PDA

View Full Version : Time for CFC Constitutional Reform??



Bob Armstrong
11-29-2008, 10:19 AM
Question: Is it now time to consider the CONSTITUTIONAL restructuring of the CFC? I think there has to be an open and vigorous debate on this on the websites and at the provincial association levels. And I think there needs to be a CFC committee to receive deputations on constitutional reform, which will make a recommendation to the governors. I see nothing wrong with starting this process now ( it need not interfere with other CFC financial and restructuring changes in the meantime, as may be currently still necessary ).

Some Options:

1. Executive Committee

Some have suggested that the current 60+ Governor structure is too unwieldy, and it needs to be replaced by a streamlined management structure ( let’s say 8-person executive committee ).. This executive committee could be in for a 1-year term, and will have all power to run the CFC. This committee could be elected geographically somehow by one member- one vote, with the provincial associations continuing to have a voice. Then the elected committee members would decide among themselves as to officer positions.

Modification A : President/VP/Secretary/Treasurer by national vote; 1 each from West, Ontario, Quebec, East ).

Modification B: Or these 8 could be elected from across the country without references to province/territory. However others argue that there must be some type of geographic representation criteria, otherwise all executive might end up coming from Ontario which has the biggest CFC membership base.

Modification C : Another alternative to one member one vote, could be having each Provincial Association elect a member to a somewhat larger Executive Committee, and they would determine how that member would be elected/appointed ( the same as is done now ).

2. Organizer Format :

Some have raised the following argument:

“ Anyone who organizes at least two tournaments with a minimum total of 75 players should automatically become a Governor. They can refuse the honour, but at least all the arm chair quarterbacks will disappear. Organizers/TDs are the backbone of the organization and they should be the ones determining its future. This would lead to a small Management Committee being formed of active organizers, who would have all power to run the CFC. “

My View : As to the role of organizers, I differ with the above. I think that the role of organizer and governor are very different and being good at one doesn’t mean you will be good at the other. The reality is that ever since the inception of the CFC, organizers have had the power to take over the CFC if they wanted to. They merely needed to organize themselves and get elected across the country. The reality is that few organizers want to be bothered with politics and all the other issues that are involved in running the CFC that don’t deal with tournaments. I would not be expecting any better management from a group of organizers conscripted into being governors than now exists. There are other types of organizing and administrative skills that might make a person valuable to the CFC management team. For example, I am not an organizer, though I have organized a number of types of tournaments, and been on a chess club executive. I would be excluded. I don’t think I should be. And there are many others in this category whom you would not want to lose from CFC governance. I agree that organizers/TD’s are the backbone of GENERATING MEMBERSHIPS; I don’t think they are the backbone of CFC management. But I do definitely believe CFC has to put much thought into how to develop more organizers, and to support existing ones.

3. The Current Governor Set-Up ( or a slightly modified version ):

My View: I must say that I personally have always favoured the Governor structure, despite its faults. I like the fact that it is democratic in that it is representative of the entire country. It also puts the power where it belongs, in the local provincial bodies, since they elect/appoint the Governors. They know best which candidates from their province will do the best job. And tournaments are the backbone of the CFC, and these are best coordinated by the provincial bodies.
I think the problems often pointed out with respect to this structure are due to the lack of commitment by the provincial bodies to making CFC work. They elect/appoint people who do not wish to govern, and who then don’t vote, and bring the whole structure into disrepute. And where there are elections in provinces, then the members are to blame if they fail to elect good people. If they want a vital CFC, then they have to find good candidates and fight to get them elected. And no one in the CFC has been cracking the whip on this one – the CFC has just been wringing its hands bemoaning the fact that there are bad, uninterested governors. There has been no campaign to work with the provinces to get GOOD candidates.

Modification A: However, I do agree that the number of governors seems no longer to make sense. The ratio is about 1 governor per 30 members ( approximately 60 for 1800 members ). I think a proportional reduction in the governors per province is in order, to try to make the structure more streamlined and efficient. And with fewer places, maybe there would be more chance of getting good people. Now the provinces sometimes have trouble getting enough governors, and appoint just anybody to just fill the spot. With fewer governors, maybe it would become a position that would become more desirable and lead to more contesting of the positions by good people. I would suggest a 50% reduction of the number of governors across the board.

Modification B: One further change often proposed is to go to One Member- One Vote. The provinces all have different systems for electing/appointing CFC Governors. Would it be better to have all CFC members in a province having a vote for governors of that province. There could be a province wide vote for province-wide provincial governors. Or perhaps a system similar to that in Ontario would be better, where the province is divided up into regions, and the regions elect a certain number of the provincial governors, based on their CFC membership numbers.

Modification C:

It has been argued:

“ Life Governors should be discontinued. Or let the current ones stay, but from now on only the past president goes onto the executive, and when his term is finished, he has to run for office again like everyone else. Our current system breeds militance AGAINST reform, because the life governors often show a leaning towards do things the way they USED to be done in the GLORY days. Not good when radical change is needed. “

My View: I am sympathetic to this view, though some life governors are very current in their thinking. My support however is more from the democratic point of view. With the current system, the number of life-governors just keeps growing. And they provide more and more of a counterweight to the democratically elected governors. And we no longer know if these former presidents still would have the backing of the current membership. On the other hand, the current system is argued to be good, because it brings valuable management experience to the newly elected governors – after all, these life governors are former Presidents.

Conclusion

I think it is time for the members to petition the Executive/Governors to act on this issue, and to strike a committee to receive deputations on constitutional restructuring and come back with recommendations, or with a set of options. And one issue of importance is whether there will be some type of polling of ordinary members on the recommendations/options, so that the issue is not just governor-decided without any input at the final stage.

What do you think?

Christopher Mallon
11-29-2008, 08:56 PM
You've done a good job outlining most of the proposals out there. I'm very much in favour of Version 3, with modifications B and C, which will accomplish A to some extent.

Another interesting question - is it a conflict of interest for Executive members to also be regional Governors rather than Governors-at-large thus opening up spots? There are 6-7 Governors right there.

I think that's the only obvious one you've missed.

Jonathan Berry
11-30-2008, 11:51 AM
Short answer: No.

Long answer: As form should follow function, it is early in the game of CFC restructuring of its operations to be changing its form of governance. However, the much-neglected (but still constitutional) method of assigning tricky jobs to a committee could be utilized here. I would nominate as the committee's first two members the OP, plus ex-President "Out of Order". There should be three members from outside Ontario, perhaps headed by Governor "...stinks".

Bob Armstrong
12-01-2008, 03:05 PM
I am left wondering. 115 views and only 2 replies.

I thought this issue was a major one for CFC members.

Is it that no one cares? Are there no opinions on this?

Bob

Ken Craft
12-01-2008, 03:39 PM
I think the current Gubernatorial system with the elimination of future Life Governors and a quicker deliberation process would be fine. GLs are a relic of the pre-internet era.

Bob Armstrong
12-01-2008, 07:29 PM
Here, for those interested, is our current Governor structure ( correct me if there are any errors - it's what I thought the CFC website set out ):

1. Governors-at-Large :
A - Executive - 7
B - Masters' Representative and Women's Coordinator - 2
C - Representative of Chess Foundation of Canada, and, Canadian Correspondence Chess Association - 2
D - Canadian Champion and Runner-Up - 2

Total - 13

2. Life Governors ( Former CFC Presidents ) - 10 ( almost equal the votes of the Governors-at-Large )

3. Provincial/Territorial Governors:
A - B.C. - 5
B - Alta. - 5
C - Sask. - 1
D - Man. - 2
E - Ont. - 17
F - Que. - 2
G - N.B. - 2
H - P.E.I. - 1
I - N.S. - 2
J - Nfld. & Lab. - 1
K - no reps from the 3 territories ( 3 vacancies )

Total - 38 ( and three vacancies )

Total No. of Governors - 61 ( and 3 vacancies )

Is this too many Governors for an organization with about 1000 adult annual members?

Bob

Bob Gillanders
12-02-2008, 02:30 AM
Hi Bob,

My count is 61 governors.

You are missing 2 governors at large, Women's Coordinator, and Master's Rep.

And Quebec has 2 governors, not 1.

And if we appointed 3 territory governors, we could have 64.

Now wouldn't that be special.

Cheers,
Bob

Bob Armstrong
12-02-2008, 04:16 PM
Hi Bob:

Thanks. I'll go back and edit my post.

Bob

Kerry Liles
12-02-2008, 05:51 PM
I am left wondering. 115 views and only 2 replies.

I thought this issue was a major one for CFC members.

Is it that no one cares? Are there no opinions on this?

Bob

I have been thinking about your recommendations... I have an opinion; I just don't know yet what it is! I am in favour of reducing the number of Governors provided we can eliminate the ones who habitually do not vote or vote only on the most important items... it may be quite a job to figure that out, but the CFC could reduce the number of Governors proportionally around the country and let the individual Provincial (or Territorial) associations decide who goes and who stays.

There are absolutely too many Governors for any real changes to come about. The Executive is slammed when they act unilaterally and they are slammed when they dither (whether it is because they are attempting to garner support from a majority of Governors or simply because this is a volunteer organization and people have other things to do...)

I like a much simpler model that parallels the new, less-is-more CFC: no magazine to worry about (other than the website/online mag) and just concentrate on National Events and ratings. That may be where we are heading anyway.

Maybe there is something in GL#3 to indicate the direction a little better, but then GL#3 is way overdue and not even in the hands of the Governors yet...

Bob (A.) if I get jaded enough, you can certainly have my spot... you are consistently working hard on these issues and have my admiration.

Bob Armstrong
12-03-2008, 05:27 AM
Hi Bob:

Since we are dealing with constitutional reform ( maybe ), there seem to be some discrepancies :confused: based on looking at the CFC Handbook ( which I know has not been updated with many subsequent motions affecting it passed by the Governors ).

1. Who are the Executive?

The Handbook under Bylaw 2 states:

" 10. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board of Directors shall be elected at the Annual Meeting of the Assembly and shall be constituted by seven persons, namely, the President, Vice-President, Past President, Secretary, Treasurer, FIDE Representative and Rating Auditor unless these titles are changed by ordinary resolution of the Assembly pursuant to section 8(f) at the annual meeting. "

According to this, the Junior Coordinator should not be on the Executive, but the Rating Auditor should be. But it does say " unless...changed by...the Assembly...at the annual meeting ".

Do I take it there is a Governors' motion somewhere that substituted the Junior Coordinator for the Rating Auditor? From what you said above, the Rating Auditor is now still an officer ( see the CFC Website ), but is not on the Executive, and is NOT a governor-at-large - is this correct? What is the number of this motion ( if there is one )?

2. Who are non-Executive Governors-at-Large?

The Handbook under Bylaw 2 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 chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Chess Foundation of Canada.

the President of the Canadian Correspondence Chess Association.

the reigning Canadian Closed Champion.

the runner up at the Canadian Closed.

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

There is no listing here as Governor-at-Large for the Masters' Representative, nor for the Women's Coordinator. but it seems that other Handbook sections cover this. I have noted Bylaw 2, Sections 18 & 20:

" 18. OFFICERS

The Officers of the Federation shall be

the members of the Board of Directors;

the Masters Representative;

the Women’s Co-ordinator;

the Junior Co-ordinator;

the Executive Director; and

any other general Officer who may be elected at the annual meeting of the Assembly or appointed as an Officer from the Assembly by the Board of Directors between the annual meeting at the Assembly. "

This makes the Masters' Representative and the Women's Coordinator " officers " ( non-Executive ), but that doesn't make them " Governors-at-Large ". This also makes the Junior Coordinator a non-Executive officer ( but it seems, as I've inquired above, that at some point, the positions of the Junior Coordinator and Rating Auditor got switched ). However, section 20 seems to take care of this:

" 20. OFFICERS ARE GOVERNORS

With the exception of the Executive Directors those Officers who are not members of the incoming Assembly of Governors shall:

enjoy the same rights as the members of the incoming Assembly during their term of office and they shall be regarded as Governors at large not representing any particular province, "

This makes the Masters' Representative and the Women's Coordinator Governors-at-Large. But why doesn't it make the Rating Auditor ( who is now in the Junior Coordinator's position ) also a Governor-at-Large? You did not mention him in the list of corrections to my counting of Governors-at-Large.

Bob

Bob Gillanders
12-03-2008, 11:36 AM
Hi Bob,

You have my admiration for tackling these issues. Be assured, there are others, including myself, who care about this stuff. Trouble is, as the size of the problem increases, the fewer the individuals who are willing to take on the task.

Maurice Smith is working on updating the handbook. He gave me a progress report yesterday. He has identified 43 items to update over the last 8 years. This is a huge project, my thanks to Maurice for his efforts.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
12-03-2008, 12:10 PM
Hi Bob:

I take it, despite the apparent discrepancies in the Handbook ( which currently says the Rating Auditor is on the Executive, or at least, if not, is a Governor-at-Large ), you stand by your position that the Rating Auditor is an officer ( non-Executive ) and NOT a Governor-at-Large. Or is this an unclear issue now, awaiting Maurice's Handbook Update project, to see if anything affects this issue?

Bob
( I also wish good luck to Maurice; and the Executive are to be congratulated for finally tackling this housekeeping issue [ which is still critical to members understanding how CFC works ] )

Kerry Liles
12-03-2008, 12:14 PM
Maurice Smith is working on updating the handbook. He gave me a progress report yesterday. He has identified 43 items to update over the last 8 years. This is a huge project, my thanks to Maurice for his efforts.


Getting and keeping the Handbook up to date is really critical... glad to hear that he is on the job and it is going well! I'm looking forward to the new version and I really hope it will be kept up to date in the future...

Bob Armstrong
12-04-2008, 03:50 PM
I have raised a couple of CFC Constitutional issues recently on the chess websites ( CFC Chess Forum; ChessTalk; Ottawa CC Message Board ). Although there have been many views of the postings, there have been very, very few replies ( here there were only 5 individuals who replied, other than myself ). I have interpreted this relative silence as there being no real appetite among the CFC members for constitutional change at this time.

There has also been very little criticism of the 2008-9 Executive / Governors. The ratings of members are being updated in a timely manner. The new on-line Chess Canada is supposed to be up and running in January 2009 for members. The CFC condominium office is up for sale, as many felt was necessary, given the financial situation of the CFC. The CFC retail business has been outsourced, with a commission arrangement with Amazon.com. There is a new rating system software, SwissSys, which makes tournament submissions more streamlined. It seems that some steps have been taken to try to reduce the significant annual deficit CFC has suffered over the last three years. It seems that in the light of all this, the CFC membership feels the current Governor system “ is getting the job done “. There is no real desire to change the governing system, so long as it appears to be working now.

As a result of all this, I have decided to abandon my pressure on the CFC Executive to form a Constitutional Committee to receive public deputations on constitutional reform. It seems that at the moment, it would be met with only a very modest response ( or less ), as were my postings.
I will instead simply make a submission on my own to the Executive for some modest constitutional amendments I would like to see to somewhat streamline the current governor system. I may seek some organized support for my submission. The constitutional file may not currently be a high priority file for the Executive, but they may be interested in some minor modifications to strengthen our governance system.

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
12-04-2008, 04:34 PM
I have interpreted this relative silence as there being no real appetite among the CFC members for constitutional change at this time.

You should give more time for a such process. Look at GLs: they are produced so slowly. You want to change the Constitution. So probably you need to multiply by 100 required time to finish the work :D However you are stopping just after one week :eek:

Another issue: there are more readers than writers. It may be that the lack of anonymity prevents a lot of people to post.