Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

[Bob Armstrong]

From the CFC Chess Forum:

Hi [ Governor ] Kerry [ Liles ]:

There is a problem I think, with the introduction of the Private Governors' Forum as part of the GL process. In the GL's, the Governors' comments can be viewed by ordinary CFC members. And if they want to debate the views of the Governors, they can come here on the public forum [ the CFC Chess Forum ], and debate what the Governors have said.

But as I understand it, on motions, the Governors will now make their comments in their private forum. And as far as I know, these comments will not be reproduced in the GL under the relevant motion. The GL will now just give the results of the voting. This is a serious diminishment of communication between the governors and the membership. We will never know what the governors are thinking !

If this is to be, then the onus falls directly on the governors to communicate with the membership. They must come here to the public forum [ the CFC Chess Forum ], and advise of their positions on the non-confidential issues being debated. This is the only way we will know the thinking behind motions.

My concern is that the governors have not been educated to communicate with the membership. And that they will fail to come here [ the CFC Chess Forum ] and post.

Is my concern legitimate??

Bob

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

back in the day when the earth was young, before bulliten boards, only the governers had access to the governers' letter. And it was not necessarily a bad thing.

So, the situation you describe has existed before and the world functioned. Opening up discussion to anyone with 5 minutes to spare in front of the computer has not improved the governing process particularly although perhaps it makes some people feel good.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

Hi Bob,

It hard keeping with the debate with all these boards, but I am not sharing your concerns.

As I see it, the new governors bulletin board is not replacing the GL's, but rather it is an additional vehicle to aid communications between governors with the additional feature of some degree of privacy.

If a governors wishes to make his views public, he/she maintains the option of sending his/her comments to the GL.

[John Coleman]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

back in the day when the earth was young, before bulliten boards, only the governers had access to the governers' letter. And it was not necessarily a bad thing.

This is not quite the case, as far as I recall, non-governors could subscribe to the Governors' letter.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

Hi Bob:

My concern is this:

- right now there is some compulsion on the governors to put their comments in the GL - it is the only way they can get their views out to other governors ( and it so happens, also to the members, but this is not why they put their comments in );

- with the new private governors board, governors can get their views across to other governors just by posting in their private board; so there is no longer any need to put comments into the GL for other governors, because they will have already seen them on the discussion board.

- I don't think that in the new universe, the governors will be motivated to put their comments into the GL, just to make them available to the membership. This has not been the reason they've commented before in the GL, and it will not be the reason now.

But I guess we'll only know for sure, as the GL's come out, and we see if there are diminishing comments by the governors, as more of them get used to using their private board instead.

I'll be surprised if the comments don't slowly tail off.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

The solution could be some kind of public archive to which the discussion gets sent either after results of the vote are known or under extenuating circumstances, when the need for additional privacy is gone (contract negotiations etc). Exactly how it will work is still to be decided.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

I don't know why Governors would be afraid of having their debate watched in real time on non-confidential items? I think it would be a step forward in democracy and transparency.

[Ken MacDonald]

And a Step Toward...........

The typical whining, carping, pi**ing and moaning of these boards before any decision is taken. You are Governors for a simple reason. It is your decision.

If the CFC needed 1,000 Governors, they might do just what you suggest.

We have far too many Governors now. We need a benevolent dictatorship and a small board to get things done.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

We'll have to disagree, Ken. I think we are where we are today because too much untransparent power has been concentrated in the hands of executives.

It's not clear entirely that Governors will get to decide.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

Hi Ken:

According to the by-laws of the CFC, the Governors run the CFC, not the Executive ( you have read my article previously in SCTCN&V setting this out ).

So all that is needed for a " view only " governors' board is a MOTION.

You have tried to talk the Executive into this option and have failed. So no one can blame you for now confronting the Executive with a motion to get what the governors want.

Bob

[Lawrence Day]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

I agree with Ken. There are too many governors. If I had the numerical representation in parliament that I have in the CFC I would have over 3000 MPs!
Then I would probably pay to not have to hear how they came to a decision.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

Parenthetically, the Governors have never been informed about how decisions have been made about the administration of the upcoming Olympiad teams. I'm sure it was an oversight.

[Lawrence Day]

Re: Limitations with CFC Governors' Private Forum

An oversight? I don't think so.

The CFC legitimately produces the Selection list, deals with FIDE and the organizers, and centralizes the panhandling for air fare and (hopefully) some expenses. Thank you.

Decisions about team administration should be left to people with at least some Olympic experience. Yes, that is elitist. The Olympics are elitist. The CFC Governors represent average players/former players, very democratic and egalitarian, but the prospect of their making decisions about the teams scares off potential sponsors and even perhaps players. It is not as if the CFC were paying the team captains. Then they might legitimately be privy to how decisions were made. As it is, the team administration is not the governor's business.

Sometimes the best move is to get out of the way.