12. 2012-L CFC Governors Ethics and Code of Conduct Motion (Pierre Dénommée)

[Bob Armstrong]

I am against this motion. I feel it is an attempt to muzzle dissent by governors.

I am quite happy to follow a " confidentiality " rule re governor meetings and governor discussion board. Comments there are protected from pubic publishing.

But this is quite different than eliminating public dissent by governors.

Simply put, the CFC should be prepared to defend itself in public in respect of public criticism by governors. It is healthy to have good debate about CFC issues in front of the membership and public. This can lead to improvement of CFC operation.

I consider this a free speech issue. I feel the proposed Code is oppressive and a breach of governors' rights.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

• Speak for themselves (“my own thinking on this is that…”) rather for than a group of members.
• Refrain from “lobbying” other Governors outside of board meetings that might have the effect of creating factions and limiting free and open discussion.
• Once made, support, indeed defend, Assembly of Governors decisions, even if one’s own view is a minority one.
• Not disclose or discuss differences of opinion in the Assembly of Governors outside of Assembly meetings, especially with staff, volunteers or clients. Assembly meeting includes in person meetings and the CFC private discussion boards for Governors. Chesstalk is outside of Assembly meetings and disclosing there shall be treated with more severity.

I must concur with Bob A. on the issue of free speech. While I understand and sympathize with the sentiments that motivate this motion, I find the language too sweeping in restricting free speech. I find the portions quoted above to be offensive and simply not enforceable anyway.

This document needs some serious editing.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I will be voting against this for the reasons that some of the other governors have already posted. The wording is such that every communication between governors could be in contravention of this code of conduct which doesn't make any sense at all.

There are already rules in place that can be applied to egregious breaches and in most cases the effect of this new code of conduct will be to muzzle governors or to attempt to muzzle governors in an overly broad manner. It is clearly a tool meant to stifle opposing views and I just don't see the need or use for such a motion.

[Rob Clark]

I agree fully with Mr. Mallon and Mr. Armstrong.

[Michael Barron]

I must concur with Bob A. on the issue of free speech. While I understand and sympathize with the sentiments that motivate this motion, I find the language too sweeping in restricting free speech. I find the portions quoted above to be offensive and simply not enforceable anyway.

This document needs some serious editing.

Bob, there is a difference between "free speech" and denigrating CFC as organization and CFC Officers personally.
Free speech has a proper time, place and purpose.

This Motion is not about enforcing something, it just declares what behavior would be considered unethical.

I would agree with you - this document needs some serious editing.
That's why it's presented for discussion.

As for quoted statements - I would agree to drop them, except this one:
"Once made, support, indeed defend, Assembly of Governors decisions, even if one’s own view is a minority one."

This point is very important for improving public image of Chess Federation of Canada.
We should appear for the general public as a National Sport Organization, rather than a bunch of whiners.

[Bob Gillanders]

I would agree with you - this document needs some serious editing.
That's why it's presented for discussion.

However, maybe I am wrong, but it appears to be on the agenda for voting!

[Michael Barron]

However, maybe I am wrong, but it appears to be on the agenda for voting!

You're right, Bob, but if you want to suggest just to discuss this Motion at this meeting and defer the voting to the next meeting, I'm willing to second such move.

[Pierre Dénommée]

There is no Freedom of Speech issue her. The CFC is a Legal Person. A Legal Persons speaks through its organs (Assembly of Governors, Executive) and through authorized persons (President and Public Relation Coordinators) The CFC has Freedom of Speech when speaking through the proper authorized channels.

Freedom of Speech is not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. Some limits must be imposed on Freedom of Speech for th greeter good of others and of the CFC.

The public image of the CFC could be adversely affected by public declaration from Governors.

In Quebec, we have our own version of apparent authority under which the CFC could be held liable for action committed by a person with the apparent authority to preform an action. In Quebec, for non-profit, the Constitution and By-Laws are NOT public. A person of good faith dealing at arms length with a non-profit may not have access to any of those documents. Because of that, this person could not easily access the real authority of the person that he is speaking with. Furthermore, the Law assumes that this person has never read those document unless there is a proof that he did.

The core purpose of Quebec Law is to protect third parties of good faith dealing at arms length with others. So, if a CFC Governor buys a 2 000$ computer for the CFC, it is very likely that the court would condemn the CFC to pay the computer. The judge will add that the CFC has the right to sue the Governor to recover its money.

Word utters by a Governor could create legal obligations for the CFC. This is very simple and has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.

We must protect ourselves from liabilities and preserve our reputation.

[Bob Gillanders]

You're right, Bob, but if you want to suggest just to discuss this Motion at this meeting and defer the voting to the next meeting, I'm willing to second such move.

Okay, that sounds like a good idea.
Mr. President - I propose we table this motion for discussion and defer the vote, if there are no objections.

[Michael von Keitz]

Okay, that sounds like a good idea.
Mr. President - I propose we table this motion for discussion and defer the vote, if there are no objections.

I'll have Lyle open a poll regarding the proposed tabling.