6.B) Discipline of Members

The board shall have authority to suspend or expel any member from the Corporation for any one or more of the following grounds:
a. violating any provision of the articles, by-laws, or written policies of the Corporation;
b. carrying out any conduct which may be detrimental to the Corporation as determined by the board in its sole discretion;
c. for any other reason that the board in its sole and absolute discretion considers to be reasonable, having regard to the purpose of the Corporation.
In the event that the board determines that a member should be expelled or suspended from membership in the Corporation, the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, shall provide twenty (20) days notice of suspension or expulsion to the member and shall provide reasons for the proposed suspension or expulsion. The member may make written submissions to the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, in response to the notice received within such twenty (20) day period. In the event that no written submissions are received by the president, the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, may proceed to notify the member that the member is suspended or expelled from membership in the Corporation. If written submissions are received in accordance with this section, the board will consider such submissions in arriving at a final decision and shall notify the member concerning such final decision within a further twenty (20) days from the date of receipt of the submissions. The board's decision may be appealed to the class A voting members at the next regularly scheduled quarterly meeting.

The board decision may be overturned by a simple majority of class A voting members at the next quarterly meeting or alternatively in a special meeting called for by the board or 5% of the class A voting members.

Again - this is text Ottawa wants. For those not strictly in the loop, a "Class A voting member" is what we presently call a Governor.

In the normal course of things by far the main reason why a "Class A voting member" would be suspended or expelled would be failing to keep his/her CFC membership up to date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle Craver

Again - this is text Ottawa wants. For those not strictly in the loop, a "Class A voting member" is what we presently call a Governor.

In the normal course of things by far the main reason why a "Class A voting member" would be suspended or expelled would be failing to keep his/her CFC membership up to date.

---

Actually it is a modification to the default text. In the default text there is no appeal. If we had no rule on discipline (which is also possible) I believe that the net effect would be the same since anything the board rules on can be modified by the voting members at the next meeting.

My Toastmasters club always has new members sign an application for membership and once a month (in months when we have new members) has an induction ceremony where the new member is sent out of the room, a show of hands vote is taken (so far always unanimous) and the new members welcomed back into the room to a round of applause. It is said that this gives the club legal authority to expel a member if necessary. (Apparently other clubs have had to expel members for harassment and for using the club to promote supremacist views and without any disciplinary process the club is legally not covered).

My impression is that this is text that we need but never expect to actually use. As a TD I _have_ ejected a player from the Hall but that was for a violation of the Laws of Chess. (He was studying openings in the washroom during a round which he was playing in) I have warned spectators that I had the authority to exclude them from the room if they further misbehaved and would have had they continued. In all cases that ended the matter.

It's difficult to imagine what sort of behaviour would be grounds for removal from membership but the CFC has always has such rules - the old blacklist at the top of every Northern newsletter is a good example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle Craver

It's difficult to imagine what sort of behaviour would be grounds for removal from membership but the CFC has always has such rules - the old blacklist at the top of every Northern newsletter is a good example.

---

From my point of view it would have to be pretty blatant and be something more than calling the CFC president, directors or voting members bad names. Abusing children would be one ground. Cheating at chess would be another. Ethical lapses might be another ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

From my point of view it would have to be pretty blatant and be something more than calling the CFC president, directors or voting members bad names. Abusing children would be one ground. Cheating at chess would be another. Ethical lapses might be another ground.

---

Look at what got one on the old blacklist - failing to file tournament reports on time, bouncing cheques to the CFC or provincial affiliates stuff like that.

If this sort of thing happened more than once a year it would be a very bad thing. I view this as more "Let's keep Ottawa happy" and "Let's make sure we're not screwed up if we need it" than anything else.

You, me, everyone who has served on the national executive has taken a reasonable dose of crap these last 5-10 years - what I think this envisions would be worse than spoiling an executive member's morning coffee!

It appears that the respondent is responding to the intended punishment not to the allegations. I am not sure that is just.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Craft

It appears that the respondent is responding to the intended punishment not to the allegations. I am not sure that is just.

---

The language is what is given in the government's bylaw builder with the difference that there is no appeal to the members in the bylaw builder generated bylaw though voting members are always free to make a motion on any matter so even this lack of appeal could still be appealed with the support of three members. I would presume that when the member responded he would respond to the allegations as well as to the intended punishment.

The rule is not essential for an NFP application and requires two thirds approval in order to be included in our bylaws. I separated it out because it might be controversial though it seems to me that governors supported the idea in our previous meeting. If this rule does not pass and in the event of a situation requiring such discipline the default will be that the board decides such matters. I believe that the voting members could modify any discipline imposed by the board. I believe that making the procedure clear is preferable to leaving it vague and arbitrary and allowing a board to make it up as they go along.

This is a procedure that I would hope would not need to be used, ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle Craver

Again - this is text Ottawa wants. For those not strictly in the loop, a "Class A voting member" is what we presently call a Governor.

In the normal course of things by far the main reason why a "Class A voting member" would be suspended or expelled would be failing to keep his/her CFC membership up to date.

---

My apologies if I haven't been keeping up, but have we resolved the issue of elected vs. non elected governors?

I see the bylaws talk about Class A and Class B members, but can somebody explain the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders

My apologies if I haven't been keeping up, but have we resolved the issue of elected vs. non elected governors?

I see the bylaws talk about Class A and Class B members, but can somebody explain the difference?

---

Class A voting members are the same as what we now call governors. Class B nonvoting members are what we now call members and/or players. There is no issue at this time with respect to elected versus non elected class A voting members (formerly called governors) as under the act there is a great deal of flexibility on how membership can be awarded.

There is at least one advantage of continuing to call CFC members, class B nonvoting members and that is that donations from members or their families do not automatically make you a soliciting corporation once you go above $10,000 in public monies raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

The board shall have authority to suspend or expel any member from the Corporation for any one or more of the following grounds:
. violating any provision of the articles, by-laws, or written policies of the Corporation;
a. carrying out any conduct which may be detrimental to the Corporation as determined by the board in its sole discretion;
b. for any other reason that the board in its sole and absolute discretion considers to be reasonable, having regard to the purpose of the Corporation.
In the event that the board determines that a member should be expelled or suspended from membership in the Corporation, the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, shall provide twenty (20) days notice of suspension or expulsion to the member and shall provide reasons for the proposed suspension or expulsion. The member may make written submissions to the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, in response to the notice received within such twenty (20) day period. In the event that no written submissions are received by the president, the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, may proceed to notify the member that the member is suspended or expelled from membership in the Corporation. If written submissions are received in accordance with this section, the board will consider such submissions in arriving at a final decision and shall notify the member concerning such final decision within a further twenty (20) days from the date of receipt of the submissions. The board's decision may be appealed to the class A voting members at the next regularly scheduled quarterly meeting.

The board decision may be overturned by a simple majority of class A voting members at the next quarterly meeting or alternatively in a special meeting called for by the board or 5% of the class A voting members.

---

Are there a total of three grounds
.
a.
b.
or am I misreading this ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred McKim

Are there a total of three grounds
.
a.
b.
or am I misreading this ?

---

I have fixed the original post to give three grounds a, b and c. I'm not sure if the error was in the template or in my copying and pasting.

The more I read this motion, the more reluctant I am to support. If the process included some due process prior to an anidividual being informed that action was being taken against them, then I would be more comfortable in supporting a disciplinary clause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Craft

The more I read this motion, the more reluctant I am to support. If the process included some due process prior to an anidividual being informed that action was being taken against them, then I would be more comfortable in supporting a disciplinary clause.

---

This item is not essential for a successful NFP application. I have mixed feelings about it and included it because the straw polls from the last meeting preferred some form of disciplinary bylaw over none at all. At the moment we don't seem to have full engagement on this and I would welcome more governor input. I understand that the executive would be reluctant to invoke this severe form of discipline but at times there may be circumstances where it is necessary and necessary to move quickly. The voting members (governors) could sort things out later.

I would be willing to defer this item until the April meeting if that is the will of the governors. We could continue discussion on the governors' forum and come up with a discipline bylaw that everyone could live with or perhaps we could choose to not include a discipline bylaw in our submission. It is an optional clause after all.

I haven't seen any feedback one way or another on whether the governors would like this motion tabled until the next meeting and I am about to go out to teach my Friday night advanced chess class at Sobeys. I should be back at 10 pm.

Vlad, sorry I'm a bit late tuning in. I have no problem with the proposed text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

Class A voting members are the same as what we now call governors. Class B nonvoting members are what we now call members and/or players. There is no issue at this time with respect to elected versus non elected class A voting members (formerly called governors) as under the act there is a great deal of flexibility on how membership can be awarded.

There is at least one advantage of continuing to call CFC members, class B voting members and that is that donations from members or their families do not automatically make you a soliciting corporation once you go above $10,000 in public monies raised.

---

Thanks Vlad. Above you said "class B voting members…." should that read "class B non voting members…."? otherwise I am confused.

If I am understanding you correctly:

Class A voting members = governors
Class B non voting members = all other CFC members

Right? So all the concern last year about whether or not non-elected governors could vote under the new rules were misguided? The new rules are flexible enough to allow our current governor structure to continue, we just call them class A voting members, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders

Thanks Vlad. Above you said "class B voting members…." should that read "class B non voting members…."? otherwise I am confused.

---

Yes you are correct I did make a typo which I will correct.

Quote:

---

If I am understanding you correctly:

Class A voting members = governors
Class B non voting members = all other CFC members

Right?

---

Yes, you are correct.

Quote:

---

So all the concern last year about whether or not non-elected governors could vote under the new rules were misguided? The new rules are flexible enough to allow our current governor structure to continue, we just call them class A voting members, yes?

---

The confusion last year about ex officio board members was based on a belief that the governors would be the directors and that is just incorrect. You can't have sixty directors. There is a great deal of flexibility on who can be members and how you can award membership. The documents that I have seen even explicitly state that you can award memberships for criteria like donations or volunteer support and time which would match the reason why we have life governors. We have life governors who contribute and we aren't so rich in volunteers that we can afford to cast off any help that we can get.

Everything that I have done during this NFP process has been to make things run very much as they have previously run as much as is possible. When you are in time trouble you might sac a rook for the opponent's last pawn to make sure you don't lose the game and then you can go on to promote your last pawn to try to win in the last few seconds.

Some things will change but the voting members like the governors before them will still have the final say. We won't be any closer to perhaps needed reforms but we won't be farther away aside from the possible requirement that structural changes will cost us $200 which is a pittance when balanced against our current accumulated assets.

Thank you Vlad. Now I understand and it all jives with the post I just made on the other thread.
Great work, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Leblanc

Vlad, sorry I'm a bit late tuning in. I have no problem with the proposed text.

---

I want to get a good reading on how the governors feel. It seems to me that most support the current proposed bylaw. If the straw poll indicates strong support then we will extend the meeting for a vote on this Sunday and Monday. If there is significant opposition then we will defer it to the governors meeting in April where I hope to tie off all the loose ends. Even if this measure passes in this meeting (in the event that there is enough support that we deal with it now) it will be possible to make a proposal for changes for the next quarterly meeting before this is submitted to the government. We can always add this or some other measure on discipline later. I don't want to get bogged down on this optional clause and that is the reason that I didn't bundle it all into one package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders

Thank you Vlad. Now I understand and it all jives with the post I just made on the other thread.
Great work, thanks!

---

You are welcome. Thank you for your questions as I am sure that there are others reading who had the same questions.