29 Motion 2011-K "Clarifying CFC Member Rights"

[Lyle Craver]

Motion 2011 – K – Clarifying CFC Member Rights

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim
Moved - Bylaw # 1, s. 14, is deleted, and replaced by:
MEMBER RIGHTS

14. ( 1 ) Any individual Member shall have a right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership, or any situation where any individual member is aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, by approaching a CFC governor for assistance in presenting his submission, motion, etc. to the CFC AGM, Quarterly Meeting, or otherwise.. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be dealt with by the Federation Secretary replying in writing to any governor acting on behalf of such member, with copy to such individual Member.

( 2 ) Any individual member may bring a motion directly to the CFC governors, without governor assistance being required, if he has a member seconder, and endorsement of members totaling 5% of the total Adult and Life members. The total shall be based on the membership statistics issued May 1 by the CFC Secretary. Endorsing members must be 18 years of age or over, and there must be proof provided directly from the endorser to the CFC Secretary of each member’s endorsement of the motion.

( 3 ) As set out elsewhere in the Handbook, CFC members have the right as there set out, to elect their CFC governors.

[Bob Armstrong]

Bob Armstrong's Motion 2011-K Commentary:

The old section on membership is now considered antiquated, anti-member, and no longer relevant as between the CFC and the Provincial Affiliates.

The current section reads:

CFC Bylaw # 1
LIMITATION OF RIGHTS

14. No individual Member shall have any right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership. Should any individual member be aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, his remedy shall be to bring the matter before his provincial organization, and if there be no Provincial Organization in the Province in which he resides, he may bring the matter to the attention of a Governor representing such Province. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, if he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law.

In place of a limitation of member rights, we have substituted a positive statement of member rights. We do have a governor system, and they run the affairs of the CFC. But they are elected by and accountable to the CFC members. As such, the governors must make all reasonable efforts to assist members in their actions to influence the affairs of the CFC. This may involve presenting briefs and submissions to governor meetings on behalf of members, or moving and seconding motions submitted by CFC members. However, governors are free to decide whether or not, in any individual instance, they will assist, and to what extent. As well, they need not necessarily agree to the position of the member, in order to assist them to present their case.

Although working through governors is the preferred method of CFC member participation in the affairs of the CFC, the CFC members should have an absolute right to approach the CFC with a motion of their own accord, without having to plead for governor assistance, which may not be forthcoming. So we have allowed a motion by a member, with a member seconder. The limitation is that the member bringing the motion must find some support among the membership, to the extent of 5 % of the total of the adult and life members. This is not felt to be onerous, and at the same time protects the CFC from a flood of frivolous member motions, which could grind CFC business to a halt. There will have to be direct proof from each endorser of their support for the motion, to prevent fraudulent motions. This is a new significant member right, and allows members direct intervention, and the forcing of a governor vote on their concern, even where governors may initially be disposed against the motion. Governors will deal with issues of concern to a significant minority of CFC members, who consider their issue vital to the operation of the CFC.

Lastly, in order to bring member rights into one section, the section also refers to the right to elect CFC governors, set out elsewhere in the Handbook..

[Ken Craft]

I support repeal; I do not support the replacement motion. Too clunky and creates additional work for the position of secretary which is already a hefty portfolio.

[Lyle Craver]

My concern with this one is that there is a formal and an informal method of getting things done in the CFC.

The first deals with motions and bids etc. the second deals with talking to your representatives.

It is the difference between only my MP has the authority to initiate and vote on legislation in the House of Commons while everybody can and does lobby him / her on various subjects.

This motion suggests that the Handbook implies a regular member cannot talk to his/her Governor, Executive member etc. which is emphatically not so - I hear from members all the time and try to be as helpful as I can.

Among my other 'hats' I am provincial secretary/treasurer and I routinely get inquiries and hand them off to the appropriate person for follow-up. This usually means to the Junior coordinator when it's a parent enquiring though I try to handle most other inquiry myself.

I won't be supporting this since it puts on the Secretary all the responsibility to respond to member concerns when realistically the most suitable person may well be the President, FIDE Rep, Junior Coordinator and so forth. If your problem relates to inter-provincial matters, FIDE title matters, CYCC etc. then the above named people SHOULD be the one you as a member expect to hear from and I don't think imposing an additional level of bureaucracy advances the cause.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Lyle:

You said : " This motion suggests that the Handbook implies a regular member cannot talk to his/her Governor, Executive member etc. " This is emphatically not so. What it says is that under the existing section, " legally " they MUST go to their provincial affiliate with issues. This is absurd, and as you say, is ignored in practice by the Executive/governors. Respect for CFC members requires that we correct the legislation to accord with what is the reality. So Subsection 1 is entirely based on the fact that members will first seek the assistance of a governor to present their petition, whatever it may be. It assumes a good relationship between the members and their local governors, such that they know that they can go to them for help.

As to who should handle the issue once raised on behalf of a member by a governor, obviously it will be referred by the governor to whomever handles the matter - FIDE Rep., Youth Coordinator, etc. And they are to reply. But the motion says the member deserves a formal written confirmation from the Secretary that his/her issue has been dealt with ( whether or not to their satisfaction ). So the Secretary's letter need only say to the inquiring governor " I am informed by the Youth Coordinator that he has fully answered your member's inquiry ". This does not seem onerous to me ( how many members bring matters forward? ), and is respectful of a member who takes the time and effort to raise something for the governors. He gets a written formal reply from the CFC Executive.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

I don't think I can support this motion. :(

I current section is not disrespectful to the members as you are state in your preamble. The purpose of this clause is to put the onus on the provincial governors to assist members with their problems. Do we really want to alleviate the governors of this responsibility. There is no problem here, the executive do respond to member complaints and issues. Giving the executive an option to delegate some responsibility to the provincial affiliates seems reasonable. This option is clearly not being abused. So I would be inclined to leave well enough alone.

In practice, members do not consult the handbook on where to take their complaints. The closest CFC official will do. All governors and executives should assist members where possible or direct them to the appropriate official. This is already being done. This is how we show respect for the members. :)

On second thought, I would abstain.
Pass it or not, I don't think it is going to make any difference. :)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I agree the motion is not radical ( you are OK if it gets passed or not ).

The Cooperative Chess Coalition, who initiated this motion, simply feels that the s.14 should reflect the practice as it currently exists, not reflect a system from the past. The CCC acknowledges that the CFC Executive and Governors do assist members when asked, and everyone currently ignores what the existing s. 14 directs..

So why not say that in the section? We think subsection ( 1 ) clearly states that and should be supported.

Bob A, CCC Coordinator

[Christopher Mallon]

You've taken something simple that's worked well and never to my knowledge been used in a bad way and turned it into something that is even more unwieldy and not likely to accomplish anything in any case.

If a member can't find at least two governors willing to support a motion and get it put forth, then it doesn't really matter if 5% of the members (85 people?) support it or not, does it?

Seriously, just rewrite the "has no right to be heard" bit so it sounds nicer. Clarify that it is the local Governor's duty to assist the players.

[Bob Armstrong]

If a member can't find at least two governors willing to support a motion and get it put forth, then it doesn't really matter if 5% of the members (85 people?) support it or not, does it?

Seriously, just rewrite the "has no right to be heard" bit so it sounds nicer. Clarify that it is the local Governor's duty to assist the players.

Hi Chris:

Dealing with your second point first - I think subsection ( 1 ) in the motion clearly sets out that governors will assist members.

As to your first point, you are right that this section will seldom be used. I would expect in 99 % of the cases, members will find 2 governors to bring a motion for them. But when they cannot, they should have a right to force the issue to debate and vote - maybe then some governors will change their minds. And this cannot be done easily - there will be no flood of member motions - it will be some work to get 5 % endorsers, and some members will have to feel pretty strongly about something to do the work required.

Bob

[Lyle Craver]

Any Governor who feels he/she needs Handbook authority to help a member on any matter at any time is in my opinion of dubious worth as a Governor. Ditto for a CFC Executive member. I would be shocked if anybody felt this needed to be committed to writing.

