am opposed to this motion. I feel we should keep the boardroom in the boardroom, so to speak. If members are interested in the bureaucratic goings on of the organization, they may feel free to read the GL's as they go live, or, if really keen, they contact their local governor. We already have an assembly of a lofty 60 members, so I see no reason to add a peanut gallery on top of it.

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 06:22 PM
I think the meetings should remain private, with summaries of each thread available, after the meeting.

Bob Gillanders
01-17-2011, 07:40 PM
I am opposed to this motion. :(

We now have a successful vehicle for timely governor discussion. I am happy to see good participation, excellent debates, and civility. Governor knowledge and understanding of the issues is growing. Democracy is alive and well at the CFC. I see no reason to mess with success. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :)

Opening up the forum to real time viewing would be hazardous. Can you imagine parallel discussions developing on chesstalk and personal blogs. Governors being harassed (in real time) and mocked in an effort to influence and embarrass them. We must protect the sanctity and civility of this forum.

Please vote No to opening governors meeting to the public.

Christopher Mallon
01-17-2011, 08:19 PM
I'm afraid I've completely gone over to the "No" side on this, despite originally arguing in favour of this type of setup. For me, the cons just seem to outweigh the pros. The pros are temporary or mere annoyances while the cons could have long-lasting effects.

Aris Marghetis
01-17-2011, 08:36 PM
If I could only cast one vote this year, it would be against this motion. I believe in the smaller governance the better, and we are already way over what we should be, IMHO.

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 08:39 PM
Hi Aris:

Pretty emphatic !! You don't seem to like this idea??

Bob

Aris Marghetis
01-17-2011, 09:23 PM
Hi Aris:

Pretty emphatic !! You don't seem to like this idea??

Bob
LOL, you forgot the winky face?! ;)
You KNOW I really dislike this idea!

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 02:31 AM
22A (7) already deals with the question of openness as the minutes as published online
(7) Governors' Letters After 3 days, the Minutes, as corrected if necessary, shall be immediately published in a Governors’ Letter, to be posted immediately on the CFC Website. This may be combined with any other content the CFC Secretary wishes to publish at the same time. As well, the Governors’ On-line Meetings, will replace the tradition of motions being discussed and voted on in Governors’ Letters. Motions filed will now be for the next Governors’ Meeting, unless dealt with by e-mail. There is little to be gained in openness and accountability here and a lot to loose.

Paul Leblanc
01-18-2011, 03:43 AM
I agree. There is nothing to be gained by opening up our discussions real time to kibitzers.

Ken Craft
01-18-2011, 08:29 AM
I'm not sure that I support us continuing to meet behind closed doors.
We would never support councils. legislatures or parliament doing so. We are afraid of being kibitzed. Other than material which is genuinely confidential (legal and labour) there is nothing to prevent a Governor from publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 09:06 AM
Other than material which is genuinely confidential (legal and labour) there is nothing to prevent a Governor from publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place.

Hi Ken:

I have made it a little side task of mine as a governor, to post governor activities on the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum, to build a rapport with the membership, and to try to increase respect for what the governors do for the members as volunteers. I want them to know CFC is running well.

But when it comes to Quarterly Meetings, I've always understood they were confidential, and that I couldn't report on anything in the meeting! I even hesitated when I published the agenda on the members' site, whether some governor would claim I was breaching confidentiality. You'll note that I removed the wording of the motions on the agenda when I posted it there, since I didn't know if motions filed were considered public, until posted in the GL Summaries after the meeting. So I have always thought we were prevented from " publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place. "

What is the position of other governors on the confidentiality of on-line meetings?

Bob

Aris Marghetis
01-18-2011, 09:45 AM
Hi Ken:

I have made it a little side task of mine as a governor, to post governor activities on the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum, to build a rapport with the membership, and to try to increase respect for what the governors do for the members as volunteers. I want them to know CFC is running well.

But when it comes to Quarterly Meetings, I've always understood they were confidential, and that I couldn't report on anything in the meeting! I even hesitated when I published the agenda on the members' site, whether some governor would claim I was breaching confidentiality. You'll note that I removed the wording of the motions on the agenda when I posted it there, since I didn't know if motions filed were considered public, until posted in the GL Summaries after the meeting. So I have always thought we were prevented from " publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place. "

What is the position of other governors on the confidentiality of on-line meetings?

Bob
In the sweet name of Caissa, the posts above, just like all previous polling on the subject, overwhelmingly reject making public the raw proceedings of these meetings. However, scrubbed summaries would make sense. It seems to me that a significant majority of the Governors is on the same page about this, but you Bob are not, and keep coming back, trying to somehow twist it back. Why not accept the majority viewpoint and move on? We should focus our energies on more important discussions.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 09:55 AM
Hi Aris:

Sorry, but I'm not the one challenging the confidentiality ! I am very clear in my post above that I comply.

It is Ken's comment that I am concerned about ( I would have preferred his comment being commented on, than being attacked ). He said ( not me ) that there was nothing to prevent a governor " publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place. " I said I didn't agree with that, and that it was not my understanding, and that I scrupulously tried to comply with confidentiality as I understood it. I asked if I was wrong in my understanding. I never said I agreed with Ken.

What I have done about my position is bring a motion like I'm entitled to do. Until the motion is passed ( looks like it won't be ), I'm complying, and not complaining about it.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 10:33 AM
Here is an e-mail I just received from an ordinary CFC member, Wilf Ferner, on the issue of opening governors' on-line meetings:

" I think the governors should pay more attention to bulking up membership benefits that can be stated explicitly and "access to online meetings" as a cfc member is one of them in my opinion. "

Bob

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 07:02 PM
Re the constituitional nature of Motion 2011-F - Opening On-line Meetings

- Bob G around noon today confirmed in another thread his ruling as Chair :

" motions .... and 2011-F are constitutional amendments as declared by the chair ".

I accept the ruling of the Chair and have no intention of raising a challenge to it.

But I would like to know what is the constitutional nature of this motion?

Does simply dealing with a CFC Governors' Meeting make it constitutional? The motion doesn't in any way affect the actual meeting proceedings, agenda, who is eligible to attend, who can vote, etc.. It simply deals with who can watch from the outside. And it seeks only to amend something in the CFC Rules and Regulations, not in one of the three CFC Bylaws.

I'm sorry but I don't see the constitutional nature of this motion, that makes it a " constitutional amendment " motion.

Arguably Motion 2011-D deals with voting, since it refers to the constitutional amendment quorum criteria, and so it may have a constitutional character ( though I disagree ).

Arguably Motion 2011-E deals with voting, since it refers to proxies, and so it may have a constitutional character ( though I disagree ).

Motion 2011-F seems to be of an entirely different character, though it does in one way deal with a governors' meeting. It has to do with public access, which seems very different to me than dealing with " voting ".

So any further elaboration of this ruling might help me to understand it. Does anyone else have more difficulty with this ruling than re the other two motions?

Bob

Lyle Craver
01-18-2011, 07:15 PM
Personally I don't mind letting the public see our deliberations AFTER the meeting is closed but do not like having them open DURING the deliberations.

This is as per what we do with the Governors' Letter which despite certain Governors' distaste for them have served and continue to serve a useful purpose.

I agree with Francisco's comment that we have little to gain and much to lose and think the 'in camera' provisions are unduly complex and are likely to cause recriminations.

I agree would be a breach of Governor ethics to be posting details of this meeting in the public areas of the Forum during the meeting and would ask that if anyone is doing so cease immediately though I do not think anyone could complain if the agenda was to be posted.

Ken Craft
01-19-2011, 08:21 AM
What is advocated and currently practiced is the equivalent of parliament meeting in secret and the publicly only having access to Hansard. Holding these meetings in private is indefensible, in my opinion.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-19-2011, 09:20 AM
What is advocated and currently practiced is the equivalent of parliament meeting in secret and the publicly only having access to Hansard. Holding these meetings in private is indefensible, in my opinion.

Do you know any other organizations who conducts their meetings openly on Internet?

Ken Craft
01-19-2011, 09:22 AM
And the difference between meeting openly on the internet and meeting openly in person would be?

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 09:24 AM
Hi Egis:

I can't answer your question - I don't know how many comparable Canadian organizations hold internet Board meetings.

But why should the on-line quarterly meeting be any different than the AGM, which is open not only to members, but to the public?

Is not there a paranoia factor here?

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-19-2011, 09:51 AM
But why should the on-line quarterly meeting be any different than the AGM, which is open not only to members, but to the public?

While I have never been in the AGM, I assume the MEMBERS can express their views during the meeting. THUS why does it not advocated for the ON-LINE meeting?

Otherwise it would become Big Brothers (or whatever reality TV show) with Governors.

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 10:09 AM
Hi Egis:

Non-governors can only speak at an AGM if recognized by the chair ( though at the meetings I've been at, the few times a member wanted to speak, they were usually invited to ). So the proposal for opening the on-line meeting is similar - public view-only.

Bob

Lyle Craver
01-19-2011, 01:13 PM
In the Governors' Letter I have regularly published stuff from non-Governors when I deemed them of national interest (mostly items on national or international events) though non-Governors tend not to send items in.

Reason is I've tended to view the GL as having a 'Governor information clearing house' function as well - I'd probably feel different if it was adding 10+ pages to each GL but at the level it's at it's fine.

The trouble with online meetings vs public meetings is that it's much easier to copy and paste stuff out of context and realistically that other forum isn't always out to play nice with the CFC - there have been all kinds of stuff where I've wondered what they think they're trying to do to us which is why I seldom read it these days.

Rob Clark
01-21-2011, 01:19 PM
I think the idea of opening the threads to the public after matters are resolved is interesting. However, I don't think the public should be able to comment on the matter while it is being discussed. Strong comments from the vocal public might sway the opinions of governors.

Lyle Craver
01-21-2011, 03:10 PM
Members can lobby their Governors at any time - and do - though I confess that during Online Meetings I tend not to look outside the Meeting and Governors' areas of the forum very much as the time involved in being Secretary tends to consume one's life during these times.

Stuart Brammall
01-21-2011, 03:11 PM
I think the idea of opening the threads to the public after matters are resolved is interesting. However, I don't think the public should be able to comment on the matter while it is being discussed. Strong comments from the vocal public might sway the opinions of governors.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Are we not supposed to represent the members?

(For the record I think the meetings should remain closed... but only because we often discuss things which might be regarded as confidential... such as the CO bids)