CFC Constitutional Coalition - Stonewalled

[Bob Armstrong]

The CFC Constitutional Coalition, which filed three motions on governor reduction with the CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver, prior to GL # 6, is being stonewalled by the CFC Secretary and the CFC President !!

I today wrote, as Coalition Coordinator, to all members of the Coalition as follows:

Hi to All Members of the CFC Constitutional Coalition:

As you may know, our motion # 1 on governor reduction ( reducing the provincial representative governors by half ) was published in the Governors’ Letter # 6, as Motion 2009-14. It has also been put onto the CFC AGM agenda for July 13 in Edmonton.

However, our motion # 2, dealing with cutting the number of former president governors at large by 50%, which was in the same document as Motion # 1, sent to the CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver, was not put into the GL # 6. No reason has been given for this – my expectation is that it was an innocent error of the Secretary ( it somehow got lost in all the material for the GL # 6 – I hope this is the explanation ). I have written to Lyle, with a copy to CFC President David Lavin, to ask that the situation be corrected, that the motion be circulated somehow to the governors, and that it also be added to the AGM agenda. I have had no reply from either the Secretary nor the President.

We also filed a motion # 3, which kept the 5 former CFC Presidents being cut out, on as “ non-voting “ governors at large. It also did not make it into GL # 6. I asked for the same correction for this motion as I did for motion # 2. I also have had no reply on the error on this motion.

It seems that some public pressure on the CFC Secretary and the CFC President is required to get them to respond, and take corrective action. I am asking all Coalition members to consider taking some action to further our cause and get these 2 lost motions to the imminent CFC AGM. These are some of the options:

1. e-mail CFC Secretary Lyle Craver ( lcraver@chess.ca ), with a copy to CFC President, David Lavin ( davidfl321@yahoo.ca ), and a copy to me ( bobarm@sympatico.ca ), saying something like: “ CFC Constitutional Coalition Motions # 2 & # 3 did not appear in GL # 6 ( our Motion # 1 did get in as Motion 2009-14 ). Please circulate our Motions # 2 & # 3 to the governors immediately, and put them onto the CFC AGM agenda, with our Motion 2009-14, to which they are directly related. Thank you. “

2. Make a post on the CFC Chess Forum ( www.chesscanada.info/forum ) and/or ChessTalk ( www.chesstalk.info/forum ) stating that you expect the President to direct the Secretary to immediately circulate the 2 missing motions and then put them onto the CFC AGM agenda.

3. Contact your local CFC Governors and ask them to lobby the Secretary to take the steps we are asking for.

Any help you can give in this regard would be appreciated. Maybe if enough members do at least one of these steps, there will be enough public pressure that the Secretary and President will respond.

Thanks.

Bob

We are now asking all CFC members who support our governor reduction initiative, to assist us by yourselves taking one or more of the action steps we have outlined above.

Thanks for any assistance you can give.

Bob

[John Coleman]

I dunno, Bob, Lyle isn't even recognising you as a governor! The whole CFC management situation would be funny, if it wasn't so sad.

[Christopher Mallon]

I don't think it's anything personal, at least two other motions were missed also.

[Ken Craft]

So why the silence, Chris?

[Bob Gillanders]

I find it usually beneficial to copy all CFC executive members. So I have sent the following email this morning.


Hi Lyle,

I hope all is well with you. Can you please circulate the 2 missing grassroots movements to the governors prior to the Edmonton AGM. This is an urgent matter.

Bob Armstrong has explained all below, and the need that all 3 motions hit the floor simultaneously.

Thanks,

Bob Gillanders

cc. Stijn, Hal, Ellen, Michael, Chris, David

[Christopher Mallon]

So why the silence, Chris?

I'm not the secretary... and one of the motions is my own.

[Bob Gillanders]

I'm not the secretary... and one of the motions is my own.

Chris,

Are you going to help get all the motions missed on GL6 (yours and the two from the grassroots coalition) circulated to the governors before the AGM ?

Or,

Are you telling us it's hopeless because even the CFC treasurer can't get his own motion circulated ?

[Bob Gillanders]

Any response yet Bob from the Executive ?

Just image if the motion #1 to reduce provincial governors gets passed, but motion #2 to reduce life governors never gets voted on !!

The end result would be to reduce elected governors, but not the non elected governors, thus increasing the power of the non elected governors.

Maybe that's the hidden agenda ?

[Kerry Liles]

Any response yet Bob from the Executive ?

Just image if the motion #1 to reduce provincial governors gets passed, but motion #2 to reduce life governors never gets voted on !!

The end result would be to reduce elected governors, but not the non elected governors, thus increasing the power of the non elected governors.

Maybe that's the hidden agenda ?

I think you give the Executive far too much credit if you think they actually have an agenda...

[Christopher Mallon]

Personally I'd rather see motion #2 pass than motion #1

[Ken Craft]

Have the executive discussed the missing motions, Chris?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

No response from the executive. I understand Lyle is aware of the error, and is discussing the remedy with David. But I know nothing after that.

Apparently there was some confusion about the existence of motion # 2 before the GL # 6, and Governor Patrick McDonald, the mover, tried to clear it up for Lyle - but obviously without success.

I have seen nothing however on what happened to Motion # 3 ( which I moved ).

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

If the Executive is unable to move in time to correct the situation, the movers of the motions could just take the matter into their own hands. Last year, motions were introduced at the AGM without prior publication, and they were voted upon, in spite of objections of no advance warning.

I would email all the governors directly the missing motions and advice them that you will put them forward for a vote at AGM.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Hi Bob:

No response from the executive. I understand Lyle is aware of the error, and is discussing the remedy with David. But I know nothing after that

Bob A., have you tried to contact by phone? Looking through dates, I think you even could speak and discuss directly with David after your games with him at PwC :D

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

David Lavin has now communicated to me that Motion # 2, and it appears Motion # 3, will be going into 2010 GL # 1, coming out AFTER the AGM. No one has taken responsibility for our CFC Constitutional Coalition Motion # 3 not making into GL # 6 ( I assume they are sitting on the argument that it was my problem that the motion was submitted after the stated deadline for GL # 6, despite the fact that it was in fact still filed well before the GL # 6 got published - lots of time for Lyle to put it in if he'd wanted to , or been instructed to by David ).

I will consider unilateral action as you have suggested.

But there is some organizing to do on this, the outcome is murky at best, and it is not easy:

1. First of all I have to assemble from the CFC Website an outgoing governors' e-mail group for myself - a bit tedious, but doable.

2. But Governor Patrick McDonald is the mover of missing Motion # 2. He is not attending the AGM. He has given his proxy to Hal Bond. Hal is running for FIDE Rep in the new administration ( or old ). I would have to get Patrick to instruct Hal to " move " Patrick's filed motion under " New Business " when that agenda item comes up.

3. Also, Governor Paul Leblanc is the seconder of Motion # 2, and I am not sure who his proxy will be held by, but I think it is David. David is not going to agree as seconder to second the rogue motion, without Paul so instructing him. And Patrick, as far as I know, cannot unilaterally dismiss the seconder of his motion, formally filed, and substitute a new seconder.

4. Should I ever get the motion on the floor, then David will rule it out of order.

5. Then I must move a motion that the Governors overturn the " out of order " ruling by the chair. The rule is, as I understand it, that new motions introduced at the AGM cannot be voted on at the AGM, but must go to GL # 1 ( this is one of the reasons why the original CFC fees motion at the 2008 AGM got rescinded; I heard numerous governors supporting the rule that new AGM motions should not be voted on at the AGM ). So what are my chances of getting the governors to overrule David's " out of order " ruling? Slim I think. And Governors are not that willing to challenge chair rulings - look what happened to all seven Grassroots' Campaign CFC restructuring motions at the 2008 Outgoing Governors' AGM - they all got ruled out of order, and there was not a peep from the governors even raising an objection to the ruling.

Under the circumstances, I simply do not see the use in going through all the work for what will be a useless exercise. I think I am reluctantly going to have to admit I lost this " battle " to bureaucracy and red tape and incompetence and executive intransigence.

But I yet hope to win the " war ". I hope to get our Coalition Motion # 1 passed, though it is looking difficult. And the Coalition will pursue in 2009-10 our " lost " motions # 2 & # 3.

As well in 2009-10, the Coalition will be looking seriously at also bringing an " activity rule " for governors, whereby they will be defrocked if they fail to meet a certain standard of participation ( we'll still have to discuss what that might be, but suggestions have been made that if three GL's with motions go by without a governor comment/vote, then that govenor will be terminated - maybe the province will get to replace them; maybe not ).

This may be the best that can be done - not great; it sucks; but we are going to continue to pursue our goals as the CFC Constitutional Coalition.

Bob

[David Lavin]

Bob:

I find your most recent post very puzzling.

This morning I emailed Lyle and cc'd you. In my email I made it clear that even though the mistake was Lyle's, it is still inappropriate to vote on such an important motion with only two weeks of potential discussion. That is why I suggest it needs to be voted on by the incoming Governors.

At no point did I suggest I would rule it out of order and there is no basis for your assumption.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi David:

Since you had taken the position that it required incoming govenor discussion, and that it should go to 2010 GL 1, I think it is not a stretch to have guessed you would rule an attempt to bring the motion on anyway at the AGM " out of order ". But it was still a guess. If you say I'm wrong, I'll accept that. In fact I'm delighted to hear that.

Does that mean that if Patrick ( Motion # 2 ) and I ( Motion # 3 ) both want our motions ciruclated immediately and put onto the outgoing governors AGM, you will direct Lyle to do this?

Patrick and I do want this and have asked for it since we filed our motions. The Coalition feels that all three motions should be dealt with at the same time, and has wanted all three on the AGM agenda since the start. We feel the outgoing governors are aware ( at least many of them ) already, about the motions, due to Coalition postings on them over the last while on both the members' and governors' boards. So a last minute circulation of the motions today to the governors would not be a problem.

What do you say?

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Bob,

Tell us, that you've approched all the past presidents and you've asked them to resign as the life-governors, and they all refused.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

I can advise that I approached 2 life governor past presidents ( who are both friends of mine ) to support Motion # 2 eliminating life governors, and they both advised they were dead set against the motion - a surprise?

Bob

[Ken Craft]

Bob, I just sent you a PM.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

Thanks for alerting me - I always forget to look there.

I've answered you.

Bob

[Ken Craft]

I have replied.