Number of Governors and Democracy

[Garland Best]

Reading the latest GL, I was struck by the following motion, and the comments.

Motion 2009-14: Moved: Governor Patrick McDonald; Seconded: Governor Paul Leblanc
Numbers of Governors for Each Province: this subsection of section 1 of By-law # 2, shall be amended by deleting in both places the word “ fifty “ and substituting for it the words “ one hundred “.

The Motion indicates that currently there are 38 elected members (and 3 vacancies from the territorities), and the proposed change would reduce the numbers to 22 members and 3 vacancies.

Now in the comments is written the following: "There are 61 governors for about 1400 adult members.".

Does this imply that there are 20 (or 23) UNELECTED governors? That currently makes up 1/3 of the total number of governors. Furthermore, since the number of unelected governors are not changed by this motion, does this not mean that the percentage of unelected governors will increase from 1/3 to almost 1/2?

There is also a comment about low participation from Governors. Which ones? The elected or unelected?

In short, will this motion make the current system more democratic and effective, or less??

[Christopher Mallon]

I don't know the stats for this year, but historically it has been around 10% of the Life and At-Large governors voting on any given motion, and 25-50% of the elected governors.

So yes, this motion sucks, which is why I oppose it and prefer a Governor Activity Rule instead.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

Wish you had brought a Governor Activity Rule motion to the AGM - I would have supported it, and recommended that the CFC Constitutional Coalition endorse it. It is a good idea - but the motion has to be brought.

I think the cutting of the provincial representative governors will help increase the percentage of good active governors. It can stand with an activity rule.

Bob

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Garland:

What you say is true - the influence of the non-elected governors increases with the cutting of the provincial representation governors.

What we have done as the CFC Constitutional Coalition, is to tackle part of the problem. There are too many provincial representation governors, and Provinces have trouble finding enough good governors to fill the positions, so they go conscript some " cooperative " governor who's willing to have his name stand, but has no intention of doing anything. The motion seeks to make the provincial representation positions competitive, by cutting down their numbers. This will lead to a higher percentage of good active governors among the provincial representation governors.

The next question, which no one has addressed, is how to increase the participation of the non-elected governors. This is the next step in the process. Because this issue has not yet been addressed does not mean that the Motion 2009-14 should not be brought. It is step # 1.

Bob

P.S. Chris is touting a governor activity rule - this might address the second issue - the CFC Constitutional Coalition would seriously consider endorsing a good governor activity rule motion, if someone would bring it - Chris hasn't to date.

[Christopher Mallon]

Hi Bob,

I thought I had actually, but I can't seem to find my email to Lyle about it. Maybe I was daydreaming. Anyway I believe there is still time... it's not likely to pass of course, but maybe with a little thinking and some direct contact to some governors it could.

[Ken Craft]

The only province with too many Governors is Ontario. The proposed motion guts the other provinces. A cap on the total number of Governors per province would have been better if you feel you need to reduce them. The other solution is eliminating Life Governors.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

The CFC Constitutional Coalition Motion to cut the number of life Governors ( past presidents ) in half, got lost by Lyle, even though it was in the same document as Motion 2009-14. Here it is:

Motion # 2 :
.
Governors-at-Large – Past CFC Presidents: Section 6 of By-law # 2 is amended by deleting

“ the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least two full terms. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.”

and deleting

“ the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994. “

There shall be added after the words “ five years “ in the remaining section, the sentence “ A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.”

As well, after the deadline, but well before GL #6 got published, the Coalition sent in a third motion related to motion # 2. It in a sense grandparents the 5 life governors being eliminated, and keeps them on as " Non-voting " Governors at large, for 10 years. It also got left out of GL # 6. Here is that motion:

Motion # 3 : Moved: Governor Bob Armstrong Seconded: Governor Paul Leblanc

There shall be added to Bylaw 2, if Motion # 2 ( already filed on behalf of the Coalition ) is passed, the following new Section 6A:

“ 6A. NON-VOTING GOVERNORS AT LARGE

The following shall be known as non-voting Governors at large:

the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least two full terms prior to July 1, 2009. A term is that period between one annual meeting and the next.

And

the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994.

They shall have all governor rights, except the right to vote. They shall cease being governors on July 1, 2019. “

The Coalition has written to Lyle to ask what he will now do about the errors, since these motions should be going to the AGM next month with Motion 2009-14 ( which cuts provincial representative governors by approx. 50% ). We have yet to hear from Lyle.

Bob

[Ken Craft]

In many ways I think you are barking up the wrong tree. The problem really is that the Executive does not allow the Governors to govern. In the electronic age, there is no excuse for the slow pace at which Governors are communicated with and permitted to make decisions.