CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

[Bob Armstrong]

I have reproduced my post from another thread, because I think it starts a somewhat new discussion:

Hi Peter:

I perceive a practical reason why CFC membership is generally so inactive, and not interested in the program of the CFC ( outside of providing ratings ):

CFC Bylaw # 1

LIMITATION OF RIGHTS

14. No individual Member shall have any right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership. Should any individual member be aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, his remedy shall be to bring the matter before his provincial organization, and if there be no Provincial Organization in the Province in which he resides, he may bring the matter to the attention of a Governor representing such Province. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, if he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law.

What do CFC members think of this section of the bylaw # 1?

What effect does this have on CFC member participation in the organization, if any?

Bob Armstrong, Coordinator,
Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

[Ken Craft]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

It should be repealed.

[Bob Gillanders]

Cooperative Chess Coalition!

Cooperative Chess Coalition! Is this a new movement you started, or has the grassroots movement changed it's name? Either way, where do I sign up! :D

As to the constitutional section you quote, which appears to give the office and the CFC executive every right to ignore the complaints of individual CFC members by referring them to their provincial associations, I can assure you that this is not what happens in practice. All complaints and questions are referred to the appropriate person and answered. :)

If any provincial affiliates would prefer to handle their members complaints themselves, just let me know. ;)

So Bob and Ken, go ahead and repeal that section with my blessings. :D

[Jean Hébert]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

It should be repealed.

... for being counterproductive and repulsive. The guy who first wrote this (only a lawyer could have been capable of such abomination) should be stoned and hanged. I want his name. :)

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

IWhat effect does this have on CFC member participation in the organization, if any?

None......

[Kerry Liles]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

I have reproduced my post from another thread, because I think it starts a somewhat new discussion:

Hi Peter:

I perceive a practical reason why CFC membership is generally so inactive, and not interested in the program of the CFC ( outside of providing ratings ):

CFC Bylaw # 1

LIMITATION OF RIGHTS

14. No individual Member shall have any right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership. Should any individual member be aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, his remedy shall be to bring the matter before his provincial organization, and if there be no Provincial Organization in the Province in which he resides, he may bring the matter to the attention of a Governor representing such Province. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, if he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law.

What do CFC members think of this section of the bylaw # 1?

What effect does this have on CFC member participation in the organization, if any?

Bob Armstrong, Coordinator,
Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

I would have to agree that motion is archaic and counter-productive (etc.)
Any ideas how many times it has been invoked? Ever? I have a vague recollection that it was used to stymie some requests in the recent past, but alas, I cannot recall any details.

[Stuart Brammall]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

CFC Bylaw # 1

LIMITATION OF RIGHTS

14. No individual Member shall have any right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership. Should any individual member be aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, his remedy shall be to bring the matter before his provincial organization, and if there be no Provincial Organization in the Province in which he resides, he may bring the matter to the attention of a Governor representing such Province. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, if he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law.

What do CFC members think of this section of the bylaw # 1?

I don't think this bylaw has much effect at all, however I understand why it is there. It prevents the AGM from being taken over by crazies. Not that there are a lot of crazies in the chess world ;)

I don't think it is such a big deal for a member to have to bring their concerns to a governor(s) before being heard. Imagine if the public had the "right" to be heard in the house of commons.

Does anyone feel they have been negatively impacted by this rule?
If not, I suggest it does not need fixing.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

I don't think it is such a big deal for a member to have to bring their concerns to a governor(s) before being heard. Imagine if the public had the "right" to be heard in the house of commons.

A big fat loss of time to me is a big deal. if I recall correctly, it is not long ago that some active Governors complained about being ignored by the former CFC president... Am I wrong Bob A. ?
And I would not compare the CFC with the House of Commons. But with the Senate I could agree.

[Bob Armstrong]

Members Must Have " Real " Power

Hi Stuart and Jean:

We have raised s. 14 of Bylaw # 1, because it is so anti-member. However it is true that we likely cannot turn the CFC into a direct democracy, with a member having a vote on all motions.

But there has to be more direct involvement of the membership; they have to be given some kind of direct power to use to influence CFC direction.

I am not sure what type of political structure we are conjuring up here, that gives the members some real power, so they develop a real interest in the program of the CFC, and yet still manages to be practically functionable.

The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ), which has raised s. 14 as an issue, is open to creative ideas on this.

Bob , Coordinator
Cooperative Chess Coalition

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition!

Hi Bob G:

The Cooperative Chess Coalition is a new chess movement that sees greater participation of CFC members at all levels of chess in Canada - clubs, Regional Affiliates in Ontario, Provincial Affiliates and the CFC and FIDE.

It is new, but has its roots in the Grassroots Campaign and the CFC Constitutional Coalition. Some of the members of those groups are being canvassed to join this new initiative.

If you would like to get a copy of the CCC program, just e-mail me ( bobarm@sympatico.ca ).

Bob G - I'll be sending you the program - you were part of the prior reform movements, and we'd welcome you to this one too.

Bob A, Coordinator,
Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

[Stuart Brammall]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

A big fat loss of time to me is a big deal. if I recall correctly, it is not long ago that some active Governors complained about being ignored by the former CFC president... Am I wrong Bob A. ?
And I would not compare the CFC with the House of Commons. But with the Senate I could agree.

The idea is that it prevents loss of time by preventing members not familiar with the mechanics of the organisation from filibustering (filibusting?) meetings.

I maintain the house of commons analogy.

It should be clear that is does not say that members concerns will not be heard, just that they don't have the "right" to be heard-- Try going to the house of commons (or the senate) and claiming you have a right to be heard and see what happens.

I still await an instance of someone being negatively impacted by this rule.

Also, I don't think even governors have the "right" to be heard. There is procedure to get something on any meeting agenda, and if you don't attend to it, you don't get heard... there is no problem here.

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Impact of No Member " Right to Be Heard "

Hi Stuart:

Before I became a govenor, I was a Member/ activist/ reformer ( hope I haven't lost it all since I became a governor ). I can tell you that I was turned down by a number of govenors on different occasions where I needed a governor to move/second one of the motions I wanted brought on behalf of the Grassroots' Campaign. At the same time, I want to say that other governors stepped up to the plate to help. It was frustrating enough I decided it had to be easier being a governor - which it was.

But it may be that CFC needs some mechanism for members to be able to directlly bring their motions before a Quarterly or AGM Meeting.

Bob

[Stuart Brammall]

Re: Negative Impact of No Member " Right to Be Heard "

Something else to consider:

Suppose this bylaw was removed-- would that imply that members would have the "right" to be heard? Probably not. If the organisation chooses to ignore someone, whether ignoring them is justified or not, whatever bylaws there are don't matter one way or another.

Bob,
I know some governors still actively ignore your stuff, and you should consider that perhaps if you deviated from commenting on matters strictly relating to the technicalities of procedure, and added in a little psuedo-chess content occasionally, that this would likely not be the case.

I think this rule remains potentially useful, however I will admit that I don't think anything would change were it removed.

Even if it were to be replaced by a bylaw that said "All members have the absolute right to be heard anytime of the day or night, during a meeting or not during meeting, naked or clothed", I don't think it would really matter in any substantial way.

That does not change my opinion that it is a good rule to have in principle, in case one day out meeting are meeting are interupted by a bunch of nude membership fee protesters.

;)

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

Bob... whether the bylaw is right or wrong... have you seriously ever had someone say they would be more active without it? Or heard from someone who quit because of that bylaw?

[Jean Hébert]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

The idea is that it prevents loss of time by preventing members not familiar with the mechanics of the organisation from filibustering (filibusting?) meetings...
...Also, I don't think even governors have the "right" to be heard...

The way I understand this, it is not about allowing ordinary members to attend CFC executive meetings or anything like that. No one I believe would want that. It is about allowing members to be "heard" in one way or another in principle. And if as you claim even governors have no right to be heard, what would be the point for a member to present his problem to a governor (which seems to be the intention behind this bylaw) or even be a governor ? There may be simpler and more efficient ways to move forward than always present motions through governors. Sometimes a simple exchange of views does the trick.
An ordinary citizen can contact the Prime Minister or any other member of government directly by letter or email for example. The bylaw that we are discussing seems to imply that at the CFC it is not possible for members to talk to the CFC leaders, which makes no sense to me at all.