Straw Poll on 6B Discipline of Members

[Vladimir Drkulec]

With respect to the proposed measure on discpline of members I would like the matter to be:

[Bob Armstrong]

With respect to the proposed measure on discpline of members I would like the matter to be:

Hi Vlad:

Maybe I missed something - I don't understand this - was there to be a poll with this thread?

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Vlad:

Maybe I missed something - I don't understand this - was there to be a poll with this thread?

Bob A

Hi again Vlad:

I went back and looked at the most recent "discipline" posts. I agree with Ken Craft that it might be preferable to have some due process "hearing" of some nature as a prerequisite to any disciplinary decision. If this thread is asking if this Discipline clause should be deferred to the April/14 meeting, and in the meantime, a compromise clause be sought if possible, I vote for "deferred" to April. It seems we are slowly chewing on this clause, and continuously coming up with new thoughts - maybe it does need more "thinking/negotiating" time.

Bob A

[Lyle Craver]

The original plan was to hold a vote here with a view to approving a resolution to be voted on in April.

Given the shortened form of this meeting and the aborted attempt to have a straw poll on the subject I am going to defer holding a vote on this resolution until I have clearer instructions from the President. It is my personal view that as long as we can reach consensus on 9A/6A in a form suitable to both the Governors and the Federal Government that we should be able to hash out something suitable on 9B/6B relatively quickly. I emphasize that Ottawa requires we have some language along these lines but is fairly open-minded on what specific language they will accept.

I don't accept Ken's approach - which I think unduly hamstrings the Governors and Executive in what would be an extraordinary situation - but the truth is out there between these two poles. The CFC is not exactly known for expelling members and has been through situations where some other organizations might have in similar circumstances would have without taking this major step. (Consider the number of coaches / parents in minor sports organizations that have turfed members for mistreating referees etc.)

I've no idea why Ottawa is so firm in pressing this point but they are though to me this is a far smaller issue than 6A/9A.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I've no idea why Ottawa is so firm in pressing this point but they are though to me this is a far smaller issue than 6A/9A.

Actually Ottawa is not pressing the point on discipline. We don't need to have a bylaw with respect to discipline unless we want one.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Hi again Vlad:

I went back and looked at the most recent "discipline" posts. I agree with Ken Craft that it might be preferable to have some due process "hearing" of some nature as a prerequisite to any disciplinary decision. If this thread is asking if this Discipline clause should be deferred to the April/14 meeting, and in the meantime, a compromise clause be sought if possible, I vote for "deferred" to April. It seems we are slowly chewing on this clause, and continuously coming up with new thoughts - maybe it does need more "thinking/negotiating" time.

Bob A

Unless something changes in the next two hours the voting in the straw poll seems to be lopsided towards accepting the bylaw as written which itself was the end result of a fairly extensive consultation process. I am inclined to extend the meeting and bring this matter to a vote now based on the information that I have now. In the event that this passes with a two thirds vote it will pass into our proposed bylaw with the required approval (in conjunction with the steps we will take at the April quarterly meeting.

If you would like to amend the bylaw it will be up to you to make a proposal which will need the support of two thirds of the governors voting at the next meeting in April or any subsequent meeting though I would prefer that if you want this that you do it sooner (before we submit our application to the government some time after the April meeting) rather than later when it might cost us $200 to make the change.

I will bend over backwards to accommodate consideration of such an amendment or replacement bylaw which is compliant with the NFP act. If you start a thread on this topic on the governors forum or even in public forums or chesstalk then I will participate as actively as I can. From my point of view, having a rule is better than not having a rule but only narrowly and only from the point of view of defining the process. If someone is doing serious damage to the CFC or our members there are circumstances where we have to act quickly simply from the point of view of liability and public safety. This is a rule that I hope will never be used.