PDA

View Full Version : The Elephant in the Room



Bob Armstrong
01-06-2009, 09:31 PM
The Elephant in the Room

The saying “ No one will talk about the elephant in the room “ describes a situation where something is large and obvious and uncomfortable, but no one wants to take a chance on raising the issue.

Well CFC has an elephant in the room. The looming 2008-9 deficit is projected by the Grassroots’ Campaign to be $ 24,700 ( 1st half - $ 8,717; 2nd half - $ 16,000 ). Now in 2007-8 it was $ 33,251. And in 2006-7 it was $ 48,677. So there has been some progress. And the CFC in 5 months this past year has done much restructuring ( as called for by the Grassroots' Campaign ) - for which they are to be congratulated. But the current year’s deficit will still be sizeable ( elephantine ).

What has been the CFC response to this revelation by the Grassroots’ Campaign ? – deafening SILENCE.

There have been three recent postings dealing with the Grassroots’ projection and its evolving calculation: 1) May 1 – October 31, 2008 CFC Deficit – Where from Here?; 2) Projected CFC Revenue/Expenses for Nov. 1, 2008 – April 30, 2009; and 3) CFC Budgets – Are They Coming??. How many comments, replies, criticisms have you seen posted on any of the three Canadian chess chat discussion boards by any of the CFC Executive? Initially they responded on their own board – there were 6 replies on the CFC Chess Forum to the first post ( none on ChessTalk or the Ottawa CC Discussion Board ). But then they went SILENT – no responses on any boards to the 2nd and 3rd posts ( except the picture-only “ tank “ post on CFC Chess Forum ).

At some point after the first post, CFC President David Lavin changed strategy, and decided no longer to debate in front of the membership in public. He advised me privately that he would not reply post to me any more ( he said because I posted on multiple boards – you evaluate whether that is a reason not to post on his own CFC Chess Forum ). Has he now muzzled the other members of the Executive too?

Why is the CFC afraid to talk about the elephant in the room in public? The Grassroots’ Campaign has developed a 2nd half budget, carefully measured against the actual 1st half expenses. Why can’t CFC do the same? Privately the President and Treasurer have said the Grassroots’ figures are “ off base “. If so, why won’t they disclose their own figures in public ( and I drafted and sent to them a blank 2nd half budget statement to complete, that can be understood by a layman, to make it easy on them )?

The Grassroots’ Campaign has asked for cuts in office expenses, staff salaries and the E-zine ( on-line Chess Canada ) NOW to try to deal with the elephant in our room THIS YEAR ( the full Grassroots' Platform on Restructuring will soon be published ). Again - - CFC response - - public silence.

Is the CFC Executive just resignedly accepting this deficit?

Governors run the CFC and are responsible for its well-being – they need to direct the Executive as to general policies to be followed. They should look closely at this elephant and decide if they agree with the Executive direction ( non-direction? ) on this issue. And the Governors should not let themselves also be muzzled. They should, in public, express their views to the membership, ask for input, and engage in debate. The membership can provide valuable ideas.

This would move things forward – and the elephant would get discussed – as it should be.

Bob
( Because of David’s position on posting, I will not copy this post from the CFC Chess Forum for 2 days. And if he or other executive post in reply, when I copy to other boards, I will also copy their comments, so there is full disclosure at all sites.)

Bob Gillanders
01-06-2009, 11:25 PM
But seriously Bob,

We are all currently focused on achieving 3 goals,

1. Vacating the CFC Condo by Jan 15th
2. Giving birth to the webzine
3. Balancing the budget for fiscal 2010 (starting May 1, 2009).

Achieving these goals are critical to our continued improvement. Our best course of action is to remain focused on these goals.

I hope you can be just a little more patient.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
01-07-2009, 12:16 AM
Hi Bob:

I very much appreciate you publicly responding so quickly on behalf of the CFC so the members know where the CFC stands on the issue raised in this post.

So the answer is that CFC will NOT discuss the elephant in the room ( the $ 24,700 deficit projected for 2008-9 ) because CFC is " focused " on the 3 current goals you set out. Well, it is at least an answer that the CFC members can now evaluate for themselves.

The Grassroots' Campaign's comments on the 3 current CFC goals are:

1. Vacating the CFC Condo by Jan 15th - GC Comment : seems like a good goal - good luck with the move;
2. Giving birth to the webzine - GC Comment - How can CFC afford it with a GC projected deficit this year of $ 24,700 ( Former CFC President and Treasurer Peter Stockhausen estimated it would cost $ 10,000/year, and we fear he may be low ) ?
3. Balancing the budget for fiscal 2010 (starting May 1, 2009). - GC Comment : Cuts will be necessary before May 1, 2009 in order to have any hope of coming out with a balanced 2009-10 budget.

GC fears " patience " is costing the CFC money it cannot afford.

We do acknowledge the good progress made by the CFC this year so far. We also hope for CFC's " continued improvement " and will hopefully watch CFC's steps in the final 4 months of this fiscal year.

Bob

Ken Craft
01-07-2009, 08:05 AM
Meet the new executive, same as the old one. Transparency is not its strong suit.

Bob Gillanders
01-09-2009, 11:31 AM
Hi Bob,

I see you have followed thru with your "promise" of copying our responses on this thread to chesstalk.

Do you really feel this is necessary? I don't think so. We are discussing the finances of the CFC, an important issue. I feel it is reasonable to ask that interested parties make the small extra effort to visit CFC forum.

Bob Armstrong
01-09-2009, 11:50 AM
Hi Bob:

I would like to be able to post only on CFC Chess Forum. As you know, I was the one who initiated reviving it when it had been closed for some time.

But I have monitored the " views " to multiple thread postings, and consistently I have found at least double the rate of " views " at ChessTalk to CFC Chess Forum. So there are more members who go to ChessTalk than the CFC Chess Forum ( though the Chess Forum seems to have developed a reasonable following since it began ). And some CFC members do not come here, though they go to ChessTalk. So if I wish to reach members on something important, then I must also post on ChessTalk.

You will notice that often I do post ONLY on CFC Chess Forum, where I am not concerned that all members see it ( eg. My current post on top FIDE Canadians ). And often I post on CFC Chess Forum, and don't copy it for one or two days to ChessTalk. I do this specifically to promote the CFC Chess Forum. There must be posts of interest here that are not on ChessTalk, to help keep it interesting, and to entice " viewers/posters " to check it out on a regular basis.

I am the biggest booster of the CFC Chess Forum. I post here more than any other member.

And I post here more than Governors, who should be posting here and debating with the membership on CFC issues here on their own discussion board. But they aren't. Why not? They could bring issues from their private discussion board here for debate/dialogue with members. I hope they will in future.

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-09-2009, 12:20 PM
What has been the CFC response to this revelation by the Grassroots’ Campaign ? – deafening SILENCE.

What do you mean by the CFC in this sentence?

Does your group of grass-cutters consist of the CFC governors? Then they must act with Motions and not with press releases!!!

Bob Armstrong
01-09-2009, 12:46 PM
Hi Egis:

Unfortunately, it is my experience that Governors will not generally join grassroots' movements, where this movement intends to bring motions, that are then coming before those governors for vote. I had governors in the original group of the Grassroots' Campaign. They have all withdrawn, though nearly all of them have asserted that they still support the movement, but didn't think their names should be attached to a platform as endorsers.

I don't agree with this. Why can't governors stand up and be counted right at the beginning? It is not a conflict of interest. They have a right to take up causes and try to get them to successful vote, just like ordinary members.

And " press releases " are necessary to build member support for some position, and to convince governors of its correctness through public debate of the members.

Then we hope a governor will take up the cause, and bring the necessary " Motion "!!

The Grassroots' Campaign has suggested various cuts NOW to reduce the elephant in the room ( the projected $ 24,700 deficit for 2008-9 ). If governors are concerned about this, why doesn't one of them bring a " Motion " of their own accord? The Grassroots' Campaign would willingly support them.

As a last resort, if no Governors bestir themselves, then the GC does seek out a sympathetic governor to bring the necessary motion(s) - remember our famous " gang of 7 " on CFC Restructuring straw vote motions that went to the July 2008 CFC AGM in Montreal? Remember the " gang of 4 " governors who brought the recent 3 motions on CFC Fees ( which were withdrawn in favour of the Executive's motion on fees - speaking of which, when is the CFC going to hold its full " Review on CFC Fees " so that we can make our submission to it ? ).

If necessary, we will be bringing motions. We were asked to lay off for the moment while CFC pursues 3 current goals. We are being patient...for a short while.

Bob

Michael Barron
01-10-2009, 11:20 PM
Hi Bob:

You're doing a good work stirring the pot, but you should understand that Governors in general represent many people with different opinions, and as such they can't endorse controversial ideas.
If you want wider suport for the Grassroots' Campaign, you should remove from it's platform all issues that could cause controversy.

For example, I support your recent Platform on CFC Restructuring (with possible slight modifications):

"1. Office Expenses:
CFC must move to an “ E.D. Home Office “ arrangement.

2. Staff Salaries, Benefits and Travel :
These costs must be dramatically reduced; we recommend elimination of the CFC part-time staff position.

We believe that only if steps # 1 and # 2 above are implemented, will there be a possibility of a balanced 2009-10 budget, and the CFC be able to avoid step # 3 below.

3. On-line Chess Canada :
The CFC must revisit its commitment to an on-line Chess Canada, as being a projected $ 10,000 annually ( and this may be low ) we cannot currently afford, if it causes CFC to run a deficit in 2009-10. Work should temporarily be suspended on it until it is clear CFC can afford it."

I could add that the CFC Executive are currently discussing the future of the CFC Office.
The continuity of the CFC Office operations is the main priority in transition period.

CFC budget and CFC Office arrangement are related issues.
The main question is: ""What does the CFC need the money for?"

I believe, that the CFC needs the money to implement the stated objectives of the organization: to promote the game of chess in Canada and organize chess competitions.
This work requires dedicated people, time and money to be done properly.
The main task here - to approach prospective corporate sponsors and attract additional funds for Canadian chess.

Gordon Ritchie had shown in 2007 that this is possible.
To bring some fruits this work should be done on regular basis - event after event, year after year.

I think, the CFC should allocate at least half of available resources for this task.
If Grassroots' Campaign would support this idea, it could improve image of chess in Canada, help to organize National Chess Championships and bring additional revenue for the CFC.

But there could be different opinions...

Bob Armstrong
01-10-2009, 11:41 PM
Hi Michael:

Thanks very much for sharing, as a Governor, and Executive, your views with the membership. I hope it generates some good discussion.

And you are right - if ideas are controversial, then you will have some supporting, and some opposing. And sometimes to move forward, ideas will have to be controversial. You must work with who you have, and try to convert those on the other side.

I appreciate your support for the Grassroots' Campaign Platform on Restructuring. I know it is a difficult and critical time for the CFC with the office unit now gone. I'm sure there are many ideas among the Executive as to how to proceed now. We proposed these cuts now, because CFC is starting afresh on Jan. 15, and because we projected a $ 24,700 deficit for this year, and had hoped it might be pared down a little with cuts now. We realize that CFC has a lot on its plate at one time, and handling everything at once is certainly not easy.

Hopefully the more streamlined CFC of the future will be better able to carry out its goals you mention ( " to promote the game of chess in Canada, and organize chess competitions " ), and to focus more on sponsorship.

Bob

Valer Eugen Demian
01-11-2009, 09:05 PM
Maybe other governors would be interested to join if anyone would pay attention (could I dream of beginning to exchange messages?...) to what they are saying for a few months now!

One of the very few benefits of having so many governors is that you can find support from people you have never met, if you really want to!...

Bob Armstrong
01-11-2009, 09:53 PM
Hi Valer:

The Grassroots' Campaign is always looking for more " endorsers " of its platforms ( currently one on CFC Restructuring and one on CFC Fees ). There are currently 15 CFC members and former members in the group ( most just ordinary CFC members ).

From time to time, I ask supporters to post their support here and give me their e-mail address so I can contact them. I sometimes give my e-mail address ( bobarm@sympatico.ca ) here and advise potential supporters that they can contact me privately if that is preferable.

We would gladly welcome Governors as " endorsers ". We do have contact with some Governors. We have a group of 8 Governor " supporters ", who have indicated support, or partial support, but do not want their names used publicly as " endorsers ". We keep them informed of our activities by e-mail. We treat their names confidentially. It is entirely up to them the extent to which they decide to make their support public. Sometimes they have brought motions on our behalf before the CFC.

Privately, the group has received a lot of support for their efforts on behalf of the CFC ( even from some who oppose some of our positions ). We are definitely interested in growing our group ! We feel that the more people in our group, the stronger our voice before the CFC Governors.

Bob

Ken Craft
01-12-2009, 08:37 AM
Am I dreaming or has my latest exchange with Chris Mallon re. transparency been deleted?

Bob Armstrong
01-12-2009, 11:31 AM
Hi Ken:

My " recollection " is that Chris alleged that you had published confidential information. If untrue, this could be considered libel.

Maybe he was concerned about a lawsuit and so pulled it!!

Your denial response must have scared him off.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-12-2009, 11:48 AM
I didn't delete anything. Don't know what happened to them. I also don't recall Ken actually denying that he had posted confidential info publicly when I pressed him on it.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-12-2009, 11:54 AM
I didn't delete anything. Don't know what happened to them. I also don't recall Ken actually denying that he had posted confidential info publicly when I pressed him on it.

As I see the whole thread about the chess sets sale is gone. (the database crashed?)

Bob Armstrong
01-12-2009, 12:09 PM
Hi Egis:

That one Chris acknowledged deleting - on the basis that CFC doesn't advertise in posts on other chess websites, and so doesn't allow other competitors to post here.

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-12-2009, 12:12 PM
Hi Egis:

That one Chris acknowledged deleting - on the basis that CFC doesn't advertise in posts on other chess websites, and so doesn't allow other competitors to post here.

Bob

I thought he deleted not the thread but only several post based on "doesn't allow other competitors to post here." ;)

Bob Armstrong
01-12-2009, 12:21 PM
ALERT - ALERT

CFC Chess Forum has a rogue phantom deleter !

Ken Craft
01-12-2009, 12:57 PM
I told you there was no need for this site Bob with a perfectly good site like Chesstalk fulfilling discussion needs. 8^))

Bob Armstrong
01-12-2009, 01:01 PM
But Ken - don't you think this site has its own innate beauty !!

Bob

Ken Craft
01-12-2009, 01:04 PM
Not when posts are arbitrarily deleted, executive members choose not to participate. How often do we, the members, here from executive members on this site?

As for Chris' comments let's just say I support a more transparent Federation.

Peter McKillop
01-12-2009, 05:35 PM
I agree with you, Ken. If posts/threads can be deleted at the whim of the CFC with no one having the courage to take responsibility for the deletion, then this is my last trip to this site.

Christopher Mallon
01-12-2009, 06:12 PM
I post here all the time Ken. So you hear from the exec virtually every day.
Which is pretty good considering there isn't even anything new every single day.

Peter - I'm not sure who deleted the posts, but I'll be sure to go over proper moderator courtesy with those who have such ability :)

Ken Craft
01-13-2009, 08:17 AM
I wrote "executive members", Chris? Where are your colleagues? Other than you or David, there is very little communication from executive members on the CFC discussion board. I am pleased that you and David participate, I wonder why the others don't.

By the way who would have had the power to delete our exchange, Chris?

Christopher Mallon
01-13-2009, 12:09 PM
Well I can't speak for the rest of the executive. But as I said there's hardly something new every day, and I think between David and I (and Bob) we cover most things.

Moderators - Myself, David, Bob, Stijn, Lyle

Ken Craft
01-13-2009, 02:40 PM
To my mind it isn't about there being new things every day. To me it is about interacting with the membership and being seen to be accessible.

Bob Armstrong
01-13-2009, 03:12 PM
Hi Chris:

It would be great if the Executive came here and THEY brought some NEW things for members to respond to - new intiatives they are thinking of taking ( what do members think of them? - will they fly? ); controversies on the Governors' Forum on current CFC issues - e.g. should CFC go to an ED Home Office arrangement? ( what is the membership input on this? ); etc..

And I would not let the Governors off the hook here either - they should come as well as the Executive.

This would promote good 2-way dialogue with the membership.

Bob

Vladimir Drkulec
01-15-2009, 10:42 PM
The Elephant in the Room

The saying “ No one will talk about the elephant in the room “ describes a situation where something is large and obvious and uncomfortable, but no one wants to take a chance on raising the issue.

Well CFC has an elephant in the room. The looming 2008-9 deficit is projected by the Grassroots’ Campaign to be $ 24,700 ( 1st half - $ 8,717; 2nd half - $ 16,000 ). Now in 2007-8 it was $ 33,251. And in 2006-7 it was $ 48,677. So there has been some progress. And the CFC in 5 months this past year has done much restructuring ( as called for by the Grassroots' Campaign ) - for which they are to be congratulated. But the current year’s deficit will still be sizeable ( elephantine ).

What has been the CFC response to this revelation by the Grassroots’ Campaign ? – deafening SILENCE.

As you mention, things are moving in the right direction and have been for several years. The CFC is taking the steps that are needed to reduce and hopefully eliminate the deficit in future years.

In these times it is the cash flows that matter more than the deficit. If you run out of money, you die. At these levels it is unlikely that the CFC will run out of money any time soon. You would expect that all the restructuring will result in a temporary increase in the deficit along with a number of one-time charges associated with ending certain money losing operations.

Vladimir Drkulec

Bob Gillanders
01-16-2009, 03:07 AM
Good insight Vlad, you must have some first hand experience with restructuring an organization!

We were fortunate to have the financial support of the Chess Foundation over the last year. Their loans have allowed us to continue normal operations while restructuring.

The target remains to balance the books for fiscal 2010.

Bob Armstrong
01-16-2009, 02:12 PM
We were fortunate to have the financial support of the Chess Foundation over the last year. Their loans have allowed us to continue normal operations while restructuring.

.

Hi Bob:

Thanks for sharing this information with us. The CFC had to borrow $ 30,000 last fiscal year to operate, which is still owing. It was expected that this would again be necessary this year of restructuring.

Can CFC advise how much has been borrowed from the Chess Foundation this year so far to be able to operate?

Does the CFC project that any further loan will be required before the fiscal year end April 30, 2009? If so, how much? I assume this will not be necessary, given that CFC now has the proceeds of sale of the office unit.

It would be interesting for members to know. Thanks.

Bob

Bob Gillanders
01-16-2009, 04:05 PM
Hi Bob,

A second loan of $ 18,500 was received in November 2008.

Both loans totalling $ 48,500 are being repaid directly from proceeds of sale.

No additional loans will be needed.

Bob Armstrong
01-16-2009, 04:31 PM
Hi Bob:

Thx. That's not too bad. I guess the close out sale of books and equipment helped somewhat. Had to be done given the deficit situation inherited from the previous year.

Bob