Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: 9. POLICY DISCUSSION: Compliance with new NFP (Not for Profit) Rules

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    I'm glad that you're engaged in the process. At times I get the feeling that I am only talking to myself. Hopefully we can get some feedback from other governors and maybe get a seconder for a motion.
    It is quite hard to track everything what is going on with this. Do you have a PDF file with a preliminary Handbook part after the approval.
    When I read "in accordance with the policies of the Corporation", I want to check that policy too. Do we have them. Can they be referenced with particular #.
    .*-1

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    The term "landed immigrant" has been replaced by "permanent resident."
    Thank you! That was the term that I was looking for.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    It is quite hard to track everything what is going on with this. Do you have a PDF file with a preliminary Handbook part after the approval.
    When I read "in accordance with the policies of the Corporation", I want to check that policy too. Do we have them. Can they be referenced with particular #.

    Yes, I understand that we are trying to accomplish a great deal here in what will hopefully be the last meeting of the governors. Our next meeting should be a meeting of the voting members if all goes to plan. At that point we will be able to turn our attention to growing chess and not shuffling papers for the government.

    The policies of the corporation are what the board (executive) and voting members (governors) decide. The board gets to put policies and initiatives forward for consideration between meetings of the members. They do not become policies of the corporation until approved and/or possibly modified by the voting members. Of course there are day to day matters which the board must deal with and an office to run which the board and executive director must deal with.

    I can try to generate a PDF of the first post which will represent our bylaws from the government's point of view along with articles and the resolution of the voting members (governors). I will consider the old handbook in its entirety to be the policies which we should be guided by except where it contravenes the current law. It is full of mistakes and inconsistencies which over time we should fix to make consistent with the new Canadian laws.

    We will not be finished after this meeting but we will be able to continue with our assets intact and we can review the old handbook section by section and see what should be changed and filed with the government with votes of the voting members deciding each question along the way. Does the government need to be privy to the workings of our rating system? Probably not. That becomes a policy which is not necessarily a bylaw.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Usefulness of members committees with authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée
    FIDE uses such committees extensively. The Laws of Chess cannot be changed by FIDE wihtout a proposal from the Rule Committee, the rating rules cannot be changed without a proposal from the Qualification Commission... Those committees purpose is to assure that expert advice is taken into consideration when modifying some rules. The board of director could have no experience in organizing or directing chess competitions. Giving full authority to such directors would be dangerous.


    Committees of members with authority limits the power of the board of directors in their field of jurisdiction. This can be very useful to prove that there is no political interference of the directors in a competition by ensuring that the NAC decisions are final. I have always been a very strong proponent of the separation of the sports side from the business side. Directors should raise fund and allocate money to the sports side but experienced persons should be running the sports side. The directors could know nothing about chess, but if they raise 100 000$ per year from their contacts, I am very happy provided that chess competitions are ran by competent persons.
    If we get to the point where we have a board of directors or even too many governors/voting members who have no experience in organizing or directing chess competitions then I suggest that the CFC will be in more trouble than we can address in a simple post. That is not the case of the current board nor of any board that I expect to see in my lifetime.

    The directors have to have the final authority on some matters since they are the ones on the front line who might be sued if an unjust decision is allowed to stand without any possible intervention. Too much separation can also allow corruption as for example certain controversial decisions in figure skating which appear to have more to do with collusion and trade offs between judges than the objective merits.

    We have to work within the limits of the law. If the law indeed proscribes the ability of non-profit corporations to delegate directors' powers then that is not something that we can or should seek to circumvent. We live in Canada and are bound by Canadian law.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    I confess I'm annoyed that the legislation compels us to use terminology such as "Class A" which in our definition is what we now know as Governors. I would be happier if we had a more detailed document but Vlad's first posting in this thread does seem to cover the bases.

    I do not think Vlad has ever tried to hide the fact that this resolution is as "Constitutional" as anything we will ever do. Since our policy in all this has been to change the minimum required to get "continuance" I would assume there is no intent to change the pro rata formula (that's the formula involving weighted number of members per province used to calculate elected governors for the following year that gets done as quickly as possible after I acting as secretary get our membership numbers for the rating list closest to April 30th each year). If the will of the Governors following continuance is to tinker with the formula I don't have a serious problem with that but at this point I am opposed to anything that would be delay our application without extraordinarily good reasons.

    We've discussed this file in at least 3 Governors meetings and while it's always possible we've missed something crucial, the path we've followed minimizes the chances of this. The process has been quite open and I don't believe there's any intent to 'put one over' on anyone or for that matter to do anything other than get Federal approval as far before the required date as possible.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    You know what we could do is pass a simple resolution to call the class A voting members governors after we get the continuation. Submissions of bylaws after the continuation application are simply put into the file without being looked at by the government.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Lyle, what is the "pro-rata formula"? I must have missed that in the handbook.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    I'm still looking for an answer here. Thanks.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garland Best View Post
    Lyle, what is the "pro-rata formula"? I must have missed that in the handbook.
    Pro-rata formula simply refers to the 50 members plus each fraction thereof formula that establishes how many governors there are.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    OK, thanks. I thought that since Lyle wrote "weighted number of members per province", it meant that members such as juniors only counted as a fraction of the value of an ordinary member. Glad to know that I misunderstood.

Page 3 of 4 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
  •