I think this is an unnecessary motion that does not deserve Governor support and is a motion for the sake of making a motion. I resent this motion as it implicitly implies there is an existing problem in how Governors and the Executive deal with members that needs fixing. I don't think the system IS broken on this point.

I also feel in the strongest possible terms that political parties (whether we call them 'coalitions' or use another word) have no legitimate place in the governance of the CFC. By all means discuss things among yourselves but the provincial affiliates and FIDE are the only organizations I take note of and feel all Governors should do likewise.

If the intent is to create a method of 'initiative' on the California model I have no particular problem with this - but make no mistake about it - this is a constitutional matter and needs to be addressed accordingly.

Unlike the first half of the motion that's a reasonable subject for discussion but since you cannot support the latter without supporting the former, I hope this one is defeated by a heavy margin.

[Aris Marghetis]

Any Governor who feels he/she needs Handbook authority to help a member on any matter at any time is in my opinion of dubious worth as a Governor. Ditto for a CFC Executive member. I would be shocked if anybody felt this needed to be committed to writing.

I think this is an unnecessary motion that does not deserve Governor support and is a motion for the sake of making a motion. I resent this motion as it implicitly implies there is an existing problem in how Governors and the Executive deal with members that needs fixing. I don't think the system IS broken on this point.

I also feel in the strongest possible terms that political parties (whether we call them 'coalitions' or use another word) have no legitimate place in the governance of the CFC. By all means discuss things among yourselves but the provincial affiliates and FIDE are the only organizations I take note of and feel all Governors should do likewise.

If the intent is to create a method of 'initiative' on the California model I have no particular problem with this - but make no mistake about it - this is a constitutional matter and needs to be addressed accordingly.

Unlike the first half of the motion that's a reasonable subject for discussion but since you cannot support the latter without supporting the former, I hope this one is defeated by a heavy margin.
Lyle, thanks for your clear strong points. I also resent the bandwidth that we are burning on trivial motions like this, and for what?! I already find that we are too many Governors, with some causing us to burn bandwidth needlessly, and this motion could very well open the door to any political chess grouping to burn even more of our time.

There is FIDE, then the CFC, and reluctantly(!) then the OCA. Enough groups already! ;)

[Bob Armstrong]

I'm not sure, but am I hearing that governors like and support the existing s. 14 " Limitation of Rights ", which legally forces members with CFC issues , back to their Provincial Affiliate?

But this section is being ignored. Governors/Executive DO handle members' issues.

So why should not the section say what is in fact happening in practice? Legislation ought not to be ignored. If it is no longer accurate, then it should be replaced.

Bob

[Lyle Craver]

I interpret this Handbook section to mean that only members of the Assembly of Governors have the right to bring motions.

As I understand it your proposal would add the ability to do a 'California style initiative' from the grassroots and I do not oppose that concept but say there are details to be worked out as there are varying catagories of motions - event bids, constitutional matters, non-constitutional matters, etc. etc. Given the time required to organize such an initiative I can easily see all sorts of matters dealt with that would be completely stale-dated if voted by 'initiative' - and that doesn't help the cause at all.

I also want to say that I really hate the paragraph title "LIMITATION OF RIGHTS" and would love to see it gone but do not see the point in a constitutional motion simply to change a header with no other content change.

It is difficult to imagine the mindset that would fail to see how that title would be read by future Governors and others! (If the author of this paragraph is reading this then you have my apologies in advance!)

Frankly to achieve what I think you want to achieve 2 motions would be required. One to repeal the Handbook section altogether (I don't see what would be lost in doing so) and a second motion to create the initiative process. I'd probably vote yes to repeal the section and may or may not support an 'initiative' process depending on the details proposed.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

14. ( 1 ) Any individual Member...

( 2 ) Any individual member...

To be consistent within a Motion, "member" must be capitalized.


totaling 5% of the total Adult and Life members.

There is no "Adult member" in the Handbook!!! (Section 2) A Family Member is a different category than an Ordinary Member, nevertheless it has same (similar) rights. Why to exclude them? etc. etc.

The intention is good, the implementation not. 0-1

The question to the Secretary: how many times did you use a clause "Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law."?

