CFC Executive Candidates Start to Come Forward - Gillanders

[Pierre Dénommée]

As for a domestic program, it needs to be simple, very simple, and free!

We need competence over simplicity.

In which other sport can you become an arbiter for free? The Quebec cycling federation offers the lecture for free, but then you must purchase an arbiter's license before actually doing it in a competition.

Simplicity and cost should be factor only at club level. At higher level, we want skill and knowledge.

[Pierre Dénommée]

The FIDE side must not be ignored since I believe they are moving towards only certified arbiters being able to run FIDE rated events.

This is already the case. All that remains is to see if FIDE will strictly enforce it.

[Christopher Mallon]

David Lavin approved an "Arbiter's Council" and we got all set up with parameters to go with... and poof, everyone vanished and stopped replying to posts. Go figure.

[Pierre Dénommée]

David Lavin approved an "Arbiter's Council" and we got all set up with parameters to go with... and poof, everyone vanished and stopped replying to posts. Go figure.

Has it been made public? Has a call for participation been made? Are members to be elected at the next AGM?

Why are people vanishing when we try to establish a certification program? All other National Sports Organisation in Canada do have Arbiter, (Referee, Umpire, Judge) Certification program. We need to know who is opposed and why. To block something so trivial, it takes a person quite high in the hierarchy opposing it.

Off course, it is possible to delegate most of the program to the provinces. The CFC should be involved directly in the National, FIDE and International level. The Provincial levels (to be created) should be left to the provinces and the regional and local level should be left to the Leagues. Only Examinations and Arbiter Seminars content should be national.

[Jean Hebert]

Not to rain on your parade, but do we have bids coming to the AGM for our own domestic tournaments for 2011 - the Canadian/Zonal Championship; and the Canadian Open? We've got a few home problems to solve, before we take on the world !

You are quite right Bob. We have lots of smaller tasks to perform reasonably well before pretending to be ready for an olympiad. By the way I don't think that organizing events, such as the Canadian/Zonal Championship or the Canadian Open, should be seen as "problems". They actually are "opportunities" to move chess forward. Nobody wants to deal with "problems".

[Michael von Keitz]

First of all, Bob, I don't think I have actually come out and said that I am in support of your candidacy. Allow me to rectify that now, in pledging my full support and my vote.

I do have some questions, however, though I will start with just one: would you potentially be in support of there being only one governor for every 100 membership equivalents (or, for that matter, 1-to-75), as opposed to the current 1-to-50 rule? It seems to me that this would serve to lower the chances of deadwood being elected to the board.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

In 2009 in Edmonton , at the AGM, I had a motion 2009-14 to reduce the Provincial Representative governors, by moving from 1 gov/50 to 1 gov/100. It was soundly defeated. It had been tried 5 years earlier as well, and got even more soundly defeated the first time.

Many governors told me then that they felt an " Activity Rule " had to be tried before the reduction of governors. This is now motion 2010-05 at this year's AGM.

Also, I have on the AGM agenda motion 2010-03 which seeks to eliminate the 10 past president life governors as voting governors. It was recently passed by the governors in a " straw vote ". We'll see what they do in the " official vote ".

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

First of all, Bob, I don't think I have actually come out and said that I am in support of your candidacy. Allow me to rectify that now, in pledging my full support and my vote.

I do have some questions, however, though I will start with just one: would you potentially be in support of there being only one governor for every 100 membership equivalents (or, for that matter, 1-to-75), as opposed to the current 1-to-50 rule? It seems to me that this would serve to lower the chances of deadwood being elected to the board.

With the 50/1 ratio, some provincial affiliates do struggle to find enough active governors. With 60+ governors, this does requires considerable effort to communicate and keep them all informed. For these reasons, I have supported past efforts to reduce the number of governors. However, these measures have been defeated. Time to try something else.

The motion to impose an activity rule is still pending. It imposes a minimum level of involvement to retain governor status. I do believe governors have a responsibility to keep informed on the issues, and to vote.

Those are my views as a CFC member and incoming governor. These are questions for the governors to decide, not the president nor the executive. As a presidential candidate, I have answered your question, but I do not plan on actively supporting either side in this debate.

Instead, I hope to raise the credibility of the CFC whereby more good people want to be CFC governors!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Just to provide a bit more information on the Activity Rule, it is motion 2010-05. Also, the motion in its original form was defeated recently in a close vote in a " straw vote " at the Governors' Quarterly On-line Meeting in April:

View Poll Results: Motion 2010-05 Instituting a new " Governor Activity Rule " Should be Adopted.

Yes
Alick Tsui, Bob Armstrong, Christopher Mallon, Herb Langer, Hugh Brodie, Ilia Bluvshtein, Jason Lohner, John Coleman, Ken Craft, Michael Barron, Michael von Keitz, Patrick McDonald, Paul Leblanc 13 - 43.33%

No
Bill Evans, Egidijus Zeromskis, Ellen Nadeau, Fred McKim, Garvin Nunes, Gordon Ritchie, Halldor P. Palsson, John Erickson, Ken Einarsson, Les Bunning, Mark Bluvshtein, Mark S. Dutton, I.A., Simon Ong, Stijn De Kerpel, Valer Eugen Demian, Vlad Rekhson 16 - 53.33%

Abstain
Eric Van Dusen 1 3.33%

It, in its orginal form, was also recently voted on ( as of April 23 ) in another " straw vote ", and the results are to be published in the GL # 5 ( don't know if it will get defeated again or not ).

But as a result of input from those voting against the motion, it was amended and now has specific procedures outlined in it re default - here is the new motion:

Motion 2010-05 - Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Jason Lohner

( submitted on behalf of the CFC Constitutional Coalition, a grassroots’ group of about 40 ordinary CFC members and a few governors, named below in the Notes )

There shall be added to CFC By-law # 2, a new section 23 as follows:

“ 23. Governor Inactivity Rule

( 1 ) Any governor, no matter whether provincial representative governor, or governor at large, including the Executive, appointees, etc., who does not vote in two consecutive Governors’ meetings, shall be removed from office and their position shall no longer be part of a quorum until their replacement, if any.;
( 2 ) Should it happen that in meeting, there are no motions for either discussion or vote, then the participation required will merely be attendance.
( 3 ) For the purposes of this section, the CFC Secretary shall do the monitoring of attendance, since he has the records on attendance;
( 4 ) The Secretary shall send a warning notice to any governor missing a meeting.;
( 5 ) A governor who misses two consecutive meetings can be excused by the President for some exceptional reason;
( 6 ) Once removed by the Secretary, or President, the Governor and his provincial/territorial body/appointing body shall be notified by the Secretary .
( 7 ) The Secretary shall also request that a provincial/territorial body hold a by-election to fill the vacancy, or that the appointing body appoint a replacement, for the balance of the removed governor’s term. "

It is hoped that with these good changes, the majority of governors will vote to pass the motion this time at the CFC AGM in July.

Bob

[Fred McKim]

Is a Governor's letter considered a meeting ?

If so, how would you count attendance if there is no voting ?