28. Motion 2011-J "Open Meeting Forum"

[Lyle Craver]

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim

- that Section 2 of the CFC Handbook, the Rules and Regulations, s. 22 A, Procedures for Governors’ Online Meetings, be amended by adding s. ( 8 ) Opening Meeting Forum, as follows:

s. ( 8 ) Opening Meeting Forum : As soon as the Governors’ Letter containing the Minutes of the Meeting have been posted on the CFC Website, the Secretary shall archive the original text of the meeting. He shall also duplicate the forum for the purpose of opening it to the public. He shall delete any confidential materials, and so note this in the text. The forum shall then be opened to the public, and notice of such posted on the members’ CFC Chess Chat Forum, along with the necessary URL and a Link..

[Bob Armstrong]

Bob Armstrong's Motion 2011- J Commentary

There has been considerable discussion by the governors since the instituting of the on-line quarterly meetings, on what constitutes sufficient transparency of governance.

At the 2011 Winter Meeting, the governors defeated a motion that would have opened the meetings to the public, on a limited “ public view-only “ basis ( with adjournment to another forum for confidential matters ). Subsequently, however, the idea arose that maybe the governors could open their forum to the public AFTER the meeting was concluded, with confidential material removed, and so noted.

Here are the results of a poll on this issue held on the confidential Governors’ Discussion Board.

View Poll Results: Post-Meeting Opening of the Confidential On-line Meeting Forum should be instituted .
This poll will close on 02-15-2011 at 01:48 PM

Yes
Bob Armstrong, Christopher Mallon, Fred McKim, Ken Einarsson, Michael Barron, Rob Clark, Valer Eugen Demian - 7 - 53.85%

No
Aris Marghetis, Garland Best, Halldor P. Palsson, Les Bunning, Michael von Keitz - 5 -38.46%

Abstain
Ken Craft - 1 - 7.69%

We feel that this will be a good enhancement of the transparency offered already by the putting of the meeting minutes into the GL, and posting it on the CFC website. There are a number of reasons why we feel this will be a good step for the CFC to take:

1. Transparency: The Governors need to be more transparent in their governing, beyond simply posting the Minutes. This is achieved by presenting to the public a “ transcript “ of the meeting, the actual text of the on-line meeting. 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 view the meeting text in its entirety. 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 " confidential " matters will be deleted and so noted in the text.

4. Governor Activity Monitoring: Though posting of Minutes gives some information on the meeting, they are still very truncated, and don't reveal which governors took what positions. Members may be interested in how their own local governors contributed. Opening the meeting will 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, at least on a post-meeting basis.

We have worded the motion so a duplicate forum will be created for opening to the public, amended by deleting the confidential matters. The original forum will be archived in its entirety for future CFC Governor reference.

[Ken Craft]

This is a second best to having our meeting conducted in the public eye. And improvement in transparency but inadequate. The equivalent would be having the House of Commond meet in private and then only making Hansard available afterwards. This is unacceptable in a transparent democracy.

[Bob Armstrong]

I would like to note that in this motion, Fred and I did not directly address the " Minutes " issue, because we did not want to be fighting on 2 issues in the one motion. Our motion does not formally amend the Procedures re Minutes.

Some think that opening the meeting should remove the necessity for minutes. I agree with this, but it will require another motion, if this one passes.

Others are concerned that Minutes are needed on the CFC website, since many members do not come to the discussion boards.

This issue will have to be dealt with if this motion 2011-J passes.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but I am quite willing to support this motion. But I do vehemently disagree with the premise given that the CFC is some evil secretive organization that threatens democracy and the free world. Get real. Nevertheless, if the governors approve it, I am not opposed to giving the public access to the complete text of the quarterly meetings. I just do not think it is necessary. If I could vote, it would "sure, why not".

Of course, with the full text of the meeting available to the public, preparing "minutes" of the meeting is just redundant and no longer required.

[Hal Bond]

".

Of course, with the full text of the meeting available to the public, preparing "minutes" of the meeting is just redundant and no longer required.

This is the best part! Less work for the Secretary! Like you Bob, I really don't care. If we can eliminate bogus perceptions of evil, then why not?

[Garland Best]

It's amazing how far this has come from only 4 years ago when the CFC only published Governor's letters and Ken had to complain daily that the minutes were 90 days late in being published.

My key concern still is that what is written in these postings can still put Governors in a damning light. However this may be the way of the future. It is ultimately up to the Governors to behave in a mature fashion.

Regardless, I disagree with Ken's opinion that this option is inadequate. This is moving much farther than any non-profit organization I have ever encountered. I don't see FIDE or the USCF doing anything as open as this.

[Christopher Mallon]

As I said to Ken after the last meeting, one step at a time. Once people are comfortable with the text being released after the meeting, go the next step.

On another note, there have been no "I'm voting against" comments at all. I'll be a little ticked off if anyone votes against this without first giving us a reason why and a chance to try to persuade them otherwise. Just saying.

[Aris Marghetis]

As I said to Ken after the last meeting, one step at a time. Once people are comfortable with the text being released after the meeting, go the next step.

On another note, there have been no "I'm voting against" comments at all. I'll be a little ticked off if anyone votes against this without first giving us a reason why and a chance to try to persuade them otherwise. Just saying.

Chris, I don't know if your second point is fair. Just because this issue gets brought up over and over again across multiple forums, does not mean that people who disagree have to keep on explaining themselves. The reasons against "too many cooks in the kitchen" have been captured previously. In my humble opinion, the only good thing about this initiative is eliminating the work to compile minutes. Aside from that, I maintain concern that this could open the door to excessive external commentary, which would in turn result in more reserved Governor participation. That would be bad.

[Christopher Mallon]

In my opinion, the Governors shouldn't say anything in this meeting that they don't want broadcast publicly.

Governors do not currently sign any kind of NDA or privacy agreement, and even if they did it would be impossible to enforce. So anyone who thinks these meetings are actually currently private should rethink that concept... I would term it more as "inconvenient to access" ... so why not just make it easy for everyone to see how it works?

Also, yes, in fact, every time the motion comes up again it's technically a new motion. Even if someone wants to say "I'm still opposed due to my previous reasons" that's better than silently opposing.