Is David Taking the CFC Presidential?

[Bob Armstrong]

Is David Taking CFC “ Presidential??

Right now it is clear in my view that the Governors run the CFC. The Executive run the organization as to day to day matters for the Governors. Also, in an emergency, when there is no time to consult with the Governors on a significant issue, the Executive can make an “ emergency “ decision, and then must ASAP bring it to the Governors for ratification.
The current role of the President in this power structure is according to the Handbook:

DUTIES OF OFFICERS

PRESIDENT

4. The President shall be the chief executive Officer of the Federation. He shall preside at all meetings of the Assembly of Governors, or of the Board of Directors, when he is personally present. He shall exercise constant active and general supervision of the Officers of the Federation, and the conduct of its affairs, with the exception of:
(a) Those matters which are reserved to the Assembly of Governors or the Board of Directors.
(b) Those matters which have already been delegated to Committees appointed by the Assembly of Governors.
The President shall have full power to take such action in the name of the Federation, as he may in his sole discretion decide.
In matters where an immediate decision is not necessary, the president shall confer with the other Officers of the Federation, but as a matter of general policy only, and not so as to limit in any way his authority. In any matter covered by his general authority and not coming within the duties specifically allotted to any other Officer or Officers, the decision of the President shall override that of any other Officer.
The President shall exercise constant and active supervision over the chief employee of the Chess Federation of Canada (commonly known as the Executive Director).

The Lavin Motion 2009-15 in GL # 6, redefining the roles of the officers, eliminating some, and adding others ( some of the changes seem fine ), changes the President’s role as follows:

President

The President has the full power to make any and all decisions on any matter that is not explicitly the responsibility of the Assembly of Governors and/or The Board of Directors (aka – The Executive). In matters where an immediate decision is not required the President will confer with other members of The Board of Directors. The President must present a budget for the new fiscal year to The Assembly of Governors at least 30 days prior to the start of the new fiscal year. This budget must indicate a surplus for to upcoming fiscal year.
The President will make best efforts to ensure that the annual budget is adhered to by the Executive Director.

What is the significance of these changes to the President’s role that David is seeking?

The problem is that it shifts major power to the president, from the Assembly of Governors.

Right now, unless it is an emergency, ALL major decisions, not just those explicitly reserved to the Governors, must be referred to the Governors to decide – they run the ship, and they should decide all major issues.

Under David’s amendment, all major decisions not EXPLICITLY reserved to the Governors, will be decided by the President where an immediate decision is required – this seems to me to be the same as the current situation. But where an immediate decision is not required, “ the President will confer with the Executive “. In other words, the issue need NOT go to the Governors, even if significant, if the Governors cannot get it under “ matters explicitly the responsibility of the Assembly of Governors “. Such issues will go to the Executive, though it is not exactly clear what happens here. What does “ confer with the Executive “ mean ? The President seeks the advice of the Executive, and then decides on his own? Or does majority vote rule in the Executive? And there is nothing saying that matters requiring an immediate decision must be brought ASAP to the Governors for retroactive ratification.

I am against this shift of power to the president and/or the Executive. I suggest Motion 2009-15 needs some amendments before being acceptable.

Bob

[John Coleman]

If I recall correctly, Jonathan Berry quit as governor several years ago because of the shift in power away from the governors towards the executive.

If my memory is correct, this shift in decision-making is not new. It probably follows as a natural consequence of most governors being inactive, not to say, comatose.

[Ken Craft]

inactive/comatose. If the exec would communicate regularly and permit Governors to govern in a timely manner, you might see different behaviour, John.

[Christopher Mallon]

Tried that in 2005 Ken... it turns out most really ARE inactive/comatose, at least at that time.

Of course there has been a lot of turnover since then...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

If most are inactive/comatose, then let's at least cut down their number by half ( Motion 2009-14 ).

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Bob, the problem with your motion is it does NOT guarantee that it will get rid of the inactive ones!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

You are right - it doesn't guarantee. But it is certain to improve things. It is something, when no one is doing anything to try to correct the situation. It is not the be all and end all. But it is step # 1 to improvement.

