Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: 8. POLICY DISCUSSION - Canada Revenue Agency NFP (Not For Profit Regulations)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default 8. POLICY DISCUSSION - Canada Revenue Agency NFP (Not For Profit Regulations)

    Here is the background for new Governors who are approaching this for the first time.

    In <insert date here> the Executive were informed of new federal regulations coming into effect in October 2014 concerning federal recognition of Not For Profit organizations. (It should be carefully noted that NFP status is NOT the same as charitable status!)

    The new regulations can be found at (special thanks to Vlad Drkulec for providing the links)
    http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc....h_cs03925.html

    Links to the act and transition guides are on the left.

    If you follow the links you get to the following including a pdf of the regulations:

    http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc....h_cs04953.html

    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2011-223.pdf

    Previous discussions on the subject can be found at:
    http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?3617-New-Not-for-Profit-Governance-Rules

    http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...mmittee-Report (Note that the link to the previous NFP Act committee is attached to the first message in this thread)

    The Governors in the January 2013 quarterly meeting decided not to support the framework proposed by the committee. Given the CFC loses its NFP status if we do not adopt constitutional changes that would comply with the new Act, we have a need to do something but what specifically?

    I have been asked by the President to put this question to the Governors for feedback.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,977
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    I would like to propose we reconsider the original proposal by the committee. I can't help but think that the NO side was wrong. Moreover, they should stand up and take the job on, now.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    I'd be interested in your synopsis of the key points of the original report - I do think that if we're required by CRA to turf the Life Governors we need to find an advisory role for them suitable for their stature. I would NOT be happy with a letter saying "Thank you for your service, auf wiedersehn"!

    I would also be interested in hearing from those who voted against last January telling us what specific points made the original plan unacceptable to them. If we have an uncrossable gulf between what CRA wants and what Governors will go for we're in trouble but the original report was something of an omnibus and I think we need a clearer idea of what points were problematic to the majority of Governors. I know what I found problematic but would need to re-read it before I was comfortable posting on the subject here.
    Last edited by Lyle Craver; 10-06-2013 at 12:47 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    I would need to re-read it as well.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Port Moody, BC
    Posts
    591
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    The comittee dealing with such compliance should have analysed where we do not comply and propose fixes. In reality the committtee went beyond their mandate and wanted to change a lot more than needed. What I see now is nobody did anything for various reasons:
    a) We have enough time;
    b) We (the committee) have done our work and it has been rejected, now others should deal with it;
    c) We have forgotten about it.
    Bringing back the original proposal is a gross mistake and I wonder if this silence and non-action since the negative vote was not in purpose to act as such now?!

    I am sure if there's a point by point discussion of where we need to comply (like the moves of a combination...) we could figure out a perfectly good solution as a group! This is how this should be done IMO...
    Last edited by Valer Eugen Demian; 10-07-2013 at 04:39 PM. Reason: spelling
    Valer Eugen Demian
    FIDE CM & Instructor, ICCF IM
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ches...593013634?mt=8

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    With all due respect, I must strongly disagree with Lyle's assertion that Life Governors should exist.

    Yes, these persons have contributed over the years, and yes a reward of some sort is in order. But Life Governor is much too far. Life membership, yes. A Canadian Chess Hall of Fame, yes, grant them. But a Life Governship is undemocratic and results in an unweildy Governorship. If "Life Governors" want to contribute to the CFC, then they can run for Governorship. AFAIK, getting people to run is like pulling teeth anyway, so all they have to do is raise their hand. This is not the Canadian Senate.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    I would like to propose we reconsider the original proposal by the committee.
    Yes, I agree. It was presented as a "take it or leave it" proposition. There was no serious attempt to "sell it" to the governors, no serious discussion of the pros and cons, no explanation of what portions were required by the new law vs. what portions were "desired" for improved governance. Fred, if someone from the committee is willing to give us an executive summary and defend the proposals, I for one, would give it serious consideration.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    624

    Default

    I reluctantly voted against the committee's proposal, partly because like Bob I couldn't tell which parts were mandated by the new rules and which parts were "optional". I felt it was too radical to reduce the executive to two persons. I'd like to see a solution that keeps as many parts of the current structure as possible because I don't see that it's that bad. I'd like to see specific spending authority defined for the President and Executive so that they don't have to keep going to the governors for minor expenditures (say $3,000 or less).
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,204
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    After reading the material on the government NFP website I see some of the reasoning behind the original proposals. I too thought they were a bit too radical of a shift at the time. The default of the new act would be that what we now call the executive would legislate and could only be overturned by a two thirds vote of the members which would be equivalent to the governors if we restructure things the way people have suggested on the governors forum. All the implications of the new act are not yet perfectly clear to me.

    We might also consider at this point the question of going to one person, one vote for all of the current members. I will have to read some more to decide whether the current members don't have to be consulted before we can convert them into players. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on what needs to be done by January. I wasn't too keen on spending what we spent on the review engagement but if we are going to be a soliciting non profit corporation it might be necessary. I see some headaches in our future either way.

  10. #10

    Default A Committee # 2 Needed

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    After reading the material on the government NFP website I see some of the reasoning behind the original proposals. I too thought they were a bit too radical of a shift at the time. The default of the new act would be that what we now call the executive would legislate and could only be overturned by a two thirds vote of the members which would be equivalent to the governors if we restructure things the way people have suggested on the governors forum. All the implications of the new act are not yet perfectly clear to me.

    We might also consider at this point the question of going to one person, one vote for all of the current members. I will have to read some more to decide whether the current members don't have to be consulted before we can convert them into players. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on what needs to be done by January. I wasn't too keen on spending what we spent on the review engagement but if we are going to be a soliciting non profit corporation it might be necessary. I see some headaches in our future either way.
    I feel that since the rejection of the Committee report by the Governors, the issue has tended to drift, with some mild commenting from time to time, raising particular issues of concern within the coming transition.

    But no hard action is being taken.

    I'd propose:

    1. That Committee # 2 be struck.
    2. That it present a report with two subjects:

    a) what the minimum is that CFC must do in terms of a new Constitution, keeping as much of its current governance structure as possible, to comply with the new Act.
    b) an option that may be preferential to doing the minimum, if there is one other than the orginal report.

    The governors would then review the two new options in Report # 2, and consider them along with a reconsideration of the old option in Report # 1. An option would then be chosen.

    After an option is chosen, then there would be an amendment process to get rid of any potential problems in the option chosen.

    Bob Armstrong
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 10-08-2013 at 04:12 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •