29 Motion 2011-K "Clarifying CFC Member Rights"

[Bob Armstrong]

On sober second thought, if Ken and Lyle do file a motion today to repeal the existing s. 14, then I will move that our CCC motion be adjourned to the AGM, to await the outcome of the Craft/Craver motion.

This will allow us to reconsider whether we still wish to replace the section with our substitute. And, assuming the Craft/Craver motion passes, and we decide we want still to have some section on " Member Rights ", we can consult with the governors to see if we can improve the wording, to try to garner more support for a substitute section.

Does this seem a reasonable process on this issue?

Will Ken and Lyle file a motion to repeal ?

Bob

[Ken Craft]

How about you seek permission towithdraw all of your motion other than the part that moves repeal of s. 14?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I'll need the permission of my seconder I think ( do I or can I amend my own motion of my own accord? ).

I'll e-mail Fred.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Myself as mover of Motion 2011-K, and Fred McKim as seconder, ask the Chair to put the following question to the Assembly:

Do you agree that the mover/seconder can amend their motion so that it will now read:

Motion 2011-M ( as amended )

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim

Moved - Bylaw # 1, s. 14, is deleted.

This amendment was suggested by Ken Craft, and Lyle Craver had made posts to the same effect. The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ), who initiated this motion, will reconsider the other part of the motion, as to whether to proceed with it at a future date, and if so, whether amendments are required to make the motion clearer and stronger.

My research shows that if any governor objects to the consensual change, then the Chair should call a vote on the question, and majority vote will pass the procedural motion. Then the amended motion will go for vote as usual.

Thanks.

Bob

[Rob Clark]

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.

I can't agree more. There are enough public venues to voice someone's opinion in Canadian Chess that if someone has a reasonable point they'll be heard.

[Lyle Craver]

I'm not the President so my opinion is worth about what you paid for it BUT...

This motion would change Section 2 of the Handbook and is thus a constitutional motion. I know you tend to think that no motion is 'constitutional' and thus is subject to change at any quarterly meeting by a simple majority but it isn't true.

Even if the President were to rule such a motion made at this late date in order (which I hope he would not) I would vote against it simply because the procedure for making a constitutional motion had not been followed.

None of this reflects on whether I supported the proposal or not.

For the record, I am now waiting for an e-mail from the President instructing me to open voting.

[Christopher Field]

I would agree that the proposed replacement is far too complicated.
I would accept a re-wording of the original byelaw, stating that any Member has a right to be heard by making a proposal to a Governor.

I think that Governors' contact information is available, and that we as Governors understand that it is our duty to represent the Members, much as an MP represents the citizens of his riding.

I think that there should be a statement regarding the rights of Members to make suggestions for the benefit of the CFC and Chess in Canada.

I do not think the proposed byelaw appropriate

[Bob Armstrong]

Unfortunately, I must go away for the weekend and must now leave the meeting. But as far as I can tell, Fred and I have done everything we need to re trying to amend our motion. I leave it in Bob G's capable hands. If any consent from mover/seconder should be required for some reason, or if there is some issue that the mover/seconder must declare themselves on, I support fully any position take by my seconder, Fred.

Of course, it is my hope that the governors will agree to the amendment, so we get something that seems to have some support - simple repeal of s. 14. Then I would hope that new amended motion passes.

The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ), who intiated this motion in an attempt to enhance the position of CFC members, will then, in future, look to see if a replacement is required - some have suggested nothing need be put in its place. CCC will look seriously at its options. And if we come back with something, we will consult widely before filing anything, to see what improvements can be made, which might win a replacement motion more support.

Unfortunately, since voting did not start tonight, looks like I'll miss the voting totally.

I'll look forward to seeing the results on my return.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

I will refer this issue to the AGM. No vote at this meeting.
My reasons are as follows:

1. The movers are no requesting an 11th hour amendment, to simply repeal the section instead of replacing it.
2. This is a constitutional amendment.
3. It does impact the rights and responsibilities of our provincial affiliates. Maybe they would prefer to field member complaints first, before it gets to the CFC executive. Maybe not, but we should pose the question.

As I have already said, I don't think anything will change, pass it or not. But there is no urgency on this item, so it is deferred to the AGM.