Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: 4a) Motion RE: 2013 NFP... Report (Mallon/Denommee) - discussion only

  1. #1

    Default 4a) Motion RE: 2013 NFP... Report (Mallon/Denommee) - discussion only

    Rather than ratifying or accepting the report, the committee is instead directed to propose an alternative which meets the minimum requirements of the new NFP laws and regulations, while making the minimum required changes to the CFC constitution, bylaws and regulations. This additional report shall be presented to governors no later than March 18th (14 days prior to the start of the next online meeting).

  2. #2

    Default

    This seems to me to be the logical first step.

    Once we have passed the minimalist constitution, we can then start to entertain various amendments for greater governance reform, if there is some desire for it ( though because the last motion to adopt Report # 1 of the Committee was defeated, I would not expect to see that particular package of reforms again ).

    Bob A

  3. #3

    Default

    This is a very serious endeavour that we are forced to do by the Federal Government. Serious changes are required to minimally comply while protecting us from future problems that could arise from the greater powers vested into the members by the Act. For example, if nothing is done, 33%+1 of our junior members could block any fundamental changes. This is because the default in the Act is to require a separate vote for each category of members. In order to pass, all fundamental changes must be voted at the 2/3 super majority by every category of members.

    The core problem with the rejected report is that it failed to address the fundamentals issues in the Act, it deals almost solely with reforms and improvements, not with core compliance issues. There is more then enough compliance issues to warrant a report of its own.

    One good news, in the video, it has been confirmed that we can still elect the President ourselves instead of leaving the decision to the board of Directors.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Could somebody from the committee, well versed in the requirements of the new act, please give us all a basic summary of our compliance issues? We all got the hour long video, which was helpful, but I would hazard a guess, not everyone has watched it. I watched it weeks ago, but honestly, I slept through half of it. Boring!

    Just the Coles notes version please! Give us all a basic understanding of what we are up against.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    Just the Coles notes version please! Give us all a basic understanding of what we are up against.
    As I understand that would the committee's job.

    While, I agree that the "new" CFC should satisfy new acts, a more drastic revolution is needed to move forward with the organization.
    .*-1

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    96

    Default

    I agree that a little bit more than a minimalist approach is needed. In the video it was suggested that participants in a sporting organization just be called "registered participants" (I suppose we could call it registered player) instead of member. Words are going to count if we use the term "member" for people who dont vote or participate in governing our organization.

    The other recommendation from the video is that changes be made sooner rather than later. This is because changes are a lot easier now then they will be after 2014. So if there is any consensus on any big change now is the time to do it.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garvin Nunes View Post
    This is because changes are a lot easier now then they will be after 2014.

    This is not totally true. We already require a 2/3 majority for Constitutional changes. Changes will only be harder after the transition if we fail to choose our members wisely. Off course, other Corporations who have a 50%+1 majority will indeed find it harder.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garvin Nunes View Post
    I agree that a little bit more than a minimalist approach is needed.
    The problem is that the new Constitution must be approved using the current method of 2/3 majority. If we do not agree on the minimum, then the CFC will be dissolved and the members will sue us, especially the Life Members because the services that they have paid for are no longer offered.

Posting Permissions

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