29 Motion 2011-K "Clarifying CFC Member Rights"

[Aris Marghetis]

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.

Lyle, thanks for your clear strong points. I also resent the bandwidth that we are burning on trivial motions like this, and for what?! I already find that we are too many Governors, with some causing us to burn bandwidth needlessly, and this motion could very well open the door to any political chess grouping to burn even more of our time.

There is FIDE, then the CFC, and reluctantly(!) then the OCA. Enough groups already!

[Bob Armstrong]

I'm not sure, but am I hearing that governors like and support the existing s. 14 " Limitation of Rights ", which legally forces members with CFC issues , back to their Provincial Affiliate?

But this section is being ignored. Governors/Executive DO handle members' issues.

So why should not the section say what is in fact happening in practice? Legislation ought not to be ignored. If it is no longer accurate, then it should be replaced.

Bob

[Lyle Craver]

I interpret this Handbook section to mean that only members of the Assembly of Governors have the right to bring motions.

As I understand it your proposal would add the ability to do a 'California style initiative' from the grassroots and I do not oppose that concept but say there are details to be worked out as there are varying catagories of motions - event bids, constitutional matters, non-constitutional matters, etc. etc. Given the time required to organize such an initiative I can easily see all sorts of matters dealt with that would be completely stale-dated if voted by 'initiative' - and that doesn't help the cause at all.

I also want to say that I really hate the paragraph title "LIMITATION OF RIGHTS" and would love to see it gone but do not see the point in a constitutional motion simply to change a header with no other content change.

It is difficult to imagine the mindset that would fail to see how that title would be read by future Governors and others! (If the author of this paragraph is reading this then you have my apologies in advance!)

Frankly to achieve what I think you want to achieve 2 motions would be required. One to repeal the Handbook section altogether (I don't see what would be lost in doing so) and a second motion to create the initiative process. I'd probably vote yes to repeal the section and may or may not support an 'initiative' process depending on the details proposed.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

14. ( 1 ) Any individual Member...

( 2 ) Any individual member...

To be consistent within a Motion, "member" must be capitalized.

totaling 5% of the total Adult and Life members.

There is no "Adult member" in the Handbook!!! (Section 2) A Family Member is a different category than an Ordinary Member, nevertheless it has same (similar) rights. Why to exclude them? etc. etc.

The intention is good, the implementation not. 0-1

The question to the Secretary: how many times did you use a clause "Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law."?

[Stuart Brammall]

Perhaps I will be the only one to voice this opinion here, but it is my opinion that this "limitation of rights" section makes perfect sense, and should be left alone. This view has to do in principle with what I regard a right to be-- specifically something which is inalienable to the possessor.

Do Canadians have the right to be heard in parliament? No they do not. Are they sometimes? Absolutely. Do you have the right to live in a house? No you do not-- And yet everyone does.

To say that CFC members have a right to be heard is to imply, as I quipped on chesstalk, that they can show up at a governor's house at three or four in the morning, wearing no clothing and still have the right to be heard.
The idea that something must be a right for it to accessible or attainable is simply preposterous.

All a member need do to be heard is speak reasonably of relevant issues.

The purpose of the section as it stands is to give us the freedom and authority to ignore those who are unreasonable. It is in no way offensive to anyone who thinks it over. I will be voting against this amendment.

[Stuart Brammall]

With that said, were this motion to pass I think it would have no effect on anything whatsoever, either in promoting or demoting member participation.

[Aris Marghetis]

Perhaps I will be the only one to voice this opinion here, but it is my opinion that this "limitation of rights" section makes perfect sense, and should be left alone. This view has to do in principle with what I regard a right to be-- specifically something which is inalienable to the possessor.

Do Canadians have the right to be heard in parliament? No they do not. Are they sometimes? Absolutely. Do you have the right to live in a house? No you do not-- And yet everyone does.

To say that CFC members have a right to be heard is to imply, as I quipped on chesstalk, that they can show up at a governor's house at three or four in the morning, wearing no clothing and still have the right to be heard.
The idea that something must be a right for it to accessible or attainable is simply preposterous.

All a member need do to be heard is speak reasonably of relevant issues.

The purpose of the section as it stands is to give us the freedom and authority to ignore those who are unreasonable. It is in no way offensive to anyone who thinks it over. I will be voting against this amendment.

Trust me Stuart, you are not the only one who is good with where this motion came from. There is a danger that even more political groupings and individuals will abuse it.

In my humble opinion, if someone cannot convince some Governors from their province ...

P.S. It could be phrased nicer, but the motion is not to make it sound nicer, so far ...

[Ken Craft]

Like Lyle, I would support repeal. I cannot support the replacement motion.
Any chance the motions could be split prior to voting commencing?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

Voting has not started yet, so motions can still be filed.

I don't see why you and Lyle could not bring a motion to repeal s. 14 as it exists. The Chair could rule that it is to be voted on before our CCC motion.

Then the Cooperative Chess Coalition motion could be voted on, being dealt with as a motion to institute a new s. 14, in either case, whether your motion passes or fails.

Just a suggestion to try to help you achieve what you want. In our view, repeal is better than nothing.

Bob, CCC Coordinator

[Les Bunning]

I dont believe that you need a bylaw to say that a member can ask a governor to take up his cause. Using a phrase which says a member has a right to be heard could cause trouble for the CFC when dealing with a difficult member. The way the motion is written could mean that a governor may simply forward a members complaint, which may be an e-mail, to the secretary which then obliges the secretary to reply to the governor and the member as the motion uses the word "shall".
Les Bunning