Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: 6d. Officer + Committee Reports - NFP Act Transition Committee

  1. #1

    Default 6d. Officer + Committee Reports - NFP Act Transition Committee

    Please find the report from the committee attached. The framework proposed will be up for discussion and ratification at this meeting. Should this vote be successful, by satisfying a two-thirds majority, the Constitution and By-Laws will be redrafted between January and April. At the April Quarterly Meeting, a vote would then take place on the question of adopting the new Constitution and By-Laws. Ballots on the question of ratification will not remain sealed.
    Last edited by Michael von Keitz; 12-31-2012 at 09:18 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,140
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Very little of what is recommended here is actually required to transition to the new NFP rules. So I question why it is being recommended?
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    824

    Default

    I concur. The proposed structure could have been adopted years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    Very little of what is recommended here is actually required to transition to the new NFP rules. So I question why it is being recommended?

  4. #4

    Default

    As I would hope the report makes clear, the mandate was to take the opportunity of the transition to NFP status to review the overall governance of the CFC and recommend improvements. True, the proposed structure could have, and perhaps should have, been adopted years ago but it was not.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,140
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    The problem is the only justification presented for the changes is to meet the requirements of the NFP act. If the proposed changes are worthwhile, let them stand on their own merits rather than trying to "omnibus" them in with something else.

    What is the minimum we have to do to comply with the new Act? THAT should have been the main result of this committee.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    824

    Default

    The only thing I truly like in this report is the separation of Chess activities from operations. Both requires different skills and are best suited to different persons.

    I concur, unless you read the Act, you will never differentiate what is a required change from what is a change wanted by the Committee.

    The worst shortcoming of this report is the failure to verify if the current membership structure is compatible with the new CRA interpretations.

    Furthermore, we could in full legality transform the current Governors into Directors and continue to do business as usual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    The problem is the only justification presented for the changes is to meet the requirements of the NFP act. If the proposed changes are worthwhile, let them stand on their own merits rather than trying to "omnibus" them in with something else.

    What is the minimum we have to do to comply with the new Act? THAT should have been the main result of this committee.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,319

    Default

    I have a few questions for the committee:

    The proposal calls for the Members’ representatives (Governors) to meet on an annual basis to elect the Board of Directors. Will each voting members’ representative get 9 votes for the Board? Will the Board of Directors be selected exclusively from the Members’ Representatives? If so, does that include non-voting Members’ representatives?

    Your proposal calls for the Board of Directors to meet on a quarterly basis. Will those meetings be in private or in a public forum similar to our current Governors’ meetings?

    Does this proposal effectively move the responsibility for voting on motions from the former Governors to the new Board of Directors?

    Please do not construe these questions as criticism. In recent years we have seen lots of discussion around these issues, and I am quite surprised that this thread has not generated more heated discussion. Better to discuss it early on to avoid surprises later.

    Many thanks to committee for tackling the move to the new NFP in a timely fashion and not waiting until the eleventh hour.

  8. #8

    Default

    Bob
    Some of the details will be worked out in the legal text to follow if the report is approved. My thoughts on your points are as follows:
    1) election of Members' Reps---I would suggest each member be entitled to vote for nine candidates with the highest scoring being elected. We could open up nominations so that non-members may be proposed,
    2) quarterly meetings---that would be for them to decide but I see no reason to change from the current format which has worked reasonably well
    3) voting on motions---Yes.
    Thanks for your questions.
    Gordon Ritchie

  9. #9

    Default

    Pierre and Chris:
    We could, of course, have done the minimum required to bring us into compliance with the NFP if there was general satisfaction with our current governance but that was not the case. Instead, we were mandated to take the opportunity to recommend improvements in our governance to bring it more into line with current best practice, taking account of the changes in the organization over the past few decades.Pierre and Chris:
    We could, of course, have done the minimum required to bring us into compliance with the NFP if there was general satisfaction with our current governance but that was not what we were asked to do. Instead, we were mandated to take the opportunity to recommend improvements in our governance to bring it more into line with current best practice, taking account of the changes in the organization over the past few decades.
    Gordon Ritchie

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,140
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Who exactly expressed "general dissatisfaction" with our current governance? Since the online meetings have matured I for one have been mostly happy with how things have worked.

    Also, while I note that the report is very careful to not actually say "this is required by law" it walks a very fine line. It presents itself as "we do this or we get in trouble" - which is how I took it the first time I read it and I suspect so did many others - when in reality it's yet another attempt to either reduce the number of Governors or to concentrate power in the Executive.

    I mean, really. I'm not one of those arguing for OMOV, but this actually takes a step in the OPPOSITE direction - not even the Governors get a direct vote for the President anymore, and the President is given a ton more power than he has now.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •