PDA

View Full Version : Proposed Motions 2012- L & M - CFC Member Rights



Bob Armstrong
10-24-2011, 02:27 AM
Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

Position Paper # 5
( Revision # 1 – 11/10/19 )

CFC Level – CFC Member Rights/Motions

The Cooperative Chess Coalition

The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) was formed in February 2011 and is composed of 14 members ( CFC members and past CFC members ), who endorse the position papers put out by the CCC. There are also 8 “ supporters “, who are persons who strongly support the goals of the CCC, but who for various reasons do not intend to take out full membership – they are not asked to endorse CCC position papers, but are invited to support them generally. CCC holds the following:

Our Motto – “ Competition OverTB; Cooperation OffTB “
Our Goal - :” a kinder, gentler Canadian Chess Culture “

Want introductory CCC material - cooperativechesscoalition@gmail.com . Consider joining !

Bob, CCC Coordinator
CCC Facebook Group Page: http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/cooperativechesscoalition/

Background - CCC Motions

CCC brings motions to the CFC Governors at their quarterly meetings, where we feel changes in legislation will enhance CFC member rights. We successfully brought motion 2011-K, as amended, to the 2011 CFC AGM to delete from the CFC Handbook a piece of legislation we considered member-unfriendly ( called “ Limitation of Rights “ ). Now we wish to bring motions to replace that deleted section. We invite your comments on these motions:

Motion 2012 – L – CFC Member Rights

Revision # 1 - 11/9/28

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim

( motion brought on behalf of the Cooperative Chess Coalition, a grassroots’ group of CFC members concerned with chess membership development and improving the operation of the CFC, and other chess organizations )

Moved – There shall be added to the CFC Handbook, Section 2, Bylaw # 1, as Para.14, the following:

MEMBER RIGHTS

14. ( 1 ) Any individual Member shall have a right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership, or any situation where any individual member is aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, by approaching a CFC governor for assistance in presenting his submission, motion, etc. to the CFC AGM, Quarterly Meeting, or otherwise. No governor is obliged to agree to act on behalf of such member.

( 2 ) Any such complaints, suggestions, etc. of any individual Member shall be dealt with by the Federation Secretary replying in writing to any governor acting on behalf of such member, with copy to such individual Member.

( 3 ) As set out elsewhere in the Handbook, CFC members have the right as there set out, to elect their CFC governors.

Commentary:

The prior section 14 on membership limitations was considered antiquated, anti-member, and no longer relevant as between the CFC and the Provincial Affiliates. It used to read:

CFC Bylaw # 1

LIMITATION OF RIGHTS

14. No individual Member shall have any right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership. Should any individual member be aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, his remedy shall be to bring the matter before his provincial organization, and if there be no Provincial Organization in the Province in which he resides, he may bring the matter to the attention of a Governor representing such Province. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, if he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law.

It was deleted at the July, 2011 AGM, the motion having been initiated by the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ).

In place of a limitation of member rights, we are now substituting a positive statement of member rights. We do have a governor system, and they run the affairs of the CFC. But they are elected by and accountable to the CFC members. As such, the governors must make all reasonable efforts to assist members in their actions to influence the affairs of the CFC or to present grievances. This section merely puts into regulation, where it is protected, the existing practice in the CFC, of governors and executive informally assisting members with their issues brought to the governors. This may involve presenting briefs and submissions to governor meetings on behalf of members, or moving and seconding motions submitted by CFC members. However, governors are free to decide whether or not, in any individual instance, they will assist, and, if so, to what extent. This protects the CFC from frivolous member submissions. As well, they need not necessarily agree to the position of the member, in order to assist them to present their case.

Secondly, we also feel that a formal reply to members is important to confirm their issue has been formally dealt with by someone. Whomever has the authority to deal with the issue may correspond with the relevant governor, and member on an interim basis. But a formal reply should come directly from the Secretary to the governor involved, copy to the member. The person making the final decision shall confirm to the Secretary when the matter is finally dealt with and provide text for any final letter. This should not be that onerous on the Secretary, since there have been few member petitions over the years.

Lastly, in order to bring member rights into one section, the section also refers to the right to elect CFC governors, set out elsewhere in the Handbook.

Motion 2012 – M – CFC Member Motions

11/9/29

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim

( motion brought on behalf of the Cooperative Chess Coalition, a grassroots’ group of CFC members concerned with chess membership development and improving the operation of the CFC, and other chess organizations )

Moved – There shall be added to the CFC Handbook, Section 2, Bylaw # 1, as Para.14a, the following:

MEMBER RIGHTS

14a. Any individual member may bring a motion directly to the CFC governors, without governor assistance being required, if he has a member seconder, and endorsement of members totaling 5% of the total Adult and Life members. The total shall be based on the membership statistics issued May 1 by the CFC Secretary. Endorsing members must be 18 years of age or over, and there must be proof provided directly from the endorser to the CFC Secretary of each member’s endorsement of the motion.

