I'm growing increasingly concerned about the lack of transparency within CFI's structure. While I generally trust those in charge of both CFI Transnational and CFI Canada, it seems to me there are few checks on their powers. The structure seemingly works well for pursuing the goals of those intimately involved with CFI but the membership and donors could potentially be left behind. I appreciate the approaches to "grassroots" that are present, and most local Centres and Communities are much more open then the umbrella organizations. Nevertheless, most directors and leaders at the local level are not elected, but merely selected from above. It would seem easy for some to draw comparisons between large organized religions and the Centre at this point. I seem to recall Paul Kurtz mentioning that CFI was moving toward an elected board, which would greatly alleviate many of my concerns, but at present it seems to me that the leadership of CFI could be prone to becoming an elitist club, although I'm not trying to imply that it is this way. I know there are some concerns in Canada from members about the leadership of CFI Canada, and it's very unclear to me (even after several years of being intimately involved in the freethought movement in Canada) as to how CFI Canada is even structured. There's apparently a board of a few people who I've never met, and this concerns me. Further, I can find very little on any website (CFI's or external) about CFI's structure. The best I can find is a list of names and emails. I can also find the outline of CFI Calgary's structure, which, while still remaining top-down focussed and lacking accountability, is nevertheless an improvement. Meanwhile, the Secular Student Alliance adopts an elected board that appoints and holds the directors responsible and makes it very clear how it functions on its website. Seeing as CFI's goals not only align with, but were founded upon the basis of what was then referred to as "Democratic Secular Humanism," it would seem to challenge CFI to structure itself in accordance with its own objectives. We need to be the change we want to see in the world as it were. I see a great opportunity in transforming CFI into a more democratic structure. This would greatly set us ahead of the vast majority of religious organizations, especially the fundamentalist ones. While many autocratic organizations can be greatly successful in this world, I fear that we may make ourselves to be hypocrites and may unwittingly push potential members away, thereby limiting the diversity of opinions present within the organization. I'm not sure how much help you can offer me on these concerns beyond clearing up some of the existing structures within CFI and letting me know if in the near future CFI will open itself to greater membership input. Until then I remain committed to CFI at the local level, but I truly feel these issues will need to be rectified to really make CFI one of the greater organizations out there. Barring that, the only other issue I have with the current state of the secular movement is the continued fractured state of all our organizations. I think having a united, democratic singular organization is appealing to most, and I think CFI is best positioned to unite the various secular/atheist/humanist/bright/etc. organizations and work towards a more enlightened future. Ian Bushfield Past president, University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics MSc. Physics Student at SFU