Grassroots' Campaign - Still Trying to Withdraw 3 Motions

[Bob Armstrong]

The soap opera chronicle of this debacle is:

1. July 22, 2008 - CFC AGM - Without any prior notice, Governor Les Bunning, seconded by Governor Peter Stockhausen, introduced a motion that, among other things, lowered the CFC annual membership fees, and raised the CFC rating fees. These changes are to come into effect on January 1, 2009. This was passed by the incoming Governors.

2. early September - The Executive, in their wisdom, to head off the fees changes before January 1, 2009, filed Motion 2009-06. It seeks to rescind the AGM motion. The reason given is that the Executive wants to carry out a full fees review, in the light of current CFC finances, and, that the motion was hastily passed without due consideration.

3. September 17 - The Grassroots' Campaign, unaware of Motion 2009-06, filed 3 motions on CFC Fees : 2009-07 - elimination of tournament playing fee ( " tournament membership " ); 2009-08 - 40% discount on annual membership to first time CFC'ers; 2009-09 - lowering the projected Junior Rating Fee from $ 5/player/tournament, to $ 1. These motions achieved this by amendments to the July AGM passed motion.

4. About October 10 - GL # 2 - The Grassroots' Campaign first became aware of the conflict of motions - the 3 Grassroots' Motions were trying to amend a motion that was sought to be rescinded, and therefore were redundant.

5. November 5 - The Grassroots' Campaign, though in some ways satisfied with parts of the July AGM motion, decided to accept the Executive rationale for rescission of the AGM motion, and decided to support Motion 2009-06. It advised CFC Secretary Lyle Craver that the Grassroots' Movers/Seconders were withdrawing their motions as redundant, to await the outcome of the vote on Motion 2009-06.

6. November 7 - CFC Treasurer Chris Mallon and Governor Ken Craft took the position that under Roberts Rules of Order, the motions could not be withdrawn. They said it was necessary to have the movers/seconders bring three brand new motions that requested that the motions be withdrawn. The Grassroots' Campaign wrote to Lyle Craver asking if the withdrawal of the 3 motions by the movers/seconders was effective. There was no reply.

7. December 5 - The Grassroots' Campaign again wrote to Lyle Craver as follows:

Hi Lyle:

On November 7 I wrote you asking whether our notice to you that the movers and seconders of the three grassroots’ motions ( 2009-7 to 9 ) withdraw their motions was effective? I received no reply.
The reason I asked was that Chris and Ken Craft had suggested it was not. They suggested that our movers/seconders had to bring new motions to withdraw the 3 motions and let the governors vote on these three new motions. If they voted to allow the withdrawal, then the 3 original motions were withdrawn. I hope this is not necessary, and that you will allow the movers/seconders to simply withdraw their motions.
However, if there is still a problem, there is a precedent for the President allowing motions to be withdrawn, where desired by the movers/seconders, “ subject to objection by any governor “. Below is my correspondence with Chris and Ken on this precedent, pointed out by Governor Egis Zeromskis. If there is a problem in your view, then we ask that you ask the President to grant that the motions be withdrawn.
However we hope this additional step is not really necessary.
Thanks, and would you please advise what you intend to do.

Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Armstrong [mailto:bobarm@sympatico.ca]
Sent: November 7, 2008 10:40 PM
To: Ken Craft (kcraft@unbsj.ca); Chris Mallon (cmallon@chess.ca)
Subject: Grassroots' Campaign: " Withdrawing " 3 Motions

Hi Ken & Chris:

Further developments:

Egidijus Zeromskis , CFC Governor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon

" Ken is correct, once a motion has been properly moved/seconded it can't be "withdrawn" in any fashion other than a) ruled out of order or b) by a vote.

Of course a motion to withdraw a motion made by the mover/seconder would almost always succeed for obvious reasons but that's the rule..."

There is the "third" conditional way which was demonstrated by President in the CFC practice:

Quote:

"Halldor Palsson: I rule: Unless there is an objection I grant Mr. Barron permission to withdraw 2005-13. The comments by Mr. Dixon go into the GL and he or any other Governor may object to the withdrawal of 2005-13. RONR (10th ed.), p.285.]"

