Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: 6.A) Minimal Set of Bylaws to comply with the new act

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,097
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    OK if you're comfortable with that so be it.

    For myself, I am NOT comfortable with contemplating possible changes before we ensure the long term survival of the CFC at least legally. Once we get our Certificate of Compliance we can talk about other items like that if that is the will of the Governors / Voting Members. Maybe the Governors / Voting Members want some changes maybe they don't but as I've said to you privately I have one motion that stays in my pocket (a motion on multi-year memberships to encourage members to renew for more than one year) that is staying in my pocket until this file is done.
    The only issue with waiting for later is that we will be subject to a $200 fee any time we make such changes and now it can be done for free. Of course this is not nearly as important when weighed against the danger of failing to complete the process and potentially losing all of our accumulated assets and then having to start from scratch.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    93

    Default

    My understanding of the new act is that members get a vote by definition. In the explanatory video for sports organizations (which I believe was posted by Bob Gillanders) it was recommended several times that organizations use a new term like "participant" for what is being talked about here as non voting members.

    If Im wrong about this, let me know

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,097
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garvin Nunes View Post
    My understanding of the new act is that members get a vote by definition. In the explanatory video for sports organizations (which I believe was posted by Bob Gillanders) it was recommended several times that organizations use a new term like "participant" for what is being talked about here as non voting members.

    If Im wrong about this, let me know
    Maybe Bob can refresh us on the link to that video. It seems to me that there are certain advantages to continuing to use the word member in the case of non-voting members. The $10,000 limit on public funds when determining whether you are a soliciting not for profit corporation or not only applies to gifts from parties who are not members or related to members so the up to $15,000 which we will receive from a member for the Olympiad team players does not count towards that limit because the individual is a CFC member. Once you go over that limit of donations from public sources some onerous reporting requirements kick in.

    We also may have to face the reality that an equivalent to charitable status or sporting federation status may not be in the cards for us so contorting and comporting ourselves as if we are a sporting federation may not make sense.

    Members get a vote unless they are defined as non-voting as in this proposed minimal bylaw. There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around. It is always best to read the actual act and government publications and websites to gain an understanding of the reality of the situation.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 02-22-2014 at 04:18 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Maybe Bob can refresh us on the link to that video.
    Yes, I remember searching my computer last year for the video I sent everyone many moons ago, but I never found it. It was very dry and boring, difficult to sit thru. Anyway, last year I did find another video (I can't recall if I shared it with the group), but thankfully I did email it to myself at the time. Here it is:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB3qzb7f4-8

    It is addressed specifically to national sport organizations. I think I showed this to Garvin last year. About 16 minutes into the video, it does address the issue of "member rights" even when they are a non voting class. They do get some voting rights where the fundamental member rights are affected. Sounds okay to me, but I think this addresses the concerns Garvin is expressing.

    Later on in the video, it talks about ex-fid?????? whatever, i.e.. non elected directors. I think this is the area that was confusing to some last year. After a quick read, and considering Vlad's research, it appears that unelected governors are okay, but our executive needs to be elected. Okay, that sounds fine.

    To cover my ass, I confess I am speaking off the cuff without the necessary research, so take everything I am saying with a pound a salt. But does this make sense now?
    Last edited by Bob Gillanders; 02-22-2014 at 03:06 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,097
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    Yes, I remember searching my computer last year for the video I sent everyone many moons ago, but I never found it. It was very dry and boring, difficult to sit thru. Anyway, last year I did find another video (I can't recall if I shared it with the group), but thankfully I did email it to myself at the time. Here it is:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB3qzb7f4-8

    It is addressed specifically to national sport organizations. I think I showed this to Garvin last year. About 16 minutes into the video, it does address the issue of "member rights" even when they are a non voting class. They do get some voting rights where the fundamental member rights are affected. Sounds okay to me, but I think this addresses the concerns Garvin is expressing.

    Later on in the video, it talks about ex-fid?????? whatever, i.e.. non elected directors. I think this is the area that was confusing to some last year. After a quick read, and considering Vlad's research, it appears that unelected governors are okay, but our executive needs to be elected. Okay, that sounds fine.

    To cover my ass, I confess I am speaking off the cuff without the necessary research, so take everything I am saying with a pound a salt. But does this make sense now?
    Interesting enough all of our provincial associations will have to go through an almost exact same process as the provinces are required to revamp their regulations. For the Ontario Chess Association the deadline is in 2017 so I would suggest they get to work on that as soon as possible. The Ontario provincial legislation specifically does allow past presidents to be unelected board members.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,356

    Default

    Bob - "ex-officio" means "as a result of holding another office" - since ex-officio board members aren't allowed, we would be in violation if we made all provincial presidents (including CCCA president) Governors or members of the national Executive.

    Since these presidents chair their respective provincial AGMs they obviously have a role in the selection of Governors / Voting Members and may or may not themselves be elected as a Governor / Voting Member but their mandate derives from their selection by the affiliate not by virtue of their role as an officer of the affiliate.

    Thus I have been elected Secretary of the Chess Federation of Canada, elected as a Governor of the Chess Federation of Canada and elected as Secretary of the BC Chess Federation. None of these are automatic by virtue of the other two.

    None of this changes under the new Act. (Other than Governor => "Class A Voting Member")

    Hope this helps!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,097
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    Bob - "ex-officio" means "as a result of holding another office" - since ex-officio board members aren't allowed, we would be in violation if we made all provincial presidents (including CCCA president) Governors or members of the national Executive.
    We would only be in violation if we tried to have an ex-officio board member (currently called executive member). I don't see any restriction in the act on ex-officio members whether voting (governors) or nonvoting (players). We wouldn't have a problem with making them governors but we would have a problem putting them on the board (executive) but only once the NFP act kicks in. There is no problem with this under current legislation under which we are governed until we comply with the new act and get that continuance.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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