Ag. Item # 10 – Discussion of Motion # 2010-05 – Governor Activity Rule

In this thread, we will debate this motion. But we will not vote on it here in this thread. The voting is not to start ‘til 6:00 PM EDT on Sunday, April 11 – I will at that time post a new thread on this as a poll, so we can all vote – it will record the names of the governors voting.

Here is the motion/commentary ( without the notes ):

Motion 2010-05 ( initially Motion # 1 ) – Governor Activity Rule

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Jason Lohner

( submitted on behalf of the CFC Constitutional Coalition, a grassroots’ group of about 40 ordinary CFC members and a few governors, named below in the Notes )

There shall be added to CFC By-law # 2, a new section 23 as follows:

“ 23. Governor Inactivity Rule

Any governor, no matter whether provincial representative governor, or governor at large, including the Executive, appointees, etc., who does not vote, move/second a motion, or make a comment ( on a motion or generally ), in two consecutive Governors’ Letters, shall be removed from office, and their position shall no longer be part of a quorum until their replacement, if any. Should it happen that in a GL there are no motions for either discussion or vote, then that GL shall not be counted for the purposes of this section. Once removed, the Governor and his provincial body/appointing body shall be notified. A request that a by-election be held to fill the vacancy shall also be made to the provincial/territorial organization or that the appointing body appoint a replacement, for the balance of the removed governor’s term. "

Commentary:

In the 2008-9 year, except for the first four motions of the year ( critical CFC restructuring motions in September 2008 ), all motions subsequently have received less than 50 % vote ( some much less ), including the motions at the outgoing governors July 2009 AGM ( including proxies ). Many governors seldom make any comments on motions for discussion, or generally. This participation rate by governors is abysmal. If governors do not want to be involved in governing the CFC, then they should not have stood for office, whether provincial representative, or governor at large representative. It makes the membership skeptical about the governance of the CFC by such neglect of participation. It demoralizes those who are active governors, because they are expecting other governors to share the load, and find there are not other hands to pitch in. Lastly if a constitutional amendment to the CFC Handbook is brought outside of an AGM, the motion not only requires a 2/3 majority, but also a quorum of 50% of the eligible votes. With governors voting less than 50%, constitutional motions cannot be passed outside of the AGM – this is intolerable for an organization that is trying to keep itself legally up-to-date.

Some have suggested that the period of grace should be longer – no communication/vote for 3 consecutive GL’s. Others want the governors to vote on at least one motion every GL, or at least make a comment. We have picked the middle ground of 2 GL’s – no appearance for 2 GL’s, and the governor is removed.

Also, there is an issue of whether the Provincial Association/ appointing body should be able to replace a removed governor. We felt that allowing replacement let the provincial affiliate/appointing body off the hook. They elect/appoint the governors, and we felt they should be taking care that they are good active governors. If they can always replace deadwood governors with other deadwood governors, and never exercise responsible oversight on their governors, what incentive is there for them to ever take the CFC governance seriously? However, if it means they lose a vote for a full balance of the offending governors’ term, maybe next time they will be more careful about whom they elect.

However, it seemed many opposed our view on replacement. As well there was motion 2002-02 in 2001-2 GL 5 that said re governors who were not CFC members, or who had let their membership lapse:

Any provincially elected Governor found not to be a CFC member in good standing shall have his/her voting privileges suspended. Once suspended, the Governor and his provincial body shall be notified and requested to bring his/her membership into good standing not later that 30 days from his/her election or expiration of membership. In the event that the Governor's membership still not be in good standing 30 days after suspension, the president of the provincial/territorial organization and the Governor shall be notified that the Governor's seat is declared vacant. A request that a by-election be held to fill the vacancy shall also be made to the provincial/territorial organization [ bolding added ]. "

This appears to be a strong CFC precedent for allowing replacement of “ suspended “ governors. So we have abandoned our desired position, and adopted the procedure of this CFC precedent ( we are indebted to Governor Egis Zeromskis for drawing our attention to this motion )..

We tried to reduce the number of provincial representation governors ( Motion 2009-14 ) at the July AGM, and it failed to get the 2/3 majority required for a constitutional amendment. One comment from many governors was that an activity requirement rule should precede any action to reduce the number of governors. So we have listened to this criticism and are now bringing this activity motion, as seemed to be desired by many governors.

The CFC needs the help of all governors, and the contribution of all their opinions, to help the CFC run at its best. The first duty of governors is to govern; secondarily, it is expected that the governors will also promote chess in various ways. Governors need to debate with each other in the GL ( and on the Governors’ Discussion Board and the CFC members CFC Chess Forum ) in order to get sound governance decisions. That is why we have such an extensive number of governors. If they do not participate, one wonders why we have them at all. They are just deadwood, names on a website. And they fail to represent the provinces/chess bodies who sent them.

We feel this activity criterion will significantly improve the voting record of governors, and the quality of CFC governance decisions.

Though not yet passed, this activity rule is already becoming dated. We are now seeing the benefits of this on-line meeting format. And hopefully, the motion instituting these new procedures will be dealt with at the July AGM, as will this motion.

I hope both will pass - that way we will at least have an initial governor activity rule to work from, to improve.

But it is clear the activity rule will then have to be tailored to the new reality of the on-line meeting. What extent of activity re attendance at quarterly, and AGM, meetings should be demanded in future.

Can we go for zero tolerance, and say that if a governor fails to attend a governors' on-line meeting, then the governor will be terminated, to be replaced by their provincial association? I don't think this should apply, however, to the AGM - even if it is broadcast in future in audio and video, and governors across the country are able to participate by texting in messages to the meeting site, there will be those governors who will not have time available on the given day.

But these new on-line meeting rules are totally flexible. What excuse can a governor have for not attending at least once during 7 days?

Do you think this would be too strict a rule for future ?

Bob

Bob, As you know, I am in favour of governor activity. BUT Zero tolerance, I think, is a bit too far ... what happens if someone is on holiday? or deeply involved in a project with their work etc.

I agree with Patrick - zero tolerance is far too strict. Holidays/illness and lack of computer access may all contribute to not being able to participate.

Zero tolerance may be too strict, but even if someone doesn't have access to a computer at home, most public libraries have free access to the internet. Lets face it, computers/internet access is almost a necessity these days and catering to people who can't get online IMO is almost the same as catering to those who still want to use a horse and buggy.

There are too many situations where a governor I wouldn't want to be removed is because he's defined inactive by the above definition.

It sounds scary :eek: Thus NO.

I would support this motion if there would be similar conditions to the CFC members - who do not play in the two consecutive Canadian Opens must be banned from the CFC :D

Back to reality - as I would like to see the GLs periodically there are opinion that we do not need them at all (and I agree with them too) Thus, I can not support the motion what relies on the GLs - "two consecutive Governors’ Letters"

Hi Egis:

The goal is to put some type of restriction in place with what we have currently, which is irregular Governors' Letters. The only motion on governor voting, is the one for bringing these on-line meeting rules into effect. But it must still be filed, go through the GL system, and then be voted on and passed. This could take a while, unless we can get the motion on to the July AGM agenda. But passing this rather weak " activity rule " would give us something in place, and something to amend when we change to on-line meetings. So I don't see it as merely a theoretical motion - it has some teeth, and will apply to the current situation until some motions are passed changing the current status quo. There is no motion brought presently to make the governors' letters come out on fixed dates, nor to eliminate them. So we've got them for the near future, and so the activity rule has to deal with the current situation.

Bob

As has been expressed above, I feel zero tolerance would be much too restrictive. That said, I do support the notion that some governors need motivation to become actively engaged in governorship, and, as such, I fully support the institution of a governor activity rule. An issue that has been raised is the question of who will be made to monitor activity. Were you envisioning this duty falling to the Secretary, Bob?

Hi Michael:

Yes - he will have evidence of participation in the GL's ( and in future, at these quarterly meetings ).

Bob