Was Halldor correct in his ruling, granting permission to withdraw a motion, subject to Governor objection?

Can we use this as an alternate to bringing three new motions to withdraw the three existing motions?

Bob

8. Today, December 8 - No reply has yet been received from Lyle Craver as to whether the motions are effectively withdrawn. The Motion 2009-06 has not yet been voted on and the July AGM motion fees changes are slated to become effective next month, January 1, 2009. GL # 3 has not yet been released, wherein the disposition of the motions will be stated.

And we wonder why, sometimes, the CFC seems to make no progress !

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

And we wonder why, sometimes, the CFC seems to make no progress !

Bob, you should start to read and understand CFC By-Laws 14 section

[David Lavin]

As far as I am concerned, your three motions are off the table.

One of the reasons that the CFC doesn't get much done is that otherwide intelligent people focus all their energy on debating pointless process rather than getting anything done.

Bob, I dno't mean you, I mean the people who want to waste everyone's time by insisting on some arcane process for you to rescind them.

Merry Christmas

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

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.

This section is a formal disinhibitor of CFC member involvement, and should be amended !

In practice, I have found it best to IGNORE this section. I have NEVER gone to my Provincial Organization with an issue involving the CFC. Yet I have managed to get some things done in the CFC that I thought were important.

My practice has been however, to generally respect the spirit of the section, and I take my questions/concerns to my local GTCL Governor first. I set out my position, ask for the Governor's support, and if I have it, for him to contact the CFC Executive on my behalf and seek answers to my questions. This has generally been quite effective for me, and my governor has often returned to me satisfactory responses from the CFC.

If I feel a motion is required to be passed by the Governors, I usually draft it, and then try to find supportive governors who will move/second it, and submit it to the CFC Secretary, to be put into the GL, and voted on by the Governors.

However I have also gone directly to the Governors as an individual member when I have a brief to submit, and I want the Executive to draft and process motions to implement the contents of the brief. ED. Bob Gillanders has kindly distributed the materials to all the Governors. The CFC has accepted this process, despite section 14 of the Bylaw 1 !

I believe that the CFC is open to involvement by ordinary CFC members, and will go around the formal niceties to try to dialogue with and respond to them on matters of importance to the CFC. And I have found the governors quite responsive as well to bringing motions I have desired to be voted on.

I don't think CFC members can use section 14 as an excuse for non-involvement.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi David:

Thanks for cutting through the red tape for the Grassroots' Campaign and getting them " withdrawn ".

We look forward to working with you on a full review of CFC fees, in the light of current CFC finances, once Motion 2009-06 is passed, and the projected January 1, 2009 fees changes are rescinded.

Bob
( P.S. I am willing to follow Roberts Rules of Order, where they implement reasonable process ).

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

In practice, I have found it best to IGNORE this section.

Bob, have you ever read the Section till end?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

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.

I have read the last sentence of the section. And it is an insult to ordinary members. And I am pleased that it seems that the CFC Secretary does not follow it. I am aware of direct communications between ordinary members and members of the Executive, where the executive have NOT quoted section 14 at the CFC member, but have simply gone along and answered the concern raised. This respects the initiative of the ordinary member to involve themselves in CFC affairs.

I am also aware that the Executive Director has been very good at answering questions sent to him on CFC Affairs by ordinary members.

As I said before, the section needs to be amended - and the last sentence DELETED.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

I believe in practice this section has two potentially useful purposes: It prevents a total hijacking of an AGM by a member (but not by a Governor...), and it means if a member wants something included in a GL they have to get a Governor to sign off on it.

Perhaps it could be worded better? Such as laying out an escalating process of how to try to deal with situations?

[Ken Craft]

Presidents of the CFC could benefit from following the rules and not making gratuitous comments about thos ewho believe the rules are important.

Failure to follow the rules has lead to tyranny in the past.

[David Lavin]

While failure to follow the rules may have led to Tyranny in the past (although the CFC is hardly The Holy Roman Empire!!)

However, an obsession with process has seen many a fine organization paralysed by indecision. If there was some balance I'd understand. But there have been more comments on this Discussion board relating to Robert's Rules of Order. points of order, and arcane process than to the business plan, the development of junior chess, and the state of our national championships combined.