Commentary:

Although working through governors is the preferred method of CFC member participation in the affairs of the CFC, the CFC members should have an absolute right to approach the CFC with a motion of their own accord, without having to plead for governor assistance, which may not be forthcoming, even if such situation indicates such motion may well be unsuccessful. So we have allowed a motion by a member, with a member seconder. The limitation is that the member bringing the motion must find some support among the membership, to the extent of 5 % of the total of the adult and life members. This is not felt to be onerous, and at the same time protects the CFC from a flood of frivolous member motions, which could grind CFC business to a halt. There will have to be direct proof to the CFC Secretary from each endorser of their support for the motion, to prevent fraudulent motions. This is modeled on shareholder rights in corporations.

This is a new significant member right, and allows members direct intervention, and the forcing of a governor vote on their concern, even where governors may initially be disposed against the motion. Governors will deal with issues of concern to a significant minority of CFC members, who consider their issue vital to the operation of the CFC.

Comments on these motions are welcome, before we file these motions.

Bob Armstrong, CCC Coordinator

Christopher Mallon
10-24-2011, 09:17 AM
#1: Have you spoken with Lyle Craver about this? I'm not sure anyone will want to be Secretary anymore, as certain individuals would definitely take advantage of this system.

#2: Seriously, again? If you can't find two governors who support your motion enough to move and second it, then it has no chance no matter how many names you might get on a petition. And again, more work for the Secretary. 5% of the membership would mean that the Secretary would receive between 50 and 100 emails and possibly more or less, and have to actually count them all etc.


I think your proposals need a LOT of work still - or ripping up, in the case of #2.

Bob Armstrong
10-24-2011, 09:58 AM
#1: Have you spoken with Lyle Craver about this? I'm not sure anyone will want to be Secretary anymore, as certain individuals would definitely take advantage of this system.

#2: Seriously, again? If you can't find two governors who support your motion enough to move and second it, then it has no chance no matter how many names you might get on a petition. And again, more work for the Secretary. 5% of the membership would mean that the Secretary would receive between 50 and 100 emails and possibly more or less, and have to actually count them all etc.


I think your proposals need a LOT of work still - or ripping up, in the case of #2.

Hi Chris:

1. Use of presentations to Governors - will be low I would think, unless issues are legitimate. If they are frivilous presentations, no governor will agree to present them. So the use will be low, and legitimate. The secretary will not be unduly taxed to write a " form " letter response in a few cases ( the actual dealing with the issue will be done by the CFC officer/governor who is directly responsible - the Secretary just confirms the matter is dealt with ).

2. Use of Members' Motion - will be next to nil, in my expectation. Though a 5% member requirement seems legitimate and reasonable ( to protect CFC from an influx of frivolous motions ), it is still somewhat onerous, and few will want to do it unless very highly motivated, and strongly believe in their cause. If members feel strongly, they should be able to force governors to debate it, even if all governors are opposed ( the governors don't have a lock on truth or future predicting ). And if members feel that strongly, the Secretary will be able to handle the very infrequent times it arises.

Bob, CCC Coordinator

Christopher Mallon
10-24-2011, 10:13 AM
So the answer is no, you didn't talk to the Secretary about it. Okay, thanks.

Bob Armstrong
10-24-2011, 10:30 AM
I didn't talk to Lyle, because Lyle had already posted in response to an earlier version that he didn't want any more workload.

I think some things are necessary, and we'll have to find a way as CFC to deal.

Bob A

Ken Craft
10-24-2011, 12:15 PM
I can't support either motion as it currently stands. L is too vague in my opinion. I can't see any circumstances under which I would support M. We have a former of representative democracy which I think works fairly well at most times. I don't think we need to move to the proposed form of direct democracy. Lastly, both suggestions will add extra work to the job of secretary. I can't support this given the extra work incurred by the Secretary position under the new quarterly meeting format.

Bob Armstrong
10-24-2011, 12:33 PM
Hi Ken:

I only note that the Secretary's load would be lightened if we eliminated the unnecessary-now GL's.

The last GL # 1 contained:

1. Executive Reports - not needed. Can be posted in the Quarterly/AGM meetings, and if they desire the whole report to be published, then it can be put complete in the minutes, which then do get posted on the CFC website.

2. Minutes of the 2011 AGM - can be posted separately on the Website under a heading " Meeting Minutes, etc. ", which would replace " Governors' Letters ".

3. Motions - none - they are no longer being processed in the GL's, but in the quarterly meetings, where debate is in real time. And they are being adequately dealt with in advance by the discussion board postings.

4. Quarterly Financials - these have been separately posted, and do not have to be in a GL.

So I suggest that the CFC Secretary load be lightened by eliminating the GL's , and then the Secretary will be able to handle the quarterly meetings and the few e-mails entailed in these two motions.

