Executive secrecy

[Ken Craft]

The CFC executive is refusing to share the details ofthe Federation's new book and equipment deal with the Governors. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Executive secrecy

Hi Ken:

Do you know whether the purchaser demanded as part of the deal that the terms not be disclosed?

And if so, should the Executive have agreed to this?

Bob

[Ken Craft]

Re: Executive secrecy

The issue is the Governors are entitled to the information. Sharing information with those who govern the Federation is hardly disclosure.

[Larry Bevand]

Re: Executive secrecy

The deal was not with Chess'n Math.

David Lavin and I spoke on numerous occasions. I assume that our offer (which was the same as we had made with Hal Bond months earlier) was less than what David was able to get elsewhere.

Larry

[Ken Craft]

Re: Executive secrecy

The Governors know who it is with. They just don't know the terms of the agreement.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Executive secrecy

Presumably we'll all know who it is in the near future. Otherwise how would they expect to attract the patronage of CFC members.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Executive secrecy

**************************************************************
Motion 2009-03
Be it resolved that the President be authorized to enter into negotiations towards winding up the books and equipment business. (Moved: Chris Mallon / Seconded: Stijn De Kerpel)

Votes Yes (44)
Barron, Bluvshtein, Bond, Bunning, Chyurlia, Clark, Craft, Craver, DeKerpel, Demian,
Dénommée, Duff, Dutton, Ede, Einarsson, Evans, Felix, Ficzere, Gladstone, Haley, Hoch,
Hughey, Khoudgarian, Kosoian, Langer, Lavin, LeBlanc, Liles, Mallon, Marghetis, McDonald,
Nadeau, Niksic, Palsson, Scoones, Starr, Steer, Stringer, Thomas, Thorvardson, Van Dusen, Von Keitz, Wu, Zeromskis

Votes No (1) Farges

Abstentions (3)
Cabanas,Smith, Stockhausen

Motion Passed
***************************************************************

Darn those ambiguously/poorly-worded motions! Looks like the President was only authorized to (my underlining) "...enter into negotiations towards winding up the books and equipment business." I take it that he also concluded the deal (I'm assuming that the deal wasn't brought to the governors for approval because they wouldn't have approved it if they didn't know the terms.........would they?!?.....hmmm).

Oh well. Live and learn!

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Executive secrecy

Hi Peter :

I think you are right that the motion was meant to say " ...enter into AND CONCLUDE negotiations...." Note that this is the only one of the 4 restructuring motions that did NOT require Executive approval. This was obviously deliberately done by the governors so that David could seal a deal immediately if he got a good one.

But giving the President power to negotiate and conclude a deal, does not mean the Governors do not have to be told what the deal is once it is concluded. This deal was not subject to the scrutiny of the Executive before concluded, and needs to be made public so it can be judged, whether it is or is not a GOOD deal ( regardless of whether it is now a " fait accomplis " [ hope my French is OK ] ).

The only reason I can see why it might not be disclosed was if that was a term of the agreement. But then the issue is whether THAT should have been agreed to, given that the Governors run the CFC.

Bob

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Executive secrecy

I think you are right that the motion was meant to say " ...enter into AND CONCLUDE negotiations...."

I didn't say that, Bob. I just said it was a poorly-worded motion.

This was obviously deliberately done by the governors so that David could seal a deal immediately if he got a good one.

Maybe, but if that was the case then it simply adds emphasis to the perception that the motion was worded poorly.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Executive secrecy

It may have been worded poorly but in this case I believe it is in the best interests of the Executive to share the terms of the deal with the Governors.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Executive secrecy

It may have been worded poorly but in this case I believe it is in the best interests of the Executive to share the terms of the deal with the Governors.

You have to assume that the motion was worded exactly as intended. There may well be a message (perhaps even the attempt to set or re-set a precedent) that the Pres/ Exec does not need governor approval to enter into new business deals--despite what you might have thought when the Governors overwhelmingly voted in 2007-2008. In other words, there is something in the CFC bylaws that talks about the existing business. The Pres was authorized to wind it up. No motion was put forward about entering into a new deal because the Exec, just like in 2007-2008, didn't think governor approval was necessary.

Just a couple of observations or guesses as an "outsider". I haven't seen anything that you haven't seen; in fact, far less.

As one olde CFC President might have replied: "Find a seconder".

[Ken Craft]

Re: Executive secrecy

I'm not questioning the President/Executive's right to enter into this deal. The discussion around the motion was clear on this point. What I am objecting to is the President withholding the terms of the contract from the Governors. I think the optics are bad.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Executive secrecy

As one olde CFC President might have replied: "Find a seconder".