7A. ( Best / Gordon ) CFC Employees

Moved / Seconded Garland Best / David Gordon

"Be it resolved that any member of the CFC Executive be ineligible to bid for any paid positions with the CFC for a period of 1 year after leaving office."

COMMENTARY:

I wish to propose it for the following reason. About a year ago Michael von Keitz resigned from the CFC presidency in order to bid for the position of Executive Director. Now I have great respect for the work Michael did as CFC President and would have applauded if he had continued in this role. I am also not arguing over whether or not his bid was the best bid, nor am I making any comments regarding his skills as Executive Director.

My point is that whether or not there was a ACTUAL conflict of interest in the bidding process, there certaintly was the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. For the outside it looked highly suspicious that Michael was awarded the contract by the same persons he worked so closely with. It also appeared opportunistic.

By having a 1 year gap between a member of the executive leaving office and that same person bidding on a position, we minimize the conflict of interest issue without permanently excluding them from future employment with the CFC.

I'm also limiting it to the Executive, as while I think excluding all Governors would be even better, I also recognize that the pool of persons suitable for working for the CFC is limited and the Governors would nake up a significant fraction of this pool of talent.

I have copied the below quote from discussion on the Governor's board. I had made this in relation to some discussion over the present wording in the handbook concerning conflict of interest for Directors.

At the moment the only paid positions are Executive Director and CCN Editor / Web Co-ordinator. Anyone involved in a chess business (according to our rules I think this is only retail, now) is also precluded. The retail aspect is now curious since we aren't selling equipment any more, but they could be perceived as competition to our contractors.

Maye movers specify where this motion will go in the Handbook: as an amendment to the Constitution (somewhere in Section 2) or a simple motion (Section 3)?

I'm proposing it as a simple motion. I don't see it as a constitutional issue. If someone feels this is incorrect, please explain why.

MEMO TO ALL GOVERNORS: (not specifically aimed at Garland)

Motions go smoother if they specifically reference an existing Handbook paragraph or if new, where they should go in the Handbook. Mr Z's question is legitimate and has recurred numerous times in Governors' motions in the last few years.

Leaving this info out means folks like me, Les Bunning, Bob Gillanders and the other nameless heroes who have taken previous Handbook revisions get to work extra hard. Gee thanks!

I remember Presidents and Secretaries making this point as far back as the Presidency of Francisco Cabanas so it's not a new issue!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle Craver

Moved / Seconded Garland Best / David Gordon

"Be it resolved that any member of the CFC Executive be ineligible to bid for any paid positions with the CFC for a period of 1 year after leaving office."

COMMENTARY:

I wish to propose it for the following reason. About a year ago Michael von Keitz resigned from the CFC presidency in order to bid for the position of Executive Director. Now I have great respect for the work Michael did as CFC President and would have applauded if he had continued in this role. I am also not arguing over whether or not his bid was the best bid, nor am I making any comments regarding his skills as Executive Director.

My point is that whether or not there was a ACTUAL conflict of interest in the bidding process, there certaintly was the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. For the outside it looked highly suspicious that Michael was awarded the contract by the same persons he worked so closely with. It also appeared opportunistic.

By having a 1 year gap between a member of the executive leaving office and that same person bidding on a position, we minimize the conflict of interest issue without permanently excluding them from future employment with the CFC.

I'm also limiting it to the Executive, as while I think excluding all Governors would be even better, I also recognize that the pool of persons suitable for working for the CFC is limited and the Governors would nake up a significant fraction of this pool of talent.

---

I support this motion.

I agree:

1. that it should only apply to the executive, not the governors. Firstly, there is much less of an appearance of conflict of interest re governors; secondly, Garland's point about the pool of applicants for CFC paid positions being somewhat small, and governors forming a significant percentage of that pool.

2. one year seems to be enough to counter the appearance of conflict (though I could probably also live with 6 months, if a majority preferred a shorter time period).

Bob A

Searching through the handbook shows the following section (Section 2, Bylaw 1, Paragraph 13):

13. Any Ordinary or Life Member, who is a Canadian Citizen or a landed immigrant in Canada, and who is 18 years of age or over, is eligible to be nominated and elected to the position of Governor [as amended by Motion 84-24; see GL November 1983, p. 16] representing the organization of the Province in which he resides. The Executive Director, full-time employees of the Chess Federation of Canada, and any part-time employees who receive a substantial fraction of their income from such employment, may not become Governors or Officers of the Chess Federation of Canada.

The intent of my motion is that Officers of the Chess Federation of Canada cannot later become the Executive Director, a full-time employee of the Chess Federation of Canada, or a part-time employee who receives a substantial fraction of their income from such employment, so this section seems relevant.

On the other hand, there are motions like Section 3, 331. Officer Eligibility: The clause in the constitution (By-law 2, 14.) prohibiting persons involved in a chess-related business from being elected or appointed as a general officer is interpreted as being "No person may be elected or appointed as a general officer if he earns a substantial portion of his income from a chess-related business".

So based on this it appears that either one might be appropriate. Given that, I would prefer section 3, as it would then not need to be a constitutional change.

PS: I also note that as per Section 3, paragraph 341. "Language of Motions: Motions will be sent out in both French and English and the text in the submitted language will be authentic."

So I would appreciate someone translating my motion to French, as I do not have the skill to do so.

Although I have never seen this followed in the past. Just saying.

"Qu'il soit résolu que tout membre du comité exécutif de la FCE ne puisse pas être éligible pour une position rémunérée à la FCE pour une période d'une année après avoir quitté le comité."
(I'm not sure if it's the best formulation, but it should do the job :) )

Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garland Best

Searching through the handbook shows the following section (Section 2, Bylaw 1, Paragraph 13):

13. Any Ordinary or Life Member, who is a Canadian Citizen or a landed immigrant in Canada, and who is 18 years of age or over, is eligible to be nominated and elected to the position of Governor [as amended by Motion 84-24; see GL November 1983, p. 16] representing the organization of the Province in which he resides. The Executive Director, full-time employees of the Chess Federation of Canada, and any part-time employees who receive a substantial fraction of their income from such employment, may not become Governors or Officers of the Chess Federation of Canada.

The intent of my motion is that Officers of the Chess Federation of Canada cannot later become the Executive Director, a full-time employee of the Chess Federation of Canada, or a part-time employee who receives a substantial fraction of their income from such employment, so this section seems relevant.

On the other hand, there are motions like Section 3, 331. Officer Eligibility: The clause in the constitution (By-law 2, 14.) prohibiting persons involved in a chess-related business from being elected or appointed as a general officer is interpreted as being "No person may be elected or appointed as a general officer if he earns a substantial portion of his income from a chess-related business".

So based on this it appears that either one might be appropriate. Given that, I would prefer section 3, as it would then not need to be a constitutional change.

---

It should be pointed out that there are clauses which specifically exempt chess professionals, instructors or organizers. I am not sure who is really left. For example Article two clause 14 continues:

A professional chess player, chess teacher, chess coach, tournament director, or a player who writes chess books, a chess column, articles for a newspaper(s) or magazine(s) shall not be excluded from being a Director by this clause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

It should be pointed out that there are clauses which specifically exempt chess professionals, instructors or organizers. I am not sure who is really left. For example Article two clause 14 continues:

A professional chess player, chess teacher, chess coach, tournament director, or a player who writes chess books, a chess column, articles for a newspaper(s) or magazine(s) shall not be excluded from being a Director by this clause.

---

I always saw that as the "Larry Bevand can never be a Governor" rule, as it really didn't seem to exclude anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle Craver

MEMO TO ALL GOVERNORS: (not specifically aimed at Garland)

Motions go smoother if they specifically reference an existing Handbook paragraph or if new, where they should go in the Handbook. Mr Z's question is legitimate and has recurred numerous times in Governors' motions in the last few years.

Leaving this info out means folks like me, Les Bunning, Bob Gillanders and the other nameless heroes who have taken previous Handbook revisions get to work extra hard. Gee thanks!

I remember Presidents and Secretaries making this point as far back as the Presidency of Francisco Cabanas so it's not a new issue!

---

The Chair could always just start ruling motions out of order if they are not properly formatted indicating which sections of the handbook they will update.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon

The Chair could always just start ruling motions out of order if they are not properly formatted indicating which sections of the handbook they will update.

---

I don't think this is a well thought out motion but I would have to declare a conflict of interest before ruling it out of order since it deals with the executive. I'm not sure how it will fit in with the new not for profit rules which supersede our bylaws so we will probably have to do it twice. If voting had not already started I would suggest tabling it for next meeting at which point it could be formatted to indicate properly just what was being modified in the handbook.

Why is debate continuing after voting has begun? The debate threads should be closed when voting begins.