Please respond to the straw vote poll I have commenced under a separate thread, since it appears you cannot institute a poll in a " reply " post. Thx.

Bob A

Christopher Mallon
10-25-2011, 03:10 PM
I move to replace every occurrence of "CFC Governor", "CFC Secretary", "Federation Secretary" and any other similar wording with "Bob Armstrong"

Reasoning: If you feel so strongly about this, you should be volunteering to do all the work.

Bob Armstrong
10-25-2011, 03:33 PM
My wife says I'm already doing too much!

Bob Armstrong
10-27-2011, 02:24 AM
.... L is too vague in my opinion. I can't see any circumstances under which I would support M. We have a former of representative democracy which I think works fairly well at most times. I don't think we need to move to the proposed form of direct democracy....

Hi Ken:

Motion 2012-L - I don't feel this motion is vague. Actually it is merely a codification of what is already the practice. Members' currently seek and usually get governor assistance with any of their problems. But no governor is obliged to assist either now in practice nor uner this new section. The reason it is needed in law is nicely stated by Peter McKillop on the CMA ChessTalk, when the question was asked: " What wrong is the motion trying to right?" :

" you could argue that it's correcting a wrong waiting to happen. Even if it has never been abused by the CFC, there shouldn't be a constitutional limitation that prevents members from attempting to have legitimate grievances addressed. "

As I said there, our Handbook has now a fundamental weakness because it enshrines nowhere in law, the rights of the members to access the Assembly.

Motion 2012-M - If a member cannot get governor assistance, then it seems to me there must be some avenue for a member to present their case. The one proposed strikes a balance between protecting CFC from frivolous motions, and giving members right of access, but under stringent conditions.

Bob

Vladimir Drkulec
10-27-2011, 11:26 PM
Add a $100 filing fee which is totally refundable if the motion passes and that would probably reduce the frivolous stuff to a minimum.

Bob Armstrong
11-03-2011, 09:05 AM
Hi Vlad:

This is a valid idea if necessary. I propose we see how the section is used, if the motion passes, and if there is abuse, then we implement your idea.

Bob A

Bob Armstrong
11-08-2011, 12:30 AM
PEI CFC Governor, and CFC Treasurer, Fred McKim, also a Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) " supporter ", and I, have now posted these 2 motions for public input on both the confidential Governors' Discussion Board, and here. Only 2 governors have expressed opposition. The CCC will therefore now go ahead and file the motions with CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver, for the 2012 Governors' On-line Winter Meeting ( early January ).

Thx to those who responded.

Bob ( GTCL CFC Governor & CCC Coordinator ) & Fred

Lyle Craver
11-23-2011, 02:16 AM
I wasn't going to respond to this until Chris mentioned me specifically BUT...

(1) I feel strongly that political parties within the CFC are a detriment and positively noxious towards getting the work of the CFC done as they purport to be more than the opinion of one or two individuals. Thus I see no place in the discussions of the CFC for 'coalitions' of unnamed individuals. If these folks wish to support Bob's views let them speak forcefully in their own behalf. Preambles of the sort we've seen repeatedly copied and pasted into motion proposals do not help the cause one iota.

(2) One presumes there is some as yet undisclosed method of verifying the motions for a 'petition from the floor'. Personally I would think that where a provincial authority exists a member should go that route. I think Bob's bar is too high but at the same time am not satisfied at all that a credible 'signature verification' mechanism is in place - thus while not opposed to the idea, without such a mechanism I don't think this resolution is ready for a motion

(3) I would be completely opposed to such a mechanism being used to determine bids for national events.

(4) I agree with Chris that in its present form this proposal puts an unreasonable burden on the national secretary.

Bob Armstrong
11-23-2011, 03:04 AM
Hi Lyle:

The members and supporters of the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) are not nameless, and are happy to make themselves known:

“ Members ” ( 14 )

Bob Armstrong
Ken Kurkowski
Pino Verde
Erwin Casareno
David Broughton
Jerry Kitich
Greg Beal
Josh Guo
Hassan Pishdad
Michael Perez
Haqi al Ganabi
Sam Sharpe
Anna Jin
Will Rutherdale

“ Supporters “ ( interested; will give feedback; have decided not to formally join at this time ) ( 9 )

Steve Karpik
Alex Ferreira
Fred McKim
Michael Beatty
Chris Field
Tony Ficzere
Victor Itkin
Hazel Smith
Vlad Drkulec

There are some governors among our members/supporters.

CCC is not a " political party ". It does not run candidates for any CFC positions. It is a moderate reform group. It takes positions democratically, and has a regular newsletter. Members feel their positions have more weight when supported by a number of members/past members of CFC, even if the group is small. Supporters, though not formally endorsing positions, are generally supportive.

We invite the public to review our position papers, and welcome new members/supporters ( cooperativechesscoalition@gmail.com ). We have a Facebook page where we make chess posts of general interest.

Bob Armstrong, CCC Coordinator