PDA

View Full Version : Major Problem at the CFC??



Bob Armstrong
04-15-2009, 12:41 AM
Rumors abound at the moment out in the boonies where we CFC ordinary members live -

1. Has the Executive recently taken unauthorized action and acted beyond the scope of their authority?

2. Is this all related to the balancing of the 2009-10 CFC Budget, the new year beginning on May 1?

3.What exactly is the " urgent " motion that has been filed by one of the governors to try to head off the executive?

4. Why has there been no notice to the membership on an issue that affects them so directly?

5. When will the executive/governors finally get around to deciding that the members are mature adults with intelligent opinions?

6. Why does the CFC refuse to communicate with its members?

It is really insufficient to tell us that all things are unfolding as they should in the universe, and that all will be revealed in good time.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
04-15-2009, 04:33 AM
1. No - and this is backed up by a legal opinion.
2. Yes
3. A bunch of crap that is a) out of order and b) isn't even written with anything close to proper grammar and makes no sense as it is.
4. Because Governors find out things first. That's how it works in every other business in the world, too.
5. Who ever said they aren't?
6. We don't - see #4.

Bob Armstrong
04-15-2009, 07:43 AM
Chris Mallon's answers are juxtaposed to the questions, for more convenient reading:

1. Has the Executive recently taken unauthorized action and acted beyond the scope of their authority? No - and this is backed up by a legal opinion.

Supplementary Question 1A. Will the Executive now advise the membership what " legal " action they have taken?

2. Is this all related to the balancing of the 2009-10 CFC Budget, the new year beginning on May 1? Yes.

Supplementary Question 2A - If the executive action had not been taken, would they have been able to balance a 2009-10 budget?

3.What exactly is the " urgent " motion that has been filed by one of the governors to try to head off the executive? A bunch of crap that is a) out of order and b) isn't even written with anything close to proper grammar and makes no sense as it is.

Supplementary Question 3A - Is the governor mover of this motion now free to post it here on this website, for all members to see? ( Or is all this still " confidential " ? )

4. Why has there been no notice to the membership on an issue that affects them so directly? Because Governors find out things first. That's how it works in every other business in the world, too.

Supplementary Question 4A - Now that the Governors know first, will the Executive now advise the membership second?


5. When will the executive/governors finally get around to deciding that the members are mature adults with intelligent opinions? Who ever said they aren't?

Supplementary Question 5A - Assuming the executive respects the maturity and intelligence of the membership, will they therefore now answer Supplementary Question 1A and the other supplementaries?


6. Why does the CFC refuse to communicate with its members? We don't - see #4.

Supplementary Question 6A - If these questions were not being asked, when would the Executive have communicated this major organizational change to the membership?

Bob

John Coleman
04-15-2009, 08:40 AM
So, I gather that "something" is going on. Okay.

Peter McKillop
04-15-2009, 12:17 PM
Well, one wouldn't think there would be budget problems for fiscal 2010 given skyrocketing membership numbers (hic...).

Ken Craft
04-15-2009, 01:09 PM
It's big and controversial.

Peter McKillop
04-15-2009, 01:37 PM
Gosh, I wonder why the executive would suddenly feel the need to obtain a legal opinion? Regarding your point 4, do you mind if I have this framed? It will look lovely on the back wall of my barn, overlooking the manure pile.

Christopher Mallon
04-15-2009, 06:06 PM
The answer to most of your supplemental questions are a variation on "Coming Very Soon"

2A: Not on paper.
6A: Yes.

Bob Armstrong
04-16-2009, 07:14 AM
Posted on April 15 on the Ottawa CC Message Board by Tom O'Donnell:

" What's the word on the street about the CFC? Did the entire staff get turfed? "

Bob

Bob Armstrong
04-16-2009, 10:51 AM
The members have lots more supplementary questions:

1. When is CFC finally going to confirm to the members that Tom O'Donnell's rumour is true?

2. If the entire " staff " were terminated, when is " their " last day?

3. Is the governor's motion seeking to head off the Executive action coming to a quick vote and when? Or is it being considered for an " out of order " ruling?

4. For clarification, is the " staff " only the one legal " employee ", the ED, Bob Gillanders ( the one who receives a salary, with taxes, EI and CPP taken off )? Is he ( was he ) a full-time CFC employee or a " part-time " employee? If part-time, how many hours a week did his job description call for?

5. The CFC website shows under " Staff " , not only Bob G, but Vincent Chow and Paul Beckwith. Are they true " employees " of CFC with direct employment contracts? From some information I have, it appears that they are rather people to whom Bob G, with the consent of CFC, subcontracts part of his job description duties. Do they have CFC job descriptions? I thought Bob paid them out of his salary cheque, and they worked for him. If they are " Part-time employees " of CFC, how many hours a week did their job descriptions call for?

6. Who is replacing " the staff "? Is it a new E.D.? Is s/he full-time or part-time? Are any other " employees " being hired as well? Or is CFC again allowing the ED. to subcontract out part of his job description ( if that is what Bob was doing )?

7. Or alternatively, is this an " outsourcing " contract of the whole CFC office operation, as was proposed last year by CFC President Hal Bond?

8. Will this new " staffing " arrangement be cheaper for the CFC than with Bob G? If so, by how much?

So many member questions, and so little ( none?? ) communication so far !

Bob

Valer Eugen Demian
04-16-2009, 01:08 PM
No. There is the typical scenario: one motion is on the floor and everyone ignores it, hoping it would go away quietly or in other words people will lose track of it while reading tons of emails...

It has not been ruled "out of order"; just one governor suggested it.

Bob Armstrong
04-16-2009, 01:18 PM
Hi Valer:

Thanks - seems to me if the motion is serious, the mover/seconder have to ask for an immediate e-mail vote, or it is all pretty useless.

Seems to me that the governors are agreeing implicitly with the Executive action, by taking none themselves.

If that's the case, then I guess CFC moves on into the next phase.

Bob

P.S. 1. I still think the governors should answer my outstanding questions so that the membership is clear on how the CFC structures its employee relations - from information publicly available, its pretty murky trying to ascertain what is going on.
2. As a member, I'd like to thank Bob G and his team, for doing a fabulous job for the CFC when they were at a real low point. They restored member confidence in the CFC, and allowed the Governors to get on with restructuring, without having to worry about day-to-day operations. Bob and his team have set the bar pretty high for the new team taking over. Good luck to Bob and Vince and Paul in future.

Christopher Mallon
04-17-2009, 07:29 PM
The motion was ruled out of order.

A little background to this situation. As the Ottawa office was being closed, we came to a temporary agreement with Bob, Paul and Vince that they run the office tasks from home for roughly four months (through May 1st) while we negotiated a more permanent arrangement.

Despite months of bargaining, we were unable to reach an agreement that was acceptable to the Executive. The Exec voted unanimously against the "final offer".

Please understand that many details can't be shared as they are protected by privacy laws.

In any case, the Executive appreciates and is very thankful for what these three have achieved in their time at the CFC Office and we wish them all well in the future.

Bob Gillanders
04-18-2009, 01:23 AM
The motion was ruled out of order.

A little background to this situation. As the Ottawa office was being closed, we came to a temporary agreement with Bob, Paul and Vince that they run the office tasks from home for roughly four months (through May 1st) while we negotiated a more permanent arrangement.

Despite months of bargaining, we were unable to reach an agreement that was acceptable to the Executive. The Exec voted unanimously against the "final offer".

Please understand that many details can't be shared as they are protected by privacy laws.

In any case, the Executive appreciates and is very thankful for what these three have achieved in their time at the CFC Office and we wish them all well in the future.

This post from Chris is a distortion of the facts.

Chris, giving false testimony then hiding behind privacy laws is just bad manners. I am willing to share all the details of our negotiations with the governors. I'm sure Paul and Vince will agree.

Valer Eugen Demian
04-18-2009, 01:46 AM
The motion was ruled out of order...

Could you please indicate where is this written and / or communicated? If it is, it never reached my inbox!

It cannot be so complicated to show the proof about this motion. I doubt it has any bearing on any privacy law! Of course anyone from the Executives can post a response instead :cool:

Bob Armstrong
04-18-2009, 09:52 AM
Hi Chris:

" Ruling out of order " is a potent weapon in the hands of the chair of a meeting, here David Lavin, President, I assume. It is very open to abuse.

Please post the motion and the ruling so we can all agree whether or not it should have been allowed to proceed. This is a vital CFC matter, and this motion should not be treated lightly and without due scrutiny by the membership.

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-18-2009, 01:58 PM
It cannot be so complicated to show the proof about this motion. I doubt it has any bearing on any privacy law! Of course anyone from the Executives can post a response instead :cool:

Valerian, what do you mean by "That if the CFC so determines to" in your Motion?
I think this is an ambiguous meaning and Motion must be send back for better wording. (I may write more but you should post Motion publicly as well)

Kerry Liles
04-18-2009, 05:07 PM
Hi Chris:

" Ruling out of order " is a potent weapon in the hands of the chair of a meeting, here David Lavin, President, I assume. It is very open to abuse.

Please post the motion and the ruling so we can all agree whether or not it should have been allowed to proceed. This is a vital CFC matter, and this motion should not be treated lightly and without due scrutiny by the membership.

Bob

I am sure everyone will recall in the recent past a President of the CFC ruled damn near everything at one point "out of order", so keep in mind that the President can pretty well do whatever he pleases.

Ken Craft
04-20-2009, 07:29 AM
Thus my support for an independent CFC Parliamentarian.