31. Motion 2011-F - DISCUSSION

[Francisco Cabanas]

22A (7) already deals with the question of openness as the minutes as published online

(7) Governors' Letters After 3 days, the Minutes, as corrected if necessary, shall be immediately published in a Governors’ Letter, to be posted immediately on the CFC Website. This may be combined with any other content the CFC Secretary wishes to publish at the same time. As well, the Governors’ On-line Meetings, will replace the tradition of motions being discussed and voted on in Governors’ Letters. Motions filed will now be for the next Governors’ Meeting, unless dealt with by e-mail.

There is little to be gained in openness and accountability here and a lot to loose.

[Paul Leblanc]

I agree. There is nothing to be gained by opening up our discussions real time to kibitzers.

[Ken Craft]

I'm not sure that I support us continuing to meet behind closed doors.
We would never support councils. legislatures or parliament doing so. We are afraid of being kibitzed. Other than material which is genuinely confidential (legal and labour) there is nothing to prevent a Governor from publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place.

[Bob Armstrong]

Other than material which is genuinely confidential (legal and labour) there is nothing to prevent a Governor from publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place.

Hi Ken:

I have made it a little side task of mine as a governor, to post governor activities on the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum, to build a rapport with the membership, and to try to increase respect for what the governors do for the members as volunteers. I want them to know CFC is running well.

But when it comes to Quarterly Meetings, I've always understood they were confidential, and that I couldn't report on anything in the meeting! I even hesitated when I published the agenda on the members' site, whether some governor would claim I was breaching confidentiality. You'll note that I removed the wording of the motions on the agenda when I posted it there, since I didn't know if motions filed were considered public, until posted in the GL Summaries after the meeting. So I have always thought we were prevented from " publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place. "

What is the position of other governors on the confidentiality of on-line meetings?

Bob

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi Ken:

I have made it a little side task of mine as a governor, to post governor activities on the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum, to build a rapport with the membership, and to try to increase respect for what the governors do for the members as volunteers. I want them to know CFC is running well.

But when it comes to Quarterly Meetings, I've always understood they were confidential, and that I couldn't report on anything in the meeting! I even hesitated when I published the agenda on the members' site, whether some governor would claim I was breaching confidentiality. You'll note that I removed the wording of the motions on the agenda when I posted it there, since I didn't know if motions filed were considered public, until posted in the GL Summaries after the meeting. So I have always thought we were prevented from " publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place. "

What is the position of other governors on the confidentiality of on-line meetings?

Bob

In the sweet name of Caissa, the posts above, just like all previous polling on the subject, overwhelmingly reject making public the raw proceedings of these meetings. However, scrubbed summaries would make sense. It seems to me that a significant majority of the Governors is on the same page about this, but you Bob are not, and keep coming back, trying to somehow twist it back. Why not accept the majority viewpoint and move on? We should focus our energies on more important discussions.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Aris:

Sorry, but I'm not the one challenging the confidentiality ! I am very clear in my post above that I comply.

It is Ken's comment that I am concerned about ( I would have preferred his comment being commented on, than being attacked ). He said ( not me ) that there was nothing to prevent a governor " publicly reporting on these meetings while they are taking place. " I said I didn't agree with that, and that it was not my understanding, and that I scrupulously tried to comply with confidentiality as I understood it. I asked if I was wrong in my understanding. I never said I agreed with Ken.

What I have done about my position is bring a motion like I'm entitled to do. Until the motion is passed ( looks like it won't be ), I'm complying, and not complaining about it.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Here is an e-mail I just received from an ordinary CFC member, Wilf Ferner, on the issue of opening governors' on-line meetings:

" I think the governors should pay more attention to bulking up membership benefits that can be stated explicitly and "access to online meetings" as a cfc member is one of them in my opinion. "

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Re the constituitional nature of Motion 2011-F - Opening On-line Meetings

- Bob G around noon today confirmed in another thread his ruling as Chair :

" motions .... and 2011-F are constitutional amendments as declared by the chair ".

I accept the ruling of the Chair and have no intention of raising a challenge to it.

But I would like to know what is the constitutional nature of this motion?

Does simply dealing with a CFC Governors' Meeting make it constitutional? The motion doesn't in any way affect the actual meeting proceedings, agenda, who is eligible to attend, who can vote, etc.. It simply deals with who can watch from the outside. And it seeks only to amend something in the CFC Rules and Regulations, not in one of the three CFC Bylaws.

I'm sorry but I don't see the constitutional nature of this motion, that makes it a " constitutional amendment " motion.

Arguably Motion 2011-D deals with voting, since it refers to the constitutional amendment quorum criteria, and so it may have a constitutional character ( though I disagree ).

Arguably Motion 2011-E deals with voting, since it refers to proxies, and so it may have a constitutional character ( though I disagree ).

Motion 2011-F seems to be of an entirely different character, though it does in one way deal with a governors' meeting. It has to do with public access, which seems very different to me than dealing with " voting ".

So any further elaboration of this ruling might help me to understand it. Does anyone else have more difficulty with this ruling than re the other two motions?

Bob

[Lyle Craver]

Personally I don't mind letting the public see our deliberations AFTER the meeting is closed but do not like having them open DURING the deliberations.

This is as per what we do with the Governors' Letter which despite certain Governors' distaste for them have served and continue to serve a useful purpose.

I agree with Francisco's comment that we have little to gain and much to lose and think the 'in camera' provisions are unduly complex and are likely to cause recriminations.

I agree would be a breach of Governor ethics to be posting details of this meeting in the public areas of the Forum during the meeting and would ask that if anyone is doing so cease immediately though I do not think anyone could complain if the agenda was to be posted.

[Ken Craft]

What is advocated and currently practiced is the equivalent of parliament meeting in secret and the publicly only having access to Hansard. Holding these meetings in private is indefensible, in my opinion.