11b) Motion 2012-A - Governor Allocations

[Marcus Wilker]

I have voted in favour of the motion, however I would like to note for the record that 8.9 also needs modifying now. 8.9 currently deals with what to do when the number of available governor spots exceeds the entitlement, but does not deal with what to do when the number of available governor spots is less than the entitlement.

I also voted in favour of the motion, and have a similar desire to note for the record my understanding of how some of the other parts of section 8 would work with this new 8.8. I would hope that 8.8 makes clear the principle of OCA distributing and allocating to each region entitlements under current CFC terms and formulas. Therefore the number 50 in 8.9 also be understood to refer to the number CFC uses. If CFC should change the number 50 in its formula to 100, for example, in order to have fewer total CFC governors, OCA would then amend 8.9 accordingly (by vote of the outgoing board if necessary) in order to allocate incoming governors properly.

I would also expect that the appropriate CFC formula for membership-fee equivalents referred to in 8.8 might be different when applied to governors in 8.9 and when applied to proportional distribution of fees in 8.10 to 8.12. I.e., if juniors earn a 2/3 count with CFC for governors, we weight them at 2/3 when allocating governors to our regions, but if they pay $3 instead of $7 in provincial dues, then we weight them at 3/7 when calculating rebates.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

if juniors earn a 2/3 count with CFC for governors, we weight them at 2/3 when allocating governors to our regions, but if they pay $3 instead of $7 in provincial dues, then we weight them at 3/7 when calculating rebates.

There are groups of memebers who do not pay dues: Honorary Members and unfortunately Life Members (a problem with collecting dues). Though both of them are calculated in for membership-fee rebates. (Unless Bob will clarify what they meant by "regular membership-fee equivalents")

Thus, if we fix juniors, lets consider others as well.

[Bob Armstrong]

There are groups of memebers who do not pay dues: Honorary Members and unfortunately Life Members (a problem with collecting dues). Though both of them are calculated in for membership-fee rebates. (Unless Bob will clarify what they meant by "regular membership-fee equivalents")

Thus, if we fix juniors, lets consider others as well.

Hi Egis:

If you are asking me the question, could you please post for me the section of the Constitution where the phrase " regular membership-fee equivalents " is that needs interpretation? I took a quick look at s. 8.8 and I don't see that phrase there.

Thx.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Egis has drawn our attention to the following part of the OCA Constitution, in the voting thread:

5.4 Any amendment to the Constitution or to these Bylaws shall be approved by at least a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the votes of those present and entitled to vote, including proxy votes."

Note that this is 2/3 of those " present ", not 2/3 of those actually voting. There appear to be 18 incoming governors who have signed in. So that means we need 12 votes to pass this, what I see as crucial, constitutional amendment. But I fear this meeting has dragged on so long, that we have now lost some of the OCA Governors who were here earlier. I fear they are not going to return to vote, and the motion is going to fall short of the 2/3 majority requirement. This will leave us with the very unsatisfactory governor allocation formula that has caused so much problem.

I'd suggest the Chair e-mail all incoming governors to alert them to the closing date of the poll on the motion, to see if we can get out the required votes to pass this motion.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

I have done some further thinking on this issue of 2/3 majority for constitutional amendments.

As a procedural comment, I believe the section states that the requirement is 2/3 of those present and " entitled " to vote, not 2/3 of those actually voting. So that would mean, as I see it, 2/3 of those who have signed in at any time.

But this section may inadvertantly have been made to conflict with s. 1.2 Definitions ( the co-drafter takes responsiblitly if this is an error ):

Special Resolution – a resolution passed by two-thirds of the votes cast at a Meeting of the Board .

I admit, I am now not sure whether s.5.4 is the standard 2/3 test, or where more regularly, it is just 2/3 of those voting, as in 1.2. It is my recollection that generally it is framed as 2/3 of votes cast. If the latter is the proper regular standard, then it may be our Bylaw s.5.4 needs amending, since it is too high a standard being required, and the conflict must be eliminated.

But in the meantime, we can interpret that the definition sets the right standard, and it should be used, rather than that set out in s.5.4.

Bob A

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I took a quick look at s. 8.8 and I don't see that phrase there.

That's the point Missed "regular".

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

Sorry but I'm missing something. The current Bylaw says re " regular membership ":

"8.8 The membership-fee equivalents shall be calculated as follows:
a) for each Regular Member, one (1.0) membership-fee equivalent

I don't see anything wrong there.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Hi Egis:

Sorry but I'm missing something. The current Bylaw says re " regular membership ":

"8.8 The membership-fee equivalents shall be calculated as follows:
a) for each Regular Member, one (1.0) membership-fee equivalent

I don't see anything wrong there.

Bob

From definitions:
"Regular Membership-fee equivalent – the formula used to determine the number of CFC Governors to be elected by each Regional Affiliate, as specified in Article 8.3 and Article 8.4 "

Though
8.8 The (REGULAR) membership-fee equivalents shall be calculated as follows

(Red color to show a missing word.)

8.9 +8.10 use Regular

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

Right - we can catch that when we at some point bring a " house-keeping " constitutional amendment.

Bob

[Rob Clark]

I also voted in favour of the motion, and have a similar desire to note for the record my understanding of how some of the other parts of section 8 would work with this new 8.8. I would hope that 8.8 makes clear the principle of OCA distributing and allocating to each region entitlements under current CFC terms and formulas. Therefore the number 50 in 8.9 also be understood to refer to the number CFC uses. If CFC should change the number 50 in its formula to 100, for example, in order to have fewer total CFC governors, OCA would then amend 8.9 accordingly (by vote of the outgoing board if necessary) in order to allocate incoming governors properly.

I would also expect that the appropriate CFC formula for membership-fee equivalents referred to in 8.8 might be different when applied to governors in 8.9 and when applied to proportional distribution of fees in 8.10 to 8.12. I.e., if juniors earn a 2/3 count with CFC for governors, we weight them at 2/3 when allocating governors to our regions, but if they pay $3 instead of $7 in provincial dues, then we weight them at 3/7 when calculating rebates.

Marcus, this decision changes the regular membership-fee equivalents. As league rebates are calculated by using regular membership-fee equivalents this motion will also change the rebate distributions.