15. Membership Equivalents Motion 2012-C

[Lyle Craver]

(Moved / Seconded - Bob Armstrong and Michael von Keitz)

Whereas, philosophically, if not monetarily, all members are of equal importance to the CFC;

Be it resolved that all CFC members count as a single member equivalent regardless of type;

Be it further resolved that the number of membership equivalents required for a governorship to be established thus be equal to seventy-five (75) members.

(ed. note: Governors please be aware that this is a CONSTITUTIONAL MOTION since it changes how Governors are to be elected as well as the rights and privileges of individual member types)

[Christopher Mallon]

It would be extremely helpful if someone involved in this motion would a) list which portions of the handbook it would modify and what they currently state and b) show what effect this would have on such things as Governor counts for each province.

I suspect I will be voting against this motion but I wouldn't mind seeing the data for b) first as I may change my mind.

[Michael von Keitz]

With Bob A. away for a few days, I will reproduce his commentary for him (I'm sure more will follow on Tuesday):

The goal of the motion is that junior members be given equal weight with adult members, despite their financial discount on memberships. But we do not want by this change to increase the number of governors, since CFC is already over-governed.

The motion goes from 50 Membership Equivalents ( ME’s ) per governor to 75 ME’s per governor. We now have 34 provincial representative governors – so roughly, our motion will lead to a 1/3 reduction in existing governors = 23 governors ( It is rough because a part Member Equivalent leads to a governor, and the juniors being included will affect provincial totals, and so the math may not be dead on, but should be roughly correct ). This would be a drop of 11 governors.

CFC as of May 1/11 had 424 junior, participating junior ( subsequently abolished ) and family members. They are roughly treated currently as ½ an ME. So we would effectively be adding 212 new members. At the rate of 75 ME’s per governor, treating these memberships as equivalent to adult memberships, will add 2 new governors.

Thus the result of the motion from a governors’ standpoint, will be a reduction of governors from 55 to 44.

[Christopher Mallon]

Thank you.

I will therefore be voting against this motion, as it is merely a disguised method of Bob trying to reduce the number of governors again.

[Lyle Craver]

For the record, I did the calculation showing what would have been the results for 2011-12 had this motion been in effect on May 1st (the day Governor allotments are determined):

CFC Memberships - May 1, 2011
-----------------------------
Adjusted Governors Under MvK, BA
PROV Family Honourary Junior Life Adult Jr Part Total Total 2011/12 proposal

AB 2 3 32 26 148 211 199.33 4 3
BC 2 8 54 70 82 4 220 198.33 4 3
MB 4 15 4 48 71 64.00 2 1
NB 2 12 7 32 53 48.00 1 1
NL 1 6 11 18 17.67 1 1
NS 1 1 15 29 46 45.17 1 1
NU 0 0.00 0 0
ON 26 33 174 175 530 63 1001 888.00 18 14
PE 3 2 15 20 19.00 1 1
QC 1 17 10 23 31 8 90 80.83 2 2
SK 1 4 14 6 25 23.17 1 1
YT 1 1 2 2.00 1 1
US 3 25 18 4 50
FO 3 6 5 14
75
Total 39 67 306 374 956 79 1821 36 104
-----------------------------
I have attached the same file in PDF format (vBulletin doesn't allow Excel spreadsheets as attachments) for those who feel like me that the above graphics suck - LC

[Bob Armstrong]

1. Purpose of the motion - to give junior memberships in a province, equal weight to adult memberships, for determining number of governors.

2. No. of members per governor - it could not be left at 50 members = 1 governor, since that would increase the total no. of governors, which I see as counter-productive. It seemed to be reasonable to deal with the formula in segments of " 25 ", and thus the shift from 50 = 1, to 75 = 1.

3. Reduction of governors - the new formula, according to Lyle's calculations would drop the provincial representative governors from 36 to 29 - a reduction of 7 governors. This is not a veiled attempt to reduce governors. It was a sincere attempt to give junior membership in a province more weight, and to encourage provincial affiliates to increase junior memberships, since it would give them more benefit under the proposal, than before. But it is true that the overall governors would drop from 56 to 49. I do not see this as harmful, in the context of giving more equality to junior memberships.

Bob A

[Christopher Mallon]

Has any Junior member, ever, complained that they felt under-represented in this way??

Since the answer is obviously no (unless one has been prompted), then the only real purpose of this motion must be to reduce the number of Governors.

[Ken Craft]

Is reducing the number of Governors a problem?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

I'm sorry that you think I am lying about the purpose of the motion. I guess there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

Would it be relevant if I informed you that Michael von Keitz drafted the motion, and was intending to move it, and only asked me to second it, initially. Then a few days before the meeting, he was concerned whether there would be any objection to him being chair, and also moving a motion, and asked if I'd move it and he'd second it?

It is about junior membership equivalency, and encouraging Provincial Affiliates to work with their organizers to sell more junior memberships, for all others interested.

Bob A

[Christopher Mallon]

I don't really care who drafted the motion, it is what it is. I don't see how this "encourages" the sale of Junior memberships. Junior Memberships are lower priced than adult so why should they be considered equally?

Finally, the problem is not the number of Governors, but the number of active governors, and I guarantee we'll lose some of those if we reduce the numbers. Can we afford to lose even one active Governor at this point?

Incidentally, the Chair should probably not be seconding motions either. A quick google search turned up a number of complaints about such practices, although it isn't explicitly prohibited.