[Stuart Brammall]

Perhaps I will be the only one to voice this opinion here, but it is my opinion that this "limitation of rights" section makes perfect sense, and should be left alone. This view has to do in principle with what I regard a right to be-- specifically something which is inalienable to the possessor.

Do Canadians have the right to be heard in parliament? No they do not. Are they sometimes? Absolutely. Do you have the right to live in a house? No you do not-- And yet everyone does.

To say that CFC members have a right to be heard is to imply, as I quipped on chesstalk, that they can show up at a governor's house at three or four in the morning, wearing no clothing and still have the right to be heard.
The idea that something must be a right for it to accessible or attainable is simply preposterous.

All a member need do to be heard is speak reasonably of relevant issues.

The purpose of the section as it stands is to give us the freedom and authority to ignore those who are unreasonable. It is in no way offensive to anyone who thinks it over. I will be voting against this amendment.

[Stuart Brammall]

With that said, were this motion to pass I think it would have no effect on anything whatsoever, either in promoting or demoting member participation.

[Aris Marghetis]

Perhaps I will be the only one to voice this opinion here, but it is my opinion that this "limitation of rights" section makes perfect sense, and should be left alone. This view has to do in principle with what I regard a right to be-- specifically something which is inalienable to the possessor.

Do Canadians have the right to be heard in parliament? No they do not. Are they sometimes? Absolutely. Do you have the right to live in a house? No you do not-- And yet everyone does.

To say that CFC members have a right to be heard is to imply, as I quipped on chesstalk, that they can show up at a governor's house at three or four in the morning, wearing no clothing and still have the right to be heard.
The idea that something must be a right for it to accessible or attainable is simply preposterous.

All a member need do to be heard is speak reasonably of relevant issues.

The purpose of the section as it stands is to give us the freedom and authority to ignore those who are unreasonable. It is in no way offensive to anyone who thinks it over. I will be voting against this amendment.
Trust me Stuart, you are not the only one who is good with where this motion came from. There is a danger that even more political groupings and individuals will abuse it.

In my humble opinion, if someone cannot convince some Governors from their province ...

P.S. It could be phrased nicer, but the motion is not to make it sound nicer, so far ...

[Ken Craft]

Like Lyle, I would support repeal. I cannot support the replacement motion.
Any chance the motions could be split prior to voting commencing?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

Voting has not started yet, so motions can still be filed.

I don't see why you and Lyle could not bring a motion to repeal s. 14 as it exists. The Chair could rule that it is to be voted on before our CCC motion.

Then the Cooperative Chess Coalition motion could be voted on, being dealt with as a motion to institute a new s. 14, in either case, whether your motion passes or fails.

Just a suggestion to try to help you achieve what you want. In our view, repeal is better than nothing.

Bob, CCC Coordinator

[Les Bunning]

I dont believe that you need a bylaw to say that a member can ask a governor to take up his cause. Using a phrase which says a member has a right to be heard could cause trouble for the CFC when dealing with a difficult member. The way the motion is written could mean that a governor may simply forward a members complaint, which may be an e-mail, to the secretary which then obliges the secretary to reply to the governor and the member as the motion uses the word "shall".
Les Bunning

[Bob Armstrong]

On sober second thought, if Ken and Lyle do file a motion today to repeal the existing s. 14, then I will move that our CCC motion be adjourned to the AGM, to await the outcome of the Craft/Craver motion.

This will allow us to reconsider whether we still wish to replace the section with our substitute. And, assuming the Craft/Craver motion passes, and we decide we want still to have some section on " Member Rights ", we can consult with the governors to see if we can improve the wording, to try to garner more support for a substitute section.

Does this seem a reasonable process on this issue?

Will Ken and Lyle file a motion to repeal ?

Bob

[Ken Craft]

How about you seek permission towithdraw all of your motion other than the part that moves repeal of s. 14?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I'll need the permission of my seconder I think ( do I or can I amend my own motion of my own accord? ).

I'll e-mail Fred.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Myself as mover of Motion 2011-K, and Fred McKim as seconder, ask the Chair to put the following question to the Assembly:

Do you agree that the mover/seconder can amend their motion so that it will now read:

Motion 2011-M ( as amended )

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim

Moved - Bylaw # 1, s. 14, is deleted.

This amendment was suggested by Ken Craft, and Lyle Craver had made posts to the same effect. The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ), who initiated this motion, will reconsider the other part of the motion, as to whether to proceed with it at a future date, and if so, whether amendments are required to make the motion clearer and stronger.

My research shows that if any governor objects to the consensual change, then the Chair should call a vote on the question, and majority vote will pass the procedural motion. Then the amended motion will go for vote as usual.

Thanks.

Bob

[Rob Clark]

Perhaps I will be the only one to voice this opinion here, but it is my opinion that this "limitation of rights" section makes perfect sense, and should be left alone. This view has to do in principle with what I regard a right to be-- specifically something which is inalienable to the possessor.

Do Canadians have the right to be heard in parliament? No they do not. Are they sometimes? Absolutely. Do you have the right to live in a house? No you do not-- And yet everyone does.

To say that CFC members have a right to be heard is to imply, as I quipped on chesstalk, that they can show up at a governor's house at three or four in the morning, wearing no clothing and still have the right to be heard.
The idea that something must be a right for it to accessible or attainable is simply preposterous.

All a member need do to be heard is speak reasonably of relevant issues.

The purpose of the section as it stands is to give us the freedom and authority to ignore those who are unreasonable. It is in no way offensive to anyone who thinks it over. I will be voting against this amendment.

I can't agree more. There are enough public venues to voice someone's opinion in Canadian Chess that if someone has a reasonable point they'll be heard.

[Lyle Craver]

I'm not the President so my opinion is worth about what you paid for it BUT...

This motion would change Section 2 of the Handbook and is thus a constitutional motion. I know you tend to think that no motion is 'constitutional' and thus is subject to change at any quarterly meeting by a simple majority but it isn't true.

Even if the President were to rule such a motion made at this late date in order (which I hope he would not) I would vote against it simply because the procedure for making a constitutional motion had not been followed.

None of this reflects on whether I supported the proposal or not.

For the record, I am now waiting for an e-mail from the President instructing me to open voting.

[Christopher Field]

I would agree that the proposed replacement is far too complicated.
I would accept a re-wording of the original byelaw, stating that any Member has a right to be heard by making a proposal to a Governor.

I think that Governors' contact information is available, and that we as Governors understand that it is our duty to represent the Members, much as an MP represents the citizens of his riding.

I think that there should be a statement regarding the rights of Members to make suggestions for the benefit of the CFC and Chess in Canada.

I do not think the proposed byelaw appropriate

[Bob Armstrong]

Unfortunately, I must go away for the weekend and must now leave the meeting. But as far as I can tell, Fred and I have done everything we need to re trying to amend our motion. I leave it in Bob G's capable hands. If any consent from mover/seconder should be required for some reason, or if there is some issue that the mover/seconder must declare themselves on, I support fully any position take by my seconder, Fred.

Of course, it is my hope that the governors will agree to the amendment, so we get something that seems to have some support - simple repeal of s. 14. Then I would hope that new amended motion passes.

The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ), who intiated this motion in an attempt to enhance the position of CFC members, will then, in future, look to see if a replacement is required - some have suggested nothing need be put in its place. CCC will look seriously at its options. And if we come back with something, we will consult widely before filing anything, to see what improvements can be made, which might win a replacement motion more support.

Unfortunately, since voting did not start tonight, looks like I'll miss the voting totally.

I'll look forward to seeing the results on my return.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

I will refer this issue to the AGM. No vote at this meeting.
My reasons are as follows:

1. The movers are no requesting an 11th hour amendment, to simply repeal the section instead of replacing it.
2. This is a constitutional amendment.
3. It does impact the rights and responsibilities of our provincial affiliates. Maybe they would prefer to field member complaints first, before it gets to the CFC executive. Maybe not, but we should pose the question.

As I have already said, I don't think anything will change, pass it or not. But there is no urgency on this item, so it is deferred to the AGM.