New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

[Bob Armstrong]

There's a new kid on the block !

In early December, 2008, a group of ordinary CFC members were concerned about the decision-making in the CFC. They formed a new grassroots' members group called the " CFC Constitutional Coalition ". This group numbers almost 40 members ( most from south central Ontario; one from B.C. ) - this is double the size of the Grassroots' Campaign when it started in the late Spring of 2008.

The goal of the group is to improve the decision-making in the CFC. They have decided one way to do this is to streamline the organization by " governor reduction ". They will soon be bringing, with the help of 2 member governors, 2 motions to reduce:

1. the number of provincial representative governors, and
2. the number of past president governors ( and eliminating Life Governors ).

The 2 motions are as follows:

Motion # 1:

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 “.

Commentary:

The current subsection of section 1 of By-law # 2 dealing with “ Numbers of Governors for Each Province “ is: .

Provincial/Territorial Governors: BY-LAW NUMBER TWO OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA

1. ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNORS…..NUMBERS OF GOVERNORS FOR EACH PROVINCE

Each provincial association shall be entitled to elect or appoint a number of Governors as follows:
For the first fifty or part thereof of ordinary per capita fee payments, and number of life memberships combined, one Governor shall be allotted and for each subsequent fifty or part thereof one additional governor shall be allotted.

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.”

Commentary:

The current appointment of past CFC Presidents under the CFC Handbook is under section 6 of Bylaw 2, which states:

" 6.GOVERNORS AT LARGE

The following persons shall be known as Governors at large:

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.

the past Presidents of the Federation who have served as President for at least one full term in the immediately preceding five years.
.
.
the past Presidents who have been granted the life title of Governor at Large as at September 1994. "

Post your comments as feedback to the Coalition, either " for " or " against " the motions.

Previous discussions on the Canadian Chess Discussion sites have identified that all is not well. The group feels that the current governor structure is sound - it is democratic and representative. But it needs to be pared down, to make it more efficient.

Let us know what you think.

Here are the current members of the Coalition:


Armstrong, Bob – CFC & OCA Life member; past chess club executive
Doucette, Patrick – CFC life member
Garel, Rick – CFC member; current chess club executive
Casareno, Erwin – CFC member
Kitich, Jerry – CFC member; chess teacher; past chess club executive
Broughton, Dave – former CFC Governor and Executive Member
McDonald, Patrick – CFC Life Member; former CFC Junior Coordinator, OCA
Executive; IA, TD and chess organizer; chess club executive; CFC Governor ( Ont. )
Dattani, Dinesh – CFC member
Moysoski, Randy – CFC member; chess club executive; chess organizer
Perez, Michael – CFC member; chess club executive; organizer
Maguire, Jack – CFC member
Deslauriers, Brian – CFC past member
Ritchie, Gordon – CFC member; past CFC Governor
Tim Knechtel – CFC member
Bellomo, Joe – CFC member
Lawless, David – CFC member, former chess club executive, chess teacher, organizer
and TD.
Peristy, Luke – CFC member
Villalobos, Oscar – CFC member
Azmitia, Gabriel – CFC member
Verde, Pino – CFC member
Bossy, John – CFC member
Hall, John – CFC member
Brodie, Hugh – CFC member; maintainer of Canadian Games Database
Beal, Greg – CFC member
Kurkowski, Ken – CFC member
Henry, Liam – CFC member, organizer/TD, chess teacher
Posylek, Caesar – CFC member, former CFC Governor, chess club executive
Rutherdale, Will – CFC member
Stein, Mickey – CFC member
Jackiw, Mark – CFC member
Frilles, Ruperto – CFC member
James Marilla - CFC Member
Leward De la Rama - CFC Member
Mani Mehramooz - CFC Member
Matthew Perez – CFC Member
Joey Ayres – CFC Member
Xavier De Guzman – CFC Member
Kasra Ershandi – CFC Member
Paul Leblanc – CFC Member, CFC Governor ( B.C, )


Bob, Coalition Coordinator

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

Motions identical to your motion #1 have been defeated several times in recent history.

I don't see anything wrong with the 50 rule personally. It doesn't cost any money to have Governors. The real problem is activity (or lack thereof) not the number. Motions aimed at that have been shot down too, although that was at an AGM rife with proxy abuse (such as my proxy form being tossed and the proxy given as a blind proxy to someone present with no instructions).

[Ken Craft]

Re: New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

I'll be voting no to number 1. It dilutes the voice of small provinces and doesn't address the rule problem. I can support the abolition of Pass Presidents becoming Life Governors as long as any such motion is grandparented.

ETA: One way to reduce the number of Governors would be to cap a provinces maximum number of Governors.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

The problem I see with Motion 1 is with half the number of governors a lot of people who sell memberships could be left out.

Most of the clubs are too small to have a requirment like one governor for every 100 members. A club president who sends in 50 members should currently be in a position to ask for a governorship. I certainly expected it when I was a club president and sent in a lot of memberships. Of course, I used to vote.

The problem you seem to be trying to solve is governors not voting. I can see a situation where you have half the governors and still have the same percentage voting, which will give half the votes.

Just out of curiousity, do you really think this puppy (the CFC) is worth saving? If it goes under maybe some people will start an entirely new national organization. With any luck at all the organization will be moved outside of Ontario to Western Canada. Ontario has had it long enough.

[Bob Armstrong]

Changes in Provincial Representation

Hi Ken:

Actually, the influence of the 3 smallest provinces is INCREASED and the influence of Ontario is DECREASED. Some other provinces do undergo a minor decrease ( .7 % ).

Here is a rough estimate of what Motion # 1 would mean, based on the number of 2008-9 Governors:

Provincial/Territorial Governors:
.........Current.............Proposed
A - B.C. - 5........................ 3
B - Alta. - 5....................... 3
C - Sask. - 1....................... 1
D - Man. - 2....................... 1
E - Ont. - 17....................... 9
F - Que. - 2........................1
G - N.B. - 2........................1
H - P.E.I. - 1........................1
I - N.S. - 2........................1
J - Nfld. & Lab. – 1........................1
K - no reps from ( 3 vacancies ).........same
the 3 territories
Total - ...............38 ( and ...............22 ( and three vacancies )
three vacancies )

The smallest provinces influence increases as follows:

Sask - from 2.6 % to 4.5 %
PEI - from 2.6 % to 4.5 %
Nfld & L - from 2.6 % to 4.5 %

Other provinces whose influence decrease ( a sample ) are:
N.S. - from 5.2 % to 4.5 %
N.B. - from 5.2 % to 4.5 %
Man. - from 5.2 % to 4.5 %
Ontario - from 44.7 % to 40.9 %

Where the goal is to streamline the decision-making, this should be acceptable.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

Hi Gary:

The problem of voting is a major issue ( Motion 2009-06 - 25% voted; Motion 2009-07 &-08 - less than 50% voted ). Our view of the problem is that there are too many governor positions and not enough good governor candidates. So the provinces go around and have to arm-twist people into taking a governorship. They may do it to be accomodating, but have no desire to run the organization. However, if there were fewer positions, then there would be enough good people to fill the seats. The " accomodating " governors would be eliminated. In fact, in some jurisdictions, it actually might lead to there being an election, with more good people standing than there are positions. Getting good people in, and eliminating the " accomodators ", will increase the rates on voting, and in participating generally in running the organization.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

Hi Chris:

The problem is not what governors cost in $$. It is what they are costing in morale.

I can only repeat what I said to Gary below: there are too many positions and not enough good governors to fill them. The provinces have to go around and arm-twist to get people to stand. They may do so to be accomodating, but have no desire to run the organization. Fewer positions means that a higher percentage of them will be filled with good people. There might even be elections !! More good people than positions - unheard of ! This will increase voting rates, and the higer number of " good " governors will increase their activity in the governing of the organization.

I am aware that the motion # 1 has been defeated previously. But CFC has just gone through 4 years of significant deficits ( and this year will be the 5th ). Also, David has managed, with the governors, to do a major organization restructuring in one year ! These may be factors that will give the governors now a different perspective on this motion. I am hoping that they can see beyond vested interest, to make a decision which will streamline the organization and make decision-making more effective.

Bob

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

However, if there were fewer positions, then there would be enough good people to fill the seats. The " accomodating " governors would be eliminated. In fact, in some jurisdictions, it actually might lead to there being an election, with more good people standing than there are positions. Getting good people in, and eliminating the " accomodators ", will increase the rates on voting, and in participating generally in running the organization.

Bob

Hi Bob,

If a company has their sales cut in half, then they will get rid of the salesmen who can't sell and replace them. I don't think they will operate with only half the salesmen, who are chosen by lot.

If you cut your governors to 1 for every 100 players then it follows each governor should be capable of showing he can recruit or renew that many members (or be the sole governor of a club which does).

Your governors have to be your sales people and promoters. A "governor" is a working postion the way I see it. It's not a sinecure.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

Hi Gary:

Governors are not elected based on the memberships they sell, or the chess club they are associated with ( though it would be great if governors were more active in their localities on marketing chess ). So there is no increased workload on the remaining governors - they are already doing all the work + carrying the deadwood.

Bob

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

Governors are not elected based on the memberships they sell, or the chess club they are associated with ( though it would be great if governors were more active in their localities on marketing chess ). So there is no increased workload on the remaining governors - they are already doing all the work + carrying the deadwood.

Do you feel that simply by removing the "deadwood" (your term) from the current list of governors the membership and chess activity would increase. It seems to me those governors are simply not replying to anything.

In any case, not tieing the governors positions to something tangible, like selling a set number of memberships, doesn't seem to be working.

[Bob Armstrong]

Whither Goes the CFC??

Hi Gary:

We're getting into an analysis a bit of why CFC is where it's at. My view - the crew haven't been up to the job in the last 4 years. And the finances have so dominated, and the navel-gazing, that CFC could not accomplish its main goal of promoting chess ( and selling memberships ). This current year is different - the Executive has led the governors through good, substantial restructuring. This has allowed the possibility of a balanced 2009-10 budget.

Having completed the restructuring, and balanced the budget ( hopefully - David says he is hopeful ), CFC for the first time is in position to reassess its mission, and focus on chess promotion. But to assist in this, the decision-making needs to be streamlined. This is the last restructuring item that will finally position CFC where it can start a positive chess promotion program.

Bob

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Whither Goes the CFC??

Having completed the restructuring, and balanced the budget ( hopefully - David says he is hopeful ), CFC for the first time is in position to reassess its mission, and focus on chess promotion. But to assist in this, the decision-making needs to be streamlined. This is the last restructuring item that will finally position CFC where it can start a positive chess promotion program.

Hi Bob,

What we seem to have is a chicken and egg thingie. Can't balance the budget without money. Can't promote and sell memberships until the budget is balanced.

It's been my observation over the years that generally, organizations do not shrink their way to success. I know many companies have been trying to do it these days and some will succeed. Many, maybe most, won't. Every position you eliminate is one less person to produce for you. Why would the CFC turn away people working volunteer positions at a time when their visibility is so low? I think the game needs more salespeople and not less.

Let's look at two companies and I'll tell you why I think one has a much better chance of surviving than the other. Let's consider GM and Ford. What do I see as the biggest difference between them? The Ford family is still involved in that company. That's why I think they will survive and prosper in the future.

Why do you think the CFC will survive and prosper?

[Bob Armstrong]

Why Reduce Governors Numbers?

Hi Gary:

I don't agree that the CFC is more visible with more governors. Some of the governors are invisible - they don't vote; they don't comment in the GL's or the Governors' Discussion Board; they don't play; they don't promote chess in Canada.

They are just demoralizing to the Governors trying to do the job, and finding that the load is not being shared as expected. They bring the organization into disrepute with the members, who then think no one is running the ship, when they see all this governor-non-participation.

Need to clean house - and reducing the number of governors will help.

Bob

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Why Reduce Governors Numbers?

Need to clean house - and reducing the number of governors will help.

Go for it!!! If my dog, Beware, wasn't earning its premium kibble, out the dog would go.

It's pretty much the same model as when the CFC was a vibrant organization so to me it seems like a case of finding fall guys.

Kind of like an auto repairman who replaces parts until he finally hits on the one which fixes the auto. He doesn't really know what he's doing and everything he replaces costs a lot of money.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: New Kid on the Block: Governor Reduction

Quite honestly, I can't figure out why someone is governor and doesn't vote on the issues. I also don't believe that people should automatically get to be 'governor for life' because of past services. Yes we all are thankful for people volunteering their time/effort, but I can't see why this should translate into a life governorship (kinda reminds me of the Canadian senate!). I don't think a 1/100 ratio of governor/member is unreasonable. If a province wants more votes then they should have a drive for more members! :) Large governments always become unwieldy.

Just my own 2c worth :)