9. Motions - commentary only (A. (Denommee/Barron) Governors Ethics and Code...)

[Michael von Keitz]

Discussion here.

[Michael von Keitz]

Part I: decision making process

The Assembly of Governors is committed to effective decision-making and, once a decision has been made, speaking with one voice. Towards this end the Governors will:

• Speak from broad member and community interests
• Speak for themselves (“my own thinking on this is that…”) rather than for a group of members.
• Express additional or alternative points of view and invite others to do so.
• On important issues, be balanced in one’s effort to understand others and to make oneself understood.
• Once made, support, indeed defend, Assembly of Governors decisions, even if one’s own view is a minority one.
• Respect the confidentiality of information on sensitive issues, especially in personnel matters.
• Refrain from speaking for the organization unless authorized to do so.
• Disclose one’s involvement with other organizations, businesses or individuals where such a relationship might be viewed as a conflict of interest. Involvement in chess clubs Leagues and Provincial Association, whether affiliated or not, does not constitute a conflict of interest.
• Refrain from giving direction, as an individual Governor, to the Executive Director or any member of staff.
• Do not publicly comment on the performance of any arbiter or organiser. Direct complaints against arbiters or organisers to the relevant CFC Committee: NAC for rules of the game, Ethics for matters set out in the CFC Code of Ethics or TDOCP for failure to pay guaranteed prizes.


Part II: Duties and Ethics

Goal: To establish a set of principles and practices of the CFC Assembly of Governors that will set parameters and provide guidance and direction for board conduct and decision-making.

Code: Members of the Assembly of Governors of the CFC are committed to observing and promoting the highest standards of ethical conduct in the performance of their responsibilities on the Assembly of Governors of CFC. Assembly members pledge to accept this code as a minimum guideline for ethical conduct and shall abide by it.

Scope: This Code also applies to all Governors, to the members of the CFC Executive and to the members of all CFC Committees even if they are not a Governor.

Accountability

1. Faithfully abide by the Articles of Incorporation, by-laws and policies of the CFC.
2. Exercise reasonable care, good faith and due diligence in organizational affairs.
3. Fully disclose, at the earliest opportunity, information that may result in a perceived or actual conflict of interest.
4. Fully disclose, at the earliest opportunity, information that would have significance in board decision-making.
5. Remain accountable for prudent fiscal management to association members, the board, and non-profit sector, and where applicable, to government and funding bodies.

Professional Excellence

6. Maintain a professional level of courtesy, respect, and objectivity in all CFC activities.

7. Strive to uphold those practices and assist other CFC members of the board in upholding the highest standards of conduct.

Personal Gain

8. Exercise the powers invested for the good of all members of the CFC rather than for his or her personal benefit, or that of the province they represent.

Equal Opportunity

9. Ensure the right of all association members to appropriate and effective services without discrimination on the basis of geography, political, religious, or socio-economical characteristics of the province or region represented.

10. Ensure the right of all association members to appropriate and effective services without discrimination on the basis of the organization’s volunteer or staff make-up in respect to gender, sexual orientation, national origin, race, religion, age, political affiliation or disability, in accordance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

Confidential Information

11. Respect the confidentiality of sensitive information known due to board service.

Collaboration and Cooperation

12. Respect the diversity of opinions as expressed or acted upon by the CFC Assembly of Governors, committees and membership, and formally register dissent as appropriate.

13. Promote collaboration, cooperation, and partnership among association members.

Allegation of violation of this code shall be investigated by the Assembly of Governors.

[Pierre Dénommée]

This is the third discussion of this motion.

Almost all other non-profits have adopted such code. The Government and some Sponsors like such Codes of Ethic. I do not understand why it is so hard to come with an agreement on a text.

We already have a Code of Ethics for the players, but it is clearly geared toward cheating during a game of chess. It has no impact on the Governance of the Federation, although it also applies to Governors.

Here we can discuss how to improve this motion.

[Lyle Craver]

I think this text is greatly improved from the original. Some of the language in the original seemed a bit draconian (dare I say "FIDE at its worst"?)

To describe this text as 'draconian' would be laughable and is something I urge all Governors to get behind - such a statement is as Pierre says pretty standard in national non-profits in 2012.

[Christopher Mallon]

I would like to move an amendment, to delete the following:

"• Once made, support, indeed defend, Assembly of Governors decisions, even if one’s own view is a minority one."

You could read this to say that, for example, the Governors would be duty-bound to defend any decision, no matter how ridiculous, or even one that turned out to be illegal.

We live in a land of free speech, and the only limitations on that free speech are where it might infringe on the rights of others. A governor publicly disagreeing with a motion carried by the governors is not going to be infringing on anyone's rights.

Otherwise, I do agree with Lyle that it is vastly improved.

Seconder, anyone?

[Michael von Keitz]

I would like to move an amendment, to delete the following:

"• Once made, support, indeed defend, Assembly of Governors decisions, even if one’s own view is a minority one."

You could read this to say that, for example, the Governors would be duty-bound to defend any decision, no matter how ridiculous, or even one that turned out to be illegal.

We live in a land of free speech, and the only limitations on that free speech are where it might infringe on the rights of others. A governor publicly disagreeing with a motion carried by the governors is not going to be infringing on anyone's rights.

Otherwise, I do agree with Lyle that it is vastly improved.

Seconder, anyone?

The mover and seconder of the motion are willing to accept this as a "friendly amendment." As I've done once before, I'm going to allow the amendment to stand as final, unless I hear an objection. Otherwise, the amendment will go to a vote.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

• Disclose one’s involvement with other organizations, businesses or individuals where such a relationship might be viewed as a conflict of interest. Involvement in chess clubs Leagues and Provincial Association, whether affiliated or not, does not constitute a conflict of interest.

I teach chess and sometimes charge for it. Is that a conflict of interest?

I buy chess books and videos from the CMA on occasion. Is that a conflict of interest?

• Do not publicly comment on the performance of any arbiter or organiser. Direct complaints against arbiters or organisers to the relevant CFC Committee: NAC for rules of the game, Ethics for matters set out in the CFC Code of Ethics or TDOCP for failure to pay guaranteed prizes.

I have some concern with this clause as it seems to me you are muzzling the governors ability to comment publicly no matter how egregious or how wonderful the behaviour of the arbiter or organizer is. I could see violating this rule where one of my students or their parents asked my opinion on whether they should participate in a tournament based on who the arbiter or organizer was. Also the wording does not limit this prohibition to arbiters and organizers of CFC events so I could be deemed to be in violation for publicly commenting on the good job a USCF organizer or TD was doing.

Further the way the clause is written I could not publicly comment to defend any arbiter or organizer if he were subjected to public attacks which seems to me is a significant attack on my free speech rights. I can think of at least a couple of threads on discussion boards where governors have violated the letter of this rule since they rose to the defense of someone who was being attacked.

In the 1970s I went to a tournament in Detroit where the organizer bounced all the prize checks and later threatened the TD with extreme violence when he complained about the situation (presumably his check bounced too). Again this would lead to a muzzling of the governors.

I realize that this is not the intent of this motion but that is the effect. Before we put a motion on the floor we should be very sure that its wording reflects the intention of the authors.

[Gordon Ritchie]

This is a distinct improvement over the earlier attempt.
From some of the commentary, there does seem to be some confusion over the roles and responsibilities of governors of an organization. The unhelpful rhetoric about "free speech" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the role. As a governor, one is entrusted with taking the best decision in the interests of all stakeholders, based to some extent on confidential information and discussion shared only with other governors. In exchange, one voluntarily surrenders the untrammeled right to sound off in public.
This is perfectly proper good governance practice as applied at all levels of organization.
If a governor cannot live with an important decision taken by the federation, he should resign. He would then be free to air his views publicly.
So long as he remains on the inside, as a governor, he is bound by the terms of confidentiality as set out in the code.
If a governor is not prepared to abide by the strictures of confidentiality, he must resign.

[Ken Craft]

Governors represent their provinces. If s/he disagrees with a decision s/he has the right to say so. An analogous situation would be to argue that members of the opposition should cease to criticize the omnibus budget bill once it was passed. I will be voting against this motion.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I understand the need to maintain confidentiality. I do not understand the need to shield arbiters and organizers from comments either negative or positive by governors which is what one clause of this code of conduct requires.

Currently I violate this rule every time I play in a tournament as I usually thank the TD and organizers for their efforts and for running a successful and well run tournament.

I also violated this rule when there was a controversy in a tournament involving some of the children that I am teaching and coaching. I talked to the TD and organizer publicly and communicated to him what the individuals felt about his decision and the sensitivity which was required. He did not reverse his decision but he did take steps which alleviated the concerns of the parents (which were quite heated). If the situation had been mishandled the result could have been a boycott of the tournament by a significant number of parents the next time the tournament ran. (That was the direction that the sentiment was running.) As it was the result was only some momentarily ruffled feathers which were mollified by the TD's subsequent actions.

A complaint to the various relevant committees might have resulted in a reversal of the original decision or not but that is not the point. The real issue was not the rule but the feelings which were upset and the need to tread with great sensitivity to avoid unnecessary consequences.

We should avoid inflicting too many rules on the governors which prevent them from being a force for the good of chess.

If a rule says that I can't publicly compliment a TD or organizer then there is something wrong with the rule. As currently written I will be voting against it.