Governor inactivity and Peter Stockhausen

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Valer:

Your idea is certainly a valid alternative.

But the Coalition does feel the province/appointing body needs to suffer some consequence from sending in a " dud ", and taking away their right to replace is the only penalty.

But if this idea is illegal, then we will remove it from the motion. The Coalition needs to hear more opinions on why it is thought to be illegal.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I hear you loud and clear. What I would like is to hear some other voices agree with you that it is illegal. I am open to removing it. I just want more than only your opinion that it is illegal ( and I acknowledge you may well be right ).

Bob

[Ken Craft]

Okay. Let me be more clear. Whether it is ultra vires is irrelevant, although I believe it is. I believe the clause is wrong even if it is intra vires.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

The Coalition believes there should be a penalty to the province/appointing body for a " dud " governor. So we are going ahead with it as is, unless we are convinced it is illegal ( and you do have me close to agreeing with you that it may be illegal - I would like to hear if others think it is illegal or not, especially other governors ).

If we decide it is legal, and go ahead with it, then it is certainly open to you to bring a motion to amend our motion by deleting the last part. That way if you are successful on the amendment, you'll have won your point, and then our amended motion can hopefully be passed so we at least have some starting " governor activity rule " in place.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

How does the province have any control over their Governor once they are appointed? Simply, they don't. Therefore there can be no blame to the province should a Governor do anything, including becoming inactive.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

The issue is that someone has to take responsibility for deadwood governors.

Since the CFC Handbook states that the CFC members in the Province " elect " the CFC Governors for their province ( except in Ontario, and I'm trying to change that still - taking a bit of time though ), it is really the CFC members in the province who would suffer if their Provincial Affiliate was not allowed to fill the vacancy of an expelled governor. And why shouldn't they suffer the penalty if they elect a deadwood, dud governor? Maybe next time they'd make sure the governor intended to govern !! It's true that it is the individual governor's choice to be inactive, but surely someone should take the heat when this happens - otherwise no one will care much whom they elect.

Bob

[Valer Eugen Demian]

How does the province have any control over their Governor once they are appointed? Simply, they don't. Therefore there can be no blame to the province should a Governor do anything, including becoming inactive.

Excellent point! Also each provincial body is the local group promoting chess in the region to the best of their abilities. Normally appointing people to the leadership executive or governors' positions is done in good faith. The provincial body knows the best its local situation, proeminent chess promoters, circumstances, etc. Give them a chance to fix the situation in a proper manner.

One simple example: most governors from back East have very little clue what is the real situation here on the West Coast. How could they judge then what is happening? Of course same goes for myself if I would have to judge the activity of one of our colleagues from back East...

[Ken Craft]

The Coalition is certainly permitted to have its belief that Provincial Associations should be penalized for choosing inactive Governors. Only one thing matters does the Coalition have enough votes to carry the day. I doubt it. I think the Coalition would be better off trying to find a motion on Gvovernr participation that can pass.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

The Coalition will only bring a motion of its own to amend its own motion to delete the reference to non-replacement of expelled governors, IF it is convinced the clause is illegal ( it otherwise likes the punitive measure against the Province/appointing body ). I don't know if we will have enough votes for it as is ( so far it seems Craft, Mallon & Demian agree with the first part, but dislike the second part - haven't got response from any other governors as far as I can recollect ).

If you think the second part is not acceptable, why won't you bring a motion of your own to amend our motion by deleting it ? - that way you'd test what is acceptable, and we would have to go along with the results of your amending motion vote.

Bob