Governors to Debate/Vote - Open Governor On-line Meetings to Public?

[Bob Armstrong]

Manitoba Governor Ken Einarsson and I ( Greater Toronto Chess League Governor ) have now filed with the CFC a motion that the quarterly govenors' on-line meetings be open to the public on a " public view-only " basis. Debate has begun on the confidential Govenors' Discussion Board, and will be concluded at the Winter Quarterly ( Jan. 2011 ) Governors' On-line Meeting, and then be voted on at that meeting. Here is the motion:

Motion – Opening Governors’ On-line Meeting to the Public

October 20, 2010

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Ken Einarsson


- that CFC Handbook SECTION 2 – Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings be amended as follows:

1. Section 1, The Meeting, subsection (i ) be amended by deleting the words “

the CFC Governors’ Discussion Board “ and substituting for them the following:

“ a special public CFC Discussion Forum. However the limitations shall be:

1. only governors will be able to post;
2. the public will be able to see all posts, replies, polls, etc. seen by the Governors, but shall have “ view-only “ status; they will be unable to post.

Where the governors vote that a matter is “ confidential “ in nature, and should be dealt with “ in camera “, the Chairperson shall direct that the meeting be adjourned to such Private CFC Discussion Forum as may be available, including the Governors’ Discussion Board. In such a case, after the confidential matter has been dealt with, the Chair shall direct that the meeting resume in the public forum.

2. Section 3, Role of the Posting Secretary, s.5, Vote Results, and s. 6, Meeting Minutes, be amended by substituting for the words “ Governors’ Discussion Board “ wherever they occur, the words “ meeting Discussion Board “

Commentary:

At present, the non-AGM Quarterly Governors’ On-line Meetings are “ confidential “, ie. not open to the public. This is because the On-line Meeting Procedures state that the meetings are to be held on the Governors’ Discussion Board, which is “ private “, ie. confidential.
There has been discussion among the governors and the CFC members about making the non-AGM Quarterly Governors’ On-line Meetings “ public view-only ‘, as set out in the motion above. A list of arguments has been developed on both sides of this issue, as follows:

PRO's

1. Transparency: The Governors need to be more transparent in their governing, and this is achieved by " public view-only " on-line meetings. This in turn gives the CFC more transparency.

2. Member Interest: This will increase member interest in the affairs of the CFC. It is recognized that many CFC members are rather apolitical, and would likely not come to an open meeting. But we have seen from the members’ CFC Chess Chat Forum, that there are at least 100 what we might term “ hardcore CFC supporters “ , who monitor the board regularly, and are willing to wade through not all that exciting policy posts, and comment on them. If we could generate even more interest in this group, CFC might increase its pool of volunteers, including for non-executive officer volunteer positions, and perhaps even candidates for CFC governorship.

3. Confidentiality Issues: The meeting can always be adjourned to a private forum temporarily if " confidential " matters arise.

4. Governor Activity Monitoring: Though posting of summaries gives some information on the meeting, they are very truncated, and don't reveal which governors took what positions. Members may be interested in how their own local governors contributed. Public view-only meetings allow the members to measure their local governor activity.

5. AGM: the AGM, to which the quarterly non-AGM governors’ on-line meetings are quite similar, is open to the public. So the quarterly on-line meetings should be too.

CON's

1. Decrease in quality of meeting: Governors may become more reticent than they already are to give opinions or take public positions. This decreases the quality of governance.

2. Parallel " Out of Context " Discussions : Because of copying/pasting, governor comments can be taken out of context and posted on other discussion boards, where CFC may get slagged, and it will be unable to respond. Or if it can respond, it will require some coordination of response, which will take energy away from the meeting.

3. Confidentiality: The issue of confidentiality could be raised on numerous occasions. Arguments will have to be made each time, and this will take valuable time away from the meeting. As well, confidential information could inadvertently be disclosed BEFORE the issue of going " in camera " gets raised, and this information could then be posted elsewhere.

4. Summaries - The fact that the procedures state that " minutes " ( interpreted as " summaries " ) are to be posted on the CFC website almost immediately after the meeting, meets the test of having a " public " component to the meeting.

