Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: CFC Governors' Quarterly On-line Meetings to Remain Closed

  1. #1

    Default CFC Governors' Quarterly On-line Meetings to Remain Closed

    The following motion was voted on at the CFC Governors' Quarterly Winter On-line Meeting that just concluded Jan. 23:

    Motion 2011-F - DISCUSSION - Opening On-line Meetings

    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 “.

    The argument presented in favour of the motion was:

    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 ( Bob A ) 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.


    The Vote:

    The motion was defeated:

    Votes Yes (9): Armstrong, Craft , Demian, Doubleday, Einarsson, Haley, Jin, Rekhson ,Wu

    Votes No (21): Barron, Birarov, I Bluvshtein, Bond, Brammall, Brodie, Bunning, Cabanas, Clark, Craver, Dutton ,Felix, Field, Leblanc, McKim ,Nadeau, Noritsyn, Ong, Palsson, Steer, von Keitz

    Abstentions (1): McDonald

    As a result, the Governors' quarterly on-line meetings will remain confidential. The only information that will be provided to members/ public on the proceedings will be truncated summaries of the agenda threads. These have not yet been prepared, but are expected in due course, and will be then published in the next GL or separately posted on the CFC website in the list of GL's.

    Bob

  2. #2

    Default

    I will happily answer members questions at any time during the next quarterly meeting.
    There is no defensible reason for the Governors meeting in private and in confidence.
    Last edited by Ken Craft; 01-25-2011 at 09:06 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    I will happily answer members questions at any time during the next quarterly meeting.
    There is no defensible reason for the Governors meeting in private and in confidence.
    What is the point of all the governing and meetings and all other associated rubbish if the people involved don't bother following the rules that are duly passed?

    It seems that very little the CFC does involves chess - it has become as useless and impotent as most local school boards... Politics is the new game - burn your copy of MCO and go get Roberts Rules of Order.

  4. #4

    Default

    I would suggest closed meetings do not jive with the second suggestion below:
    Elements of Good Governance
    Recommended practices for not-for-profit boards of directors
    The Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector,14 chaired by Ed Broadbent, identified eight tasks required of the boards of charities and public-benefit not-for-profits15 to further developeffective governance:

    ■steering toward the mission and guiding strategic planning;
    ■being transparent, including communicating to members, stakeholders and the public and making information available upon request;
    ■developing appropriate structures;
    ■ensuring the board understands its role and avoids conflicts of interest;
    ■maintaining fiscal responsibility;
    ■ensuring that an effective management team is in place and overseeing its activities;
    ■implementing assessment and control systems; and,
    ■planning for the succession and diversity of the board.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerry Liles View Post
    What is the point of all the governing and meetings and all other associated rubbish if the people involved don't bother following the rules that are duly passed?

    It seems that very little the CFC does involves chess - it has become as useless and impotent as most local school boards... Politics is the new game - burn your copy of MCO and go get Roberts Rules of Order.
    Hi Kerry: I think the discerning reader can tell that some Governors relish the politics and others are actally here to accomplish something, that the average joe player might appreciate. Painting everybody with the same brush, is giving up on us a bit prematurely

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    Hi Kerry: I think the discerning reader can tell that some Governors relish the politics and others are actally here to accomplish something, that the average joe player might appreciate. Painting everybody with the same brush, is giving up on us a bit prematurely
    Fred - I believe Kerry was directing his comments specifically at Ken. Ken has had his day in court, the vote was decidedly against opening the meeting to real time harassment. The question is: Will Ken accept the results of the vote, the will of the governors, of just keep waving around some stupid rulebook. Ken does believe in democracy, doesn't he?

    Ken, you lost the vote! Move on, and let the rest of us deal with the real issues.

  7. #7

    Default

    Bob-act presidential.
    I have made my position very clear.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    I would suggest closed meetings do not jive with the second suggestion below:
    Elements of Good Governance
    Recommended practices for not-for-profit boards of directors
    The Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector,14 chaired by Ed Broadbent, identified eight tasks required of the boards of charities and public-benefit not-for-profits15 to further developeffective governance:

    ■steering toward the mission and guiding strategic planning;
    ■being transparent, including communicating to members, stakeholders and the public and making information available upon request;
    ■developing appropriate structures;
    ■ensuring the board understands its role and avoids conflicts of interest;
    ■maintaining fiscal responsibility;
    ■ensuring that an effective management team is in place and overseeing its activities;
    ■implementing assessment and control systems; and,
    ■planning for the succession and diversity of the board.
    Ken - I have great respect for Ed Broadbent.

    In the grand scheme of things, the CFC is one of the most open and transparent organizations around. To suggest otherwise, is simply nonsense.
    If Ed was a CFC Governors, I am sure he would have voted no.

  9. #9

    Default

    Hi Bob G:

    I like Ed too - I think he would have vote " Yes "

    Bob

  10. #10

    Default

    It is less transparent than it was prior to online meetings. All comments in Governors' Letters were available to the membership. Not all comments made by Governors in online meetings are available to members even after the meeting ends. To suggest that the CFC is one of the most transparent and open organizations around is nonsense.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •