Tweet
( from a post I made on the confidential Governors' Discussion Board, somewhat edited )
A. Issues re CFC Transparency:
1. Confidential nature of the quarterly meetings
The governors at the 2011 Winter Meeting have voted not to have a " public view-only " open meeting. Canadian GM, Kevin Spraggett, on his generally excellent blog, has commented on CFC Governor On-line Meetings, referring to faceless CFC bureaucrats going about their business out of public view - members do not know who is attending a meeting, who is saying what, what decisions are being made, etc.. - anonymity during the course of the meeting as to who is making what decisions.
Is this justified criticism ?
Not entirely - Rules and Regulations, s. 22A, s. 5:
(5) Vote Results As soon after the close of voting on motions as possible, the Posting Secretary will post the results of all motions, giving the names of governors and their vote, and confirm whether the motion passed or failed (e.g. whether constitutional amendments achieved the 2/3 majority needed ), on the Governors’ Discussion Board and the members’ CFC Chess Forum.
Unfortunately, this slipped by the Posting Secretary during the 2011 Winter Meeting, and the vote results did not make it to the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum. But when a CFC member asked why, the President within minutes had the motions and results posted. So there is agreement that this part of the Procedures is disclosing and good. So the decisions made by motions, and the names of the governors who made them, ARE immediately to be made known to the membership...during the course of the meeting !
Nertheless, I personally favour the " public view-only " open meeting, and was one of the minority of governors who voted for it. The vote to open the meeting was:
Motion 2011-F
Votes Yes (9): Armstrong, Craft , Demian, Doubleday, Einarsson, Haley, Jin, Rekhson ,Wu
Votes No (21): Barron, Birarov, I Bluvshtein, Bond, Brammall, Brodie, Bunning, Cabanas, Clark, Craver, Dutton ,Felix, Field, Leblanc, McKim ,Nadeau, Noritsyn, Ong, Palsson, Steer, von Keitz
Abstentions (1): McDonald
2. Disclosure of Proceedings
On the surface, CFC does what is required for transparency. Rules and Regulations, s. 22A, s. 6 & 7:
(6) Meeting Minutes Within 7 days of the close of the meeting, the Secretary shall prepare the Minutes of the Governors’ meeting, and they shall be posted on the Governors’ Discussion Board, to allow for any corrections to be raised. Notice by e-mail shall be sent to all governors once the Minutes are Posted. Governors shall have 3 days to post corrections or e-mail them to the Posting Secretary.
(7) Governors' Letters After 3 days, the Minutes, as corrected if necessary, shall be immediately published in a Governors’ Letter, to be posted immediately on the CFC Website.
However, should the executive try to use " summaries " ( s.22A, s. 4 - (4) Agenda Item Summary At 9:00AM on the 6th, or as soon thereafter as possible, the President, or the Posting Secretary if asked by the President, will post a summary of the agenda item discussion, setting out the critical points and the majority view, if any, on any controversial issue. S/he will propose what action might be taken on the agenda item, if any, in his/her opinion. ) as if they complied with the definition of " Minutes ", then CFC would be subject to legitimate criticism of insufficient disclosure. I am unsure whether the executive is considering this option. If so, I have objected.
Minutes of meetings provide the full transparency that is given by any organization - it is the standard practice. CFC conforms in this way.
3. Full Disclosure of Proceedings ( subject to " confidentiality )
There is nothing to stop CFC from just opening up the confidential meeting forum AFTER the meeting is over, with confidential material deleted, with a note saying so. I think this would be a great thing for transparency. It would also allow us, likely, to amend the On-line Meeting Procedures, to eliminate the very onerous task on the Posting Secretary of creating " Minutes ". The opening of the meeting is like providing a " transcript " - no need for Minutes when anyone can read the posts. And for those too lazy to read all the posts, they could just go to the last " thread summary ". I like this addition to transparency, and if I can sense enough governor support for it, I'll bring a motion at the 2011 Spring Meeting to add it to the Meeting Procedures. I currently am running a poll on the Governors' Discussion Board to find out the extent to which governors will support this proposed change.
B. Conclusion
The CFC is actually being relatively transparent in a couple of good ways, though certainly it could be enhanced.
Bob
A. Issues re CFC Transparency:
1. Confidential nature of the quarterly meetings
The governors at the 2011 Winter Meeting have voted not to have a " public view-only " open meeting. Canadian GM, Kevin Spraggett, on his generally excellent blog, has commented on CFC Governor On-line Meetings, referring to faceless CFC bureaucrats going about their business out of public view - members do not know who is attending a meeting, who is saying what, what decisions are being made, etc.. - anonymity during the course of the meeting as to who is making what decisions.
Is this justified criticism ?
Not entirely - Rules and Regulations, s. 22A, s. 5:
(5) Vote Results As soon after the close of voting on motions as possible, the Posting Secretary will post the results of all motions, giving the names of governors and their vote, and confirm whether the motion passed or failed (e.g. whether constitutional amendments achieved the 2/3 majority needed ), on the Governors’ Discussion Board and the members’ CFC Chess Forum.
Unfortunately, this slipped by the Posting Secretary during the 2011 Winter Meeting, and the vote results did not make it to the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum. But when a CFC member asked why, the President within minutes had the motions and results posted. So there is agreement that this part of the Procedures is disclosing and good. So the decisions made by motions, and the names of the governors who made them, ARE immediately to be made known to the membership...during the course of the meeting !
Nertheless, I personally favour the " public view-only " open meeting, and was one of the minority of governors who voted for it. The vote to open the meeting was:
Motion 2011-F
Votes Yes (9): Armstrong, Craft , Demian, Doubleday, Einarsson, Haley, Jin, Rekhson ,Wu
Votes No (21): Barron, Birarov, I Bluvshtein, Bond, Brammall, Brodie, Bunning, Cabanas, Clark, Craver, Dutton ,Felix, Field, Leblanc, McKim ,Nadeau, Noritsyn, Ong, Palsson, Steer, von Keitz
Abstentions (1): McDonald
2. Disclosure of Proceedings
On the surface, CFC does what is required for transparency. Rules and Regulations, s. 22A, s. 6 & 7:
(6) Meeting Minutes Within 7 days of the close of the meeting, the Secretary shall prepare the Minutes of the Governors’ meeting, and they shall be posted on the Governors’ Discussion Board, to allow for any corrections to be raised. Notice by e-mail shall be sent to all governors once the Minutes are Posted. Governors shall have 3 days to post corrections or e-mail them to the Posting Secretary.
(7) Governors' Letters After 3 days, the Minutes, as corrected if necessary, shall be immediately published in a Governors’ Letter, to be posted immediately on the CFC Website.
However, should the executive try to use " summaries " ( s.22A, s. 4 - (4) Agenda Item Summary At 9:00AM on the 6th, or as soon thereafter as possible, the President, or the Posting Secretary if asked by the President, will post a summary of the agenda item discussion, setting out the critical points and the majority view, if any, on any controversial issue. S/he will propose what action might be taken on the agenda item, if any, in his/her opinion. ) as if they complied with the definition of " Minutes ", then CFC would be subject to legitimate criticism of insufficient disclosure. I am unsure whether the executive is considering this option. If so, I have objected.
Minutes of meetings provide the full transparency that is given by any organization - it is the standard practice. CFC conforms in this way.
3. Full Disclosure of Proceedings ( subject to " confidentiality )
There is nothing to stop CFC from just opening up the confidential meeting forum AFTER the meeting is over, with confidential material deleted, with a note saying so. I think this would be a great thing for transparency. It would also allow us, likely, to amend the On-line Meeting Procedures, to eliminate the very onerous task on the Posting Secretary of creating " Minutes ". The opening of the meeting is like providing a " transcript " - no need for Minutes when anyone can read the posts. And for those too lazy to read all the posts, they could just go to the last " thread summary ". I like this addition to transparency, and if I can sense enough governor support for it, I'll bring a motion at the 2011 Spring Meeting to add it to the Meeting Procedures. I currently am running a poll on the Governors' Discussion Board to find out the extent to which governors will support this proposed change.
B. Conclusion
The CFC is actually being relatively transparent in a couple of good ways, though certainly it could be enhanced.
Bob
Comment