CFC Transition to the Not-For-Profit Corporations Act
I have read the report, and it is interesting, and radical.
But the concern I have is not so much that ( though I am concerned ). I feel that the process here has been wrong, as has already been pointed out in prior posts here by other governors, and specifically Chris' motion proposed ( not sure if Pierre has yet seconded it ) to ask for the additional " minimum changes " report.
I would like to suggest that a different “ process “ be followed ( and maybe it is an alternative to Chris' motion, or maybe it seeks the same thing ):
1. This motion/report of the Committee be tabled to the 2013 Spring ( April ) Meeting;
2. The Committee be requested to draft a new CFC Constitution that keeps all current aspects of CFC, including all governance, except what has to be changed for CFC to comply with the new Act, and that it bring a motion to the Spring Meeting that the new Constitution be adopted. Note that this will require a 2/3 majority.
3. If this motion # 1 passes, then the tabled motion # 2 is brought on, that will seek to amend the newly adopted Constitution in the radical way the Committee is proposing. We can then vote on this motion. If it fails, we will still have a new Constitution, properly adopted, with which to make application under the Act.
4. If this motion # 1 fails ( the status quo is not wanted ), then the tabled motion # 2 is brought on, to make a second attempt to get a Constitution supported by 2/3 of the Governors. Should it also fail, then the Committee will have to go back to the drafting board, canvas the governors on what is wanted, and try to draft a new third version consensus Constitution, that will have some chance of passing.
This in no way is a criticism of the work of the Committee – they took the mandate given to them, and have come up with a proposal obviously supported by the Committee as a whole, or at least by a majority of the Committee. They have clearly identified a number of key issues, and made concrete change proposals about them.
I would ask that governors post whether this new “ Process “ is considered preferable to the one we are currently going to use.
If a motion is needed to change the process, and Chris' does not quite do it, then could the Chair give some guidance on what would be required, and I would be pleased to bring whatever motion would be considered necessary, or alternatively Chris could amend his motion accordingly.
Bob A