Motion 2011-Z - Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee

[Christopher Mallon]

The right to serve as Governors.

That's a legal requirement, not a rule the CFC decided on. And being a Governor is not a "Right" it is a privilege and a responsibility.

[Ken Craft]

Yes, it is defined by law. And, every adult member has the right to satnd for office.; junior members do not have the right to stand by office. Frankly, I don't know why we are considering abolishing a cheaper junior membership fee. We should be looking at expanding our junior base. Increasing the junior fee will not do this.

[Fred McKim]

Yes, it is defined by law. And, every adult member has the right to satnd for office.; junior members do not have the right to stand by office. Frankly, I don't know why we are considering abolishing a cheaper junior membership fee. We should be looking at expanding our junior base. Increasing the junior fee will not do this.

I don't think this is even worth arguing. People, I'm sure, already have their minds set on this one.

I've made it clear I am voting against this "revised" motion, and I only seconded it as a courtesy to Bob, as I had originally seconded an equivalent amendment, before the original motion was withdrawn.

[Bob Armstrong]

Fred's cooperation in his willingness to second the motion, to get it to debate, though he was against it, is much appreciated. Regardless of any governor's view on the issue, it was raised at a prior Governors' Meeting, and is worthy of debate.

Bob

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Fred's cooperation in his willingness to second the motion, to get it to debate, though he was against it, is much appreciated. Regardless of any governor's view on the issue, it was raised at a prior Governors' Meeting, and is worthy of debate.

Bob

Have never seen something like this before; if I am clearly against a motion, it makes absolutely no sense to second it. Another angle: why would someone making a motion accept a seconder who's against it?

Isn't it simple logic those accepting one plan of action to work together? Wasn't another supporter of this idea willing to second it? I see quite a few willing to defend the "poor adults" who have carried such a heavy burden of subsidized youth fees over the years!

Milking the youth has been tried before. I hope it will continue being defeated as it should!

[Kerry Liles]

Another angle: why would someone making a motion accept a seconder who's against it?

It seems like your question was pre-answered: "his willingness to second the motion, to get it to debate" was what Bob Armstrong wrote... Clearly, Fred is opposed to the idea and will vote against it, but he obviously felt that it was worthwhile for the CFC Governors to debate the issue.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

It seems like your question was pre-answered: "his willingness to second the motion, to get it to debate" was what Bob Armstrong wrote... Clearly, Fred is opposed to the idea and will vote against it, but he obviously felt that it was worthwhile for the CFC Governors to debate the issue.

And why would he seek debating it since the debate won't do anything for him? What's the use? Again, weren't enough pro-motion governors to choose a seconder?

[Kerry Liles]

And why would he seek debating it since the debate won't do anything for him? What's the use? Again, weren't enough pro-motion governors to choose a seconder?

I don't know if there were *any* pro-motion governors other than Bob A. (who I presume is pro the motion)
In any case, I don't see that the mover and seconder of any motion has much to do with the validity of the motion (other than an implication that it might or might not be something worthwhile).

[roger patterson]

The right to serve as Governors.

as others have noted, this is not a right. It is a possibility - and probably not something worth a 33% difference in fees. In fact, being ineligible to be a governer should be worth more....

But haven't there been exceptions to this? I seem to remember something about Alexander Lesiege when he first became Canadian Champion - being both 16 (i.e. junior) and as champion, automatically a governer.

[Bob Armstrong]

I'd like to put a little perspective into the debate here on what is now Motion 2011-L at the 2011 Spring Meeting.

A Junior membership ( national portion ) is $ 24. Under a unified annual membership, the motion would raise their annual fee to $ 34.

The motion is proposing a $ 10/yr whopping increase ( less than $1/mo. ) ! Are droves of juniors not going to renew because of this? My brother and sister-in-law spend $ 5000/year for their son's elite hockey. This is not going to break the bank, or lead to loss of juniors.

And CFC reaps no financial benefit as a result of passing the motion, because adults are getting a decrease in annual fee. The motion is revenue neutral from the CFC perspective - no decrease nor increase in annual membership revenue.

Bob