Bring your activity rule as well as a motion, and that would be a good step # 2.

With fewer seats, the provinces won't be arm-twisting people to stand as Governor who have no intention of doing anything. Fewer seats might actually lead to elections, with good candidates running !

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

It is wrong how the inactive Governors are used as scapegoats for all our problems. They are not the problem. Wouldn’t it be paradise (or not?) if we had 61 governors actively engaged in the politics of the CFC? Dream on! For an organization of < 2000 members, that is unrealistic. Besides, many governors are already working hard at the local level.

Fortunately, we are blessed with many more than 61 active ambassadors of chess across the country, running chess clubs, organizing tournaments, promoting the game, and teaching. Only a small minority will ever get involved in the politics. Unfortunately, that is just a fact of life for any organization. But to our detriment, so many good people have been alienated over the years by all the silliness.

Good organizations will actively seek out new blood on a continuous basis. Bringing new talents and perspective to our challenges just might be a welcome change from the constant recycling of our political leaders. For instance, every year I get regular emails from CMA (that’s Certified Management Accountants, not Chess N’Math), first asking for nominations for our elected officials, then all the profiles and platforms of the candidates, then advising us on voting procedures. This is a far cry from the CFC experience, but can we begin taking some steps to improve our process?

The 3 motions from the grassroots campaign are important steps towards more effective governance. But the 3 motions compliment each other, so I hope they will all make it to the floor in Edmonton.

Thanks to Bob Armstrong for his persistence.

[Bob Armstrong]

The thread has kind of gone off topic to debating the motion to reduce governors.

But is anyone else concerned about David's increasing the power of the President?? And taking power away from the governors??

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Yes, Bob. I am very concerned.

The new motion would give complete power to the President on all matters "that is not explicitly the responsibility of the governors". This is backwards. All residual power should remain with the Governors.

And who brings this motion forward giving increased powers to the President ? The President. Is this not a conflict of interest ?

Is it being debated on the Governors forum ?

[Ken Craft]

No, it isn't, Bob.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken & Bob:

Generally, I will not post on the Govenors' Discussion Board on non-confidential issues. I believe the governors should debate on this members' CFC Chess Forum. This encourages dialogue between the members and the governors, and it lets the members know the governors are alive.

Having said that, I know some governors do not come here. So I will duplicate my original post on the Governors' Board.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Well, it seems that there is some life in the Governors' Discussion Board - in half a day, there were 24 governors who viewed my post ( not great out of 61, but not rigor mortis ).

Now the bad news - not one of them had a comment - no thoughts on whether David is going in the right or wrong direction.

I guess they're just playing their cards close to their vest - wouldn't want anyone to know how they intend to vote on Motion 2009-15 ( assuming they intend to vote ). Certainly wouldn't want to say they agree with me.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Any comments yet on the Governors Board ?

Any reply yet from Lyle about getting all 3 Grassroots motions on the floor in Edmonton?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

1. Now up to 32 views on the Governors' Discussion Board, of my original post complaining about David taking the CFC " Presidential ". But almost no discussion ( 2 replies - Ken Craft wants the motion defeated, not amended; Egis Zeromskis pointed to insufficient technical amendment content in the motion ). Don't know why the governors won't declare a position on the motion, after viewing my post.

2. CFC Constitutional Coalition 2 lost motions ( only one got into the GL # 6, and thus onto the AGM agenda ) - no reply to our request for corrective action by Lyle - not from Lyle, nor from David who was copied with the request. We will try applying some public pressure to Lyle and David to try to get some action, and get all 3 motions onto the AGM agenda, since all three motions are related to governor reduction.

Bob

[Jason Lohner]

I am dead set against giving the president increased powers/responsibility. What we need is a motion that decreases the rate of destruction that a president can do to the CFC.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Jason:

Nice to see we are on the same side of an issue again - too bad you are only an incoming governor. We could have used your vote to defeat the Motion 2009-15 at the outgoing Governors' AGM where the motion is coming up for vote.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

I this morning have posted the following on the CFC Governors' Discussion Board:

Disappointing - a Non-debate among Governors

36 views of my post, and yet only 1 governor has declared himself in support of my position - well actually he has come out stronger than my original position - he wants the motion defeated, not amended.

A bit disappointing that the viewing governors have almost unanimously declined to publicly take a position on Motion 2009-15, which will be coming before the outgoing governors' AGM.

If we governors do not communicate with each other, here or preferably on the members' CFC Chess Forum, then we will be abdicating to the Executive, and increasing the chances of them getting what they want by our own default.

Bob

[Ken Craft]

Bob normally discussions on the Governors Board by otrhers aren't reported here. That said I'm quite happy to confirm that I do not support the motion.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I respect the right of other governors to decide, for whatever reason, that they prefer to post on the Governors' Discussion Board, rather than the members' CFC Chess Forum. And I will assume they want their post kept confidential - that that is the reason they posted there. So I would not reproduce another governor's post on the CFC members' board.

It is a different matter with my own posts - I will determine on a case by case basis whether they should be kept confidential. My recent post I reproduced is clearly not dealing with any confidential matter.

Also, I have no qualms giving general reports on process - whether there is any debate ( life ) on the governors' board, how many comments there may be, etc.. This has nothing to do with confidentiality.

As I have said before, my preference is that on all non-confidential matters, governors post on the members' CFC Chess Forum. This produces dialogue between members and governors, and makes clear that some governors are alive and kicking and trying to do the job they got elected to do. If more governors would post, the membership would not be so negative and skeptical about the role governors are actually playing in the running of the CFC.

Bob

[Ken Craft]

The meta issue is that you reported the content of 2 Governors posts in the confidential area. I would prefer that the Governors' area was not confidential as well. Maybe another motion?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I apologize - you are right - I did report the content of your post ( with your name, I think ), and the post of another governor ( anonymously I think ). I apologize for that. I had meant not to do that. I'll be more careful in future.

As to the confidentiality of the Governors' Board, I don't have an answer. Some issues may indeed need to be confidential ( though not many I think ). And there will be disputes as to whether particular information is confidential, or should be confidential. Who is to decide if something needs to be confidential? I don't see an answer at the moment except that everything there must be treated as confidential. I certainly wouldn't want the Executive to be the one's who determined whether a thread should be confidential - and who would be willing to take the time to monitor all threads to flag the confidential ones?

I don't see a course of action for myself at the moment, other than the one I proposed in my original thread on this.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I apologize - you are right - I did report the content of your post ( with your name, I think ), and the post of another governor ( anonymously I think ). I apologize for that.

You don't need to think, you can just re-read your own post(s).


( 2 replies - Ken Craft wants the motion defeated, not amended; Egis Zeromskis pointed to insufficient technical amendment content in the motion ).

[Bob Armstrong]

Governor Michael von Keitz is currently in Germany, and he e-mailed me as follows and said I could post his views:

PRESIDENT - Under the suggested amendments, I feel the president will have too much unilateral power.

VICE-PRESIDENT - I feel this is meant to remove the FIDE Representative and have the VP take on all, or most, of his responsibilities. I feel this is completely unnecessary.

SECRETARY - I feel I can support this amendment, as it seems to simply formalize the current responsibilities of the position.

TREASURER - I feel the budget should be prepared in consultation with the Executive Director. Though not a formal member of the Executive, the ED has (or should have) realistic views on the operation and financial needs of the CFC. Perhaps the President should also be included, but not to the exclusion of the ED.

TOURNAMENT COORDINATOR - I am not necessarily opposed to the creation of this position; however, I wonder if these responsibilities might be deferred to the VP. I think formalized training and development of IAs, IOs, etc. would be a definite benefit to the CFC.

JUNIOR COORDINATOR - As with the Secretary, I feel this amendment simply formalizes the role this position currently represents.

EXTERNAL COORDINATOR - The webzine is currently a flop, and I do not feel a position such as this should be instituted, until the webzine is proven to be viable. Promotion of the CFC in Canada might fall as a joint responsibility of the CFC President (or, perhaps, VP) and the FIDE Representative

Nice to have a governor come forward to allow his ideas to be debated !

Bob