Governor inactivity and Peter Stockhausen

[Jason Lohner]

It is now obvious that Peter Stockhausen is alive. It also appears that he wishes not to be found. His wife has a blog detailing that the RCMP have been in contact with Peter and the missing person case is now considered closed.

http://sites.google.com/site/stockhausendisappearance/

I really don't want to dwell on someones personal life, no matter how tragic it seems to be for friends and family. But this does have ramifications on the CFC. Peter is a CFC Governor and this would obviously affect how he does his job as a Governor. Does the CFC have any policy on what we should do when a Governor voluntarily disappears? This would seem to be a prime case for the 'inactivity rule' that is being proposed by Governor Bob Armstrong and which I support (and second the motion). If a Governor can't / won't stay in touch perhaps a suspension? just a thought ... ideas anyone?

[Christopher Mallon]

I've been trying for an Activity rule for years... will try again this year!

Basically if a regular governor is inactive they get booted, their spot can be filled by the province, but they have to wait 2 years to be a governor again.

If a life governor becomes inactive, they remain a governor but they don't count towards quorums for proxies etc. until they become active again.

I'm not really sure why that motion was defeated at the AGM last year...? Seems pretty tame to me.

[Jason Lohner]

You have my support on this...

[Jason Lohner]

This thread has been locked down on 'the other board'. My main point was to emphasize how we need a 'inactivity rule'. I tried to use Peter disappearing as an example on why this rule should be enacted. I tried to steer the thread back to my main point of inactivity but the admin thought it was better to just shut down the discussion. This was never meant as an attack on Peter and if it came across as such, then I apologize. So let me rephrase my argument.

If I decided that I didn't want to participate as a governor anymore but just decided to 'let my governorship' run out the CFC should have a method of removing me as Governor so that BC could have a representative that would do the job. I can't see why this is controversial and can't be passed. Are there any arguments against it?

[Christopher Mallon]

I personally have nothing against the principle, but the specific implementation proposed in the other thread I have a problem with.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Jason:

The CFC Handbook sets out the procedure for replacing a governor who resigns, which I think Peter should do if he is no longer going to act as a Governor.

Our CFC Constitutional Coalition " governor activity rule " , which you kindly seconded, will finally allow the CFC to expell a governor for inactivity.

Governor Ken Craft has raised in another thread, that the second part of our motion ( that the Provincial Association/appointing body cannot replace an expelled governor ) is illegal. I am seeking opinions on this point he has raised, so we can decide if we must amend our motion to delete that part. Do you think the second part of our motion is illegal?

Bob

[Ken Craft]

It's especially undemocratic if a province only has one Governor.

[Bob Armstrong]

I guess the way we've seen it is that the Province/appointing body is responsible for the governor they send to the CFC. If the governor is a dud, and the province sent them in, then shouldn't the province be penalized? Else why will they ever take the responsibility seriously, if they can just reappoint another deadwood governor.

But this argument doesn't speak to the question of whether the CFC trying to take away the Province's/appointing bodies' right to replace is illegal. Our rationale may be good, but the idea still be illegal. Need to hear what others think on this legal question, so we can take a position on it. Need more input.

Bob

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I guess the way we've seen it is that the Province/appointing body is responsible for the governor they send to the CFC. If the governor is a dud, and the province sent them in, then shouldn't the province be penalized? Else why will they ever take the responsibility seriously, if they can just reappoint another deadwood governor.

But this argument doesn't speak to the question of whether the CFC trying to take away the Province's/appointing bodies' right to replace is illegal. Our rationale may be good, but the idea still be illegal. Need to hear what others think on this legal question, so we can take a position on it. Need more input.

Bob

No, the province should not be penalized with the removal of their only governor position! A much better approach is to ask them to replace that "dud" with someone else within a given time frame. If the province does not react, that governor position could be suspended until action is taken. A suspended position is not considered anymore for voting, discussions, etc until it is re-activated.

This - of course - can be extended across the board to all provinces regardless how many governors they have. How about that?

[Ken Craft]

Bob your intransigence is probably going to scuttle any type of Governor activity motion. A province has a right to its representatives. period. full stop.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Valer:

Your idea is certainly a valid alternative.

But the Coalition does feel the province/appointing body needs to suffer some consequence from sending in a " dud ", and taking away their right to replace is the only penalty.

But if this idea is illegal, then we will remove it from the motion. The Coalition needs to hear more opinions on why it is thought to be illegal.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I hear you loud and clear. What I would like is to hear some other voices agree with you that it is illegal. I am open to removing it. I just want more than only your opinion that it is illegal ( and I acknowledge you may well be right ).

Bob

[Ken Craft]

Okay. Let me be more clear. Whether it is ultra vires is irrelevant, although I believe it is. I believe the clause is wrong even if it is intra vires.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

The Coalition believes there should be a penalty to the province/appointing body for a " dud " governor. So we are going ahead with it as is, unless we are convinced it is illegal ( and you do have me close to agreeing with you that it may be illegal - I would like to hear if others think it is illegal or not, especially other governors ).

If we decide it is legal, and go ahead with it, then it is certainly open to you to bring a motion to amend our motion by deleting the last part. That way if you are successful on the amendment, you'll have won your point, and then our amended motion can hopefully be passed so we at least have some starting " governor activity rule " in place.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

How does the province have any control over their Governor once they are appointed? Simply, they don't. Therefore there can be no blame to the province should a Governor do anything, including becoming inactive.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

The issue is that someone has to take responsibility for deadwood governors.

Since the CFC Handbook states that the CFC members in the Province " elect " the CFC Governors for their province ( except in Ontario, and I'm trying to change that still - taking a bit of time though ), it is really the CFC members in the province who would suffer if their Provincial Affiliate was not allowed to fill the vacancy of an expelled governor. And why shouldn't they suffer the penalty if they elect a deadwood, dud governor? Maybe next time they'd make sure the governor intended to govern !! It's true that it is the individual governor's choice to be inactive, but surely someone should take the heat when this happens - otherwise no one will care much whom they elect.

Bob

[Valer Eugen Demian]

How does the province have any control over their Governor once they are appointed? Simply, they don't. Therefore there can be no blame to the province should a Governor do anything, including becoming inactive.

Excellent point! Also each provincial body is the local group promoting chess in the region to the best of their abilities. Normally appointing people to the leadership executive or governors' positions is done in good faith. The provincial body knows the best its local situation, proeminent chess promoters, circumstances, etc. Give them a chance to fix the situation in a proper manner.

One simple example: most governors from back East have very little clue what is the real situation here on the West Coast. How could they judge then what is happening? Of course same goes for myself if I would have to judge the activity of one of our colleagues from back East... ;)

[Ken Craft]

The Coalition is certainly permitted to have its belief that Provincial Associations should be penalized for choosing inactive Governors. Only one thing matters does the Coalition have enough votes to carry the day. I doubt it. I think the Coalition would be better off trying to find a motion on Gvovernr participation that can pass.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

The Coalition will only bring a motion of its own to amend its own motion to delete the reference to non-replacement of expelled governors, IF it is convinced the clause is illegal ( it otherwise likes the punitive measure against the Province/appointing body ). I don't know if we will have enough votes for it as is ( so far it seems Craft, Mallon & Demian agree with the first part, but dislike the second part - haven't got response from any other governors as far as I can recollect ).

If you think the second part is not acceptable, why won't you bring a motion of your own to amend our motion by deleting it ? - that way you'd test what is acceptable, and we would have to go along with the results of your amending motion vote.

Bob