| Subscribe to posts below to be informed when the document library is updated.
|
|
posted Feb 3, 2012 11:22 PM by Tyler Durden
The ASA will be holding a hearing for Chris Billings this
Saturday from 9am - 5pm at the Nisku Inn. It is open but space is
limited.
The following is a letter Mr Billings sent to those who have supported
him.
To all those who have supported
me over the course of the last 21 months,
First off, many Thanks for the encouragement to persevere. This has
been a very long and trying time in coming to some sort of resolution.
As most of you are aware, since my request in April of last year,
(after the ASA AGM), the ASA Board has been long in consideration to
organize a Discipline Committee for a Hearing in response to the
allegations laid against me in February of 2009. This Hearing will
occur on Saturday, February 4th, 2012 in Nisku.
From the beginning, this matter has largely been about transparency. It
is the reason why I disclosed from the first day after being given the
‘option to resign’ by Mr. Charpentier & Mr.
Magdee. To that extent, I have requested that the Hearing in two weeks
time be open to all members of the ASA general public, whether they
support one side or the other. The preliminary response from ASA is
that any individuals from the general public that wish to attend be
identified in advance.
There are a few people who will be giving direct evidence at the
hearing both for and against the allegations. At the current time, I
don’t intend to call anymore witnesses than will absolutely
be required. Drawing this out longer than necessary doesn’t
seem like the right idea. (Also, I think Mr. Innes and his
‘infamous binder’ of emails does enough for all of
us.)
Being said, there are a few people attending for interest purposes, but
also to provide some moral support for myself. I am extremely gracious
for that. I would like to extend the invitation to attend also to
anyone else looking to do so.
If you intend to, wishing to, would like to or can attend, for any part
or whole of the day, I would be grateful. If so, please drop myself or
Michelle a note before the end of the month and we will be sure to
include you on the ‘ASA general public’ list.
Lastly, as you are also likely aware, Mr. Kim Wakefield from FMC will
be representing me at the Hearing. I did request for the costs to be
covered by ASA, but was denied. I can’t begin to tell you
what your financial support in helping me to retain Mr. Wakefield
means. Just having someone to provide some clear perspective during
what will be a very emotional day will be important, not to mention Mr.
Wakefield’s expertise. A request will be made at the Hearing
that costs be covered by ASA, as was done at the Districts hearing in
March, so I hope to be able to repay each and everyone at a later date.
Again, thanks to all, and hope to see you on February 4th, if you can
make it.
Best Regards,
Chris Billings
|
|
posted Oct 22, 2011 2:18 PM by Tyler Durden
[
updated Oct 22, 2011 2:21 PM
]
Why has the current ASA not been able to clean up the damage done by
the previous board regarding Mr Billings suspension? It has been 22
months since Mr Billings was suspended by the Charpentier led board.
You will remember that the members were outraged at this "coup
d'état", that they rallied behind Mr Billings
and fought for justice for all. Now that they are in a position to see
justice done and to ensure that a fair hearing takes place ... nothing.
This new board has been in place for 6 months and still Mr Billings has
had no hearing. I am reminded of the words of the Alberta Court of
Appeals in its decision on Voorhorst v CSA.
[12] Combining the respondent's demand to exhaust all
internal appeals with its proposal (carried out in parallel
proceedings) to exclude from all governance in the interim, creates
real danger. It is that
the respondent's victories will become permanent in all but name.
The current ASA board's inaction is just
perpetuating the injustice originally perpetrated by the Charpentier
led board. Mr Billings put himself at considerable financial and
reputational risk when he fought his original suspension on his own
behalf but also on behalf of the members of the ASA. Some of those same
members who have benefited from his fight now sit in a position to do
something about it, but the silence is telling is it not? It is time
for the board and more importantly the membership to take a page from
Mr Billiings and show the cojones to do what is right.
I am not advocating for an exoneration of Mr Billings only for a fair
hearing that ends this 'victory that becomes permanent in all but
name'.
The ASA membership at it SGM this weekend has an opportunity to do the right thing, lets hope that they remember why and how they got where they are today.
|
|
|
posted May 8, 2011 2:30 AM by Tyler Durden
Email
from Mr Santini to Mr Maestracci responding to Mr
Maestracci's
request for advice re:
The CSA, at the direction of
FIFA, asked the ASA to discipline the Districts that took court action
in Alberta, but the ASA declined on the basis that they do not have the
finances to undertake such discipline proceedings. You advised me that
this failure of the ASA to conduct such disciplinary proceedings will
cause FIFA to consider suspending the CSA from membership, unless the
CSA no proceeds to suspend the ASA.
Some quotes from the email:
In our view the four districts
are not members of the CSA, and we have so advised you of this on
previous occasions. As a result, we are of the view that the CSA has
complied with FIFA's instructions in this regard, in disciplining its
members.
...
We also wish to bring to your
attention once again the comments made by the Alberta Court of Appeal
in relation to the Voorhorst group, that sanctioning individuals for
accessing the courts may be considered contempt of court f\or
preventing access to justice.
...
In any event, I
expect that the ASA's defense to any attempted suspension will be that
they tried to discipline them and the courts stayed matters.
...
In our view,
because the ASA did take disciplinary proceedings against the
districts, it is arguable that the ASA did try to sanction them
however, for reasons unknown to us at present, the actions were stayed
by the courts. If this is the case, then we fail to see how the CSA can
say that the ASA has failed to enforce their by-laws and should be
subject to suspension. our interpretation of FIFA's letters leads us to
the conclusion that if these facts are made known to FIFA, that they
would be hard pressed to sanction the CSA for failing to enforce its
by-laws, especially if FIFA is lead to believe that the Alberta
situation can be resolved as a result of the recent election of the new
board at their democratically held ASA.
...
Dominique, I
respect your political intuition, and I know that I should limit my
opinion to legal matters only, however I cannot help but think that
nothing good can come from suspending the ASA (even if I thought you
had good grounds to do so), after everything they and the CSA have been
through.
It will be interesting to see what President Maestracci's political
intuition tells him. Will the President act against legal advice and
suspend the ASA, in my opinion violating his fiduciary responsibility
to the CSA, to ensure that the ASA is unable to vote at the CSA AGM?
If you are curious how President Maestracci presents the
'Alberta Situation' to FIFA. Read this email
and note para 1. Also read para 5 wherein he states that he has not yet
received a response from the ASA regarding the request for information
about the discipline hearings. Remember this email to FIFA was sent on
April 26th and he received the response from the ASA on April 14th.
This does not seem to be the type of letter one would expect the
President of the CSA to write to FIFA if he was looking after the best
interests of both the National association and one of its members.
I wonder if the FIFA has been forwarded a copy of the letter
the new ASA President recently sent to the CSA Board of Directors. In
that letter we find out that the ASA will be holding a hearing
into the allegations against Chris Billings. Hopefully during the
course of this hearing the legal advice sought by Charpentier et al
will be made available to the ASA. Assuming that the advice was paid
for by the ASA at the time it would seem proper. It would be
unfortunate if EMSA, CMSA or CSF members paid for the advice that
started this 'Alberta Situation'.
Added 2011.04.14
- Email from ASA board (Chen/Calvin) to CSA President Maestracci
Added 2011.04.26
- Email from CSA President Maestracci to FIFA
Added 2011.04.28
- Email from CSA Counsel to CSA President Maestracci
Added 2011.04.??
- Letter from ASA President (Ole Jacobsen) to CSA Board of Directors
|
|
|
posted May 4, 2011 7:47 PM by Tyler Durden
The
CSA was granted leave to appeal the decision of the CSA Hearing Panel
by the CSA Appeals Committee on 23 March 2011. On April 18th the
Appeals Committee informed the CSA that the original decision of the
Hearing Panel would be upheld.
The CSA argued that the Hearing Panel exceeded its jurisdiction by
placing a condition on the sanctions issued against Shauna Aab, Danny
Bowie, Les Hodges and Mike Troke. Namely, that the CSA could only
enforce the sanctions if all other parties who had commenced
litigation also be held accountable.
Counsel for Aab, Bowie, Hodges and Troke did not file an appeal of the
Hearing Panel decision but did ask that the suspensions be revoked and
substituted with no penalty whatsoever.
The CSA Appeals Committee dismissed the appeals filed by the CSA and
upheld the decision of the original Hearing Panel in full.
So will the CSA now send hearing notices to Mr Innes and Mr Magdee?
Added - 2011.04.18
- Decision of CSA Appeals Committee
|
|
posted Apr 15, 2011 12:02 AM by Tyler Durden
[
updated Apr 15, 2011 8:41 AM
]
The ASA has posted
an information some information about the upcoming AGM on their website.
Items posted include the agenda, documents describing proposed
amendments to the bylaws, proposed changes to the Provincials rule
book, a CMSA proposed rule amendment and a list fo ASA BoD nominations.
I believe this is the first time this type of information has been made
public prior to an AGM and the ASA is to be given full credit for their
efforts.
Currently 8 individuals have been nominated for open director
positions. It is another sign that things are moving in a forward
direction, it is much better for all involved if nominations are made
available to the membership in advance of the AGM. Limiting surprise
nominations from the floor certainly allows for more thoughtful
consideration being given to each candidate. I understand that the
membership will also have an opportunity to meet the nominees on the
Friday prior to the AGM.
I am not sure if Mr Chen or Mr Calvin have
been nominated for a position, hopefully they, and their nominators,
will let the membership know in advance.
* follow links for resumes
The CMSA has also submitted a proposed
rule amendment that makes a great deal of sense. The CMSA is
concerned that some teams are competing in Tier 1 divisions but are
being allowed to register for Tier 2 Provincial competitions.
I hope this rule is adopted for the other tiers as well. Currently it
is possible for an EMSA Indoor Club team to compete in the EMSA Premier
B league and then proceed to Tier 4 Provincials. This hardly
seems sporting. These EMSA Club teams have been formed with through a
tryout process, yet it is
some how sporting for them to then enter Tier 4 Provincials and play
against 'true' house league teams from around the province.
It certainly seems wrong to sanction Medicine Hat, for doing
essentially the same thing when they entered select High School teams
into Tier 4 Outdoor Provincials in 2008, yet allow this situation to
continue.
Hopefully the changes proposed by CMSA along with the changes to rule
3.13 proposed by the Competitions Coordinator will go along
way to restoring fair play at Provincials.
|
|
posted Apr 14, 2011 9:45 PM by Tyler Durden
[
updated Apr 14, 2011 9:55 PM
]
The
EIYSA has informed the ASA that they are withdrawing their proposed
resolution to delete Article 32 of the ASA bylaws.
EIYSA indicates that it is fully supportive of reforms that will result
in the adoption of a clear and unambiguous dispute resolution clause.
"In view of Mr
Montopoli's commitment that the CSA is developing a standard form
dispute resolution clause for consideration by the members, EIYSA is
willing to await the results of the CSA's efforts."
Further stating:
"EIYSA looks
forward to working with the ASA to reform how disputes are adjudicated.
The current system has failed to provide an effective mechanism for
adjudicating disputes at both the ASA level and CSA level. If there is
truly a fair, independent and impartial dispute resolution mechanism,
the need to seek recourse to the courts is reduced."
|
|
posted Apr 13, 2011 11:16 PM by Tyler Durden
The recent
letter from the CSA quotes Article 13 (1)(g) of the FIFA
Statues. Article 13 deals with Member obligations.
Specifically;
Members have the
following obligations:
(g) to
manage
their affairs independently and ensure that their own affairs are not influenced by any third
parties; |
The CSA clarifies
for us that third parties include the Courts and
government entities. Their letter goes on to state that all CSA Members
are required to adopt a dispute resolution clause. But FIFA Article 13
has nothing to say about disputes. To find out what the FIFA Statutes
have to say
about disputes you need to look at Article 64 Obligation.
1. The
Confederations, Members and Leagues shall agree to recognise CAS as
an independent judicial authority and to
ensure that their members, affiliated Players and Officials comply
with the decisions passed by CAS. The same obligation
shall apply to licensed match and players’ agents.
2. Recourse
to
ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for
in the FIFA regulations.
3. The
Associations shall insert a clause in their statutes or regulations,
stipulating that it is prohibited to take disputes in the
Association or disputes affecting Leagues, members of Leagues, clubs,
members of clubs, Players, Officials and other Association Officials
to ordinary courts of law, unless
the FIFA regulations or
binding legal provisions
specifically provide for or stipulate recourse to
ordinary courts of law. Instead of recourse to
ordinary courts of law, provision shall be made for arbitration. Such
disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted
arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the Association or
Confederation or to CAS.
The
Associations
shall also ensure that this stipulation is implemented in the
Association, if necessary by imposing a binding obligation on its
members. The Associations shall impose sanctions on any party that
fails to respect this obligation and ensure that any appeal against
such sanctions shall likewise be strictly submitted to arbitration, and
not to ordinary courts of law. |
I bolded the
interesting part of the above section as it appears that FIFA does in
fact provide some guidance as to when it is alright to take disputes to
ordinary courts of law. The Societies Act of Alberta, under which the
ASA is registered, is a binding legal provision
that specifically provides for recourse to ordinary courts of
law.
The previous Board of the ASA agreed that the Societies Act
held jurisdiction when they sought permission from the courts to extend
the deadline for the AGM from January to April, to better be able to
comply with financial reporting requirements described in the Act. Nor
did they deny the courts order to hold the SGM.
Those who are currently experiencing the CSA hearing process obviously
felt that the Societies Act was appropriate as well, as it was under
the auspices of the Act that they sought to hold the SGM.
So what about the CSA? Do they feel that the Act has jurisdiction?
Apparently during March and again at the last CSA board meeting they
did feel the Act had jurisdiction. How so?
On March 23rd the CSA Appeals committee denied
Mr Charpentiers application for leave to appeal the results of the ASA
SGM. Apparently Mr Charpentier had sent a letter to Mr Maestracci in
early Feburary (3 days after the CSA SGM). The issue was again brought
up at the most recent CSA Board meeting and the request for
leave to appeal was denied by the Board.
The rationale given by both the CSA Appeal committee and the CSA Board
was that they lacked jurisdiction.
All three parties, by their actions, have recognized that the Societies
Act of Alberta and decisions based on it are binding on all the parties
involved. This would appear to satisfy the above section of the FIFA
Article 64.
A while back the Australian Soccer Association, with the ironic
acronym ASA, was suspended by the FIFA. It is now back in the FIFA fold
under
the name the Football Federation of Australia. You would think that its
bylaws and the like would have been reviewed by the FIFA. Interestingly
here is what the FFA's Constitution has to say about disputes:
8.2
Referral of disputes
A
member must comply with the Grievance Procedure and must itself, and
must ensure that its Affiliates, refer all Grievances to the dispute
resolution body established in accordance with the Grievance Procedure
and must not, and must ensure that its Affiliates do not, commence any
suit or proceeding in any court or tribunal until the Grievance Procedure has
been exhausted. |
Once again bolding is mine.
Document can be found here: Football Federation of Australia Constitution
|
|
|
posted Apr 9, 2011 2:29 PM by Tyler Durden
[
updated Apr 9, 2011 2:44 PM
]
In a recent CSN article
it was postulated that should the ASA at its AGM vote to remove Article
32 from its bylaws that an immediate suspension would be handed down
from the CSA to the ASA. Further, that FC Edmonton would become a
casualty of the ASA's actions. I take issue with a couple of thing here.
First, FC Edmonton is a member of the CSA separate and distinct from
the ASA. I find it strains credibility to assume that the
actions of one member, the ASA, would cause the CSA to act against
another member, the FC Edmonton. Check CSA bylaws
Article 12.1 c, for a definition of a Professional League
Member and then check out the press
release from the CSA on the 16 May 2010.
