4. Proposal to Enlarge the Executive

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Despite of its potential merit, this challenge is rather childish. Another meeting with the right question could be called in 21 days and the sole merit of this challenge would have been to delay things by 21 days. Is this really in the best interest of the CFC? We refer to such methods as dilatory tactics which are favoured by the Opposition in Parliaments all over the word.

I have experienced very many dilatory tactics in the last few weeks.

[Lyle Craver]

Could you explain in more detail what specifically what you mean by that comment?

[Christopher Mallon]

Despite of its potential merit, this challenge is rather childish. Another meeting with the right question could be called in 21 days and the sole merit of this challenge would have been to delay things by 21 days. Is this really in the best interest of the CFC? We refer to such methods as dilatory tactics which are favoured by the Opposition in Parliaments all over the word.

Technically no, the point is the correct way to do it is to increase the size of the board of directors, and then have nominations and potentially an election.

[Fred McKim]

Technically no, the point is the correct way to do it is to increase the size of the board of directors, and then have nominations and potentially an election.

If we are really going through with a vote to increase the Board, I would move that we increase it by two Directors-at-Large, instead of 1. This would possibly alleviate the concerns of the President holding two votes. I also think it would be possible that any of the Candidates or ex-Candidates for FIDE Rep could also run for one of these positions, as is the case in the elections at the AGM.

Fred

[Christopher Mallon]

If we are really going through with a vote to increase the Board, I would move that we increase it by two Directors-at-Large, instead of 1. This would possibly alleviate the concerns of the President holding two votes. I also think it would be possible that any of the Candidates or ex-Candidates for FIDE Rep could also run for one of these positions, as is the case in the elections at the AGM.

Fred

Yes, it should be an odd number, whatever the number is. And it should be an election, not a "here's one candidate hand-picked by the President"

Personally I would like to see portfolios rather than lots of Directors-At-Large. Perhaps Woman's Coordinator (with a requirement that they be a woman unless none are nominated?) ... and I don't think Master's Rep can really be a Director, because they are not chosen by the VMs? Just brainstorming here.

[Lyle Craver]

I have said numerous times both within the executive and here that while I >prefer< a 7 member board as I do think it's the most effective number in terms of actually getting things done, if we MUST repeat MUST enlarge the board that it be to 9 and that it be by the addition of two current officers. I have NOT specified which officers though the womens' coordinator is certainly one of the ones I would choose. I probably would also choose the ratings auditor since the CFC rating system is one of our prime assets and keeping the integrity of the system along with keeping it somewhat highly coordinated with other systems is a key CFC task. If we were to create a new position my pick would be head of fundraising or the NAC chair both of which are important functions.

While there have been several women I would have been happy to have on the national board through the years I do think our board fairly reflects our membership and while I certainly support recruiting more women as members would not ever support a situation where midway through the election process the future president is obliged to say "OK at this point we have all the men our board can handle, for the following positions in our elections no men need apply". And I would much prefer an active female player on the board to someone who is a stranger to us. Lynn Stringer is one who definitely in her day was a highly credible name for a board level office. Alexandra Botez may well be some day (and I say that as someone who has known her since before her teens) - but I would never vote for or against someone primarily or solely on the basis of his or her gender.

The solution to our gender gap is recruiting more girls and women (or in the case of juniors persuading them to stay active in chess as adults) far more so than recruiting and I wish we didn't have an election ongoing as I said this as this is NOT a swipe at our nominated MAL.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

In an in person meeting the Chair would just call the question on an appeal of his ruling and we would just move on.

For something like this appeal vote do VMs want to send an e-mail and give 3-6-12 or 24 hours for an on line meeting to implement an appeal of any ruling by the presiding officer - Roberts Rule of Order? This on-line format is not well suited to this type situation.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

If we are really going through with a vote to increase the Board, I would move that we increase it by two Directors-at-Large, instead of 1. This would possibly alleviate the concerns of the President holding two votes. I also think it would be possible that any of the Candidates or ex-Candidates for FIDE Rep could also run for one of these positions, as is the case in the elections at the AGM.

Fred

There is no point in increasing the size of the board if it does not increase the capabilities of the board. Mr. Plotkin would be a good person for the board because of his capabilities and the fact that he would not be a passenger out to pad his resume. If you increase the size of the board and make it a good old boy popularity contest you will be diminishing the effectiveness of the board at a time when we really can't afford it.

[Christopher Mallon]

In an in person meeting the Chair would just call the question on an appeal of his ruling and we would just move on.

For something like this appeal vote do VMs want to send an e-mail and give 3-6-12 or 24 hours for an on line meeting to implement an appeal of any ruling by the presiding officer - Roberts Rule of Order? This on-line format is not well suited to this type situation.

The voting probably needs to be the same as regular voting, as in using a poll in the meeting room. With a shortened time limit (24 hours?) and an email to all VMs perhaps.

Someone emailed me asking why not just vote no on the motion? This will allow us to vote against the PROCESS rather than the person. Plus allowing this to happen will set a bad precedent.

[Lyle Craver]

I'm not entirely clear what Vlad is saying with his last post but absolutely the board is a working group with little room for passengers. (Which I don't think we've had for several years)

All of us on the board have periods where we are busier than others and have more or less time for chess but absolutely the board isn't composed of "floaters"

But yes Egis' challenge needs dealt with immediately - and I'm not in a position to do it as I'm off to work in about an hour and have an evening event tonight that will keep me till about 8:30-9 Vancouver time.