CFC Constitutional Coalition - Governor Activity Rule

[Bob Armstrong]

Today the CFC Constitutional Coalition filed with the CFC Secretary a motion to impose a " Governor Activity Rule ". When our motion to reduce the number of provincial representation governors got defeated at the AGM in July, a number of governors said they would support an " activity rule " before they would support reduction. So we have brought the following motion:

Motion # 1 – Governor Activity Rule

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Jason Lohner

( submitted on behalf of the CFC Constitutional Coalition, a grassroots’ group of about 40 ordinary CFC members and a few governors, named below in the Notes )

There shall be added to CFC By-law # 2, a new section 23 as follows:

“ 23. Governor Inactivity Rule

Any governor, no matter whether provincial representative governor, or governor at large, including the Executive, appointees, etc., who does not vote, or make a comment, in two consecutive Governors’ Letters, shall be removed from office, and shall no longer be part of a quorum, and the respective Provincial Association or appointing body shall not be entitled to replace him/her until the next AGM. “

Commentary:

In the 2008-9 year, except for the first four motions of the year ( critical CFC restructuring motions in September 2008 ), all motions subsequently have received less than 50 % vote ( some much less ), including the motions at the outgoing governors July 2009 AGM ( including proxies ). This participation rate by governors is abysmal. If governors do not want to be involved in governing the CFC, then they should not have stood for office, whether provincial representative, or governor at large representative. It makes the membership skeptical about the governance of the CFC by such neglect of participation. It demoralizes those who are active governors, because they are expecting other governors to share the load, and find there are not other hands to pitch in. Lastly if a constitutional amendment to the CFC Handbook is brought outside of an AGM, the motion not only requires a 2/3 majority, but also a quorum of 50% of the eligible votes. With governors voting less than 50%, constitutional motions cannot be passed outside of the AGM – this is intolerable for an organization that is trying to keep itself legally up-to-date.

Some have suggested that the period of grace should be longer – no communication/vote for 3 consecutive GL’s. Others want the governors to vote on at least one motion every GL, or at least make a comment. We have picked the middle ground of 2 GL’s – no appearance for 2 GL’s, and the governor is removed.

Also, there is an issue of whether the Provincial Association/ appointing body should be able to replace a removed governor. We feel this lets the provincial affiliate/appointing body off the hook. They elect/appoint the governors, and they should be taking care that they are good active governors. If they can always replace deadwood governors with other deadwood governors, and never exercise responsible oversight on their governors, what incentive is there for them to ever take the CFC governance seriously? However, if it means they lose a vote for a full balance of the offending governors’ term, maybe next time they will be more careful about whom they elect.

We tried to reduce the number of provincial representation governors ( Motion 2009-14 ) at the July AGM, and it failed to get the 2/3 majority required for a constitutional amendment. One comment from many governors was that an activity requirement rule should precede any action to reduce the number of governors. So we have listened to this criticism and are now bringing this activity motion, as seemed to be desired by many governors.

The CFC needs the help of all governors, and the contribution of all their opinions, to help the CFC run at its best. The first duty of governors is to govern; secondarily, it is expected that the governors will also promote chess in various ways. Governors need to debate with each other in the GL ( and on the Governors’ Discussion Board and the CFC members CFC Chess Forum ) in order to get sound governance decisions. That is why we have such an extensive number of governors. If they do not participate, one wonders why we have them at all. They are just deadwood, names on a website. And they fail to represent the provinces/chess bodies who sent them.

We feel this activity criterion will significantly improve the voting record of governors, and the quality of CFC governance decisions.

Notes:


1. “ Constitutional Amendments “: These amendments are considered “ constitutional amendments “ under Bylaw # 3 of the CFC, section 3, which is:

BY-LAW NUMBER THREE OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA
ANNUAL MEETING AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
1. ….
2. All matters to be decided by the Assembly, shall be decided by a majority vote, save as hereinafter provided.
3. Any amendment or revision of these By-Laws; any matter pertaining to any international agreement between the Federation and any international or foreign Chess Federation or Association; and any matter pertaining to the payment of dues to the Fédération International des Echecs may be made,
(a) at any Annual Meeting of the Assembly, providing that a notice of intention to submit such matter to a vote has been received by the Secretary at least 30 days prior to the date of such Annual Meeting and has been transmitted by the Secretary to each Governor at least 14 days prior to the date of such Annual Meeting and that any resolution pertaining to such matter shall be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the votes of those present and entitled to vote, including proxy votes.
(b) at any time through a mail vote of Assembly, providing that the exact wording of such proposed amendments or revision, or of the resolution to be passed by the Board through mail vote is submitted to each Governor at least fourteen days before the expiry of the time limit specified by the President for the receipt of the votes by the Secretary, and that at least one-half of the number of votes eligible to be cast has been received by the Secretary, and there is a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes cast in favour of the proposed amendment or revision or resolution.

2. Current CFC Governor Structure:
The current number of Governors-at-Large are:

A - Executive - 7
B – Non-Executive Officers - Masters' Representative and Women's Coordinator - 2
C - Representative of Chess Foundation of Canada, and, Canadian Correspondence Chess Association - 2
D - Canadian Champion and Runner-Up - 2
E – Former CFC Presidents ( some Life Governors ) – 10 ( as now shown on the CFC website ); almost equal the votes of the other Governors-at-Large )

Total – 23

The current number of Provincial Representative Governors ( using 2008-9 ) are:

A - B.C. - 5
B - Alta. - 5
C - Sask. - 1
D - Man. - 2
E - Ont. - 17
F - Que. - 2
G - N.B. - 2
H - P.E.I. - 1
I - N.S. - 2
J - Nfld. & Lab. – 1
K - no reps from the 3 territories ( 3 vacancies )

Total - 38 ( and three vacancies )

Overall Total – 61 ( and three vacancies )

3. CFC Constitutional Coalition Members ( 40 to May 4, 2009 )

Armstrong, Bob – CFC & OCA Life member; past chess club executive
Doucette, Patrick – CFC life member
Garel, Rick – CFC member; current chess club executive
Casareno, Erwin – CFC member
Kitich, Jerry – CFC member; chess teacher; past chess club executive
Broughton, Dave – former CFC Governor and Executive Member
McDonald, Patrick – CFC Life Member; former CFC Junior Coordinator, OCA
Executive; IA, TD and chess organizer; chess club executive; CFC
Governor ( Ont. )
Dattani, Dinesh – CFC member
Moysoski, Randy – CFC member; chess club executive; chess organizer
Perez, Michael – CFC member; chess club executive; organizer
Maguire, Jack – CFC member
Deslauriers, Brian – CFC past member
Ritchie, Gordon – CFC member; past CFC Governor
Tim Knechtel – CFC member
Bellomo, Joe – CFC member
Lawless, David – CFC member, former chess club executive, chess teacher, organizer
and TD.
Peristy, Luke – CFC member
Villalobos, Oscar – CFC member
Azmitia, Gabriel – CFC member
Verde, Pino – CFC member
Bossy, John – CFC member
Hall, John – CFC member
Brodie, Hugh – CFC member; maintainer of Canadian Games Database
Beal, Greg – CFC member
Kurkowski, Ken – CFC member
Henry, Liam – CFC member, organizer/TD, chess teacher
Posylek, Caesar – CFC member, former CFC Governor, chess club executive
Rutherdale, Will – CFC member
Stein, Mickey – CFC member
Jackiw, Mark – CFC member
Frilles, Ruperto – CFC member
James Marilla - CFC Member
Leward De la Rama - CFC Member
Mani Mehramooz - CFC Member
Matthew Perez – CFC Member
Joey Ayres – CFC Member
Xavier De Guzman – CFC Member
Kasra Ershandi – CFC Member
Paul Leblanc – CFC Member, CFC Governor ( B.C, )
Gillanders, Bob – CFC member; former CFC Executive Director; chess club executive; former CFC Executive

[Bob Armstrong]

Prior to filing the motion, I wrote to the CFC Constitutional Coalition members, presenting the following interesting historical background to this issue:

" It has come to my attention that the following motion was brought before the 2007 CFC AGM on the issue of a “ Governor Activity Rule “ :

Motion 2007-09:(ChrisMallon/PatrickMcDonald)GovernorActivityRules

ToaddthefollowingsectiontotheCFCHandbook: UnderBy-LawTwo,

23.GovernorActivity

a)AnyGovernorwhodoesnotvoteorofficiallyabstaininat least75%ofGLmotionsinanygivenyearshallnotbeallowed tobeagovernorforthefollowingtwoyears.

b)ThePresidentisexcludedfromthisregulationsincethe ymayneedtomaintainimpartialitybynotvoting,whileres ervingtherighttovoteshouldtherebeatie.

c)
1.LifeGovernorsaswellasanyotherGovernorwhohastheir statusforsomespecificreasonnotrelatedtobeingelecte dbytheAssemblyorbytheirProvinalAssociation(forexam ple,theCanadianChampion)areexcludedfroma)butinstea dfollowthisrule.

2.IfoneoftheseGovernorsdoesnotvoteintwoconsecutive seriesofvotes(whethertheybebyGovernorLetteroratthe AGM),theyareputonanInactiveListwhichismaintainedby theSecretary.

3.GovernorsontheInactiveListretaintherighttovote,a twhichtimetheyimmediatelyareremovedfromtheInactive List.

4.GovernorsontheInactiveListdonotcounttowardsaquor umforaslongastheyremainonthatlist

d)AnyGovernorwhoseCFCMembershiplapseswilllosetheri ghttovote,andwillnotcounttowardsaquorum,untilsucht imeastheirmembershipfeesarepaid.

2006/07 GL -6 gave the following governor comments on the proposed motion:

Ken Craft: Support in principle.

Phil Haley: Re motion 2007-09 governoractivity...this motion has a good intent but an inappropriate suggested solution...theprovincialassociationsshouldtakewhat everactiontheydeemappropriateinrespecttotheactions ornon-actionsoftheirgovernors.

EllenNadeau:I'msympathetictothismotionasgovernorsw illbemotivatedtoparticipatemore.Iincludemyselfinth is. Iwouldliketohave10daystoreplytotheGLinsteadof7.

MauriceSmith:IamnotinfavourofthisMotion.Iagreewith themoversthatwewouldliketoseemoreGovernorsactive.H owever,tellingtheGovernorshowoftentheymustvoteandw hentheyshouldvoteseemsratherchildishandamateurisht ome.Ican'timagineanyprofessionalorganizationhaving ruleslikethis.BetterwouldbetohavetheProvincialorga nizationstakebettercareinselectingtheirGovernors.B etterstillmightbehavingtheCFCmembersvotefortheirGo vernors.

The minutes of that 2007 AGM show some of the comments of the Governors present at the AGM:

Motion 2007-9 on Governor activity.

Palsson: Point of order on the legality of the motion. No legal requirement to vote.

Palsson: Local members want to know if their Governor is active locally, as TD or organizer. That's what they care about in their representative, not whether or not they are voting on national issues.

Jaeger: Okay to point out who is not voting, but it's up to the Provincial Associations as to whom they appoint as Governors.

Thorvardson: Non-voters may contribute in other ways.

Doubleday: Hard to find volunteers. What is the benefit of this motion passing? Hard to see any.

Barron: Local representative communicates between local affairs and the Business Office. Interest in national affairs is not necessary.

Bunning: This may be a Constitutional amendment, which would require a 2/3 majority to pass.

Doubleday: I rule this a Constitutional amendment.

The Motion got defeated: Vote: YES: 8; NO: 15; ABSTAIN: 3. Motion 2007-9 defeated ( Note: it needed 2/3 of the votes cast since it was a constitutional amendment ).

Here are my comments on the various parts of the old motion, and why I have not felt it necessary to include them in some way in our motion:

a) our motion is more strict than the prior motion – 2 consecutive GL’s missed, and the governor is gone. This applies to all governors, no matter what type.

b) I see no need to exempt the President from the activity rule. He is a governor-at-large, and we expect to see him vote and give his opinion when matters are voted on by the Assembly. I have reviewed the incomplete and unupdated CFC Handbook, and all I could find on Presidential voting was:

PRESIDENT A GOVERNOR AT LARGE

14. ……In all matters to be decided by a vote of the Board, the President shall have a casting vote in the event the voting would otherwise be tied.

Here the “ Board “ refers to votes in the Executive, not the Assembly of Governors. It seems to me then, that the President is expected to vote in all votes in the Assembly. I can find nothing anywhere that says that the President has a second vote in case of a tie ( though it should be there ).

c) I see no reason to treat Life Governors, or Governors at large not elected or appointed by the Assembly ( example – the Canadian Closed Champion ) any differently. They will be removed and their vote disappears and is no longer part of any quorum.

d) I do not feel that this item is really a matter for the “ activity “ rule. It is a good idea, but I think it should be put in a more general section dealing with Governors. "

It seems from the governor comments that this motion may run into static, as did our Motion 2009-14 ( provincial representation governor reduction ), which got defeated at the July AGM. But there seemed to be more interest now after the reduction debate, and so maybe it has chances.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

I'm sorry Bob, I can't support the motion as it is written. The 2 GLs thing is fine especially since they seem to be less often these days - in fact you could go further and say two consecutive MOTIONS. But as for the rest... sorry, I don't have time right now to go right into it, but I think the 2007 motion is still far superior for a number of reasons.

Also it was voted on at the AGM and there was some proxy abuse (apparently I somehow actually voted against my own motion?).

[Ken Craft]

I can't support it either. The CFC is a Federation of Provincial Associations. The Provincial Associations have the right to their proper number of representatives.

[Bob Armstrong]

Looks like we've got an uphill battle again !

The benefit of our motion is that it is simple, and treats all governors the same.

Also, if the Provinces send in deadwood governors, why should they get to replace them with other deadwood governors? There has to be some type of penalty to make them take the governor system seriously. This may mean that for part of a year, they lose part of their representation.

Are there any members/governors who will support our motion?

Bob

[John Coleman]

I kinda think the province should be able to replace the deadwood governor.

The issue is probably moot, most provinces don't have an abundance of volunteers, and by the time a governor has missed a couple of GLs and been given the boot, the year will be mostly over.

Speaking of GLs, are the minutes of the AGM on the horizon?

[Ken Craft]

I'll support the first half; the second half is possibly ultra vires since the provincial associations have the sole right to determine who their representatives are.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

Thanks for your partial support.

Your second point is a good one I hadn't thought of ( nor any of the Coalition members ). I'd like to hear more opinions on Ken's idea that the CFC can expel a governor, but cannot stop the Provincial Association from appointing a replacement. If this is the case, then obviously an amendment to the motion to delete the second part will be in order.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Proposing/moving a motion is not a comment, at least in my understanding. As well not a voting. Thus "moving" governors will be discarded acording this "activity" motion. Absurd :eek:
Include Forum + Email.
Letters are too slow in these times.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

Your point is well taken - voting and commenting does not include moving/seconding. We must allow this to count as activity as well. This will require an amendment to the motion, which we will bring.

Thanks for pointing this out.

As to voting by e-mail, we feel that this does not exonerate a governor from still meeting the 2-GL rule. Similarly for voting in the Governors' Discussion Board, if that should ever be tried. Any further opinions on this point?

Bob

[Ken Craft]

Unless this motion can be simple and clear, I think it is bound to fail. If we want to measure voting participation then, the motion needs to recognize there are multiple ways to vote ie. GL's, emergency email votes, Governors Board votes.

Other than some motions that have quorum requirements, what is the point of this venture?

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Unless this motion can be simple and clear, I think it is bound to fail. If we want to measure voting participation then, the motion needs to recognize there are multiple ways to vote ie. GL's, emergency email votes, Governors Board votes.

Other than some motions that have quorum requirements, what is the point of this venture?

I have voted on all motions prior to the AGM and emailed my votes to Lyle and the CFC office. Still do not know if my votes were taken into consideration at the said AGM...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Valer:

When the results of a vote on a motion are published in a GL, the secretary lists all those who voted. So you can tell by checking the relevant motion in the GL whether your name is there, and whether your vote made it in.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

It is true there may be numbers of ways of voting - in the GL, by e-mail, maybe even sometime by post on the Governors' Discussion Board ( has this ever been done yet? ).

Our motion assumes that we should not be begging the governors' to do their job. They should be voting on all motions, even if they abstain.

So we have set a minimum criteria that they have to meet - not miss 2 consecutive GL votes. What ever else they may also do - eg. e-mail votes, Governors' Discussion Board votes - is all to the good - it's what they're supposed to be doing; but that does not mean they don't have to still do the minimum required by the rule.

So this rule is simple and easy to enforce because it is all printed up in the GL - monitoring it is simple; all governors treated the same.

And I'm still waiting for more opinions on your suggestion that the second part of our motion ( that the Provincial Association can't replace an expelled governor ) is illegal. If that is shown to be the case, we will amend the motion to delete it. But I need to get a few more opinions in addition to yours to try to sort the issue out.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

monitoring it is simple

Who would do that? Don't you think that an additional clause is required to assigned this task to somebody (Secretary?)?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

I think that is just a bureaucratic implementation question that can be assigned by the Executive. Don't think an implementation detail like that needs to be actually in the motion - but yes, I think the Secretary should likely be the one to monitor, since he puts out the GL's ( though I guess anyone could read the GL and keep a list up to date - maybe that's why it is best left to the Executive to decide who does it ).

Bob

[Ken Craft]

The more I consider it the more likely I am to vote against this motion even if amended. I see the not allowed to replace your Governor clause as a back door attempt to reduce the number of Governors and fundamentally undemocratic. The two consecutive GL clause does not recognize how busy has been done in the last several years and the trend towards the eventual abolition of GLs as clunky anachronisms.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

If it turns out that motions eventually are never done by GL, then it will be time to update any " governor activity rule " to keep up with the times. But currently only emergency votes are by e-mail, and I'm not aware of any Governors' Discussion Board vote yet. Nearly all votes are still by GL. So, for the current situation, the 2 consecutive GL motions makes sense and is in tune with what is still being done today.

Once the governors update procedures, then update the activity rule. But we need an activity rule now. Don't vote it down and leave it just status quo, with no activity rule in place going forward.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Here again is the section the Coalition seeks to add to the CFC Handbook:

“ 23. Governor Inactivity Rule

Any governor, no matter whether provincial representative governor, or governor at large, including the Executive, appointees, etc., who does not vote, or make a comment, in two consecutive Governors’ Letters, shall be removed from office, and shall no longer be part of a quorum, and the respective Provincial Association or appointing body shall not be entitled to replace him/her until the next AGM. “

Who agrees with Governor Ken Craft that the bolded second part of the motion is illegal? Who believes it is legal?

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

"Today the CFC Constitutional Coalition filed with the CFC Secretary a motion to impose a " Governor Activity Rule "

Bob, does is mean it will be in the GL's 1?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

I apparently filed the motion before Lyle had sent the draft GL 1 to the Executive for review ( as far as I know, there was no deadline for submissions for GL 1 - 2009 GL 6 said nothing about a deadline for 2010 GL 1 ), and from a recent e-mail from Lyle, I believe it is goiing to be in the GL 1. Lyle said he was sending the draft to the Executive for review this past weekend, but I don't know when it is supposed to be received back by him and distributed.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

In the past, I have been quite critical of the Governors' non-participation in dialogue with ordinary members on this site.

But what do we see with this topic?? 100% of the posts are by Governors ! And what percentage of the posts are by ordinary governors? 0 % !

In the light of this, I am going to have to mute somewhat my criticism of governors ( though it is only 10% of the governors who have participated ). If members want governors to come to this board, they also have to be willing to post and express their opinions and enter into debate with the govenors on relevant chess/CFC topics. If the members don't participate, the governors interest is going to wane, and they will just be satisfied to post on their own " closed " Governors' Discussion Board.

It's up to ordinary members what they want. Some governors have accepted the challenge to come and debate with members - members need to respond.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

There has been some input from governors on the issue of prohibiting a Province/appointing body from replacing an expelled governor, as currently requested by the Coalition Motion. They are for replacement.

In the light of this, I have today posted on the Governors' Discussion Board:

" In light of the input of other governors and yourself ( Governor John Coleman ), I have decided to ignore the legal question, and look at the replacement issue on its merits. The governors who have responded have been against prohibiting replacement. Further, Egis has dragged up a precedent where a Governor who's CFC membership has lapsed, is suspended, and the province allowed to replace.

In the light of all this, I am going to recommend to the Coalition, that we drop the non-replacement part of our motion. I will be seeking advice from our " Rules of Order " experts on how we go about this, if the Coalition accepts my recommendation.

I would hope this would mean a good chance for our then very simple activity rule to get the 2/3 needed to pass at the 2010 AGM. "

I would be pleased to have any further input from other governors and ordinary members on whether the Coalition should accept my new recommendation.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Today I wrote to the CFC Constitutional Coalition on our Motion # 1 ( Governor Activity Rule ), which has been filed some time ago with the CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver, as follows:

" Hi to All CFC Constitutional Coalition Members:

It was unanimous that we drop our position of not letting provinces/appointing bodies replace expelled governors. So I have written to CFC Secretary Lyle Craver, that he not publish our Motion # 1 ( Governor Activity Rule ) in the imminent 2010 GL 1. I have also advised that we will be now withdrawing our motion. He has agreed with both my requests.

So I will now revise our motion and commentary to reflect that the province/appointing body will be able to replace. I will be sending this out to you shortly for approval.

Given that Governors only preside for one year terms, when one is expelled ( and it takes 2 consecutive GL’s , which is about 3 months ), there is not a lot of their term left by the time they are caught and the expelling paperwork is done. And the Province has to hold an by-election to fill the vacancy – all takes time. By the time a new governor got seated, s/he’d likely have little time left to actually serve. The Provinces may just pass on an interim governor and wait for the next AGM. But it will be up to the province/appointing body what they do "

The Coalition will circulate their new revised Motion # 1, once adopted by them, so that it can receive further Goveror/ordinary member input before the motion gets filed.

Bob