I attempted to investigate this issue further by doing a poll of both the governors, and the CFC members/public. The result was that a slight majority of the non-executive governors who voted ( 11 voted, or were deemed to have voted ) favoured opening the meeting. However, the executive who voted, unanimously voted against opening the meeting ( but less than 50% of the executive voted ). In the members/public vote, those voting ( 10 voted out of, in my estimation, about 100 ), voted almost unanimously to open the meeting, by indicating that they would attend an open governors’ on-line meeting.

It is our view that the Pro’s on this issue, outweigh the Con’s. The benefits of an open meeting are such that we should take the risks which are pointed out by those against opening the meeting, and deal with them as best we can.

We have therefore amended the on-line meeting procedures so the meetings will now be held in a special public forum, but on a “ public view-only “ basis.

We feel this is the next progressive step in governance, now that we have the on-line meeting procedures in place in the CFC Handbook, and have proved they work successfully to a very high degree ( though admittedly they are not perfect, and can use some “ tweaking “ here and there ). As a non-profit corporation, we should be as “ public accessible “ as is compatible with successful running of the organization. This change makes CFC more accessible, and contributes to CFC running more successfully.

Ken and I would like to guage again the feeling of the members/public on this issue, now in the light of the motion being filed, and the arguments given. So this thread is a poll asking whether you want the meetings open ( as defined by the motion ) or closed. Please give us your opinion by voting in the poll. The poll will only be open for a week. The results will be posted on the Governors' Discussion Board in the debate thread.

Thanks.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Didn't we just have a poll on this not even a month ago?

[Bob Gillanders]

Chris,

It appears they want to keep voting until they get the answer they want.

Also, Bob A. has again repeated his error in stating that the meeting procedures have been changed to reflect "public viewing". No they have not.

Further, why does he wants to insult the executive by discounting their votes?

[Ken Craft]

Bob G,
Bob A. says the motion is designed for public view. I'll admit the phraseology might have seemed ambiguous but the intent seemed clear.
I don't think he denigrated the executive. If anything he elevated them by separating their votes into another class.
I think the debate process should become public. I'm not sure that we have all of the wrinkles out of the new system yet in order for us to make this move immediately.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I would not denigrate this executive - I support them 1000% as you know. But I think there may be a divide between what the executive feels is best, and what the non-executive governors think is best. This disagreement is fine - leads to good debate. But what I am suggesting is that at the end of the day, when we all just vote as " governors ", the majority may be for opening. The motion debate will generate interest, and hopefully a good turnout, so we get a true read on governor desires on this.

I am sorry that the wording of my motion is causing confusion. Ken Einarsson also read it over carefully and he also didn't catch the problem. I have NOW amended nothing in the rules. What the motion is trying to say is that it " proposes " to change the meeting rules. I also couldn't change the motion, since it had already been filed.

The last members' vote on this board was who would attend an open meeting. I felt, now that the motion is filed, and it sets out the argument, we should ask the members the broader question of which format they prefer ( regardless of whether they would come or not ). I do not know if I will get the results I hope for - last timie I checked the voting, the members were for keeping it closed ( sigh ). In the last vote, 90 % of those voting said they'd attend an open meeting. So who knows what the members want? Hopefully this poll will help the governors know.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

The last members' vote on this board was who would attend an open meeting. I felt, now that the motion is filed, and it sets out the argument, we should ask the members the broader question of which format they prefer ( regardless of whether they would come or not ).

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Please note that this poll closes in 45 minutes. If you want to vote, now is the time to do it.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

This poll on the opening of the on-line governor meetings on this members' board, is now closed.

The members' vote on the suggested opening ( on a limited basis ) of the quarterly Governors' On-line Meeting, must be considered somewhat inconclusive ( 7 Against; 6 For ). The majority was very slim against opening - 54% against; 46% for - a difference of only one vote !. This reflects a vote taken of the governors a while ago, where the vote was also relatively inconclusive.

So I am going to suggest to the governors that the majority vote is so slim, that little guidance can be taken from it, in terms of the membership - there is no significant majority member consensus.

I will be suggesting to the governors that they therefore must decide based on the weight of various arguments outlined in the original post. I will be suggesting, as one other governor has emphasized, that the transparency created by open " public view-only " meetings may be the critical reason for opening them.

As stated above, a motion on this has now been filed by Manitoba Governor Ken Einarsson and myself with the CFC Secretary, to be put onto the agenda for the Winter Quarterly ( Jan., 2011 ) Governors' On-line Meeting. It is the right time for governors to debate this issue, and decided it.

Bob