Ordinary Member/Governor Dialogue

[Christopher Mallon]

It's nothing mysterious, I just pointed out that Eric was breaking his own proposed rule and he came back and edited both the posts to remove it.

Moderators (like Eric) don't have time restrictions on editing. I don't know about normal users.

[Ken Craft]

I find the whole idea of a communication policy to be invidious. If consecutive executives communicated better with the Governors and the membership, there would be fewer speculative posts.

[Steve Douglas]

I find the whole idea of a communication policy to be invidious. If consecutive executives communicated better with the Governors and the membership, there would be fewer speculative posts.

I think the basic problem is that the *Governors* don't communicate with the membership. If the overall functioning of the CFC (and I use that term very loosely) is the province and responsibility of the governors, perhaps you can understand how the average member feels when *neither* body (governors or executive) chooses to communicate? From my seat the governors tend to do one of two things: wring their hands about the actions of the executive; wring their hands about other governors being do-nothings.

So if the current president wants to bring in policies regarding governor communication and/or behaviour, it sounds good to me.

I still want somebody to explain why my magazine shrunk from 6 to 4 issues and then disappeared. Pointing fingers at "the executive" is not responsible governance.

Steve

P.S. See how good this forum can be as a separate entity from ChessSquawk?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Steve:

Bottom line is that print media is very expensive, and CFC was running 5 consecutive years of on average $ 30,000 deficits, because of it in large part.
It had to go, to bring CFC back to good financial health ( along with some other restructuring ).

Hey ! A Governor communicating with an ordinary member on the CFC members' CFC Chess Forum ! It's what should be happening.

Bob

[Steve Douglas]

Hi Steve:

Bottom line is that print media is very expensive, and CFC was running 5 consecutive years of on average $ 30,000 deficits, because of it in large part.
It had to go, to bring CFC back to good financial health ( along with some other restructuring ).

Hey ! A Governor communicating with an ordinary member on the CFC members' CFC Chess Forum ! It's what should be happening.

Bob

Hi Bob:

I was probably a little too facetious in my post. My issue with the magazine was not that it was dropped because of costs. My bigger issue was that of communication. To the average member, the management/governance structure of the CFC is fairly opaque. Things happen with no explanation, or communication, etc.

I think this forum does serve a good purpose. While ChessTalk is good, it is nonetheless run/moderated by an organization that is in competition with the CFC in some ways. I think the CFC will be better served with a discussion forum where they are not relying upon the good graces of somebody else. Additionally, it does allow for direct executive and/or governor dialogue with individual members.

Steve

P.S. This is not to show disrespect toward Larry Bevand in any way.

[Eric Van Dusen]

I find the whole idea of a communication policy to be invidious. If consecutive executives communicated better with the Governors and the membership, there would be fewer speculative posts.

Hi Ken,

As a citizen of Canada, you have the right to your opinion with a number of limitations as set forth by the Constitution of Canada and subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

What I am talking about is the rights and responsibilities of a Governor within the corporation of the CFC.

What bothers me the most is that there are plenty of shortcomings and problems within the CFC that can easily be handled by contacting the office, posting on the governor's web site, or contacting an executive member directly by email or phone. However, what most governors do is post publicly first, before exhausting the private methods first.

Ken, if you find the above paragraph unreasonable, then by all means provide myself and the rest of the CFC community a counter-argument.

Furthermore, I believe it is reasonable to provide expectations regarding rights and reponsibilities regarding public communication vis a vis the CFC, especially if one is a governor, who do represent the leadership link between the executive and the CFC members at large.

Leadership implies responsibilities.

Regarding speculation, it is my opinion that it serves little constructive purpose except rarely.

[Ken Craft]

Leadership indeed has responsibilities. With the executive only infrequently communicating with the Governors, the Governors are not aware of what they do not know. The individual or group with the information have the obligation to share the information in a timely manner. In short, if the executive communicated more often the Governors wouldn't feel like they were being kept in the dark. Your proposed "communication policy" treats a symptom not the cause and will make it easier for the executive to horde information and now the ability to suppress dissenting opinions.

My counter-propsal: more timely and transparent communication by the Executive.

[Eric Van Dusen]

Ken,

Please define 'more timely' in specific terms. Do you have a frequency in mind? In my estimation, there have not been any more updates because there has been little to update.

The other issue Ken that you do not see to care to address is what to do about postings by CFC Governors that cause damage to other members of the CFC as well as the CFC's reputation. Please let me know what you would propose to regulate such postings.

[Ken Craft]

How about more frequent Governor's Letters. Let's say once a month. Especially given our antiquated debating and voting system. The longer the time between GLs the longer it takes to make decisions.

You seem more concerned about the second issue than I am. I, frankly, am unwilling to give power to anyone to determine what constitutes " postings by CFC Governors that cause damage to other members of the CFC as well as the CFC's reputation." Any way you slice it this is an attempt, upon the reccomendation of the President, to stifle debate, censor and censure criticism. In short, I wouldn't regulate these postings since I believe no one has the authority to do so.

[Christopher Mallon]

Is this all in response to some apparent threat by Kevin Spraggett to sue the CFC?