Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: 6.B) Discipline of Members

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,976
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    The board shall have authority to suspend or expel any member from the Corporation for any one or more of the following grounds:
    . violating any provision of the articles, by-laws, or written policies of the Corporation;
    a. carrying out any conduct which may be detrimental to the Corporation as determined by the board in its sole discretion;
    b. 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.
    Are there a total of three grounds
    .
    a.
    b.
    or am I misreading this ?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    Are there a total of three grounds
    .
    a.
    b.
    or am I misreading this ?

    I have fixed the original post to give three grounds a, b and c. I'm not sure if the error was in the template or in my copying and pasting.

  3. #13

    Default

    The more I read this motion, the more reluctant I am to support. If the process included some due process prior to an anidividual being informed that action was being taken against them, then I would be more comfortable in supporting a disciplinary clause.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    The more I read this motion, the more reluctant I am to support. If the process included some due process prior to an anidividual being informed that action was being taken against them, then I would be more comfortable in supporting a disciplinary clause.
    This item is not essential for a successful NFP application. I have mixed feelings about it and included it because the straw polls from the last meeting preferred some form of disciplinary bylaw over none at all. At the moment we don't seem to have full engagement on this and I would welcome more governor input. I understand that the executive would be reluctant to invoke this severe form of discipline but at times there may be circumstances where it is necessary and necessary to move quickly. The voting members (governors) could sort things out later.

    I would be willing to defer this item until the April meeting if that is the will of the governors. We could continue discussion on the governors' forum and come up with a discipline bylaw that everyone could live with or perhaps we could choose to not include a discipline bylaw in our submission. It is an optional clause after all.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I haven't seen any feedback one way or another on whether the governors would like this motion tabled until the next meeting and I am about to go out to teach my Friday night advanced chess class at Sobeys. I should be back at 10 pm.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Vlad, sorry I'm a bit late tuning in. I have no problem with the proposed text.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    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 voting 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.
    Thanks Vlad. Above you said "class B voting members…." should that read "class B non voting members…."? otherwise I am confused.

    If I am understanding you correctly:

    Class A voting members = governors
    Class B non voting members = all other CFC members

    Right? So all the concern last year about whether or not non-elected governors could vote under the new rules were misguided? The new rules are flexible enough to allow our current governor structure to continue, we just call them class A voting members, yes?
    Last edited by Bob Gillanders; 02-22-2014 at 02:28 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    Thanks Vlad. Above you said "class B voting members…." should that read "class B non voting members…."? otherwise I am confused.
    Yes you are correct I did make a typo which I will correct.

    If I am understanding you correctly:

    Class A voting members = governors
    Class B non voting members = all other CFC members

    Right?
    Yes, you are correct.

    So all the concern last year about whether or not non-elected governors could vote under the new rules were misguided? The new rules are flexible enough to allow our current governor structure to continue, we just call them class A voting members, yes?
    The confusion last year about ex officio board members was based on a belief that the governors would be the directors and that is just incorrect. You can't have sixty directors. There is a great deal of flexibility on who can be members and how you can award membership. The documents that I have seen even explicitly state that you can award memberships for criteria like donations or volunteer support and time which would match the reason why we have life governors. We have life governors who contribute and we aren't so rich in volunteers that we can afford to cast off any help that we can get.

    Everything that I have done during this NFP process has been to make things run very much as they have previously run as much as is possible. When you are in time trouble you might sac a rook for the opponent's last pawn to make sure you don't lose the game and then you can go on to promote your last pawn to try to win in the last few seconds.

    Some things will change but the voting members like the governors before them will still have the final say. We won't be any closer to perhaps needed reforms but we won't be farther away aside from the possible requirement that structural changes will cost us $200 which is a pittance when balanced against our current accumulated assets.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 02-22-2014 at 03:06 PM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    Thank you Vlad. Now I understand and it all jives with the post I just made on the other thread.
    Great work, thanks!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Leblanc View Post
    Vlad, sorry I'm a bit late tuning in. I have no problem with the proposed text.
    I want to get a good reading on how the governors feel. It seems to me that most support the current proposed bylaw. If the straw poll indicates strong support then we will extend the meeting for a vote on this Sunday and Monday. If there is significant opposition then we will defer it to the governors meeting in April where I hope to tie off all the loose ends. Even if this measure passes in this meeting (in the event that there is enough support that we deal with it now) it will be possible to make a proposal for changes for the next quarterly meeting before this is submitted to the government. We can always add this or some other measure on discipline later. I don't want to get bogged down on this optional clause and that is the reason that I didn't bundle it all into one package.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •