Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,354

    Default

    They're pretty much a prerequisite for application as I understand it

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,096
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    I am unclear on Vlad's use of color - I presume the blue means areas where he feels we are OK and red where we are not.
    The colour is meant only to highlight the two separate bylaws as separate items for discussion. The first part of the one in blue is the default law on discipline under the new NFP act with minor tweaks to allow an appeal to the voting members of any suspension.

    The members shall have authority to suspend or expel any member from the Corporation by a three quarters majority vote at the annual general meeting.

    This line in blue is our current law in the area of discipline. It probably doesn't make sense in our present practice of quarterly online meetings.

    I like Pierre's suggestion with respect to the Past President

    I have major concerns with item 23 on Quorum - is this supposed to be based on Governors or on the membership at large? If the latter it's a formula for nervous collapse on the part of the Secretary since an important part of the Secretary's role is determining who is and is not entitled to vote.
    The current rule is 15 governors. I guessed that we had 60 governors and thought that the number of governors might increase or decrease so 25 percent seemed reasonable. We can stick with the present rule which is:

    There shall be a quorum of 15 governors to constitute a meeting.

    Which would become:

    There shall be a quorum of 15 voting members to constitute a meeting.

    The online AGM would appear to be OK based on my reading of #20 and #25.

    I note en passant that the USCF called the role we call "Governor" "Voting Member" for years. I do not know whether this was in response to US Federal legislation or simply their own practice.

    I think we're OK on voting in Governors' meetings under 13A and 13B as that reflects our current practice. I am unclear if this requires all Governors voting to be secret after the ballot which is not our current practice on most matters.

    I am unclear the usefulness of the provision for removing an Executive or Officer at an AGM since presently their terms of office go from AGM to AGM so wouldn't the point be moot?
    I suspect that this is an old holdover from what the rule was when the AGM was the way CFC business was conducted.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,096
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    Will these new bylaws benefit to obtain a status of a registered Canadian amateur athletic association as a way for the CFC to become a charitable organization again?
    For the most part they are the defaults suggested by the new legislation with some minor tweaks to pay homage to our current practices. If there are any additional steps required for sporting organization status we will be able to amend these later at a cost of $200. I can look at this but our task is to find bylaws acceptable to the governors and to the government ahead of the deadline. Michael von Keitz has mentioned some of the requirements of registering as a sporting organization and getting compliant with the new NFP act is the main first step before we can even think about any of the others.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,138
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    I think that setting a specific number for quorum is just asking for problems in the future after possible other changes. Why not just say quorum is 25% of the Voting Members?

    Actually that probably needs to be higher. We are going to be losing the Life Governors. I'd go with 33% or even 40%.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,096
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I think that setting a specific number for quorum is just asking for problems in the future after possible other changes. Why not just say quorum is 25% of the Voting Members?

    Actually that probably needs to be higher. We are going to be losing the Life Governors. I'd go with 33% or even 40%.
    I don't think at this point that we need to lose the life governors. They can't be on the board of directors but I don't see anything in the legislation which says that they can't be voting members. I hope if I am wrong on this that Pierre will correct me with a pointer to the clause that proscribes life voting members. I didn't see it on my look at the legislation nor did I see any reference in any of the government or information websites that I have consulted so far.

    If we set quorum at 40% then this meeting would not have quorum at the moment though it might be getting close with 20 governors signed in. I also like to keep things simple so maybe a simple count is better than a percentage. At the sample bylaw at the following government website they give 10% as an acceptable quorum unless proscribed by the NFP act.

    http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc....4999.html#fnb8

    A quorum at any meeting of the members (unless a greater number of members are required to be present by the Act) shall be 10% of the members entitled to vote at the meeting. If a quorum is present at the opening of a meeting of members, the members present may proceed with the business of the meeting even if a quorum is not present throughout the meeting.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 01-06-2014 at 02:24 PM.

  6. #16

    Default Life voting members??????

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    I don't think at this point that we need to lose the life governors. They can't be on the board of directors but I don't see anything in the legislation which says that they can't be voting members. I hope if I am wrong on this that Pierre will correct me with a pointer to the clause that proscribes life voting members. I didn't see it on my look at the legislation nor did I see any reference in any of the government or information websites that I have consulted so far.[/B]
    Hi Vlad:

    While I respect the contribution of Life Presidents in the past, they make generally no contribution at these meetings at all NOW. And "Life" is anathema to me - undemocratic - unelected. They should be given some type of "Honorary" role, to confirm their past contributions, but NO CURRENT VOTE, unless they agree that they will annually run for office and not adhere to their current LIFE ENTITLEMENT.

    Bob A

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    Will these new bylaws benefit to obtain a status of a registered Canadian amateur athletic association as a way for the CFC to become a charitable organization again?
    I believe it has been stated that we first need to comply with the not-for-profit act.
    Once we have done this, and a certificate of continuance has been issued, other kinds of status could be sought.
    I believe that Vlad is correct: we need to get this done at the April meeting, with the current board of governors.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,096
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Vlad:

    While I respect the contribution of Life Presidents in the past, they make generally no contribution at these meetings at all NOW. And "Life" is anathema to me - undemocratic - unelected. They should be given some type of "Honorary" role, to confirm their past contributions, but NO CURRENT VOTE, unless they agree that they will annually run for office and not adhere to their current LIFE ENTITLEMENT.

    Bob A
    They are currently life governors. To eliminate them might require a two thirds majority vote of the life governors in addition to a two thirds majority of the governors as a whole under the new act and maybe even a two thirds majority of the senior members if your motion to create a senior member class succeeds. Of course you might be able to eliminate life governors before the NFP transition. In that case you need to convince two thirds of the governors including the life governors. Time is running out though. You will need to do it by the next meeting. Things get much more difficult after that.

    I have noticed that some of the life governors do vote.

  9. #19

    Default LIFE GOVERNORS - Now and Forever??

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Of course you might be able to eliminate life governors before the NFP transition. In that case you need to convince two thirds of the governors including the life governors. Time is running out though. You will need to do it by the next meeting. Things get much more difficult after that.

    I have noticed that some of the life governors do vote.
    Hi Vlad: I tried that a number of years ago, supported by my grassroots group at the time, the Canadian Constitutional Coalition. We had a 2/3 majority it seemed, until Les Bunning move a compromise, and the motion failed. And Les never did come back with the activity motion restraint on Life Governors that he promised at the time.

    I do not know if the minds of any governors have changed on the worthwhileness of the compromise. I find it a failure, myself. There should be no LIFE GOVERNORS, now or in the new age. But it is others who must now judge this - seems my judgment has been a bit off on it. Maybe someone else will analyze it as I once did, and bring the needed motion (or maybe not).

    Bob A

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,354

    Default

    I've always been a supporter of the concept of life governors as I've felt it an accolade for some of our hardest working volunteers. As someone who has directed 100+ tournaments from club level through provincial and national championships I don't want to denigrate volunteers who didn't serve as CFC president but on the other hand having served on the Executive for a number of years know how much work doing a good job as CFC president entails. (Given my work commitments and knowing what's required to do the job right I've never been inspired to seek the job myself)

    However Ottawa seems to be dictating that the life governorship model is to be history so I now seek some alternate way of honoring these past Executives. I don't want to be sending these folks letters saying "Thank you for your past service but..." - to me that would be a gratuitous kick in the teeth.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •