Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: " Public Read Only " Private Governors' Forum Motion - Calling All Governors

  1. #1

    Default " Public Read Only " Private Governors' Forum Motion - Calling All Governors

    The following post was posted under another thread. It was suggested it be its own thread:

    LIMITATION OF RIGHTS ( from By-Law # 1 of the CFC )

    14. No individual Member shall have any right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership. Should any individual member be aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, his remedy shall be to bring the matter before his provincial organization, and if there be no Provincial Organization in the Province in which he resides, he may bring the matter to the attention of a Governor representing such Province. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, if he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law.

    This section means I cannot bring a motion on my own behalf before the Governors. I am required to find a sympathetic Governor who will move my motion for me, and a second one to second the motion.

    I have a motion I would like to bring. It is as follows:

    " Motion - CFC will have a " public read only " private governors' forum for all normal CFC business, and a second " confidential " private governors' forum for those occasions where confidentiality is warranted, before going public. "

    I would respectfully call upon 2 governors to come forward and bring this motion on my behalf. I hope that making a plea on the CFC 's own board would be a reasonable way to seek out 2 sympathetic governors.

    Thanks.

    Bob

    Please post here if you are willing to undertake this mission. You need not self-destruct thereafter. If you want to discuss this privately, my e-mail is bobarm@sympatico.ca

  2. #2

    Default

    Governor Ken Craft, though I believe he supports the motion, has refused to bring the motion on my behalf, because he feels it will not pass.

    Do you agree that if brought, the governors will not pass the motion??

    Do you, as ordinary members/chess public, want this motion? If so, why?

    Bob

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    499

    Default

    I don't think I agree with having a 'public' and a 'private' Governor's forum simply because I think that puts an extra burden (however minor most of the time) on governors to separate public info from private and to make sure they collate the information from both places. Recent practice has shown that it is hard enough to get governors to participate in the debates and even the votes, so I don't like the idea of putting more things in the way.

    If you look at the number of unique posters on the Governors forum now, it represents a poor fraction of the Governors (perhaps the rest dont have anything to add, and I cannot estimate how many readers-only there might be - perhaps Chris can reveal how many governors are registered?)

    that is what I think so far; I may be convinced otherwise somehow...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,142
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    It's over 50% - you can see the list by clicking on Forum Leaders on the main home page for the forums...

  5. #5

    Default " Public Read Only " Private Governors' Forum Motion

    Posted on New ChessTalk:

    Bob,

    I like your suggested motion, however, it binds the governors to a technical solution that is a bit more complicated than it needs to be.

    There need not be two discussion boards for the governors. My sense is that this might be a bit awkward (sort of like there being two Chesstalks right now). A discussion could simply be tagged as private or public, thereby allowing governors appropriate privacy for sensitive issues. It would be to the discretion of the governor initiating a discussion whether the discussion needed to be conducted in secrecy.

    Steve Karpik

  6. #6

    Default

    I have not exactly been trampled by the stampede of governors coming forward to move/second my proposed motion !

    Duh...is there a message in this?

    I guess the governors get to keep their precious privacy.

    Maybe some time in the future......??

    Bob

Posting Permissions

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