Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 165

Thread: 11b) Motion 2012-A - Governor Allocations

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick McDonald View Post
    John,
    Unfortunately, we can only count paid up members. As the OYCC was a youth only event, membership in the CFC was not a requirement.
    Ah, sorry, I was misled by a certain CFC governor from Windsor who stated that CFC membership was a requirement for OYCC. The OYCC website is not clear on this topic.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Clark View Post
    Total Governor Allocation:

    NOCL- 1 governor
    GTCL- 8 governors
    SWOCL- 6 governors
    EOCA- 4 governors

    Vote by exec is 6 yes 1 no reply as of yet.
    Thank you, Rob!

    But on May 6 you have announced slightly different numbers:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Clark
    Total OCA governors- total 19 - 1 more than last year.

    total weighted memberships- 857.7

    NOCL- 1 governor
    GTCL- 9 governors
    SWOCL- 6 governors
    EOCA- 3 governors
    Could you please clarify:
    How these numbers were calculated?
    Why these numbers were changed later?
    What has been changed since May 6?
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Coleman View Post
    Ah, sorry, I was misled by a certain CFC governor from Windsor who stated that CFC membership was a requirement for OYCC. The OYCC website is not clear on this topic.
    I got that impression from the OYCC website which offered the opportunity to pay for a CFC membership at the same time that you registered. I was wrong and was also misled by the fact that most of the kids from our Friday class are CFC members.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Barron View Post
    Thank you, Rob!

    But on May 6 you have announced slightly different numbers:



    Could you please clarify:
    How these numbers were calculated?
    Why these numbers were changed later?
    What has been changed since May 6?
    Hi Michael,

    As I have explained multiple times through the monstrous email exchange (its currently sitting at 70 emails exchanged although many were other people contacting me about the subject after our initial exchange) we had, these numbers were calculated in error. The OCA constitution is not representative of the value of the CFC membership equivalent (which I believe it should be) but since it is in our constitution it is what we must go by. I realize you have raised a motion to change it but for this selection of governors it will remain as is. Nothing changed, I simply used the correct calculation as per our constitution once I realized the formula in our constitution was different than the one employed by the CFC.

    I'm not really sure what more you want. I made an error, corrected it within a few days and am deeply sorry for any trouble it has caused your league. I have also spoken with the governor who was affected and personally apologized. I am human and do occasionally err.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Clark View Post
    Hi Michael,

    As I have explained multiple times through the monstrous email exchange (its currently sitting at 70 emails exchanged although many were other people contacting me about the subject after our initial exchange) we had, these numbers were calculated in error. The OCA constitution is not representative of the value of the CFC membership equivalent (which I believe it should be) but since it is in our constitution it is what we must go by. I realize you have raised a motion to change it but for this selection of governors it will remain as is. Nothing changed, I simply used the correct calculation as per our constitution once I realized the formula in our constitution was different than the one employed by the CFC.

    I'm not really sure what more you want. I made an error, corrected it within a few days and am deeply sorry for any trouble it has caused your league. I have also spoken with the governor who was affected and personally apologized. I am human and do occasionally err.
    Hi Rob,

    Thank you for explanation!

    What I want - is to understand how the OCA works.

    Let's clarify if I understood you correctly:
    1) On May 6 you have announced Governors allocation for Ontario Leagues;
    2) A week later you was reading OCA Constitution and found a mistake in the Constitution;
    3) We all agree that this is the mistake in the OCA Constitution that should be corrected;
    4) But instead of correcting this mistake you decided to change retroactively already announced Governors allocation.

    Is it correct?
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  6. #16

    Default

    No its not correct, the mistake was rectified well within a week.

  7. #17

    Default OCA Constitution & Gov. Allocation - Correction Required NOW!

    It seems to me that the no. of governors per league, was announced by the President, by correction, as:

    NOCL- 1 governor
    GTCL- 8 governors
    SWOCL- 6 governors
    EOCA- 4 governors

    This was confirmed by vote of the exec: 6 yes 1 no reply as of yet.

    This was a correction of the alleged incorrect allocation by the President in the May 6 allocation list.

    But I see no reason the most recent allocation list is written in stone. It can be changed by the outgoing governors if they wish - they can override the executive decision.

    The issue is whether there is a legitimate argument that the most recent allocation is wrong. If it is, then it should be corrected.

