8. POLICY DISCUSSION - Canada Revenue Agency NFP (Not For Profit Regulations)

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Pierre Dénommée has sent me the following message. I have deleted the Wavepoint Consulting URL for model bylaws which doesn't appear to work anymore. I agree that we will have to individually vote on each of the optional bylaws though there are some required bylaws which will be lumped together since by definition they are required by the government. I will also group noncontroversial measures together for voting to speed up the process.

For the optional bylaws the sequence will be to present the recommended options. If there is enough support we will vote on accepting them. Some of the options can be accepted by a simple majority vote but I think it would be better if we can achieve a two thirds majority in each case. I hope the governors are ready for a significant number of votes as there may be as many as twenty or more of them.

In the case of the non-voting members it will be necessary to insert the clauses which explicitly say that the non-voting members are not entitled to vote in instances of circumstances materially changing their membership. The provisions for obtaining addresses and contact information of members are in conjunction with an effort to notify or influence the voting members so I think the nonvoting members are relatively safe from those disclosure requirements. That is my interpretation at least and subject to change if someone points me to a regulation that would change my interpretation.

With respect to some of the other points, they will have to be addressed in the committee and in the coming month by the governors. Our implementation will probably not be perfect but it will get us past the October 17th deadline and allow us to continue as an organization. I remind everyone of the proverb:

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

If we wait until our implementation of the transition is perfect I am certain that we will miss the October 17th deadline. If we follow the more realistic path of aiming for a good implementation that will pass the government's scrutiny we will be able to later strive for perfection. Most changes that involve modification of bylaws do not appear to have a cost attached.

I have just gotten the model bylaws.

Model bylaws are basically useless. For every optional bylaws provisions we must decide which option his to be taken.

The relationship with our affiliates will probably be problematic. This has been left so fuzzy that when wrongdoing has been made with a Trillium Grant, it was unclear who was responsible for the disciplinary action against the perpetrator. The situation when there is no affiliate cannot remain as it is, that cannot be delayed. There are multiple issues, such as autonomy of Provincial Associations, Appeal of Sanctions against players and members to the CFC, punishment for failure of the Provincial Affiliates to participate in the CFC National programs (not organising the qualifiers) (this will cause a lot of problem).

Furthermore, there is still no discussion on the need of the players to be recognised as member of the CFC. Chess players vote at the Provincial level for the CFC Voting Members, this requires them to be a member of the Provincial Association but they do not need to be a CFC member. Many NSO in Canada have only 13 real members: the Provincial Associations. Many attorneys consider that membership give the players too much right under the new Act because non-voting members vote on some fundamentals changes. Confidentiality of the members' personal information is another issue because any member has access to the personal information of all other members.

We should stop bevelling that it will be as it was before, it won't. Under the current Act, all bylaw changes must be given to the Federal Government for approval. Nobody has ever answered my question about this requirement. I can only assume that not all changes have been submitted and that our first step in the transition process is to ask the Government for a copy of our current Constitution. If we can't agree and the case goes to court, as it should, the judge will use the bylaw that have been filed to the Government as the basis.

The previous Committee recommendations has been rejected because it give too much power to the Board of Directors, something that has not been addressed in those discussions.

My reading of the previous Committee recommendations is that they largely followed the default regulations under the new act. Our discussions have focused on modifications to those rules which attempt to make the post new NFP CFC largely operate in the same way that the current governors are comfortable with while still remaining compliant.