Second, any legal advice the CSA would get on this matter must surely
have informed them of the seriousness of the Alberta Court of Appeals
decision. If the CSA is looking to enact an immediate suspension on the
ASA they could not draw a straighter line between cause and effect. The
credibility and integrity of the organization as a whole would be
easily brought into question and would appear to any impartial body
that the CSA was applying a different standard of behaviour on ASA than
other members. It would be unreasonable to immediately
suspend the ASA while allowing all other members time to get their own
houses in order.
Some members of the CSA appear to be attempting to argue that the CSA
is backed into a corner having no options available to it other than
the immediate suspension of the ASA. They are further ratcheting up the
rhetoric to appeal to the soccer community and apply pressure on the
ASA. The question one must ask, is this a corner of their own painting?
How much truth is in the message and how much is the planting of fear,
uncertainty and doubt?
For all those concerned, both at the CSA and the ASA, the rhetoric and
brinkmanship needs to stop. The sowing of fear, uncertainty and doubt
needs to stop. It is time for the adults to move both organizations
forward.
To the CSA:
The ASA has traditionally had a CSA representative at its AGMs. I would
strongly suggest that this continue but if the CSA is truly desirous of
moving forward, do not send Mr Traficante and/or Dr. Maestracci. It is
apparent to all that the ASA membership will be hard pressed to listen
to these gentlemen and trust what they say. This is truly a time when
the messenger will be the message.
To the ASA:
No doubt the CSA meeting this weekend will result in some form of
communication being made to you prior to the AGM, make sure to
distribute this message to the membership well in advance of the AGM.
For those in the ASA membership, carefully read what you are given, do
not let your initial impression be your lasting impression. The CSA
does need to 'sound' strong but there will always be room for
interpretation and negotiation.
I think we all understand the purpose of Article 32 and do not want to
have an environment that is continuously litigious. The issue is that
the scope of the current incarnation of the Article is much too broad. It is not designed to say that if you want to belong to an organization that you must give up all rights.
* per Wikipedia:
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda.
FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by
disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to
undermine the credibility of their beliefs.
|
|
|
posted Apr 7, 2011 12:06 AM by Tyler Durden
Rumor has
it that the CSA is meeting on Friday to determine what to do should the
ASA membership adopt a proposal to remove Article 32 from their bylaws.
For those who do not have the ASA bylaws memorized Article 32 reads:
Article 32 Administration of
Disputes
A
member’s affiliates, registrants, leagues, clubs, players,
referees or officials shall not refer disputes with the Association or
any other soccer association to a court of law but shall be required to
submit any disagreements to the jurisdiction of the Association.
This particular piece of the bylaws has garnered a fair bit of
attention within the soccer community and unfortunately it has also
been noticed by the Alberta Court of Appeals who recently stated:
16]
Everyone in Canada has a constitutional right of access to Her
Majesty's courts as a litigant or as a witness. The punishment
impending here (and imposed against the other litigants in the parallel
proceedings) is for doing just that. Public policy dictates weighing
that when considering the balance of convenience.
The CSA is in a bit of a quandry, as their bylaws state:
15. MEMBERS’
OBLIGATIONS
15.1 A Member of
The CSA has the following obligations:
f) to adopt a statutory clause
specifying that any dispute requiring arbitration involving itself or
one of its members and relating to the By-laws, regulations, directives
and decisions of FIFA, CONCACAF, The CSA or the Leagues shall come
solely under the jurisdiction
of the appropriate Arbitration Tribunal of FIFA, CONCACAF, The CSA, or
Association Members and that any recourse to Ordinary Courts is
prohibited;
On April 16th what should the CSA do if the ASA removes Article 32 from
their bylaws?
Canadians have a tendency to be naval gazers. So in keeping with that
trait lets take a look at the bylaws of other members of the CSA and
see what they say.
| BC
Soccer Association |
BCSA
Bylaws:
Article 15 1)
BCSA
supports the principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
and is committed to the techniques of mediation and arbitration as
effective ways to resolve disputes and to avoid the uncertainty and
cost associated.
From their Discipline
Policy and Procedures:
Rule
11 - Discipline
g) In case
of disputes between players, teams,
districts, leagues, or affiliated associations, legal proceedings shall
be taken only as a last resort, and then only with the consent of the
Board.
and in case you thought the left coast was all supportive of the legal
system:
Rule 11 -
Discipline:
r) No
barrister or solicitor shall represent any such player, team,
district, league or affiliated association at the hearing of any
misconduct, protest, complaint or appeal, unless;
i) As an
executive officer of the team, district, league or affiliated
association concerned and has been for a period of three months
immediately preceding the lodgment of the misconduct, protest,
complaint or appeal,
ii) And
whose name appears on the affiliation form of such team,
district, league or affiliated association as an executive officer,
iii) And, a
person so identified, may only represent |
| Saskatchewan
Soccer
Association |
Nothing in their
bylaws or policies mention that disputes can not be taken to an
ordinary court. |
| Manitoba
Soccer
Association |
MSA
Bylaws:
Article 9: RENEWAL AND MEMBERSHIP STATUS
6) No Member
or any person associated with a Member shall refer
disputes with the Association, its members or other Provincial
Associations to a court of law, but shall be required to submit any
disagreements to the jurisdiction of the Association or, upon appeal,
to the Canadian Soccer Association. |
| Ontario
Soccer
Association |
The OSA has nothing
in their constitution
that prevents bringing disputes to the ordinary courts:
Section 12.0 Dispute
Resolution of the OSA Policy Manual has this to say:
1.3 As the
purpose of this Policy is to promote alternatives to litigation, OSA
may refuse to hear a dispute, or discontinue hearing a dispute that has
already commenced, if the party or parties engage in litigation, or
send a lawyer's letter threatening litigation, that is either directly
or indirectly related to the matter in dispute. |
| Quebec
Soccer
Federation |
The bylaws
are in french which I do not speak but:
Article 7 -
Obligations
7.4 Dans un
cas de conflit entre les membres ou entre un membre et la
Fédération, des procédures judiciaires
ne peuvent être entreprises qu'en dernier ressort et ce,
seulement si tous les recours normaux prévus dans les
règlements généraux et/ou les
règlements de discipline de la
Fédération ont été
épuisés. Avant d'engager des
procédures judiciaires, le membre doit en aviser la
Fédération ou l'ACS par courrier
recommandé.
which according to Google translate is as follows:
In
case of
conflict between
members or
between members
and the
Federation, procedures
Justice can
not be undertaken
as a last resort
and only if
all appeals normally
provided in the
bylaws and /
or disciplinary
regulations of
the Federation been
exhausted. Before
initiating legal
proceedings, the
member must notify
the Federation
or ACS
by mail. |
| Soccer
New Brunswick |
Bylaws
or Code
of Conduct documents do not prevent use of ordinary courts |
| Soccer Nova
Scotia |
Bylaws:
Article 6
Membership
d) A
District Association or League in Membership or any Association or
League in Membership’s affiliates, registrants, leagues,
clubs, players, referees or officials shall not refer disputes with the
Association or any other National Association to a court of law, but
shall be required to submit any disagreements to the jurisdiction of
the Association. |
| PEI
Soccer Association |
Nothing in the Constitution
or policies and procedures manual mention that disputes can
not be taken to an
ordinary court. |
| Newfoundland and
Labrador Soccer Association |
Nothing in the Constitution
& Bylaws or Code
of Conduct mention that disputes can not be taken to an
ordinary court.
However, the bylaws had a very nice little rule:
26.3 No such
regulations may violate an individual’s rights or freedoms
except as may be required to protect the rights and freedoms of any
other individual and to ensure the stability of the basic structure of
the game. |
| NWT Soccer
Association |
Bylaws
nor Dispute
Resolution Policy documents do not mention that disputes can
not be taken to an ordinary court of law. |
| Yukon |
Could not find
bylaws. |
Hmmm .... looks like there is some fuzz in that naval.
Surprisingly few of
the CSA members actually mention that it is against their bylaws to
take a dispute to ordinary courts.
So if the CSA decides to make a statement regarding the ASA
memberships' attempt to remove Article 32 from their bylaws I would
suggest they first go to Wikipedia and look up this word.
I wonder what else is on the agenda?
|
|
|
posted Apr 5, 2011 12:04 AM by Tyler Durden
The
AGM of the ASA on the 16th of April will see the membership debate
quite a few proposed bylaw amendments. On the 14th of
March some of the members sent the ASA Board some
proposed changes to the bylaws. On the 17th of March the ASA Board sent
the membership some proposed bylaw changes of its own.
The members are proposing changes to ensure that the Board of Directors
are not delegating fiscal control to a standing committee. Stating that
operational tasks relating to fiscal affairs of the ASA should be
undertaken by the staff, with the policy and other direction being set
by the board of Directors as a whole.
To that end they are proposing the removal of the Standing Committee on
Finance, aka the Executive Finance Committee and wish to
empower the Executive Director with more staffing
responsibilities.
Additionally, the members are proposing a change to the voting
structure used in the election of Directors. The proposed system would
see each member have a single vote rather than the current system
wherein votes are determined by the number of players in a member
association.
Finally, the members are proposing the removal of the controversial
Article 32 that prohibits members from taking disputes to the courts of
law.
The ASA Board of Directors are proposing a change to the composition of
the Board. This new system would see the province divided into 4 rural
regions each appointing 1 director and 2 urban regions each appointing
2 directors. To be appointed these directors would need to have the
unanimous support of each of the members of that region. The EDSA,
EIYSA and the EMSA have yet to agree that the sky is blue so I am not
sure how workable this would be in practice. In addition the entire
membership would elect 3 directors; President, Vice-President and
Director of Finance.
The changes proposed would also elevate each association within Calgary
and Edmonton to active membership in the ASA.
Additionally, the Board is proposing that the bylaws clarify that the
day-to-day activities of the Association be overseen by the Standing
Committee on Finance. This Standing Committee would be expanded to
include directors from 4 of the 6 regions.
Further proposals are suggested to allow Board Meeting to be held by
telephone or video conference, to specify a timeline within which an
SGM must be held after having been requested, and a change to lower the
quorum requirements for the meeting of the membership.
It is fairly apparent that both the membership and the ASA
Board feel that changes are in order. Interestingly some of the changes
each suggest are to the same area but obviously each has their own take
on the underlying problem and its solution. While the membership is
looking to move the board to a more policy oriented body the ASA Board
is wanting to further enshrine some of its power. Case in point - the
membership wants to remove the Executive Finance Committee and give the
staff more responsibility; the ASA Board is looking to codify its
responsibilities for day-to-day activities and enlarge the Committee.
In the membership wish to have a single vote per member for Director
elections and the Boards proposal for regional representation we are
seeing both attempt to address a concern that voting blocks
and the politics that go with it are something of concern.
These proposals appear at least to be a starting point. But
there are obviously some fundamental differences in how the
organization should be structured and run.
I do find it interesting that the ASA board did not touch on the issue
of disputes being before the courts. The Alberta Court of Appeals used
some pretty strong language when it issued its last decision. When the
courts start quoting from the criminal code when discussing your bylaws
you would think that would be something you would want to address.
Unfortunately, I suspect the CSA would use its passage as an
excuse to suspend the ASA thereby preventing Alberta from voting at the
upcoming CSA AGM.
The elephant in the room as far as the AGM goes is the
question of who will be putting their names forward for election? It is
nice to talk about transparency and governance reform but if a members
first introduction to a potential Director comes from the floor of the
AGM how can the member make an informed decision?
Added 2011.03.14
- EIYSA Bylaw Amendment Proposal
Added 2011.03.17
- ASA BOD - Bylaw Amendment Proposal
|
|
|
