28. Motion 2011-J "Open Meeting Forum"

[Aris Marghetis]

In my opinion, the Governors shouldn't say anything in this meeting that they don't want broadcast publicly.

Governors do not currently sign any kind of NDA or privacy agreement, and even if they did it would be impossible to enforce. So anyone who thinks these meetings are actually currently private should rethink that concept... I would term it more as "inconvenient to access" ... so why not just make it easy for everyone to see how it works?

Also, yes, in fact, every time the motion comes up again it's technically a new motion. Even if someone wants to say "I'm still opposed due to my previous reasons" that's better than silently opposing.

Well then, our opinions are different. I maintain that opening these meetings just runs the risk of a "too many cooks in the kitchen" syndrome. I just do not see the potential benefits that people like yourself and Bob A. do. It is OK if we have differing opinions.

And my opinion is that human nature will come into effect when excessive external commentary increases. Most regular folk will close down, at least a little bit. After that happens, it will be difficult to get back to more effective streamlined governance, kind of like Ottawa municipal politics, lol (I guess that could apply to all Ottawa politics, lol).

I humbly submit that some of us are severely under-estimating the erosive effect of so many motions over and over again, across multiple discussion forums, plus all the emails. Quite a few Governors have expressed that they are experiencing a kind of burnout.

[Christopher Mallon]

The forum is easier to ignore than emails

Anyway, I don't personally care whether or not the forum is/isn't open. I don't see any particular benefit to opening it other than making people happy. But I'm willing to vote in favour on that basis.

[Lyle Craver]

I am quite uncomfortable with the 'one more step' mentality as we are not the only organization that does chess events in this country and I can assure you that the CFC does NOT get inside information on other organizations.

I personally am of the view that no person who is comfortable disclosing the sort of thing discussed among the Governors should be a Governor - and I don't think the "Hansard" parallel works here.

We are responsible to our members and try to do our very best for them. I don't think it's our job to make it easy for our competitors.

[Aris Marghetis]

I am quite uncomfortable with the 'one more step' mentality as we are not the only organization that does chess events in this country and I can assure you that the CFC does NOT get inside information on other organizations.

I personally am of the view that no person who is comfortable disclosing the sort of thing discussed among the Governors should be a Governor - and I don't think the "Hansard" parallel works here.

We are responsible to our members and try to do our very best for them. I don't think it's our job to make it easy for our competitors.

I agree with Lyle. We should not be having this discussion over and over again until it sneaks with a slight vocal minority over the fatigued(!) status quo. This is the kind of thing that should require a vast majority to pass, as there is no going back. It's bad enough that in addition to dozens of Governors, we have political groupings, and maybe even individuals (another motion) to keep watching over the shoulder of the Executive that we elect. After we vote our Executive in every year, then let them do their best. Let them drive the darn "CFC vehicle" with just their two hands on the steering wheel.

[Paul Leblanc]

OK, Chris I'm a closet no vote so here's your opportunity to convince me.
I'm not afraid to see myself quoted outside the governors meetings, so it's not that. I just have an intuitive feel that an organization needs to have a forum to get its ducks in a row before going forward with a united front to the membership. Perhaps my concept is more applicable to the executive than the governors, I don't know. In any case I won't lose any sleep whichever way the vote goes.

[Christopher Mallon]

OK, Chris I'm a closet no vote so here's your opportunity to convince me.
I'm not afraid to see myself quoted outside the governors meetings, so it's not that. I just have an intuitive feel that an organization needs to have a forum to get its ducks in a row before going forward with a united front to the membership. Perhaps my concept is more applicable to the executive than the governors, I don't know. In any case I won't lose any sleep whichever way the vote goes.

While I see your point... when was the last time the CFC Governors were considered a United Front?

[Garland Best]

Does this in any way form a constitutional ammendment? After all, we are discussing replacing the Governor's letters with a "closed" discussion board record.

[Christopher Field]

I think it best to keep the forum closed and post the minutes after the meeting.

[Bob Armstrong]

As I have posted re other motions in which I am involved, I must now leave the meeting and it appears I will totally miss the voting.

Should anything be required of the mover of the motion ( me ), then I am satisfied to have my seconder, Fred, make any decision required of me, and will support him.

Bob

[Aris Marghetis]

As I have posted re other motions in which I am involved, I must now leave the meeting and it appears I will totally miss the voting.

Should anything be required of the mover of the motion ( me ), then I am satisfied to have my seconder, Fred, make any decision required of me, and will support him.

Bob

You initiated so much engagement for everyone, and now you are just leaving us?!

On a serious note, I hope everything is OK, and you are just leaving for enjoyment.