Usefulness of members committees with authority
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée
FIDE uses such committees extensively. The Laws of Chess cannot be changed by FIDE wihtout a proposal from the Rule Committee, the rating rules cannot be changed without a proposal from the Qualification Commission... Those committees purpose is to assure that expert advice is taken into consideration when modifying some rules. The board of director could have no experience in organizing or directing chess competitions. Giving full authority to such directors would be dangerous.
Committees of members with authority limits the power of the board of directors in their field of jurisdiction. This can be very useful to prove that there is no political interference of the directors in a competition by ensuring that the NAC decisions are final. I have always been a very strong proponent of the separation of the sports side from the business side. Directors should raise fund and allocate money to the sports side but experienced persons should be running the sports side. The directors could know nothing about chess, but if they raise 100 000$ per year from their contacts, I am very happy provided that chess competitions are ran by competent persons.
If we get to the point where we have a board of directors or even too many governors/voting members who have no experience in organizing or directing chess competitions then I suggest that the CFC will be in more trouble than we can address in a simple post. That is not the case of the current board nor of any board that I expect to see in my lifetime.
The directors have to have the final authority on some matters since they are the ones on the front line who might be sued if an unjust decision is allowed to stand without any possible intervention. Too much separation can also allow corruption as for example certain controversial decisions in figure skating which appear to have more to do with collusion and trade offs between judges than the objective merits.
We have to work within the limits of the law. If the law indeed proscribes the ability of non-profit corporations to delegate directors' powers then that is not something that we can or should seek to circumvent. We live in Canada and are bound by Canadian law.