Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57

Thread: 8. POLICY DISCUSSION - Canada Revenue Agency NFP (Not For Profit Regulations)

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The relationship between the CFC and affiliates definitely needs to be codified but I don't want the continuation of the CFC to hinge on each and every affiliate having their own ducks in a row. I don't think that even the names of the affiliates should be in the document that goes to the government because when a group drops out as happened in Saskatchewan or if one of the affiliates changed their name we would have to send $200 to amend the list. We need to keep it as simple as is possible. I still have to do some reading and comprehension work to be sure of the requirements and how best to present them to ensure acceptance.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    If they do need to know that... the OCA is a Not-for-profit corporation, incorporated provincially in Ontario.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    OK Vlad, I see your point. Nevertheless I think we need to have this info on hand in case we're asked and would not be at all surprised if we were.

    I would expect this info would fit on a single 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper.

    I definitely would prefer to use Ottawa's terminology wherever possible and would prefer "Voting Member" and "Regular Member" over "Class A" and "Class B" which is liable to create confusion or paranoia among the membership. We certainly don't want to give the Feds any reason to reject our Application for Continuance over labels.
    Last edited by Lyle Craver; 01-11-2014 at 08:55 PM.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    We need to keep it as simple as is possible. I still have to do some reading and comprehension work to be sure of the requirements and how best to present them to ensure acceptance.
    I don't want anyone to take any offense to what I'm about to say (type), but if even our President who has been the strongest pusher on this file still does not fully understand what we need to do to comply, how can the governors be expected to make informed decisions on this topic?

    Should we perhaps at least investigate the cost of legal advice from a firm that specializes in these situations?
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I don't want anyone to take any offense to what I'm about to say (type), but if even our President who has been the strongest pusher on this file still does not fully understand what we need to do to comply, how can the governors be expected to make informed decisions on this topic?

    Should we perhaps at least investigate the cost of legal advice from a firm that specializes in these situations?
    Any confusion on my part is the result of occasionally contradictory advice within the government publications. At one point the website says we are not required to submit bylaws with the initial application, and that they can be submitted within one year of their being passed by a special resolution, elsewhere it indicates that we are required to submit a bylaw. I still have to talk to the CRA with regard to the faint hope of becoming a charity again. There are a couple of clauses that the CRA suggests that soliciting corporations include in their submission. They don't seem to negatively impact a non charitable CFC.

    We will be seeking legal advice but my experience is that you have to be very well prepared yourself in order to be in a position to use legal advice. There are many things that WE have to do in order to get to the point where we can profit from that advice. First off we need to have a consensus from the governors on what they want and what can be passed consistent with the requirements of the act. The lawyers should help us clean up the last 1% of the process and not guide us through the first 99% unless we are comfortable with a legal bill in the five figure range.

    The last NFP committee had Gordon Ritchie (who helped negotiate NAFTA) and Les Bunning who has acted as the pro bono lawyer for the CFC for decades. The governors rejected their recommendations in part due to the lack of an educational process like the one that we are undertaking here. Les has been quite helpful in responding to and answering questions that have come up.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    My inclination is to continue this meeting for a few more days, continuing with our discussion of the NFP act. At the end of the meeting I hope to have a good idea of what we want to proceed with and the remaining concerns. I think we should have a special meeting of the governors in a month to six weeks after this meeting ends which will deal with the NFP Act and nothing else at which point the governors will be asked to vote on specific and more detailed articles and bylaws. The aim of the special meeting will be to complete the governor's portion of the process. If we get hung up on any details the final approval will be pushed to the April meeting. We will need two thirds approval of the governors at that February meeting in order to proceed and get the CFC compliant with the new act.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Your proposal sounds good to me.

    From an administrative point of view we need to notify the Governors of this (both the continuance and the special meeting) ASAP.

    I propose that at this point you close all but this thread and 9 (New Business) and have a draft of your closing comments prepared for posting.

    The agenda for a February meeting should be easy - one agenda item with one or more items to vote.

    A mass mailing to Governors can be done anytime in the next two weeks but the sooner the better as we need as strong a voting turnout as possible - it's bad governance to do a major constitution set of motions on a minimum quorum and if this topic can't get our biggest voter turnout since the advent of the online meeting there is something wrong.

    But no question I think we've made considerable progress in the last week.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    Your proposal sounds good to me.

    From an administrative point of view we need to notify the Governors of this (both the continuance and the special meeting) ASAP.

    I propose that at this point you close all but this thread and 9 (New Business) and have a draft of your closing comments prepared for posting.

    The agenda for a February meeting should be easy - one agenda item with one or more items to vote.

    A mass mailing to Governors can be done anytime in the next two weeks but the sooner the better as we need as strong a voting turnout as possible - it's bad governance to do a major constitution set of motions on a minimum quorum and if this topic can't get our biggest voter turnout since the advent of the online meeting there is something wrong.

    But no question I think we've made considerable progress in the last week.
    I'd just like to congratulate Vlad on his shepherding of this complicated file for us governors - you seem to have a good grasp on it, and I think the governors have a high trust in you, and the committee on this.

    Thanks.

    Bob A

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    My inclination is to continue this meeting for a few more days, continuing with our discussion of the NFP act. At the end of the meeting I hope to have a good idea of what we want to proceed with and the remaining concerns. I think we should have a special meeting of the governors in a month to six weeks after this meeting ends which will deal with the NFP Act and nothing else at which point the governors will be asked to vote on specific and more detailed articles and bylaws. The aim of the special meeting will be to complete the governor's portion of the process. If we get hung up on any details the final approval will be pushed to the April meeting. We will need two thirds approval of the governors at that February meeting in order to proceed and get the CFC compliant with the new act.
    How many governors do we have?
    I note that 24 voted on the two motions presented at the January meeting, of which one passed and one failed.
    Is this a quorum?
    How can we be sure that sufficient governors will participate in a special meeting?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    Your proposal sounds good to me.

    From an administrative point of view we need to notify the Governors of this (both the continuance and the special meeting) ASAP.

    I propose that at this point you close all but this thread and 9 (New Business) and have a draft of your closing comments prepared for posting.
    At the moment I don't have the forum permissions to close threads so I will ask you to do so on my behalf.

    The agenda for a February meeting should be easy - one agenda item with one or more items to vote.

    A mass mailing to Governors can be done anytime in the next two weeks but the sooner the better as we need as strong a voting turnout as possible - it's bad governance to do a major constitution set of motions on a minimum quorum and if this topic can't get our biggest voter turnout since the advent of the online meeting there is something wrong.

    But no question I think we've made considerable progress in the last week.
    Yes, I am very happy with where we are at the moment relative to where we were before the meeting.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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