For example, by putting the Olympiad selection rules in a special Bylaw, we could require a 2/3 majority of the VM to change it and restrict the directors from changing it without permission.
There is another kind of liabilities for the CFC that can arise from the challenging of a poorly written selection policy. The experts in the field of team selection have spoken here.
http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/docume...anReportEN.pdf
http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/docume...on_ENG_web.pdf
http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/docume...b_EN_final.pdf
The CFC could loose a challenge of its selection based on the fact that they rule have not been clearly communicated to the players.
All Sports Canada funded Federation have an Appeal Policy that allow to appeal a decision of the Board of Directors on very limited grounds
An Appellant cannot challenge a decision only on the grounds that it is not favorable to him or her.
An appeal may be heard only if there are sufficient grounds for the appeal. Sufficient grounds include, but are not limited to, the Respondent:
Making a decision for which it did not have authority or jurisdiction as set out in governing documents;
Failing to follow procedures as laid out in the bylaws or approved policies of ABC;
Making a decision which was influenced by bias, where bias is defined as a lack of neutrality to such an extent that the decision-maker is unable to consider other views and/or that the decision was made on the basis of, or significantly influenced by, factors unrelated to the merits of the matter;
Exercising its discretion for an improper purpose; and/or
Making a decision that was unreasonable or unfair.
That must be legal under the NFP Act.
There is room for improvement of the role of the VM, but we must be very careful with the liability aspect because the CFC in nor insured for errors and omissions.