9. 2012-I CFC Member Rights Motion #1 (Bob Armstrong)

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim

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.

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.

The motion is vague in some respects - ie. "... shall be dealt with by the Federation Secretary" and yet, for being the "ordinary person" section is written in rather flowery legalese making it harder to understand.

Also I'm thinking there are either too many commas or they are not in the proper places, but that should be fixable ...

For what it's worth, I've proposed a change to the Rating Appeals process that removes a cumbersome process that seems designed to discourage anyone from making an appeal. My proposal would allow the Rating Auditor to hear directly from anyone with a problem. Seems to be in the same spirit as this proposal.

One key reservation about these two motions is that in a petition situation signatures simply have to be checked and it is completely unclear who is responsible for this task. It is a huge task and one that I as Secretary would not want to take on and I'm quite sure few would.

Having no verification process in place is simply 'asking for it'!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle Craver

One key reservation about these two motions is that in a petition situation signatures simply have to be checked and it is completely unclear who is responsible for this task. It is a huge task and one that I as Secretary would not want to take on and I'm quite sure few would.

Having no verification process in place is simply 'asking for it'!

---

Hi Lyle, you are completely correct! And I would post your reply against motion 2012-J.

"Members have no rights" looks silly and is illegal under Quebec Law. The CFC already fully complies with Quebec Laws because the members have access to the minutes of the AGM and to the financials. Members do have rights and they just have to go to chess.ca to exercise them. We are disclosing more then the minimum required by the Law.

If the only objection is that this is an extra work for the secretary, I propose to move an amendment to give this responsibility to another Officer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée

"Members have no rights" looks silly and is illegal under Quebec Law. The CFC already fully complies with Quebec Laws because the members have access to the minutes of the AGM and to the financials. Members do have rights and they just have to go to chess.ca to exercise them. We are disclosing more then the minimum required by the Law.

If the only objection is that this is an extra work for the secretary, I propose to move an amendment to give this responsibility to another Officer.

---

I do not understand where the "members have no rights" is coming from. It seems that most, if not all, of us, are fine with members having the right to approach the CFC via their Governors. Surely there must be a way of phrasing this that is acceptable to all?!

Hi Aris:

You are quite right in your approach. The CCC is really just trying to put into legislation the fact that governors do help members, and that this is the primary method of members interacting with the Assembly of Governors. We feel that the section just tries to clarify this right of members to approach their governors. The only thing new, that is not currently already being done, is the final formal " conclusion " letter from the Secretary, finalizing that the matter has now been dealt with. This should not be an onerous task on the Secretary, since the governor dealing with the issue will do the draft for the secretary to review and sign if acceptable. Also, the number of member petitions is small.

We are just trying to enshrine current practice into legislation so that the Handbook makes some statement about members' rights.

Bob A