10. 2012-J CFC Member Rights Motion #2 (Bob Armstrong)

[Lyle Craver]

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim

Moved – There shall be added to the CFC Handbook, Section 2, Bylaw # 1, as Para.14a, the following:

MEMBER RIGHTS

14a. 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.

Commentary:

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, even if such situation indicates such motion may well be unsuccessful. 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 to the CFC Secretary from each endorser of their support for the motion, to prevent fraudulent motions. This is modeled on shareholder rights in corporations.

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.

[Aris Marghetis]

Bob and Fred, you probably have explained your reasoning for this in the past, but could you do so again here? Sorry, but so far, I do not see the added value in setting up a mechanism that no one seems to be asking for, to make proposals that are very likely to be defeated, as no Governor could be found to even submit them in the first place?!

[Christopher Mallon]

Sigh. Do we really have to drag out all the reasons why this is a bad idea again?!

It's as simple as this. If a member cannot find two governors to support his/her motion enough to move and second it, then it has no hope of passing and all you are doing is creating a potentially extreme amount of new work for the Secretary.

[Pierre Dénommée]

I will get practical, even if two members could introduce a motion, the Act under which we are incorporated restricts to Governors the right to vote on those motions. So if the member cannot at least find two Governors to move and to second his motion, it stands very little chance to be carried.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pierre:

The point you have raised is one a number of people have raised - the " futility factor " or " the motion is just going to get defeated anyway, so why bother in the first place?"

The point of the section is for members to be able to force the governors to discuss an item of great importance to them, that the governors do not yet see as an issue ( no governors would move/second the motion for the members ). This is a way of forcing the governors to give the unusual issue some sober thought. Also, the members can hope that in the course of debate, some governors will finally see a point to all their effort they've gone to to get the motion on the agenda. This might be a minor breakthrough, which would raise the issue on the radar, and open the way for future discussion of it.

Members and governors can get into a Mexican stand-off. Because the governors don't see it, doesn't mean the members are wrong! This allows the members, who are currently powerless, to exercise a bit of initiative, if they are willing to meet the somewhat onerous conditions for getting a motion on the agenda. They will recognize the difficulty of their cause, but it will obviously have been very significant to them, since they did all the work necessary to bring the motion forward.

I think the governors should show some support for member initiative of such a determined nature, and allow them to try to get the motion on the agenda, and debated. Some have raised that the governors will not debate, just vote - maybe, maybe not. Some governor may wish to show the members that their ideas are treated with some respect, because they were important to them, and do them the courtesy of some modest debate of the issue, before likely voting it down.

This right will be seldom used in my view, but adding the section will show that the governors trust the membership with some rights.

Bob A

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi Pierre:

The point you have raised is one a number of people have raised - the " futility factor " or " the motion is just going to get defeated anyway, so why bother in the first place?"

The point of the section is for members to be able to force the governors to discuss an item of great importance to them, that the governors do not yet see as an issue ( no governors would move/second the motion for the members ). This is a way of forcing the governors to give the unusual issue some sober thought. Also, the members can hope that in the course of debate, some governors will finally see a point to all their effort they've gone to to get the motion on the agenda. This might be a minor breakthrough, which would raise the issue on the radar, and open the way for future discussion of it.

Members and governors can get into a Mexican stand-off. Because the governors don't see it, doesn't mean the members are wrong! This allows the members, who are currently powerless, to exercise a bit of initiative, if they are willing to meet the somewhat onerous conditions for getting a motion on the agenda. They will recognize the difficulty of their cause, but it will obviously have been very significant to them, since they did all the work necessary to bring the motion forward.

I think the governors should show some support for member initiative of such a determined nature, and allow them to try to get the motion on the agenda, and debated. Some have raised that the governors will not debate, just vote - maybe, maybe not. Some governor may wish to show the members that their ideas are treated with some respect, because they were important to them, and do them the courtesy of some modest debate of the issue, before likely voting it down.

This right will be seldom used in my view, but adding the section will show that the governors trust the membership with some rights.

Bob A
Hi Bob, I respectfully submit that this is just not worth the effort, and the potential downside exists, so why risk that? If something is haunting a non-Governor member, then it is up to him to convince just 2 Governors, or become a Governor next year!

[Christopher Mallon]

Hi Bob, I respectfully submit that this is just not worth the effort, and the potential downside exists, so why risk that? If something is haunting a non-Governor member, then it is up to him to convince just 2 Governors, or become a Governor next year!

Heck, about 50% of the time if someone decided they wanted to become President, there's a job opening :p

[Ken Craft]

I'll be voting against this motion. It is both cumbersome and, I believe, unnecessary.

[Lyle Craver]

I've now been a Governor for 20 years but before that time I talked to one or more Governors nearly every week. The really good Governors routinely talk to players at tournaments or clubs and constantly have their 'fingers in the wind'.

As a Governor myself I've often had talks or e-mails with players and try to do more listening than talking.

If a significant number of players feel that is NOT the case with their Governors then they should take steps to do something about it. The CFC is not an organization where there is blood in the streets from people who would aspire to lead it!

[Pierre Dénommée]

I'm in favor of the principle of the motion but as it is written, it could create an excessive amount of work for the Secretary.

We just need to add to the web site a place where members, using a password to authenticate themselves, could support a motion.

The Quebec Civil Code has set at 10% the percentage of members required to demand a special or general meeting. The requesting members must supply the agenda of the meeting that they want.

I will gladly support the motion ounce we have in place a computerized infrastructure that can validate the required percentage of members support without any human intervention.