Item # 20B - Motion 2011-A - Activity Rule for Life Governors - for discussion

[Michael von Keitz]

My feeling has always been that if they want to be active, that's great, there are plenty of either elected governor spots, or officer positions that would give them votes. And there is plenty of good they can do without voting too.

I am in total agreement with Chris and the related rationale of Bob. I am opposed to the amendment and will be voting against it, but I will vote in favour of the original motion.

[Lyle Craver]

Essentially the situation boils down to:

Bob (who supports elimination of Life Governors) urges you to vote YES to -03 and -04 and NO to -11

while I (who supports continuation of the Life Governor system) urge you to vote NO to -03 and -04 and have not made up my mind on -11

My view is that I think the present system with the input from past Presidents has served the CFC well and see them as a valued resource rather than an anti-democratic nuisance. The average Governor does not see much of this since their input is often at the Executive level.

It would probably cause the gentleman some embarassment but my personal opinion is that Les Bunning's contributions (particularly since his tenure as President) go well beyond anything seen since Messrs. Prentice and Pugi with his only serious rival being Jonathan Berry who was never of course a CFC President. His most important contributions have been behind the scenes in areas the average Governor never sees (such as the Charitable Status matter) but are hugely valuable nonetheless.

[Michael von Keitz]

There is no question that some Past Presidents have contributed a great deal to the CFC since the completion of their tenures; however, the existence of a vote for life is anti-democratic, regardless of whether the individuals concerned are considered to be a nuisance or not. If these individuals wish to hold onto their voting rights, there is nothing preventing them from standing for election to the general governorship of the organization. In fact, if they fail to secure a position, it seems a strong indication that they do not represent the views of the members of which they would otherwise be assumed to be the voice. Being realistic, however, we can be sure that those indicating a desire to run would be elected out of respect for their track records. If they don't feel inclined to pursue legitimate voting rights, as long as they have voices, nothing is preventing them from using them outside of the vote.

[Garland Best]

I agree that Les Bunning's contributions as legal consul greatly benefit the CFC.

That being said:

1) Does Les need to be a governor to continue contributing in the manner he has? I don't see necessarily see it. One does not have to be a Governor to be a volunteer for the CFC.
2) Les would likely automatically be acclaimed as a CFC governor at every EOCA meeting if that was the required process.

Either way, I don't think we would be losing out if Bob's motions were carried. If a Life governor is performing valuable work for the CFC and this work is recognized by his peers, then election each year occurs naturally.

I want to emphasize that my comments are not specific to Les, nor any other specific life governor. Contributions to the CFC from anyone are greatly valued. I just think that granting life-long voting priviledges as an award for contributing is not necessarily the best method to show that appreciation.

[Patrick McDonald]

My view is this: the mere existance of the Life Governor is not democratic.
If someone wants to contribute, great! Let them be a governor, it is often hard to find people willing to stand as governors anyway.

The point is that with all the governors and life governors and other voting members, it is sometimes hard to get enough participation to gain quorum.

If we do get to the point of too many people wishing to be governors for positions available, then GREAT! those that get the positions are even more likely to actuall do something with the position!

Let's eliminate the Life Governor positions and have those that want to help and participate do so as elected governors.

[Lyle Craver]

While what you say may hold water in Ontario, in smaller provinces this prevent new blood from coming in as a Life Governor if he had to be re-elected every year would tend to make up the province's quota.

One question I've never heard adequately addressed by the other side is what malicious impact they feel our former Presidents have had on the Governors?

Because "anti-democratic" is a powerful, loaded word I don't see being appropriately used with respect to some of the top volunteers in the organization.

(By the way, Les' contributions go well beyond legal advice.)

[Fred McKim]

I feel that we should modify this to retain active Life Governors, but ensure there are no further life governors. I think this compromise is the best.

Perhaps we can move this for the next meeting depending on what happens over the next few days.