29 Motion 2011-K "Clarifying CFC Member Rights"

[Lyle Craver]

Motion 2011 – K – Clarifying CFC Member Rights

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim
Moved - Bylaw # 1, s. 14, is deleted, and replaced by:
MEMBER RIGHTS

14. ( 1 ) Any individual Member shall have a right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership, or any situation where any individual member is aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, by approaching a CFC governor for assistance in presenting his submission, motion, etc. to the CFC AGM, Quarterly Meeting, or otherwise.. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be dealt with by the Federation Secretary replying in writing to any governor acting on behalf of such member, with copy to such individual Member.

( 2 ) Any individual member may bring a motion directly to the CFC governors, without governor assistance being required, if he has a member seconder, and endorsement of members totaling 5% of the total Adult and Life members. The total shall be based on the membership statistics issued May 1 by the CFC Secretary. Endorsing members must be 18 years of age or over, and there must be proof provided directly from the endorser to the CFC Secretary of each member’s endorsement of the motion.

( 3 ) As set out elsewhere in the Handbook, CFC members have the right as there set out, to elect their CFC governors.

[Bob Armstrong]

Bob Armstrong's Motion 2011-K Commentary:

The old section on membership is now considered antiquated, anti-member, and no longer relevant as between the CFC and the Provincial Affiliates.

The current section reads:

CFC Bylaw # 1
LIMITATION OF RIGHTS

14. No individual Member shall have any right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership. Should any individual member be aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, his remedy shall be to bring the matter before his provincial organization, and if there be no Provincial Organization in the Province in which he resides, he may bring the matter to the attention of a Governor representing such Province. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, if he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law.

In place of a limitation of member rights, we have substituted a positive statement of member rights. We do have a governor system, and they run the affairs of the CFC. But they are elected by and accountable to the CFC members. As such, the governors must make all reasonable efforts to assist members in their actions to influence the affairs of the CFC. This may involve presenting briefs and submissions to governor meetings on behalf of members, or moving and seconding motions submitted by CFC members. However, governors are free to decide whether or not, in any individual instance, they will assist, and to what extent. As well, they need not necessarily agree to the position of the member, in order to assist them to present their case.

Although working through governors is the preferred method of CFC member participation in the affairs of the CFC, the CFC members should have an absolute right to approach the CFC with a motion of their own accord, without having to plead for governor assistance, which may not be forthcoming. So we have allowed a motion by a member, with a member seconder. The limitation is that the member bringing the motion must find some support among the membership, to the extent of 5 % of the total of the adult and life members. This is not felt to be onerous, and at the same time protects the CFC from a flood of frivolous member motions, which could grind CFC business to a halt. There will have to be direct proof from each endorser of their support for the motion, to prevent fraudulent motions. This is a new significant member right, and allows members direct intervention, and the forcing of a governor vote on their concern, even where governors may initially be disposed against the motion. Governors will deal with issues of concern to a significant minority of CFC members, who consider their issue vital to the operation of the CFC.

Lastly, in order to bring member rights into one section, the section also refers to the right to elect CFC governors, set out elsewhere in the Handbook..

[Ken Craft]

I support repeal; I do not support the replacement motion. Too clunky and creates additional work for the position of secretary which is already a hefty portfolio.

[Lyle Craver]

My concern with this one is that there is a formal and an informal method of getting things done in the CFC.

The first deals with motions and bids etc. the second deals with talking to your representatives.

It is the difference between only my MP has the authority to initiate and vote on legislation in the House of Commons while everybody can and does lobby him / her on various subjects.

This motion suggests that the Handbook implies a regular member cannot talk to his/her Governor, Executive member etc. which is emphatically not so - I hear from members all the time and try to be as helpful as I can.

Among my other 'hats' I am provincial secretary/treasurer and I routinely get inquiries and hand them off to the appropriate person for follow-up. This usually means to the Junior coordinator when it's a parent enquiring though I try to handle most other inquiry myself.

I won't be supporting this since it puts on the Secretary all the responsibility to respond to member concerns when realistically the most suitable person may well be the President, FIDE Rep, Junior Coordinator and so forth. If your problem relates to inter-provincial matters, FIDE title matters, CYCC etc. then the above named people SHOULD be the one you as a member expect to hear from and I don't think imposing an additional level of bureaucracy advances the cause.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Lyle:

You said : " This motion suggests that the Handbook implies a regular member cannot talk to his/her Governor, Executive member etc. " This is emphatically not so. What it says is that under the existing section, " legally " they MUST go to their provincial affiliate with issues. This is absurd, and as you say, is ignored in practice by the Executive/governors. Respect for CFC members requires that we correct the legislation to accord with what is the reality. So Subsection 1 is entirely based on the fact that members will first seek the assistance of a governor to present their petition, whatever it may be. It assumes a good relationship between the members and their local governors, such that they know that they can go to them for help.

