Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Executive Secrecy

  1. #1

    Default Executive Secrecy

    The CFC executive is refusing to share the details ofthe Federation's new book and equipment deal with the Governors. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

  2. #2

    Default

    Remarkable. I recall that Jonathan Berry declined to be a governor, several years ago, partly because he felt the Executive was taking powers that should be in the hands of the governors.

  3. #3

    Default

    Hi Ken:

    Do you know if the purchaser made it part of the deal that the terms not be disclosed?

    If so, should the Executive have agreed to this?

    Bob

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nanaimo, BC
    Posts
    149

    Default

    I'm not surprised. That's the way the CFC has been operating for years now. Contrast that with the 1975 Business Manager contract, whose main clauses were approved by the governors before the position was tendered, and then the selection committee recommendation was voted on by the Governors.

    Chris Mallon wrote that the CFC is a business, but I disagree. The CFC is a non-profit, charitable, national sports governing body. The CFC may in some aspects run like a business, but how helpful is that? Most governors aren't business people. And even if they were ... most businesses fail. Calling the CFC a business just puts an extra unhelpful level of abstraction in the way. Sure, some business concepts such as "customer satisfaction" are vital to the well-being of the CFC, but it is not a business.

    So, how much should the Governors know? How far do you trust the Executive, and its judgment? Yes, I do remember 2007-2008. And 2006-2007. And ... Trusting them went hand in hand with the CFC arriving at its present state.

    When matters are hidden, it's always going to be an "us and them" situation. When there is disclosure, every member (if there is to be membership in the new dispensation) and every "special member" (Governor) can look at the organization and say "there is my CFC." Identification with the brand is a business marketing concept that might profit the CFC.

    There's some discussion of Freedom of Information issues in the book:
    Behind the Headlines: A History of Investigative Journalism in Canada (Oxford)
    by Cecil Rosner, chess player and FIDE International Organizer. I recommend the book! He also did a TV series aptly named "Disclosure". You might have seen it on CBC.

    Yes, John, that was one of the reasons, ... thanks for remembering!

  5. #5

    Default Executive Secrecy - the CFC Retail Business Deal

    from ChessTalk ( edited ):

    Motion 2009-03
    Be it resolved that the President be authorized to enter into negotiations towards winding up the books and equipment business. (Moved: Chris Mallon / Seconded: Stijn De Kerpel)

    The motion was meant to say ( as pointed out by Peter McKillop ) " ...enter into AND CONCLUDE negotiations...." Note that this is the only one of the 4 restructuring motions that did NOT require Executive approval. This was obviously deliberately done by the governors so that David could seal a deal immediately if he got a good one.

    But giving the President power to negotiate and conclude a deal, does not mean the Governors do not have to be told what the deal is once it is concluded. This deal was not subject to the scrutiny of the Executive before concluded, and needs to be made public so it can be judged, whether it is or is not a GOOD deal ( regardless of whether it is now a " fait accomplis " [ hope my French is OK ] ).

    The only reason I can see why it might not be disclosed was if that was a term of the agreement. But then the issue is whether THAT should have been agreed to, given that the Governors run the CFC.

    Bob

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    509

    Default if the deal is done...

    If indeed the deal has been properly executed, the details would likely be irrelevant don't you think? I do not think the Governors can necessarily rescind the deal... I did not see any talk of "subject to the approval of the Governors".

    As I said elsewhere: I would like to know the details too, but I have to presume that Lavin is not releasing them to the Governors (and the Exec??) because there inevitably would be a leak to the public and that information is considered confidential by FEN.

    Lets move on people... nothing to see here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nanaimo, BC
    Posts
    149

    Default

    I'm confused. The motion was meant to say something quite different from what it said? And even the corrected motion doesn't talk about an agreement with a new business partner, just winding up the current business. Or was that a separate motion?

    On the surface, it looks like only one Governor read the motion and voted.

  8. #8

    Default Mr. Armstrong, stop misrepresenting what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
    The motion was meant to say ( as pointed out by Peter McKillop ) " ...enter into AND CONCLUDE negotiations...." Bob
    Horse feathers! I never "pointed out" any such thing. Stop putting your words in my mouth.


  9. #9

    Default

    Hi Peter :

    Sorry about that - you corrected me on ChessTalk on this - I should have come over here and edited my post to make it correct. Mea Culpa.

    Bob

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •