CFC Member Election of CFC Governors - Regional Restriction

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

If the Executive wants to do a bit of legislative clean-up on this fundamental right of CFC members to elect their CFC Governors, I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately, my brief, and proposed amendments, had to be based on the legislation currently existing, even if duplicative.

Bob

[Peter McKillop]

Why not wait until the dust settles on David Lavin's rumoured re-engineering of the CFC before we get into constitutional amendments? I say "rumoured" because that's all we ordinary members seem to be getting these days. So much for transparency (and accountability?).

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Peter:

The problem is that technically, Ontario's CFC Governors are unconstitutionally elected. I think , at least, to correct the situation, the enabling legislation should be passed so that the current Governors have some type of legitimacy.

This need not affect any other more dramatic revamping that may be in the works. But I haven't heard of any major plans in the wings - but what do I know.

Bob

[Peter McKillop]

What if Lavin's New World changes the CFC's governance structure such that your proposal is no longer applicable? What if the delay in GL3 has been caused by Lavin trying to reach a final consensus, in private rather than in a goldfish bowl, on the future form and substance of the CFC?; i.e. a done deal. Anyway, Bob, I'm not trying to tell you what to do. It's your nickel.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Peter:

David knows now what I'm proposing and presenting to the Governor's. I trust that if I'm wasting my time, he will so advise me.

And the CFC does not have time to waste in fixing things, even constitutional ones. CFC has got to be about multi-tasking for the foreseeable future, and projects must move ahead as soon as possible. Though constitutional issues are a lower priority than some other files at the moment, there is no reason for them not to move ahead now at the same time as some higher priority issues.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

It's also almost impossible to pass Constitutional motions except at the AGM, so there is in fact a lot of time to get it right and fix everything at the same time.

[Bob Armstrong]

Today on ChessTalk, Alvah Mayo made an important point - here is what he asked:

" Why not simply straighten out the non-democratic provinces instead of introducing measures to make restrictions to democracy "legal"? If Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can get it right "out in the sticks" without a CFC By-Law amendment, so can Ontario. "

This definitely requires a good answer, since we are talking about CFC " restricting " the normal voting right of CFC members in Ontario ( or other provinces that in future might also adopt such a system as Ontario's ). I answered:

" Hi Alvah:

I'm sure that Chris Mallon, OCA President, will have a comment on the Ontario system, and the need for a CFC By-law amendment to support it. But I'll give a shot at an answer.

In Ontario, we have for as long as I remember, divided the Province up into four leagues. This has been done specifically to strengthen local democracy. There are many CFC members in Ontario ( I think almost half of CFC 's total membership ), and they are spread throughout the province. We often know little about the organizers, chess administrators, etc. in the other regions. The idea is that CFC members can get to know those running for office in their own region, but may have little information on those in other regions. So if the CFC member had to vote for all 17 Ontario CFC Governors, many votes would be quite ill-informed. And since we have so many governor positions, those people who may be well-known throughout the Province do not equal the number of seats. So lesser lights need to come forward and volunteer, and they are only known by there own region's CFC members. We believe localized democracy is a good thing.

It is true that N.S. and N.B. " get it right ". But they each have to find only 2 governors. In a Province like that, it is likely that the few very active chess personages, who want to be CFC Governors, are known throughout the Province, and CFC members throughout the Province feel comfortable with a Province-wide election. I would assume that in these Provinces, there are a number of people interested in the few positions available, and there is some jockeying to get elected. In Ontario, with our number of governors, we are sometimes conscripting people to act, and there are often acclamations of all positions. So Ontario's division into geographic regions is an attempt to grapple with this problem.

CFC must amend its Constitution/Bylaws to make such an Ontario system constitutional ( because right now, Ontario's CFC Governors are not constitutionally elected, IMHO ). And once this becomes available, a province like B.C. with 5 governors might also wish to somehow make a geographic division, to make sure all regions of the province get represented ( Jonathan Berry in an earlier post said this was a weakness in the current B.C. practice - people out of Vancouver had to rely on the good graces of the Vancouverites to elect some governors from other parts of the Province - but there was no obligation on them to do this ).

Bob"

Chris, you may want to go to the " other " board to add any further comments you think are necessary to explain this point to Alvah.

Also, I accept what you say about " Constitutional " Amendments. We do have time. But could I suggest on this particular topic, that the CFC form a small Governor's Committee now, to draft a motion for the next CFC AGM. It will then have some time early next year to look at not only this issue, but as you mentioned, perhaps some tangential amendments that might clean-up the CFC legislation a bit. And I don't see any reason why this small committee could not include an interested CFC Member/non-Governor, to help divide up the work a bit. Let me know what you think of this idea.

By the way, how does Alberta " elect " its Governor's ? - no one from there has yet responded on any board.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

CFC President David Lavin has now responded to me on the filing of my brief asking for certain amendments to the CFC Handbook, which will partly go to making the current Ontario system of electing CFC Governors constitutional. There are a number of issues that now arise:

Issue # 1. The 2 modest amendments I have requested affect CFC Bylaw 1 , Section 5, and , CFC Rules and Regulations, Article 1, Section 9. The amendments are:

CFC Bylaw 1

ORDINARY MEMBERSHIP

5. Any person, ordinarily resident in Canada, may become an Ordinary Member of the Federation, for the then-current fiscal year, upon payment of the Membership per Capita Fee, directly to the Federation, or through his Provincial Organization. Every Ordinary or Life Member has a right to vote on the appointment or election of the Governor or Governors who will represent his Provincial Organization. Every Ordinary or Life Member has a right to vote on the appointment or election of the Governor or Governors who will represent his Provincial Organization at the assembly of Governors, except that the Provincial Organization, should it see fit, can restrict the Member vote to those Governors allocated to their particular region of the Province, but shall not be entitled to vote under any other circumstances unless specifically provided in these by-laws.

CFC Rules and Regulations, Article 1

SELECTION OF GOVERNORS BY PROVINCIAL ORGANIZATION

9. As soon as possible after the receipt by a Provincial Organization of the aforementioned Certificate, such body will convene a meeting of its Federation Members for the purpose of electing its necessary number of nominees for the Board for the ensuing term. However, should the Provincial Organization see fit, it can devolve the holding of meetings to regional affiliates, and restrict the Federation Members to voting only for the CFC Governors allocated to that particular region.

The first issue is whether either or both of these proposed amendments are " constitutional " amendments under the CFC Handbook. Apparently if they are, it is not just a simple majority vote to pass them. There apparently is a special quorum and special majority requirement. I will be seeking the assistance of Treasurer Chris Mallon, who has more of a handle on this issue than I at the moment, so I can understand exactly what will be required for my motion(s) to pass. Chris has already indicated that given the past voting record of the Assembly of Governors, it is not easy to get " constitutional " amendments passed at meetings of the Governors outside of the Annual General Meeting, though it is certainly possible. Of course this is a major problem, because the amendments have to be in place BEFORE the July 2009 AGM. Ontario has to elect its Governors who will be going to that AGM, BEFORE that AGM, and those elections must be constitutionally valid by that time!

Issue # 2. Who will David appoint as the " point " governor on this amendment file? Because I submitted my brief directly to the governors ( the governors have seen fit not to impose the CFC Handbook section 14 requirement that members take issues to their Provincial Organization! ), at this point no governor has responsibility to move this matter forward and to organize its processing. Also specific motions must then be drafted ( if my brief proposal is accepted ), and passed. The President, if he is not going to personally handle this, will have to give the responsibility to a particular governor. This governor will then have to stick-handle these amendments through to conclusion.

Issue # 3. Can the proposed amendments be dealt with at the present time? Former CFC President Maurice Smith is currently involved in updating the CFC Handbook. He is looking at motions that the Govenors have passed since 2000, and which were never incorporated into the Handbook! Do any of these motions outstanding affect the 2 amendments I want in any way - in other words, am I amending up-to-date sections of the Handbook? Apparently Maurice has identified the outstanding motions that need incorporation, as a first step in his process. If this is the case, I have suggested to David that we ask Maurice whether he can tell us at this early time in his process, whether he can advise if the sections I seek to amend, are up-to-date. Once we know the answer to that question, we can see if we can proceed to process my brief.

Issue # 4. Though we do have some time before the Ontario Regional Affiliates hold their elections for the 2009-10 Governors, it will come quickly in the late Spring. And it will take time to process the brief, and then, if successful, motions will have to be processed through the GL's. And we've seen how long that can sometimes take, especially if the time between GL's lengthens out. So it is likely best that handling this matter not be delayed too long in the new year.

Conclusion - Some things aren't simple !

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

I identified as Issue # 1 above : whether the formal amendments I requested were to be treated as " constitutional " amendments.

The relevant section of the CFC Handbook is :

BY-LAW NUMBER THREE OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA

ANNUAL MEETING AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

2. All matters to be decided by the Assembly, shall be decided by a majority vote, save as hereinafter provided.

3. Any amendment or revision of these By-Laws [ # 1, # 2, # 3 ]; .....

(a) at any Annual Meeting of the Assembly, providing that .... any resolution pertaining to such matter shall be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the votes of those present and entitled to vote, including proxy votes.

(b) at any time through a mail vote of Assembly, providing that the exact wording of such proposed amendments or revision, or of the resolution to be passed by the Board through mail vote is submitted to each Governor at least fourteen days before the expiry of the time limit specified by the President for the receipt of the votes by the Secretary, and that at least one-half of the number of votes eligible to be cast has been received by the Secretary, and there is a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes cast in favour of the proposed amendment or revision or resolution.

Abstentions shall not be included in determining whether a two-thirds majority has been attained in (a) or (b) above provided only that the number of votes cast in favour must exceed the sum of the number of votes cast against and of the number of abstentions cast.

My First Amendment

CFC Bylaw 1

ORDINARY MEMBERSHIP

5. Any person, ordinarily resident in Canada, may become an Ordinary Member of the Federation, for the then-current fiscal year, upon payment of the Membership per Capita Fee, directly to the Federation, or through his Provincial Organization. Every Ordinary or Life Member has a right to vote on the appointment or election of the Governor or Governors who will represent his Provincial Organization. Every Ordinary or Life Member has a right to vote on the appointment or election of the Governor or Governors who will represent his Provincial Organization at the assembly of Governors, except that the Provincial Organization, should it see fit, can restrict the Member vote to those Governors allocated to their particular region of the Province, but shall not be entitled to vote under any other circumstances unless specifically provided in these by-laws.

Since this is an amendment of Bylaw 1, it must be treated as a " constitutional " amendment, under Bylaw 3, section 3. And if it is to be passed outside of the AGM, by " mail vote ", then section 3(b) applies. That is, a full 1/2 of the governors must vote ( the quorum ), and a full 2/3 of the votes must be in favour ( the special majority ).

I believe this is what the Governors must do if my amendment is allowed to proceed. We cannot wait 'til the 2009 CFC AGM to deal with this. That would mean that once again, the Ontario 2009-10 Governors would be unconstitutionally elected. There will have to be a Governors' " mail vote " soon, and we shall have to achieve the quorum, and the special majority. I think this can be done on this issue, despite the sometimes poor voting record of governors in previous years. For the 2008-9 votes, the governors have shown a turnout in greater numbers than past years. So we can hope that on an important constitutional issue for Ontario, they will vote in sufficient numbers.

My Second Amendment

CFC Rules and Regulations, Article 1

SELECTION OF GOVERNORS BY PROVINCIAL ORGANIZATION

9. As soon as possible after the receipt by a Provincial Organization of the aforementioned Certificate, such body will convene a meeting of its Federation Members for the purpose of electing its necessary number of nominees for the Board for the ensuing term. However, should the Provincial Organization see fit, it can devolve the holding of meetings to regional affiliates, and restrict the Federation Members to voting only for the CFC Governors allocated to that particular region.

This is not an amendment of any of the three bylaws. Therefore this amendment is NOT a " constitutional " amendment. Thus it is dealt with under Bylaw 3, section 2, and requires only a simple majority of votes cast ( I have not yet been able to find any quorum requirement for ordinary GL votes or mail votes ). So this amendment should not pose any special difficulty in processing. And again, it should be done within a reasonable time frame, so that it is passed BEFORE the Ontario regions vote for their governors in late Spring, 2009.

So now, still outstanding are, the other three issues I identified above. I look forward to an early response on them from CFC President David Lavin.

Bob