Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: 6.B) Discipline of Members

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,182
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default 6.B) Discipline of Members

    The board shall have authority to suspend or expel any member from the Corporation for any one or more of the following grounds:
    a. violating any provision of the articles, by-laws, or written policies of the Corporation;
    b. carrying out any conduct which may be detrimental to the Corporation as determined by the board in its sole discretion;
    c. for any other reason that the board in its sole and absolute discretion considers to be reasonable, having regard to the purpose of the Corporation.
    In the event that the board determines that a member should be expelled or suspended from membership in the Corporation, the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, shall provide twenty (20) days notice of suspension or expulsion to the member and shall provide reasons for the proposed suspension or expulsion. The member may make written submissions to the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, in response to the notice received within such twenty (20) day period. In the event that no written submissions are received by the president, the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, may proceed to notify the member that the member is suspended or expelled from membership in the Corporation. If written submissions are received in accordance with this section, the board will consider such submissions in arriving at a final decision and shall notify the member concerning such final decision within a further twenty (20) days from the date of receipt of the submissions. The board's decision may be appealed to the class A voting members at the next regularly scheduled quarterly meeting.

    The board decision may be overturned by a simple majority of class A voting members at the next quarterly meeting or alternatively in a special meeting called for by the board or 5% of the class A voting members.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 04-01-2014 at 03:46 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    Again - this is text Ottawa wants. For those not strictly in the loop, a "Class A voting member" is what we presently call a Governor.

    In the normal course of things by far the main reason why a "Class A voting member" would be suspended or expelled would be failing to keep his/her CFC membership up to date.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,182
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    Again - this is text Ottawa wants. For those not strictly in the loop, a "Class A voting member" is what we presently call a Governor.

    In the normal course of things by far the main reason why a "Class A voting member" would be suspended or expelled would be failing to keep his/her CFC membership up to date.
    Actually it is a modification to the default text. In the default text there is no appeal. If we had no rule on discipline (which is also possible) I believe that the net effect would be the same since anything the board rules on can be modified by the voting members at the next meeting.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    My Toastmasters club always has new members sign an application for membership and once a month (in months when we have new members) has an induction ceremony where the new member is sent out of the room, a show of hands vote is taken (so far always unanimous) and the new members welcomed back into the room to a round of applause. It is said that this gives the club legal authority to expel a member if necessary. (Apparently other clubs have had to expel members for harassment and for using the club to promote supremacist views and without any disciplinary process the club is legally not covered).

    My impression is that this is text that we need but never expect to actually use. As a TD I _have_ ejected a player from the Hall but that was for a violation of the Laws of Chess. (He was studying openings in the washroom during a round which he was playing in) I have warned spectators that I had the authority to exclude them from the room if they further misbehaved and would have had they continued. In all cases that ended the matter.

    It's difficult to imagine what sort of behaviour would be grounds for removal from membership but the CFC has always has such rules - the old blacklist at the top of every Northern newsletter is a good example.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,182
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    It's difficult to imagine what sort of behaviour would be grounds for removal from membership but the CFC has always has such rules - the old blacklist at the top of every Northern newsletter is a good example.
    From my point of view it would have to be pretty blatant and be something more than calling the CFC president, directors or voting members bad names. Abusing children would be one ground. Cheating at chess would be another. Ethical lapses might be another ground.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    From my point of view it would have to be pretty blatant and be something more than calling the CFC president, directors or voting members bad names. Abusing children would be one ground. Cheating at chess would be another. Ethical lapses might be another ground.
    Look at what got one on the old blacklist - failing to file tournament reports on time, bouncing cheques to the CFC or provincial affiliates stuff like that.

    If this sort of thing happened more than once a year it would be a very bad thing. I view this as more "Let's keep Ottawa happy" and "Let's make sure we're not screwed up if we need it" than anything else.

    You, me, everyone who has served on the national executive has taken a reasonable dose of crap these last 5-10 years - what I think this envisions would be worse than spoiling an executive member's morning coffee!

  7. #7

    Default

    It appears that the respondent is responding to the intended punishment not to the allegations. I am not sure that is just.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,182
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    It appears that the respondent is responding to the intended punishment not to the allegations. I am not sure that is just.
    The language is what is given in the government's bylaw builder with the difference that there is no appeal to the members in the bylaw builder generated bylaw though voting members are always free to make a motion on any matter so even this lack of appeal could still be appealed with the support of three members. I would presume that when the member responded he would respond to the allegations as well as to the intended punishment.

    The rule is not essential for an NFP application and requires two thirds approval in order to be included in our bylaws. I separated it out because it might be controversial though it seems to me that governors supported the idea in our previous meeting. If this rule does not pass and in the event of a situation requiring such discipline the default will be that the board decides such matters. I believe that the voting members could modify any discipline imposed by the board. I believe that making the procedure clear is preferable to leaving it vague and arbitrary and allowing a board to make it up as they go along.

    This is a procedure that I would hope would not need to be used, ever.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 02-19-2014 at 12:10 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    Again - this is text Ottawa wants. For those not strictly in the loop, a "Class A voting member" is what we presently call a Governor.

    In the normal course of things by far the main reason why a "Class A voting member" would be suspended or expelled would be failing to keep his/her CFC membership up to date.
    My apologies if I haven't been keeping up, but have we resolved the issue of elected vs. non elected governors?

    I see the bylaws talk about Class A and Class B members, but can somebody explain the difference?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,182
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    My apologies if I haven't been keeping up, but have we resolved the issue of elected vs. non elected governors?

    I see the bylaws talk about Class A and Class B members, but can somebody explain the difference?
    Class A voting members are the same as what we now call governors. Class B nonvoting members are what we now call members and/or players. There is no issue at this time with respect to elected versus non elected class A voting members (formerly called governors) as under the act there is a great deal of flexibility on how membership can be awarded.

    There is at least one advantage of continuing to call CFC members, class B nonvoting members and that is that donations from members or their families do not automatically make you a soliciting corporation once you go above $10,000 in public monies raised.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 02-22-2014 at 03:00 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •