7. 2013-N All meetings made public (McKim/Bond) - commentary only

[Michael von Keitz]

That the proceedings of all CFC quarterly meetings and AGMs be conducted in a public forum.

[Bob Armstrong]

I will support this motion.

Bob A

[Ken Craft]

I concur with this motion.

[Simon Ong]

Same here. I am supporting this motion :)

[Christopher Mallon]

While I agree with the motion, I think we need (for clarity's sake) a bit in there allowing some matters to still be handled privately. That might save us arguments later if someone wants something that SHOULD be private to be made public.

[Pierre Dénommée]

Very few topics should be confidential. Most of what is confidential is dealt with by the board of directors.

Because some topics must be confidential, I would also like to see a possibility to do it under exceptional circumstances.

[Michael von Keitz]

At the moment, I note interest in an amendment, but nothing seems to have been formally proposed.

[Christopher Mallon]

I'll move an amendment: "With a majority vote of Executive members a motion or discussion at a meeting may be started in the private forum as a confidential discussion. Such discussion may be made public by 2/3 majority vote of the Governors (via a properly seconded motion, which is also confidential until such time as it passes). Such a motion must be moved and seconded within the timelines of the meeting and a vote must be held within two weeks, if it is not possible during the meeting."

Wordy I know, but I wanted to cover all the bases.

Also, can we have an official ruling from the chair that this motion does not apply to past meetings? (Not really fair to make them public when there was an expectation of privacy)

[Pierre Dénommée]

I do not see a compelling reason to ask for an amendment. After review (as they say in the CFL) I find the the motion states that the quarterly meeting shall be public. It does not prevent the Governors from discussion really confidential matters in camera outside of the quarterly meeting. There should be very few such confidential discussions.

[Michael von Keitz]

Also, can we have an official ruling from the chair that this motion does not apply to past meetings? (Not really fair to make them public when there was an expectation of privacy)

It does not apply to past meetings.

[Michael von Keitz]

I'll move an amendment: "With a majority vote of Executive members a motion or discussion at a meeting may be started in the private forum as a confidential discussion. Such discussion may be made public by 2/3 majority vote of the Governors (via a properly seconded motion, which is also confidential until such time as it passes). Such a motion must be moved and seconded within the timelines of the meeting and a vote must be held within two weeks, if it is not possible during the meeting."



It seems Pierre is uninterested in seconding. If there is an interested party out there, please state so soon.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I'll second Chris motion.

I think there should be doors to confidential discussions.

[Lyle Craver]

Definitely not - we don't have the authority to bind previous Governors' / Executives' decisions - we can only move forward from here.

As far as I'm concerned retroactive legislation is always a bad thing.