9. Motions - commentary only (A. (Denommee/Barron) Governors Ethics and Code...)

[Mark S. Dutton, I.A.]

This is a distinct improvement over the earlier attempt.
From some of the commentary, there does seem to be some confusion over the roles and responsibilities of governors of an organization. The unhelpful rhetoric about "free speech" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the role. As a governor, one is entrusted with taking the best decision in the interests of all stakeholders, based to some extent on confidential information and discussion shared only with other governors. In exchange, one voluntarily surrenders the untrammeled right to sound off in public.
This is perfectly proper good governance practice as applied at all levels of organization.
If a governor cannot live with an important decision taken by the federation, he should resign. He would then be free to air his views publicly.
So long as he remains on the inside, as a governor, he is bound by the terms of confidentiality as set out in the code.
If a governor is not prepared to abide by the strictures of confidentiality, he must resign.

An excellent summary from Gordon Ritchie. This is not the government of Canada where some want to sit in opposition (like on ChessTalk) and no matter what the Federation does, the governor undermines the organization by publicly criticizing the organization!

"If a governor cannot live with an important decision taken by the federation, he should resign".

Bottom line -- you are either with us or against us.


Thanks Gordon for a dose of reality!

[Pierre Dénommée]

I agree! As soon as the FQE agreement is voted I will be obligated to support it or resign. I have no intention to resign, so I will support it. It may not be easy to support what you dislike, but it is in the best interest of the CFC to do so.

An excellent summary from Gordon Ritchie. This is not the government of Canada where some want to sit in opposition (like on ChessTalk) and no matter what the Federation does, the governor undermines the organization by publicly criticizing the organization!

"If a governor cannot live with an important decision taken by the federation, he should resign".

Bottom line -- you are either with us or against us.


Thanks Gordon for a dose of reality!

[Kevin Pacey]

Aside from reservations expressed by Vlad Drkulec and Bob Armstrong, there are any number of other things that might bother me about this or possibly any Governors Ethics and Code of Conduct that might be proposed, especially such as:

1) In the April online meeting, Chris Mallon wrote (about an earlier version of a Governors Ethics and Code of Conduct put forward):

Anything in there that's actually worth having is already no doubt part of the non-profit corporation law.

Has the non-profit corporation law been investigated by anyone in this regard?

2) More importantly, the removal of Governors (which may be a possible penalty imposed by a given version of a Governors Ethics and Code of Conduct), as I understand it, has been up until now at least a matter for provincial associations (or their leagues), which in practice normally (or always?) occured in effect via elections/appointments made at that level (note that this might clash with anything found in the non-profit corporation law, for all I know). I think this is the right way to do things, as I explained at length in the recent OCA [edit: online] meeting.

[Garvin Nunes]

As has been mentioned before in discussions on a Governors code of ethics I am concerned that its general idea is counter productive until the overall size of chess in Canada becomes larger.

Of course I am speaking about sticks/disincentives against people who not only are governors but organizers, chess parents, tournament directors and so on.

In the coding of the motion there is a statement "..Involvement in chess clubs Leagues and Provincial Association, whether affiliated or not, does not constitute a conflict of interest.."

But this of course is not true. These are conflicts of interest, but there is nothing we can do about it because we are in dire need for people to wear these many hats, and we have would have them take on far more labours if it were humanly possible.

The conflict of interests not listed there...or the real conflict of interests then (a chess business for example) again falls under the same umbrella of the problem I am trying to outline here. Namely I dont want a "mark" placed on some business owner whos also a governor when the chess community desparately needs that person to be both a business owner and a governor (..and security guard as Douglas Adams would say..)

In such a small community you see many people playing multiple roles and wearing multiple hats. The labours of those people badly needed and we indeed have a shortage of that kind of labour.

As the community becomes bigger (Which I take will happen in chess on a matter of faith..) I see more people stepping in to provide services. And while they will do this for the love of the game I hope there will also be profit incentives for them as well.

A code of ethics needs to have sensitivity for that point in the future for when this growth takes place so that it doesnt bar the entrance to those who would facilitate the growth of our sport. It is for that reason I will have to vote no to this motion.

Unfortunately, Because I only have an hour or two I wont have time to listen to any objections to my arguments. But I hope they will be posted here in the meantime in case we debate this issue again.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

The province of Quebec uses Victor Morin's Procédures des assemblées délibérantes. I have never heard of ROO before joining the CFC .

... have been the main document of conduct for non-profit organizations (including Co-ops) for many years.