Item # 20 – Elimination of Life Governors ( Motions 2010-03 & -04 ) Pt. I discussion

[Lyle Craver]

That's a reasonable position though one I strongly disagree with since I feel elected Governors have responsibilities both ways to the membership. Most of the Life Governors are retired or semi-retired and thus aren't expected to be as active.

One thing I really value in my role on the Executive is being able to get contributions from past presidents (I've mentioned previously I hear from Messrs Farges, Cabanas, Divinsky and until last year Stockhausen 3 or 4 times a year on a fairly regular basis and would like to hear more from all of them) and have NEVER felt their input was anything other than extremely valuable. I've really missed the monthly phone calls from Peter Stockhausen that used to always come in the first week of each month long after he left the presidency.

On this particular amendment, my seconding of it was pro forma as I commonly do for proposals which I think have merit enough to warrant debating by the Governors as a whole which I want to advance wherever possible. I do not really agree with the amendment since my own view is that the existing Life Governor rules have served the CFC well and I would not want to change them. However if my view does NOT carry the day then Mr. Bunning's amendment is better than the unamended motion.

[Ken Craft]

The ideal compromise might have been to grandparent the current Life governors subject to an activity clause while ceasing to create further Life Governors.

[Garland Best]

I would vote in favor of this.

If we want to follow this concept, then one could vote for Les's ammended motion, with the intent of introducing a new motion in the next meeting to eliminate the creation of new life [governors].

[Phil Haley]

Ken Craft and Garland Best make a common sense proposal...it is unfortunate that this whole topic did not start with this idea.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

"we used to have Canadian life senators"

True - now we make them retire at age 75 with a nice fat pension which is a much better deal for them when their position really was for life.

As for past presidents attending AGMs most of these do if in the Toronto area. Outside the GTA the percentage is much lower as should be expected.

If by some chance Dr. Divinsky were to be removed by this motion (I'm not taking the time right now to look it up) I would promote a motion to restore the Life Governorship to him for his services to chess anyhow.

Given his advanced age and his service to chess in pretty much every CFC job except executive director around it would be churlish to do otherwise.

Either way I share Les' view on this motion and will be voting accordingly.

In special cases as the one of Dr. Divinsky we should offer instead a honorary membership in an advisory committee! This way any such member will not be pressured by daily challenges and would be able to contribute on selected important issues only. Anyone interested in such action?

[Lyle Craver]

I would vote in favor of this.

If we want to follow this concept, then one could vote for Les's ammended motion, with the intent of introducing a new motion in the next meeting to eliminate the creation of new life members.

I hope this is a simple typo since this discussion is about Life Governors - I'm not aware that anyone is advocating eliminating Life Members which are simply about being willing to pay the appropriate fee and offer no special membership privileges.

Unlike our American neighbors the CFC has always properly handled Life Member funds in a financially responsible way.

[Garland Best]

Post Ammended.