Hi Michael:

Good question - in all the discussion since Les first made his motion comment in 2009-10 GL # 2, I don't think that has been discussed - if it has, please enlighten us as to the conversation.

I have my own opinion ( and I'm sure Les has one as well ):

1. Formal Wording - I don't see anything in the wording that says that it does not immediately apply - that is, the life governors who have not complied over the past 2 years are terminated.

2. Procedural Fairness - However, besides the wording itself, there is a procedural fairness issue - the life governors did not know 2 years ago that they would have to meet some unknown activity criteria in the following 2 years, to remain a life governor; they were guaranteed life governor status, even if they had retired from active CFC chess politics. So I think the amendment can only look forward. The life governors are now on notice exactly what activity is required over the next 2 years to keep their life governor status.

Perhaps the Chair and/or Secretary need to wade into this question as well.

Bob