    As I understand it, OCA failed to amend its Constitution on the allocation of governors re " junior " memberships, when the CFC changed the weighting of the junior memberships re their effect on no. of governors. Clearly OCA was in error in failing to do this. So as far as I am concerned, the most recent allocation is based on an outdated OCA Constitutional formula. It should not stand.

    We as incoming governors now have time to amend the OCA Constitution to correct the error in it. And we should do so. The Michael Barron/ Egis Zeromskis motion now on the floor ( it should be if it isn't ) allows us to do this. One could say that this is making a motion retroactively effective, which generally is discouraged. But in this case, the change ought to have been made some time ago, and all we are doing, is bringing the OCA Constitution in line with the CFC formula. So this is one case where retroactivity makes sense.

    And we should do this even though it then means the no. of governors needs to be reallocated - I see no problem with this.

    The new correct gov. allocation will then be:

    NOCL- 1 governor
    GTCL- 9 governors
    SWOCL- 6 governors
    EOCA- 3 governors

    And there is no practical problem of attendance. If the motion gets the 2/3 majority necessary for a " constitutional amendment ", then GTCL has already arranged for its 9th governor to be present - Victor Itkin - and he can attend the incoming AGM. The OCA can then formally advise EOCA that it's last elected EOCA is no longer a valid OCA Governor, and that that governor will not take a seat in the incoming AGM.

    This seems the correct way to handle this - we cannot just say: " Oh well, the Constitution was wrong, but lets just procede with the illegal sittiing of OCA goverrnors anyway ".

    Bob A

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    The new correct gov. allocation will then be:

    NOCL- 1 governor
    GTCL- 9 governors
    SWOCL- 6 governors
    EOCA- 3 governors
    Wow, hold your horses, not so fast.
    When I do my own calculations, ie. change the weighting of juniors from .4 to 2/3, EOCA is entitled to 4 governors.
    Yes, it is true that GTCL is now entitled to 9 governors, but now that gives us 20 governors, one too many.

    Making the proposed change to the OCA constitution does not solve the problem. The formula remains incompatible with the CFC formula. Some years will work out okay, some will not.

    In a previous year, we had the same problem. The OCA calculation gave one more governor than allowed by CFC formula. The predictable petty bickering ensued and I, acting on behalf of SWOCL, accepted one less governor spot for SWOCL.

    Now we have the predictable and repeatable situation arise again. If we are going to fix the formula and amend the constitution, lets do it right.

    For the sake of harmony and good fellowship, perhaps either GTCL or EOCA would be willing to accept one less governor spot this year.

  9. #19

    Default

    If the formula was changed to the CFC formula, what would happen is that the EOCA would lose a governor since they would have the lowest membership fee equivalent percentage of 50. I can see Bob Armstrong's logic and its possible that I've just become bitter over the last little while about the subject. You certainly catch more flies with honey than vinegar but Mr. Barron unfortunately went for the later when approaching myself about this matter. He made some insulting remarks (over the course of a few emails) about myself and cc'ed the GTCL governorship on many of his emails. The CFC secretary was also contacted by Mr. Barron on the issue and the whole thing turned into a headache with a bunch of people commenting without fully understanding what was going on.

    So in all honestly I am fairly bitter about the issue but have been trying to be impartial. That being said, the allocation of CFC/OCA governors is up to the individual provinces and at the end of the day making this retroactive will negatively affect the EOCA. This would not at all make for an illegal sitting. To me it seems better to have the constitutional allocations remain the way they are and have been all year for this term but change it for upcoming terms.

    However, this is just my opinion and I agree that it should be put to the governors. Once again though, It is not an illegal sitting and it will be a retroactive motion which negatively impacts a league. This was my sentiments when I reversed my original decision which I calculated via the CFC formula.

  10. #20

    Default Dealing with the Motion

    Hi Rob:

    I agree that the tone of the debate has been a bit unfortunate. It is a somewhat complicated issue, and it is better to stick to that.

    Thanks for clarifying that if the motion passes, then GTCL gets 9 governors, and EOCA 3, as I had posted. And I agree the issue is whether it is better to live with what we have, or change it to accord with the now-existing CFC formula ( we can agree to quibble a bit on whether retroactivity is always a bad thing for a motion ).

    We need further debate on this. Could we please have a separate discussion thread now for the motion, with it being given a formal 2011-2 motion number, reproducing the relevant posts here? Then we will need a formal agenda " voting booth " item.

    Thanks.

    Bob A

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •