31. Motion 2011-F - DISCUSSION

[Lyle Craver]

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Ken Einarsson


- that CFC Handbook SECTION 2 – Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings be amended as follows:

1. Section 1, The Meeting, subsection (i ) be amended by deleting the words “

the CFC Governors’ Discussion Board “ and substituting for them the following:

“ a special public CFC Discussion Forum. However the limitations shall be:

1. only governors will be able to post;
2. the public will be able to see all posts, replies, polls, etc. seen by the Governors, but shall have “ view-only “ status; they will be unable to post.

Where the governors vote that a matter is “ confidential “ in nature, and should be dealt with “ in camera “, the Chairperson shall direct that the meeting be adjourned to such Private CFC Discussion Forum as may be available, including the Governors’ Discussion Board. In such a case, after the confidential matter has been dealt with, the Chair shall direct that the meeting resume in the public forum.

2. Section 3, Role of the Posting Secretary, s.5, Vote Results, and s. 6, Meeting Minutes, be amended by substituting for the words “ Governors’ Discussion Board “ wherever they occur, the words “ meeting Discussion Board “

NOTICE TO GOVERNORS: As a Constitutional Amendment motion this is subject to the Handbook requirements for Constitutional Amendments and takes effect if passed at the close of this meeting

[Bob Armstrong]

Armstrong/Einarsson Commentary on Motion 2011-F :

At present, the non-AGM Quarterly Governors’ On-line Meetings are “ confidential “, ie. not open to the public. This is because the On-line Meeting Procedures state that the meetings are to be held on the Governors’ Discussion Board, which is “ private “, ie. confidential.
There has been discussion among the governors and the CFC members about making the non-AGM Quarterly Governors’ On-line Meetings “ public view-only ‘, as set out in the motion above. A list of arguments has been developed on both sides of this issue, as follows:

PRO's

1. Transparency: The Governors need to be more transparent in their governing, and this is achieved by " public view-only " on-line meetings. This in turn gives the CFC more transparency.

2. Member Interest: This will increase member interest in the affairs of the CFC. It is recognized that many CFC members are rather apolitical, and would likely not come to an open meeting. But we have seen from the members’ CFC Chess Chat Forum, that there are at least 100 what we might term “ hardcore CFC supporters “ , who monitor the board regularly, and are willing to wade through not all that exciting policy posts, and comment on them. If we could generate even more interest in this group, CFC might increase its pool of volunteers, including for non-executive officer volunteer positions, and perhaps even candidates for CFC governorship.

3. Confidentiality Issues: The meeting can always be adjourned to a private forum temporarily if " confidential " matters arise.

4. Governor Activity Monitoring: Though posting of summaries gives some information on the meeting, they are very truncated, and don't reveal which governors took what positions. Members may be interested in how their own local governors contributed. Public view-only meetings allow the members to measure their local governor activity.

5. AGM: the AGM, to which the quarterly non-AGM governors’ on-line meetings are quite similar, is open to the public. So the quarterly on-line meetings should be too.

CON's

1. Decrease in quality of meeting: Governors may become more reticent than they already are to give opinions or take public positions. This decreases the quality of governance.

2. Parallel " Out of Context " Discussions : Because of copying/pasting, governor comments can be taken out of context and posted on other discussion boards, where CFC may get slagged, and it will be unable to respond. Or if it can respond, it will require some coordination of response, which will take energy away from the meeting.

3. Confidentiality: The issue of confidentiality could be raised on numerous occasions. Arguments will have to be made each time, and this will take valuable time away from the meeting. As well, confidential information could inadvertently be disclosed BEFORE the issue of going " in camera " gets raised, and this information could then be posted elsewhere.

4. Summaries - The fact that the procedures state that " minutes " ( interpreted as " summaries " ) are to be posted on the CFC website almost immediately after the meeting, meets the test of having a " public " component to the meeting.

I ( Bob ) attempted to investigate this issue further by doing a poll of both the governors, and the CFC members/public. The result was that a slight majority of the non-executive governors who voted ( 11 voted, or were deemed to have voted ) favoured opening the meeting. However, the executive who voted, unanimously voted against opening the meeting ( but less than 50% of the executive voted ). In the members/public vote, those voting ( 10 voted out of, in my estimation, about 100 ), voted almost unanimously to open the meeting, by indicating that they would attend an open governors’ on-line meeting.

It is our view that the Pro’s on this issue, outweigh the Con’s. The benefits of an open meeting are such that we should take the risks which are pointed out by those against opening the meeting, and deal with them as best we can.

We have therefore amended the on-line meeting procedures so the meetings will now be held in a special public forum, but on a “ public view-only “ basis.

We feel this is the next progressive step in governance, now that we have the on-line meeting procedures in place in the CFC Handbook, and have proved they work successfully to a very high degree ( though admittedly they are not perfect, and can use some “ tweaking “ here and there ). As a non-profit corporation, we should be as “ public accessible “ as is compatible with successful running of the organization. This change makes CFC more accessible, and contributes to CFC running more successfully.

Bob/Ken

[Bob Armstrong]

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Ken Einarsson


- that CFC Handbook SECTION 2 – Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings be amended as follows:

1. Section 1, The Meeting, subsection (i ) be amended by deleting the words “

the CFC Governors’ Discussion Board “ and substituting for them the following:

“ a special public CFC Discussion Forum. However the limitations shall be:

1. only governors will be able to post;
2. the public will be able to see all posts, replies, polls, etc. seen by the Governors, but shall have “ view-only “ status; they will be unable to post.

Where the governors vote that a matter is “ confidential “ in nature, and should be dealt with “ in camera “, the Chairperson shall direct that the meeting be adjourned to such Private CFC Discussion Forum as may be available, including the Governors’ Discussion Board. In such a case, after the confidential matter has been dealt with, the Chair shall direct that the meeting resume in the public forum.

2. Section 3, Role of the Posting Secretary, s.5, Vote Results, and s. 6, Meeting Minutes, be amended by substituting for the words “ Governors’ Discussion Board “ wherever they occur, the words “ meeting Discussion Board “

NOTICE TO GOVERNORS: As a Constitutional Amendment motion this is subject to the Handbook requirements for Constitutional Amendments and takes effect if passed at the close of this meeting

Motion 2011-F - NOT a Constitutional Amendment Motion

It is my submission to the Chair and Secretary that the note attached to this motion, declaring that it is a " Constitutional Amendment " is wrong, and must be deleted.

Bylaw 3, s.3 states :

BY-LAW NUMBER THREE OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA

ANNUAL MEETING AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

1.

2.

3. Any amendment or revision of these By-Laws;

Motion 2011-F does NOT seek to amend any of CFC Bylaws 1, 2, nor 3. It seeks to amend only the Meeting Procedures. These are not contained in the Bylaws, but rather in the Section setting out " Rules and Regulations ":

CFC Handbook SECTION 2 – Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings.

Therefore this Motion 2011-F is NOT a " Constitutional Amendment ", and can be passed by a simple majority - it does not have to meet any of the higher criteria standards for a constitutional amendment.

Bob

[Michael von Keitz]

I am opposed to this motion. I feel we should keep the boardroom in the boardroom, so to speak. If members are interested in the bureaucratic goings on of the organization, they may feel free to read the GL's as they go live, or, if really keen, they contact their local governor. We already have an assembly of a lofty 60 members, so I see no reason to add a peanut gallery on top of it.

[Fred McKim]

I think the meetings should remain private, with summaries of each thread available, after the meeting.

[Bob Gillanders]

I am opposed to this motion.

We now have a successful vehicle for timely governor discussion. I am happy to see good participation, excellent debates, and civility. Governor knowledge and understanding of the issues is growing. Democracy is alive and well at the CFC. I see no reason to mess with success. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Opening up the forum to real time viewing would be hazardous. Can you imagine parallel discussions developing on chesstalk and personal blogs. Governors being harassed (in real time) and mocked in an effort to influence and embarrass them. We must protect the sanctity and civility of this forum.

Please vote No to opening governors meeting to the public.

[Christopher Mallon]

I'm afraid I've completely gone over to the "No" side on this, despite originally arguing in favour of this type of setup. For me, the cons just seem to outweigh the pros. The pros are temporary or mere annoyances while the cons could have long-lasting effects.

[Aris Marghetis]

If I could only cast one vote this year, it would be against this motion. I believe in the smaller governance the better, and we are already way over what we should be, IMHO.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Aris:

Pretty emphatic !! You don't seem to like this idea??

Bob

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi Aris:

Pretty emphatic !! You don't seem to like this idea??

Bob

LOL, you forgot the winky face?!
You KNOW I really dislike this idea!