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

[Ken Craft]

The concept of friendly amendments doesn't exist in Robert's Rules of Order. This proposed motion and its predecessors continues to be made up on the fly.

[Pierre Dénommée]

If we remove all public negativity towards the performance of an arbiter, all we are doing is ensuring any mistakes they make can still be made by any other arbiter, since it hasn't been publicly corrected.

Baseball Canada has Umpire Supervisors that does that. They provide feedback to the umpires in the umpires' room, out of sight of the public and the spectators. . Most sports in Canada adhere to a private feedback policy.

There is a financial implication because we have to reimburse travel and lodging of Supervisors when they work out of town.

I fully support a supervision and evaluation policy for Arbiter and Organizers if a coherent one is presented. But this is not the subject of this motion.

[Bob Gillanders]

The concept of friendly amendments doesn't exist in Robert's Rules of Order. This proposed motion and its predecessors continues to be made up on the fly.

I guess we have evolved beyond Roberts Rules of Order!

[Pierre Dénommée]

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

I guess we have evolved beyond Roberts Rules of Order!

[Michael von Keitz]

The concept of friendly amendments doesn't exist in Robert's Rules of Order.

I know that, but amending motions are tricky to incorporate in this format without affecting the timing of the meeting. My workaround is to allow them, unless someone raises a complaint. Is this a formal complaint, or an FYI? If the former, we'll do as we did with the TDOCP motion and incorporate the amending vote into the vote on the motion itself. Ballots are opening tomorrow evening, which can be verified by checking the Agenda thread.

[Michael Barron]

This is a friendly amendment.

Agreed.

[Ken Craft]

Yes, Michael. I would appreciate it if any and all amendments made to this motion to be voted on separately as per the rules. This is the third time this motion has been before us and it is in no better of a format than when we first saw it.

[Bob Armstrong]

I'm fine with Michael's amending procedure.

What I'm very nervous about is this motion. It still seems to me there is lots of room for some to argue for repressive actions against obnoxious but correct thinking governors. One can say that it is a matter of interpretation and that the interpretation will give the benefit of the doubt to the public complainer. This doesn't make me any less nervous - conservative, establishment governors will file complaints, and I have doubts the benefit will go to the public complainer - it never does anywhere else.

I'll be voting against the motion, if I'm here to vote - have to go out of town again early Friday, AM, July 6.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I would suggest that all possible amendments would be incorporated into the second post.

"• Once made, support, indeed defend, Assembly of Governors decisions, even if one’s own view is a minority one."

It could mean that no future amendments are allowed because a replacement is not a defense.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Gord:

I agree confidentiality should be maintained, where the issue has clearly been defined as confidential.

My concern is governor public dissent re non-confidential matters. The motion makes me nervous.

Bob