View Full Version : 26. Motion 2011-A - For discussion

Lyle Craver
01-15-2011, 12:58 AM
Motion 2011-A - Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee - For Discussion

Moved: Aris Marghetis ( no longer supports the motion ); Seconded : Chris Mallon

- that CFC replace the memberships for Adult, Family, and Junior, with a single new annual CFC membership, and the rate for the federal portion would be $30.

NOTICE TO GOVERNORS - As per direction of the president this motion is for discussion only and will not be voted on at this meeting

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 09:25 AM
Armstrong Commentary in Favour of Motion 2011-A:

A. Developments:

1. At the Fall meeting, the motion was moved with the initial intention that it be voted on at the meeting.

2. Bob G, as Chair, ruled that the motion would be adjourned to the Winter Meeting - it was complex and needed more consideration and debate than would be allowed prior to a meeting vote. It is my position that the Chair has no power to “ adjourn “ a motion on his own, not then and not now at this Winter Meeting – the motion is the property of the Assembly, and it can be adjourned only if the governors consent. In the Fall Meeting, though, no governor objected, and so the decision stood. Before this Winter Meeting Bob Gillanders indicated he wanted the motion adjourned to the 2011 July Toronto AGM. His reason for this seemed to be that the motion is far-reaching, and affects CFC finances, and all ramifications should be thoroughly worked out before the motion is voted on. It seems that he has now again “ adjourned “ the voting on this motion 2011-A, under his view of the powers of the Chair. I would request that he ask the governors to vote on his proposal for adjournment, to follow what I understand to be proper procedure. I, for one, will then vote in favour of his proposal to adjourn the vote.

3. Between Meetings, the mover, Aris Marghetis, withdrew as mover.

4. Governor Ken Craft advised re dealing with a motion lacking mover and seconder because they had abandoned the motion:

" Re. motions having movers and seconder withdrawn. I'm not going to quote chapter and verse of Robert's but here is the rationale. As Governors, we constitute an assembly. Members have the right to bring forward motions to be deliberated upon by the Assembly. Once it reaches the Assembly the motion becomes the property of the Assembly. A member has a right to no longer be the mover and the seconder of the motion, however, since the motion is now the property of the Assembly and other Governors can choose to sponsor it. "

5. I gave notice that I was coming forward as a new substitute mover of the motion. I asked if the seconder Chris Mallon was remaining on as seconder – Chris never responded. Since he has said nothing to the contrary, it is presumed he is still seconder.

6. Bob G, as Chair, ruled that I could not become the new mover :

" No. You are not confirmed as the new mover. I challenge your statement that you are in favour of this motion. You are not. Too many if statements! "

7. Ken Craft advised Bob G that, as chair, he could not refuse to accept me as the substitute mover:

" You can't challenge that statement, Bob G.
If Bob A, says he wishes to move the motion as is a Governor in good standing, you have no right to stand in his way. As mover all Bob A is obliged to do in the long run is vote in the affirmative. "

8. Bob G has not indicated that he has changed his position as a result of Ken’s comment.

9. But it appears that this motion 2011-A is now being processed as originally filed, showing the original mover/seconder, for the agenda item dealing with " discussion " of the motion. So it seems the Chair is ruling that there is no need for a substitute mover, and the motion proceeds as originally filed.

B. Merits of the Motion

The motion seeks to simplify the administration of CFC memberships, by eliminating multiple categories, and instituting only 2 memberships – an annual membership, as desired by this motion, and the existing “ Life Membership “. This is clearly beneficial from an administrative point of view, and is less time-consuming for staff, and thus saves CFC some member administration costs.
Two Issues have arisen in governor discussion:

1. Amount of a single Annual CFC Membership Fee – it is felt that the new fee should be revenue neutral – that is, it will neither increase nor decrease expected CFC membership revenue for 2011-12. Bob G posted that the $ 30 was low, and that CFC would lose over $ 5000 next year if that $ figure is passed. I believe Treasurer Fred McKim once calculated that $ 35 would be revenue neutral ( please correct me if I’m misremembering, Fred ). The current federal portion of the annual fee collected is $ 36. It is my estimate that $ 33 would be revenue neutral, using Bob G’s calculations. So I will be bringing a motion to amend Motion 2011-B, if it is going to a vote, by replacing “ $ 30 “ with “ $ 33 “.

2. Any justification for the current junior membership discount? - If the discount is justified, then perhaps the motion should be defeated, because at least one of the categories make sense. However, if for CFC, a discounted junior membership seems not justified, then the motion has merit. Here are some of the arguments that have been made on both sides of this issue:

For the Junior Discount:

1. Juniors get discounts on all kinds of things, and many other types of memberships, and CFC will look bad if it doesn't fall in line and give juniors a discounted annual membership.

2. Juniors are the future of chess - as such CFC should do all it can to encourage juniors to play, and one way of encouraging them is a lower membership fee.

3. Families with juniors often have tighter budgets, given the number of family members. So a discount increases the chance that scarce family revenue will be spent on a CFC Junior Membership.

4. Even in chess, Juniors are given discounts - for example there is often a junior registration fee for weekend tournaments; there are often junior memberships for chess clubs. CFC will be out of step with other aspects of chess if they discontinue the junior membership discount.

Against the Junior Membership Discount:

1. CFC membership cannot be compared to other situations where juniors get discounts. There may be good reasons in other situations, but not re an annual CFC membership. It is a different situation, and thus can be eliminated. Roger Patterson of BC has noted:

“ The standard economic argument for different prices for different groups is to maximize revenue by tailoring fees to the ability (willingness) of each group to pay. If anything, juniors these days are less price sensitive than adult players so giving them a discount is not economically justified. Perhaps in days gone by, but those days are gone. “

However, I note the comment of Governor Valer Eugen Demian:

“ … this clearly looks like milking the juniors for the benefit of adults. It is widely known junior tournaments far outnumber the adult ones in BC, so my point should be pretty clear! “

2. From a membership processing point of view, a junior takes up the same CFC resources as a regular adult - he has a place on the list like an adult, a membership number like an adult, etc.

3. From a tournament rating point of view, a junior in an adult tournament takes up the same CFC resources in maintaining their rating - it is processed the same way as any adult's rating calculation.

4. Juniors get the Canadian Chess News, the same as adults.

5. Administering one category of membership simplifies membership administration and will save CFC some staff time and money.

C. Conclusion

Governor/Treasurer Fred McKim has noted that : “The negative publicity is going to be horrible. “ It is my view, however, that nevertheless, for a CFC membership, a junior discount is not warranted from an administrative cost point of view, nor otherwise, and CFC should move to a single annual membership for all.


Hugh Brodie
01-16-2011, 02:30 PM
Would this motion affect tournament membership fees? Would they be eliminated?

Fred McKim
01-16-2011, 03:01 PM
This particular motion only addressed the annual fees. I costed it out and I think it would need to be more like $32 to break even.

It would make sense that the tournament membership fee (adult and junior) be combined at the same time.

By the way, I am opposed to NOT having a reduced membersip for juniors (ie I will be voting against any motion similar to this one).

Bob Gillanders
01-16-2011, 04:50 PM
9. But it appears that this motion 2011-A is now being processed as originally filed, showing the original mover/seconder, for the agenda item dealing with " discussion " of the motion. So it seems the Chair is ruling that there is no need for a substitute mover, and the motion proceeds as originally filed.

Not so fast, Bob A.
Notwithstanding the fact that,
1. I contest whether or not the motion was properly introduced at the October meeting,
2. I also contest some of the facts as you state them,
3. I also contest the statement that motions cannot be withdrawn by the mover.

Setting all that aside for the moment:

On another thread (#13), I have asked the assembly to allow that this motion be cancelled (voided, killed) to clear the deck to allow for a level playing field so that competing ideas can be openly debated. I have also asked that the debate commence on thread #13.

To date, there have been no posts on #13. I suspect several governors who have lots to say on this issue are playing in tournaments this weekend. So maybe we will see some fireworks later. Great!

But first, is there really any support amongst the governors that would force a vote on a motion that is no longer supported by the mover, that was introduced under questionable circumstances, that received no debate beforehand, that could have severe consequences on the finances, and that could be reintroduced at a latter time anyways? Really? :(

Can we please just kill that motion and start over, please!:rolleyes:

I see to date, there are no posts yet on thread #13.

Bob Gillanders
01-16-2011, 04:53 PM
And Chris,

can we please get that edit function working?

see my last post, I didn't mean to repeat myself,
or maybe I did. :)

Bob Armstrong
01-16-2011, 05:21 PM
Hi Bob:

I also won't go into debating the facts, or alleged facts.

I believe a motion focusses discussion. The fact that this motion is not to be voted on has led to no discussion. There has been no discussion under thread # 13.

I also am very far from convinced on any amalgamating of the membership and rating fees.

So I think that this motion should simply be adjourned by the Assembly to the 2011 Spring quarterly meeting, and I will so move now.

In the interim, debate can occur on the Governors' Discussion Board. The outstanding motion 2011-A will serve as the main idea that must be worked around. It should come to a vote next meeting, and discussion should be in the light of that fact ( and yes I do believe the motion is properly filed, belongs to the Assembly, and should proceed, unless adjourned by this Assembly - I'm not sure about the need for a substitute mover/seconder, and whether they can " withdraw " from their position as mover/seconder, or only indicate that they've changed their minds, and no longer support the motion - I am still going to purchase a Roberts' Rules of Order to investigate - I asked Phil Haley's opinion, but he declined because he hasn't dealt with this stuff in a while now ).

I also note that Treasurer Fred has indicated he thinks $ 32 per year would be revenue neutral. I plan to bring an amending motion at the Spring Meeting, changing the $ 30 to $33 ( since membership seems to be falling, and we need to cover that ).

Will you or Lyle please advise us how to now deal with my motion to adjourn Motion 2011-A, and to vote on that. Thanks.


Francisco Cabanas
01-16-2011, 11:27 PM
I am opposed to this motion as worded but I would be in favour of elimination the family membership, so I would support an amendment to eliminate the family membership and leave the junior membership alone.

Lyle Craver
01-17-2011, 02:21 PM
At the request of the President I am closing discussion on this item.