31. Motion 2011-F - DISCUSSION

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

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.

Do you know any other organizations who conducts their meetings openly on Internet?

[Ken Craft]

And the difference between meeting openly on the internet and meeting openly in person would be?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

I can't answer your question - I don't know how many comparable Canadian organizations hold internet Board meetings.

But why should the on-line quarterly meeting be any different than the AGM, which is open not only to members, but to the public?

Is not there a paranoia factor here?

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

But why should the on-line quarterly meeting be any different than the AGM, which is open not only to members, but to the public?

While I have never been in the AGM, I assume the MEMBERS can express their views during the meeting. THUS why does it not advocated for the ON-LINE meeting?

Otherwise it would become Big Brothers (or whatever reality TV show) with Governors.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

Non-governors can only speak at an AGM if recognized by the chair ( though at the meetings I've been at, the few times a member wanted to speak, they were usually invited to ). So the proposal for opening the on-line meeting is similar - public view-only.

Bob

[Lyle Craver]

In the Governors' Letter I have regularly published stuff from non-Governors when I deemed them of national interest (mostly items on national or international events) though non-Governors tend not to send items in.

Reason is I've tended to view the GL as having a 'Governor information clearing house' function as well - I'd probably feel different if it was adding 10+ pages to each GL but at the level it's at it's fine.

The trouble with online meetings vs public meetings is that it's much easier to copy and paste stuff out of context and realistically that other forum isn't always out to play nice with the CFC - there have been all kinds of stuff where I've wondered what they think they're trying to do to us which is why I seldom read it these days.

[Rob Clark]

I think the idea of opening the threads to the public after matters are resolved is interesting. However, I don't think the public should be able to comment on the matter while it is being discussed. Strong comments from the vocal public might sway the opinions of governors.

[Lyle Craver]

Members can lobby their Governors at any time - and do - though I confess that during Online Meetings I tend not to look outside the Meeting and Governors' areas of the forum very much as the time involved in being Secretary tends to consume one's life during these times.

[Stuart Brammall]

I think the idea of opening the threads to the public after matters are resolved is interesting. However, I don't think the public should be able to comment on the matter while it is being discussed. Strong comments from the vocal public might sway the opinions of governors.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Are we not supposed to represent the members?

(For the record I think the meetings should remain closed... but only because we often discuss things which might be regarded as confidential... such as the CO bids)