As to who should handle the issue once raised on behalf of a member by a governor, obviously it will be referred by the governor to whomever handles the matter - FIDE Rep., Youth Coordinator, etc. And they are to reply. But the motion says the member deserves a formal written confirmation from the Secretary that his/her issue has been dealt with ( whether or not to their satisfaction ). So the Secretary's letter need only say to the inquiring governor " I am informed by the Youth Coordinator that he has fully answered your member's inquiry ". This does not seem onerous to me ( how many members bring matters forward? ), and is respectful of a member who takes the time and effort to raise something for the governors. He gets a written formal reply from the CFC Executive.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

I don't think I can support this motion.

I current section is not disrespectful to the members as you are state in your preamble. The purpose of this clause is to put the onus on the provincial governors to assist members with their problems. Do we really want to alleviate the governors of this responsibility. There is no problem here, the executive do respond to member complaints and issues. Giving the executive an option to delegate some responsibility to the provincial affiliates seems reasonable. This option is clearly not being abused. So I would be inclined to leave well enough alone.

In practice, members do not consult the handbook on where to take their complaints. The closest CFC official will do. All governors and executives should assist members where possible or direct them to the appropriate official. This is already being done. This is how we show respect for the members.

On second thought, I would abstain.
Pass it or not, I don't think it is going to make any difference.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I agree the motion is not radical ( you are OK if it gets passed or not ).

The Cooperative Chess Coalition, who initiated this motion, simply feels that the s.14 should reflect the practice as it currently exists, not reflect a system from the past. The CCC acknowledges that the CFC Executive and Governors do assist members when asked, and everyone currently ignores what the existing s. 14 directs..

So why not say that in the section? We think subsection ( 1 ) clearly states that and should be supported.

Bob A, CCC Coordinator

[Christopher Mallon]

You've taken something simple that's worked well and never to my knowledge been used in a bad way and turned it into something that is even more unwieldy and not likely to accomplish anything in any case.

If a member can't find at least two governors willing to support a motion and get it put forth, then it doesn't really matter if 5% of the members (85 people?) support it or not, does it?

Seriously, just rewrite the "has no right to be heard" bit so it sounds nicer. Clarify that it is the local Governor's duty to assist the players.

[Bob Armstrong]

If a member can't find at least two governors willing to support a motion and get it put forth, then it doesn't really matter if 5% of the members (85 people?) support it or not, does it?

Seriously, just rewrite the "has no right to be heard" bit so it sounds nicer. Clarify that it is the local Governor's duty to assist the players.

Hi Chris:

Dealing with your second point first - I think subsection ( 1 ) in the motion clearly sets out that governors will assist members.

As to your first point, you are right that this section will seldom be used. I would expect in 99 % of the cases, members will find 2 governors to bring a motion for them. But when they cannot, they should have a right to force the issue to debate and vote - maybe then some governors will change their minds. And this cannot be done easily - there will be no flood of member motions - it will be some work to get 5 % endorsers, and some members will have to feel pretty strongly about something to do the work required.

Bob

[Lyle Craver]

Any Governor who feels he/she needs Handbook authority to help a member on any matter at any time is in my opinion of dubious worth as a Governor. Ditto for a CFC Executive member. I would be shocked if anybody felt this needed to be committed to writing.

I think this is an unnecessary motion that does not deserve Governor support and is a motion for the sake of making a motion. I resent this motion as it implicitly implies there is an existing problem in how Governors and the Executive deal with members that needs fixing. I don't think the system IS broken on this point.

I also feel in the strongest possible terms that political parties (whether we call them 'coalitions' or use another word) have no legitimate place in the governance of the CFC. By all means discuss things among yourselves but the provincial affiliates and FIDE are the only organizations I take note of and feel all Governors should do likewise.

If the intent is to create a method of 'initiative' on the California model I have no particular problem with this - but make no mistake about it - this is a constitutional matter and needs to be addressed accordingly.

Unlike the first half of the motion that's a reasonable subject for discussion but since you cannot support the latter without supporting the former, I hope this one is defeated by a heavy margin.