Is David Taking the CFC Presidential?

[Ken Craft]

No, it isn't, Bob.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken & Bob:

Generally, I will not post on the Govenors' Discussion Board on non-confidential issues. I believe the governors should debate on this members' CFC Chess Forum. This encourages dialogue between the members and the governors, and it lets the members know the governors are alive.

Having said that, I know some governors do not come here. So I will duplicate my original post on the Governors' Board.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Well, it seems that there is some life in the Governors' Discussion Board - in half a day, there were 24 governors who viewed my post ( not great out of 61, but not rigor mortis ).

Now the bad news - not one of them had a comment - no thoughts on whether David is going in the right or wrong direction.

I guess they're just playing their cards close to their vest - wouldn't want anyone to know how they intend to vote on Motion 2009-15 ( assuming they intend to vote ). Certainly wouldn't want to say they agree with me.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Any comments yet on the Governors Board ?

Any reply yet from Lyle about getting all 3 Grassroots motions on the floor in Edmonton?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

1. Now up to 32 views on the Governors' Discussion Board, of my original post complaining about David taking the CFC " Presidential ". But almost no discussion ( 2 replies - Ken Craft wants the motion defeated, not amended; Egis Zeromskis pointed to insufficient technical amendment content in the motion ). Don't know why the governors won't declare a position on the motion, after viewing my post.

2. CFC Constitutional Coalition 2 lost motions ( only one got into the GL # 6, and thus onto the AGM agenda ) - no reply to our request for corrective action by Lyle - not from Lyle, nor from David who was copied with the request. We will try applying some public pressure to Lyle and David to try to get some action, and get all 3 motions onto the AGM agenda, since all three motions are related to governor reduction.

Bob

[Jason Lohner]

I am dead set against giving the president increased powers/responsibility. What we need is a motion that decreases the rate of destruction that a president can do to the CFC.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Jason:

Nice to see we are on the same side of an issue again - too bad you are only an incoming governor. We could have used your vote to defeat the Motion 2009-15 at the outgoing Governors' AGM where the motion is coming up for vote.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

I this morning have posted the following on the CFC Governors' Discussion Board:

Disappointing - a Non-debate among Governors

36 views of my post, and yet only 1 governor has declared himself in support of my position - well actually he has come out stronger than my original position - he wants the motion defeated, not amended.

A bit disappointing that the viewing governors have almost unanimously declined to publicly take a position on Motion 2009-15, which will be coming before the outgoing governors' AGM.

If we governors do not communicate with each other, here or preferably on the members' CFC Chess Forum, then we will be abdicating to the Executive, and increasing the chances of them getting what they want by our own default.

Bob

[Ken Craft]

Bob normally discussions on the Governors Board by otrhers aren't reported here. That said I'm quite happy to confirm that I do not support the motion.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I respect the right of other governors to decide, for whatever reason, that they prefer to post on the Governors' Discussion Board, rather than the members' CFC Chess Forum. And I will assume they want their post kept confidential - that that is the reason they posted there. So I would not reproduce another governor's post on the CFC members' board.

It is a different matter with my own posts - I will determine on a case by case basis whether they should be kept confidential. My recent post I reproduced is clearly not dealing with any confidential matter.

Also, I have no qualms giving general reports on process - whether there is any debate ( life ) on the governors' board, how many comments there may be, etc.. This has nothing to do with confidentiality.

As I have said before, my preference is that on all non-confidential matters, governors post on the members' CFC Chess Forum. This produces dialogue between members and governors, and makes clear that some governors are alive and kicking and trying to do the job they got elected to do. If more governors would post, the membership would not be so negative and skeptical about the role governors are actually playing in the running of the CFC.

Bob