Is David Taking the CFC Presidential?

[Bob Armstrong]

Is David Taking CFC “ Presidential??

Right now it is clear in my view that the Governors run the CFC. The Executive run the organization as to day to day matters for the Governors. Also, in an emergency, when there is no time to consult with the Governors on a significant issue, the Executive can make an “ emergency “ decision, and then must ASAP bring it to the Governors for ratification.
The current role of the President in this power structure is according to the Handbook:

DUTIES OF OFFICERS

PRESIDENT

4. The President shall be the chief executive Officer of the Federation. He shall preside at all meetings of the Assembly of Governors, or of the Board of Directors, when he is personally present. He shall exercise constant active and general supervision of the Officers of the Federation, and the conduct of its affairs, with the exception of:
(a) Those matters which are reserved to the Assembly of Governors or the Board of Directors.
(b) Those matters which have already been delegated to Committees appointed by the Assembly of Governors.
The President shall have full power to take such action in the name of the Federation, as he may in his sole discretion decide.
In matters where an immediate decision is not necessary, the president shall confer with the other Officers of the Federation, but as a matter of general policy only, and not so as to limit in any way his authority. In any matter covered by his general authority and not coming within the duties specifically allotted to any other Officer or Officers, the decision of the President shall override that of any other Officer.
The President shall exercise constant and active supervision over the chief employee of the Chess Federation of Canada (commonly known as the Executive Director).

The Lavin Motion 2009-15 in GL # 6, redefining the roles of the officers, eliminating some, and adding others ( some of the changes seem fine ), changes the President’s role as follows:

President

The President has the full power to make any and all decisions on any matter that is not explicitly the responsibility of the Assembly of Governors and/or The Board of Directors (aka – The Executive). In matters where an immediate decision is not required the President will confer with other members of The Board of Directors. The President must present a budget for the new fiscal year to The Assembly of Governors at least 30 days prior to the start of the new fiscal year. This budget must indicate a surplus for to upcoming fiscal year.
The President will make best efforts to ensure that the annual budget is adhered to by the Executive Director.

What is the significance of these changes to the President’s role that David is seeking?

The problem is that it shifts major power to the president, from the Assembly of Governors.

Right now, unless it is an emergency, ALL major decisions, not just those explicitly reserved to the Governors, must be referred to the Governors to decide – they run the ship, and they should decide all major issues.

Under David’s amendment, all major decisions not EXPLICITLY reserved to the Governors, will be decided by the President where an immediate decision is required – this seems to me to be the same as the current situation. But where an immediate decision is not required, “ the President will confer with the Executive “. In other words, the issue need NOT go to the Governors, even if significant, if the Governors cannot get it under “ matters explicitly the responsibility of the Assembly of Governors “. Such issues will go to the Executive, though it is not exactly clear what happens here. What does “ confer with the Executive “ mean ? The President seeks the advice of the Executive, and then decides on his own? Or does majority vote rule in the Executive? And there is nothing saying that matters requiring an immediate decision must be brought ASAP to the Governors for retroactive ratification.

I am against this shift of power to the president and/or the Executive. I suggest Motion 2009-15 needs some amendments before being acceptable.

Bob

[John Coleman]

If I recall correctly, Jonathan Berry quit as governor several years ago because of the shift in power away from the governors towards the executive.

If my memory is correct, this shift in decision-making is not new. It probably follows as a natural consequence of most governors being inactive, not to say, comatose.

[Ken Craft]

inactive/comatose. If the exec would communicate regularly and permit Governors to govern in a timely manner, you might see different behaviour, John.

[Christopher Mallon]

Tried that in 2005 Ken... it turns out most really ARE inactive/comatose, at least at that time.

Of course there has been a lot of turnover since then...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

If most are inactive/comatose, then let's at least cut down their number by half ( Motion 2009-14 ).

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Bob, the problem with your motion is it does NOT guarantee that it will get rid of the inactive ones!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

You are right - it doesn't guarantee. But it is certain to improve things. It is something, when no one is doing anything to try to correct the situation. It is not the be all and end all. But it is step # 1 to improvement.

Bring your activity rule as well as a motion, and that would be a good step # 2.

With fewer seats, the provinces won't be arm-twisting people to stand as Governor who have no intention of doing anything. Fewer seats might actually lead to elections, with good candidates running !

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

It is wrong how the inactive Governors are used as scapegoats for all our problems. They are not the problem. Wouldn’t it be paradise (or not?) if we had 61 governors actively engaged in the politics of the CFC? Dream on! For an organization of < 2000 members, that is unrealistic. Besides, many governors are already working hard at the local level.

Fortunately, we are blessed with many more than 61 active ambassadors of chess across the country, running chess clubs, organizing tournaments, promoting the game, and teaching. Only a small minority will ever get involved in the politics. Unfortunately, that is just a fact of life for any organization. But to our detriment, so many good people have been alienated over the years by all the silliness.

Good organizations will actively seek out new blood on a continuous basis. Bringing new talents and perspective to our challenges just might be a welcome change from the constant recycling of our political leaders. For instance, every year I get regular emails from CMA (that’s Certified Management Accountants, not Chess N’Math), first asking for nominations for our elected officials, then all the profiles and platforms of the candidates, then advising us on voting procedures. This is a far cry from the CFC experience, but can we begin taking some steps to improve our process?

The 3 motions from the grassroots campaign are important steps towards more effective governance. But the 3 motions compliment each other, so I hope they will all make it to the floor in Edmonton.

Thanks to Bob Armstrong for his persistence.

[Bob Armstrong]

The thread has kind of gone off topic to debating the motion to reduce governors.

But is anyone else concerned about David's increasing the power of the President?? And taking power away from the governors??

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Yes, Bob. I am very concerned.

The new motion would give complete power to the President on all matters "that is not explicitly the responsibility of the governors". This is backwards. All residual power should remain with the Governors.

And who brings this motion forward giving increased powers to the President ? The President. Is this not a conflict of interest ?

Is it being debated on the Governors forum ?