Tweet
Question: Is it now time to consider the CONSTITUTIONAL restructuring of the CFC? I think there has to be an open and vigorous debate on this on the websites and at the provincial association levels. And I think there needs to be a CFC committee to receive deputations on constitutional reform, which will make a recommendation to the governors. I see nothing wrong with starting this process now ( it need not interfere with other CFC financial and restructuring changes in the meantime, as may be currently still necessary ).
Some Options:
1. Executive Committee
Some have suggested that the current 60+ Governor structure is too unwieldy, and it needs to be replaced by a streamlined management structure ( let’s say 8-person executive committee ).. This executive committee could be in for a 1-year term, and will have all power to run the CFC. This committee could be elected geographically somehow by one member- one vote, with the provincial associations continuing to have a voice. Then the elected committee members would decide among themselves as to officer positions.
Modification A : President/VP/Secretary/Treasurer by national vote; 1 each from West, Ontario, Quebec, East ).
Modification B: Or these 8 could be elected from across the country without references to province/territory. However others argue that there must be some type of geographic representation criteria, otherwise all executive might end up coming from Ontario which has the biggest CFC membership base.
Modification C : Another alternative to one member one vote, could be having each Provincial Association elect a member to a somewhat larger Executive Committee, and they would determine how that member would be elected/appointed ( the same as is done now ).
2. Organizer Format :
Some have raised the following argument:
“ Anyone who organizes at least two tournaments with a minimum total of 75 players should automatically become a Governor. They can refuse the honour, but at least all the arm chair quarterbacks will disappear. Organizers/TDs are the backbone of the organization and they should be the ones determining its future. This would lead to a small Management Committee being formed of active organizers, who would have all power to run the CFC. “
My View : As to the role of organizers, I differ with the above. I think that the role of organizer and governor are very different and being good at one doesn’t mean you will be good at the other. The reality is that ever since the inception of the CFC, organizers have had the power to take over the CFC if they wanted to. They merely needed to organize themselves and get elected across the country. The reality is that few organizers want to be bothered with politics and all the other issues that are involved in running the CFC that don’t deal with tournaments. I would not be expecting any better management from a group of organizers conscripted into being governors than now exists. There are other types of organizing and administrative skills that might make a person valuable to the CFC management team. For example, I am not an organizer, though I have organized a number of types of tournaments, and been on a chess club executive. I would be excluded. I don’t think I should be. And there are many others in this category whom you would not want to lose from CFC governance. I agree that organizers/TD’s are the backbone of GENERATING MEMBERSHIPS; I don’t think they are the backbone of CFC management. But I do definitely believe CFC has to put much thought into how to develop more organizers, and to support existing ones.
3. The Current Governor Set-Up ( or a slightly modified version ):
My View: I must say that I personally have always favoured the Governor structure, despite its faults. I like the fact that it is democratic in that it is representative of the entire country. It also puts the power where it belongs, in the local provincial bodies, since they elect/appoint the Governors. They know best which candidates from their province will do the best job. And tournaments are the backbone of the CFC, and these are best coordinated by the provincial bodies.
I think the problems often pointed out with respect to this structure are due to the lack of commitment by the provincial bodies to making CFC work. They elect/appoint people who do not wish to govern, and who then don’t vote, and bring the whole structure into disrepute. And where there are elections in provinces, then the members are to blame if they fail to elect good people. If they want a vital CFC, then they have to find good candidates and fight to get them elected. And no one in the CFC has been cracking the whip on this one – the CFC has just been wringing its hands bemoaning the fact that there are bad, uninterested governors. There has been no campaign to work with the provinces to get GOOD candidates.
Modification A: However, I do agree that the number of governors seems no longer to make sense. The ratio is about 1 governor per 30 members ( approximately 60 for 1800 members ). I think a proportional reduction in the governors per province is in order, to try to make the structure more streamlined and efficient. And with fewer places, maybe there would be more chance of getting good people. Now the provinces sometimes have trouble getting enough governors, and appoint just anybody to just fill the spot. With fewer governors, maybe it would become a position that would become more desirable and lead to more contesting of the positions by good people. I would suggest a 50% reduction of the number of governors across the board.
Modification B: One further change often proposed is to go to One Member- One Vote. The provinces all have different systems for electing/appointing CFC Governors. Would it be better to have all CFC members in a province having a vote for governors of that province. There could be a province wide vote for province-wide provincial governors. Or perhaps a system similar to that in Ontario would be better, where the province is divided up into regions, and the regions elect a certain number of the provincial governors, based on their CFC membership numbers.
Modification C:
It has been argued:
“ Life Governors should be discontinued. Or let the current ones stay, but from now on only the past president goes onto the executive, and when his term is finished, he has to run for office again like everyone else. Our current system breeds militance AGAINST reform, because the life governors often show a leaning towards do things the way they USED to be done in the GLORY days. Not good when radical change is needed. “
My View: I am sympathetic to this view, though some life governors are very current in their thinking. My support however is more from the democratic point of view. With the current system, the number of life-governors just keeps growing. And they provide more and more of a counterweight to the democratically elected governors. And we no longer know if these former presidents still would have the backing of the current membership. On the other hand, the current system is argued to be good, because it brings valuable management experience to the newly elected governors – after all, these life governors are former Presidents.
Conclusion
I think it is time for the members to petition the Executive/Governors to act on this issue, and to strike a committee to receive deputations on constitutional restructuring and come back with recommendations, or with a set of options. And one issue of importance is whether there will be some type of polling of ordinary members on the recommendations/options, so that the issue is not just governor-decided without any input at the final stage.
What do you think?
Bob
Some Options:
1. Executive Committee
Some have suggested that the current 60+ Governor structure is too unwieldy, and it needs to be replaced by a streamlined management structure ( let’s say 8-person executive committee ).. This executive committee could be in for a 1-year term, and will have all power to run the CFC. This committee could be elected geographically somehow by one member- one vote, with the provincial associations continuing to have a voice. Then the elected committee members would decide among themselves as to officer positions.
Modification A : President/VP/Secretary/Treasurer by national vote; 1 each from West, Ontario, Quebec, East ).
Modification B: Or these 8 could be elected from across the country without references to province/territory. However others argue that there must be some type of geographic representation criteria, otherwise all executive might end up coming from Ontario which has the biggest CFC membership base.
Modification C : Another alternative to one member one vote, could be having each Provincial Association elect a member to a somewhat larger Executive Committee, and they would determine how that member would be elected/appointed ( the same as is done now ).
2. Organizer Format :
Some have raised the following argument:
“ Anyone who organizes at least two tournaments with a minimum total of 75 players should automatically become a Governor. They can refuse the honour, but at least all the arm chair quarterbacks will disappear. Organizers/TDs are the backbone of the organization and they should be the ones determining its future. This would lead to a small Management Committee being formed of active organizers, who would have all power to run the CFC. “
My View : As to the role of organizers, I differ with the above. I think that the role of organizer and governor are very different and being good at one doesn’t mean you will be good at the other. The reality is that ever since the inception of the CFC, organizers have had the power to take over the CFC if they wanted to. They merely needed to organize themselves and get elected across the country. The reality is that few organizers want to be bothered with politics and all the other issues that are involved in running the CFC that don’t deal with tournaments. I would not be expecting any better management from a group of organizers conscripted into being governors than now exists. There are other types of organizing and administrative skills that might make a person valuable to the CFC management team. For example, I am not an organizer, though I have organized a number of types of tournaments, and been on a chess club executive. I would be excluded. I don’t think I should be. And there are many others in this category whom you would not want to lose from CFC governance. I agree that organizers/TD’s are the backbone of GENERATING MEMBERSHIPS; I don’t think they are the backbone of CFC management. But I do definitely believe CFC has to put much thought into how to develop more organizers, and to support existing ones.
3. The Current Governor Set-Up ( or a slightly modified version ):
My View: I must say that I personally have always favoured the Governor structure, despite its faults. I like the fact that it is democratic in that it is representative of the entire country. It also puts the power where it belongs, in the local provincial bodies, since they elect/appoint the Governors. They know best which candidates from their province will do the best job. And tournaments are the backbone of the CFC, and these are best coordinated by the provincial bodies.
I think the problems often pointed out with respect to this structure are due to the lack of commitment by the provincial bodies to making CFC work. They elect/appoint people who do not wish to govern, and who then don’t vote, and bring the whole structure into disrepute. And where there are elections in provinces, then the members are to blame if they fail to elect good people. If they want a vital CFC, then they have to find good candidates and fight to get them elected. And no one in the CFC has been cracking the whip on this one – the CFC has just been wringing its hands bemoaning the fact that there are bad, uninterested governors. There has been no campaign to work with the provinces to get GOOD candidates.
Modification A: However, I do agree that the number of governors seems no longer to make sense. The ratio is about 1 governor per 30 members ( approximately 60 for 1800 members ). I think a proportional reduction in the governors per province is in order, to try to make the structure more streamlined and efficient. And with fewer places, maybe there would be more chance of getting good people. Now the provinces sometimes have trouble getting enough governors, and appoint just anybody to just fill the spot. With fewer governors, maybe it would become a position that would become more desirable and lead to more contesting of the positions by good people. I would suggest a 50% reduction of the number of governors across the board.
Modification B: One further change often proposed is to go to One Member- One Vote. The provinces all have different systems for electing/appointing CFC Governors. Would it be better to have all CFC members in a province having a vote for governors of that province. There could be a province wide vote for province-wide provincial governors. Or perhaps a system similar to that in Ontario would be better, where the province is divided up into regions, and the regions elect a certain number of the provincial governors, based on their CFC membership numbers.
Modification C:
It has been argued:
“ Life Governors should be discontinued. Or let the current ones stay, but from now on only the past president goes onto the executive, and when his term is finished, he has to run for office again like everyone else. Our current system breeds militance AGAINST reform, because the life governors often show a leaning towards do things the way they USED to be done in the GLORY days. Not good when radical change is needed. “
My View: I am sympathetic to this view, though some life governors are very current in their thinking. My support however is more from the democratic point of view. With the current system, the number of life-governors just keeps growing. And they provide more and more of a counterweight to the democratically elected governors. And we no longer know if these former presidents still would have the backing of the current membership. On the other hand, the current system is argued to be good, because it brings valuable management experience to the newly elected governors – after all, these life governors are former Presidents.
Conclusion
I think it is time for the members to petition the Executive/Governors to act on this issue, and to strike a committee to receive deputations on constitutional restructuring and come back with recommendations, or with a set of options. And one issue of importance is whether there will be some type of polling of ordinary members on the recommendations/options, so that the issue is not just governor-decided without any input at the final stage.
What do you think?
Bob
Comment