Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: 5.1 Appointment of Class A Voting Members (Garland Best)

  1. #21

    Default

    This is a substantive change rather than an amendment to what was essentially a transitional motion given our NFP compliance. I would suggest such a governance change should require notice of motion and prolonged debate. We also could not implement it immediatelyy since the incoming meeting is already in session and people have been accepted as Class A members for the upcoming year.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    Well, we wouldn't know who wouldn't be a Governor, but only know how many Governors every province would lose. Quebec is a special case as they have been allotted 3 Governors (which was their norm) since the agreement was signed. To fall in line with the other provincial adjustments, this should go to 2.
    Quebec has the most people playing chess and I wouldn't like to lose any of the governors as they have been active in discussions and in the background, not to mention organizing events.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    This is a substantive change rather than an amendment to what was essentially a transitional motion given our NFP compliance. I would suggest such a governance change should require notice of motion and prolonged debate. We also could not implement it immediatelyy since the incoming meeting is already in session and people have been accepted as Class A members for the upcoming year.
    I agree, the first priority is to preserve the previous structure and then perhaps we can debate the ideal number of voting members. The situation I wouldn't like to see is where we lose the people who are doing the work.

  4. #24

    Default

    So what motion shall we be voting on, Vlad?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Perhaps a list of who would no longer be governors under this provision that is now a governor.
    The CFC Secretary can provide numbers where Governors come from.

    I understand that the change can not effect the 2014/15 period. I'm targeting for 2015/16.
    .*-1

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    I would oppose this since as long as we have Life Governors/VM a move to a per 100 rather than per 50 would increase their influence.

    And make no mistake about it - I am on the side that feels strongly that Life Governors/VM do provide a valuable service to the Federation to the extent they take part in Assembly affairs.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    I move to amend the paragraph:

    "In any year the number of class A voting members eligible per province or territory will be one class A member for the first fifty or part thereof of class B members in said province or territory as of April 30 of the immediately proceeding fiscal year, and one additional class A member for each subsequent fifty or part thereof."

    to

    "In any year the number of class A voting members eligible per province or territory will be one class A member for the first hundred or part thereof of class B members in said province or territory as of April 30 of the immediately proceeding fiscal year, and one additional class A member for each subsequent hundred or part thereof."

    The main reason - reduction of a class A members' number. Quality over quantity.

    Need a seconder and a support in voting.

    Probably it can be used only the next year (2015/16).
    Seriously, we can't go one single AGM without THIS cropping up again? What problem are you trying to solve? You say quality over quantity, but the motion does absolutely nothing to ensure quality.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  8. #28

    Default Life Voting Members

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    I would oppose this since as long as we have Life Governors/VM a move to a per 100 rather than per 50 would increase their influence.

    And make no mistake about it - I am on the side that feels strongly that Life Governors/VM do provide a valuable service to the Federation to the extent they take part in Assembly affairs.
    Hi Lyle:

    In theory, you are right.

    In practice their real on the ground influence is nil....only Mr Palsson, of the 9 Life Governors, to my knowledge, has signed into either the Outgoing or Incoming AGM's. Doesn't seem to matter the ratio of provincial reps vs Life Governors.

    And what ever happened to Les Bunning's proposal to impose an activity rule on Life Governors (when my motion to eliminate them totally failed)? I think Les had talked of him bringing in a motion: No attendance at 2 consecutive meetings, they are removed as Voting Members. Never happened.

    Bob A

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    So what motion shall we be voting on, Vlad?
    I think we go with the original motion which may not yet be ready for prime time. I think it needs to indicate that the special officers should also become voting members as they became governors before and I am not sure that it is explicitly mentioned there probably because their descriptions were spread out in different sections of the handbook and this is a cut and paste and edit of part of the old handbook.

    As for the amendment perhaps we should table it until next meeting and work out the details and do some hashing on the governors forum.

    I will have to make sure that the meeting ends on Sunday as I am off to the CYCC and Canadian Open on Monday and I will probably not be posting much on Monday when I will be making my way to Montreal or for most of CYCC when I will be very busy.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Lyle:

    In theory, you are right.

    In practice their real on the ground influence is nil....only Mr Palsson, of the 9 Life Governors, to my knowledge, has signed into either the Outgoing or Incoming AGM's. Doesn't seem to matter the ratio of provincial reps vs Life Governors.

    And what ever happened to Les Bunning's proposal to impose an activity rule on Life Governors (when my motion to eliminate them totally failed)? I think Les had talked of him bringing in a motion: No attendance at 2 consecutive meetings, they are removed as Voting Members. Never happened.

    Bob A
    Peter Stockhausen has also been on. Les Bunning usually makes contributions often hidden in the background.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •