PDA

View Full Version : Review of CFC Fees?



Bob Armstrong
01-31-2009, 12:43 AM
In July 2008 in Montreal at the CFC AGM, the governors passed a motion changing a number of membership categories and CFC fees as of January 1, 2009. Then in 2008/09 GL 2, the Executive brought the following motion

Motion 2009-06: (Moved Michael Barron, Seconded Lyle Craver)
To reconsider Les Bunning/Peter Stockhausen motion regarding membership and rating fees passed at the AGM.

President David Lavin stated that he supported motion 2009-06. In that GL he went on to state:

" I stated when running for the CFC Presidency that we need a holistic solution to the problems that the CFC is facing. These ad hoc motions [ 3 Grassroots' Camaign motions on CFC Fees ] moved by Barry Thorvardson and seconded by Garry Gladstone do not take into account the overall operating budget of the CFC. Financial decisions made in a vacuum are foolish in the extreme. Until the effect of the implementation of SwissSys, the outsourcing of the book and equipment business to FEN, and the implementation of the new ezine are clear, we lack the information required to make an informed decision on what membership and rating fees should be. "

The motion was passed in December 2008 reinstituting the old regime of membership and fees, without any changes. The Grassroots' Campaign withdrew its 3 motions in favour of the Executive motion.

The restructuring David was referring to has now been concluded.

I have been advised that the governors are now working on trying to develop a balanced budget for 2009-10.

The Grassroots' Campaign would like to know if the Governors will now be carrying out a full review of CFC fees as part of the budget setting process, and fixing revenue for the coming year? If they will be, who will be doing it, and when? Will the review be accepting input from the membership as part of this review?

Bob

Peter Stockhausen
01-31-2009, 03:02 PM
Hi Bob,

Very Interesting.

I wonder who "advised you" that the Governors are working on a "balanced budget"? Can you tell or is it "Deep Roots"?

This Governor has not heard about this at all, which is probably a good thing. After all, can you picture 50+ people (most of whom are numerically challenged) trying to come with a budget?

Cheers
Peter

Peter Stockhausen
01-31-2009, 03:10 PM
Hi Bob,

Very Interesting.

I wonder who "advised you" that the Governors are working on a "balanced budget"? Can you tell or is it "Deep Roots"?

This Governor has not heard about this at all, which is probably a good thing. After all, can you picture 50+ people (most of whom are numerically challenged) trying to come with a budget?

Cheers
Peter

Bob Armstrong
01-31-2009, 04:45 PM
Hi Peter:

I cannot tell a lie - it was Bob G [ = Deep Roots ] NOT talking about the elephant:

01-06-2009, 10:25 PM
Bob Gillanders
CFC Executive Director

Anyone know where we left the elephant gun ?

But seriously Bob,

We are all currently focused on achieving 3 goals,

1......
2. ......
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 [ G ]

I hope someone of the governors knows about this - it's one of the reasons the CFC won't discuss the elephant ( the looming $ 24,700 [ Grassroots projection BEFORE the cuts to salary and office expenses on Jan. 15 ] deficit for 2008-9 ).

Bob A.

Bob Armstrong
01-31-2009, 11:29 PM
Hi Peter:

On a related point - do the Executive ever tell the Governors what they are doing? ( or consult them ? )

Bob

Kerry Liles
02-01-2009, 12:57 PM
Hi Peter:

On a related point - do the Executive ever tell the Governors what they are doing? ( or consult them ? )

Bob

Yes, via the GL. ;)

Bob Armstrong
02-01-2009, 01:11 PM
Hi Kerry:

That's really great ! It means that I have as much information as an ordinary member as the Governors ( just delayed a few days, since you get the GL earlier than I do ).

But will I, as a member, still be getting the GL in future? The new webzine doesn't post them anymore !!! Worriesome....For the moment I can go to the " Legacy " link, and get them off the old website...but how long is that going to last???

Bob

Christopher Mallon
02-01-2009, 01:38 PM
Bob, please stop worrying about nothing.

The reason there is still a "legacy" site is because the new site does not have all features implemented. It will last until it is no longer needed.

Bob Armstrong
02-01-2009, 01:47 PM
Hi Chris:

Thx - I'm somewhat relieved.

How about an anwer to the questions in the original post now??

Bob

Bob Armstrong
02-06-2009, 12:27 PM
It has now been a week since I made the original post in this thread, to the CFC Executive. I had anticipated a quick reply from either CFC Treasurer Chris Mallon, or CFC President, David Lavin. But this was not to be - we, the CFC members, have received no reply. They ignore us when they want to.

Bob G, CFC ED, assured us that CFC was going full tilt now at trying to develop a balanced budget for 2009-10. Well part of setting a budget is knowing your revenue. And part of revenue ( the lion's share in CFC ) is from CFC Fees ( membership and rating ). So it makes sense to us, that you would want to know, in fixing the buget, whether it was necessary to adjust fees - seems like a no-brainer. So CFC must know whether or not they intend to review CFC fees.

So our questions should be quite simple to answer; they were:

" The Grassroots' Campaign would like to know if the Governors will now be carrying out a full review of CFC fees as part of the budget setting process, and fixing revenue for the coming year? If they will be, who will be doing it, and when? Will the review be accepting input from the membership as part of this review? "

Why are these proving so difficult to answer, especially if they are now fixing the 2009-10 balance budget ? Surely they know if they are going to review CFC Fees!

So why are Chris and David unwilling to tell us, and answer these simple questions?

Maybe you can help us understand this - why do you think they are refusing to answer the membership on this?

Are the fees considered too controversial an issue to tackle at this time? If so, just say : " NO - we're not doing a full review of CFC fees. "

Seems to be a communication failure here.

We hoped the Governors were going to take the initiative here, especially after the debacle of passing CFC fees changes at the July, 2008 CFC AGM, and then in December rescinding them, so nothing changed. We hoped that we could present our brief to them on CFC Fees, and leave it up to them to decide whether to implement our proposals.

In the light of total failure of communication on this issue, what are we now to do?

Unfortunately, it seems again the CFC Executive is forcing US into resubmitting our motions on CFC Fees directly to the Governors for a vote, rather than the Governors bringing the necessary motions based on our proposals ( we had originally withdrawn our 3 fees motions, brought in the fall of 2008, believing that the CFC Governors were intending to hold a fees review, once they had rescinded the AGM fees motion; now we find ourselves with nothing happening ).

We didn't want to go through the hoops again of bringing motions as ordinary members, but I guess we have no choice, in the face of Executive lack of communication, and Governor paralysis.

The Grassroots' Campaign will continue toward the implementation of its platform.

Bob

Ken Craft
02-06-2009, 01:57 PM
I presume their will be a new recommendation by the AGM.
I would be very surprised if the Grassroots motions passed if they were reintroduced.
Yes, Bob, the executive should answer your questions publicly.

Bob Armstrong
02-06-2009, 02:58 PM
Hi Ken:

Thanks for encouraging the CFC Executive to answer member questions publicly.

As to a new fees recommendation, do you not think it would be better to do it BEFORE the start of the upcoming fiscal year on May 1, rather than wait 'til the AGM in July?

Bob

Paul Leblanc
02-06-2009, 03:45 PM
My gut feeling is that it would be prudent to maintain the status quo on membership and rating fees until we get at least one year of financial results after implementing the recent cost saving measures.
Here is my reasoning: There would be huge resistance to an increase in fees given the cancellation of the paper magazine. On the other hand, a cut in fees would be immediately seized upon as the new status quo and make it almost impossible to raise them again if the financial forecast doesn't turn out as rosy as hoped.
As to why the Executive has not made a decision on this, I suppose they are waiting for further data on the cost of the on line magazine and the revenue from the new method of on-line sales before trying to forecast their overall revenue needs. In other words, getting a good grip on costs before determining what revenue is needed instead of the other way around. It may be a prudent way of approaching the issue.
Just my two cents worth, Bob.

Bob Armstrong
02-06-2009, 04:07 PM
Hi Paul:

You may well be right. What you say makes sense.

I have had some members of the Grassroots' Campaign also take this position with me - that it may be a bit premature to do a review on fees yet - that we need to see the " new costs of running CFC ", now that the restructuring is done, before we know if we should raise CFC fees, or even whether some might be able to be cut.

In the light of your comments, I think I will again canvas the Grassroots' Campaign group, to see if they agree with you that it is premature for us to bring our three CFC fees motions back on the table, and indeed, for the Governors to yet do a review.

It seems from Governor Ken Craft's post, that he would not expect a recommendation on fees until the July CFC AGM, that he also agrees with you.

We will review our position in the light of the comments posted here.

This members' discussion board seems to be fulfilling its mandate, in the light of this most useful debate.

It is too bad that the Executive do not join in more, and that more Governors do not participate.

Bob

Michael Barron
02-06-2009, 11:07 PM
Hi Bob:

I can confirm that the CFC Executive are really trying now to develop a balanced budget for 2009-10.
You're right - a part of setting a budget is knowing your revenue.
Another part - is knowing your expenses.
And expenses depend on organization's goal.

What is a goal of the Chess Federation of Canada?
Is it merely to survive one more year?
Or - as the CFC website http://www.chess.ca/about_us.htm says -
to promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada?

I believe, before balancing the budget we need to answer this fundamental question:
What does the CFC need the money for?

All other decisions will depend on this answer.
Open discussion of this matter could help us to make right decisions for the benefit of chess in Canada.

To facilitate this discussion I would like to propose the following Motion:
"The CFC as organization should undertake the following tasks and could spend up to 50% of available resources (subject to the Assembly of Governors approval) for:
1) support local chess clubs and organizers;
2) organization and promotion of Canadian Chess Championships;
3) negotiations with prospective corporate and government sponsors;
4) support elite players representing Canada at International chess competitions."

I'm still looking for a seconder...

Bob Armstrong
02-06-2009, 11:42 PM
Hi Michael:

I believe the membership will be most appreciative of the fact that you have raised your issue in the members' discussion board, so they can respond. Hopefully more governors will follow your lead.

I agree that now that restructuring has occurred, and the house seems to be almost back in order ( if the CFC can actually produce a balanced 2009-10 budget, that is realistic and achievable ), it is time to step back and once again look at the core goals of the CFC - clearly two of these, in my opinion are:

1. promote chess in Canada - this involves work with media and marketing our product; it also involves supporting organizers to provide a variety of tournaments that will draw in new players, not just existing CFC tournament regulars. It also involves promoting casual chess as a liesure activity, to make it a more mainstream activity in Canadian society.

2. selling memberships in the CFC - this is mainly done through getting new players into tournament play, and maintaining existing members through regular renewals. The tournament play is both in weekend/longer tournaments, and in chess clubs across Canada. This is critical to the survival of the CFC since a lion's share of the CFC revenue comes through memberships.

The other priorities you mention in your motion are also important, but I put them after my first two.

I wish you luck on your motion. I am somewhat concerned about its comprehensiveness - this sometimes leads to a diluting down of support because everyone has varying opinions, the more things that are included. As well, I am not sure how easy it will be to monitor the expenditure side of your motion - how to measure the items comprising the 50% of revenue allocated.

But it seems a good start at trying now to get CFC aligned with its core objectives.

Bob

Paul Leblanc
02-08-2009, 02:13 AM
By "up to 50% of available resources", do you mean:

Annual Revenue minus fixed expenses = available resources. Up to 50% of that could be spent annually on the stated goals.

If so, I think your motion has some potential.

Garland Best
02-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Hi Bob:

To facilitate this discussion I would like to propose the following Motion:
"The CFC as organization should undertake the following tasks and could spend up to 50% of available resources (subject to the Assembly of Governors approval) for:
1) support local chess clubs and organizers;
2) organization and promotion of Canadian Chess Championships;
3) negotiations with prospective corporate and government sponsors;
4) support elite players representing Canada at International chess competitions."

I'm still looking for a seconder...


Michael, as written, this motion is meaningless. Quite simply it is too vague.
- "Up to 50%" can mean 0%.
- As noted, available resources is not defined. If we are running a deficit, does that mean no resources are available?
- Each task has no definition. "support local chess clubs and organizers" could range from posting their names on a website to subsidizing their operations.

I strongly advise that you reconsider your motion.

The current executive appears to be close to acheiving it's initial goal, namely ensuring the expenses of basic services do not exceed the CFC's income. Only once that goal is reached, and we have a realistic forecast of income and expenses can we consider how to spend the leftover money to further promote chess in Canada. And this has to be directed to specific actions, not vague goals.

Bob Armstrong
02-08-2009, 12:30 PM
Hi Paul:

You [ Governor Paul Leblanc ] may well be right. What you say makes sense....

In the light of your comments, I think I will again canvas the Grassroots' Campaign group, to see if they agree with you that it is premature for us to bring our three CFC fees motions back on the table, and indeed, for the Governors to yet do a review.......

We will review our position in the light of the comments posted here.

Bob

Hi Paul:

As a result of your considered intervention, and similar ones raised within the Grassroots' Campaign by some members, the GC did carry our an internal review of our stratey on the CFC Review of CFC Fees, and what to do about our motions on CFC fees. As a result of this consultation, I then wrote to the GC endorsers/supporters as follows:

" February 7, 2009

Hi to All Grassroots’ Campaign Endorsers/Supporters:

We currently have a 3-pronged Platform on CFC Fees, based on the original three motions we brought before the Governors in the Fall of 2008, and which we subsequently withdrew, when the Executive indicated they wanted to rescind their own July 2008 CFC AGM motion on fees. The CFC President, David Lavin, felt then that the fees issue had to be dealt with in the context of the overall financial situation of the CFC.

Since CFC restructuring ( most of which we had campaigned for ) has now been completed, we had been applying public pressure on the Governors to hold a full review of CFC fees. We wanted to submit our Platform to the review and let the Governors determine whether to include our proposals in their final recommendation on fees.

Unfortunately, David was not forthcoming as to whether the Governors would be carrying out such a review. He refused to answer our question as to whether the CFC would be carrying out a Review of Fees. In the meantime our platform languished.

However, some Grassroots’ers and some posters on the CFC Chess Forum indicated to us that we should review our policy, and that it was premature to demand a full CFC Review on CFC Fees, and to bring back on our 3 redrafted motions, based on our platform. The financial picture was not yet clear enough, despite restructuring having occurred.

As a result, there was a consultation among the Grassroots’ Campaign to determine if we should change our strategy. Numbers of Grassroots’ers provided me with their opinions, and we took into account the opinions of other CFC members who had posted on the members’ CFC Chess Forum.

Out of this consultation, the Grassroots’ Campaign has decided to change its strategy. A consensus has now developed among Grassroots’ers that:

1. I will now draft the three motions on CFC Fees, based on our current Platform, so that they are available to be filed with the CFC on short notice; we will ask the prior Governor movers/seconders to again be prepared to move the motions;

2.We will sit on these 3 motions for a while to see what, if anything, the CFC does towards a full CFC fees review; our motions will be most effective if brought within a CFC Review;

3. We will cease pressuring CFC to hold an immediate full CFC fees review. We can renew this request in future , when the CFC financial picture is clearer ( perhaps once they have issued the hoped-for balanced 2009-10 budget, for the year starting May 1 ); and

4.The situation will be monitored and from time to time we will reassess whether to renew our request for a full fees review, and whether to submit our three motions, regardless of review or not.

Thanks to all who contributed to this debate. The outcome seems most reasonable.

As usual, thanks for your continuing support of our efforts to implement the balance of the platform we initiated back in the summer of 2008.

Bob "

Thank you Paul for your willingness as a Governor to dialogue here on the members' discussion board with the Grassroots' Campaign. We were influenced significantly by what you said, and so now have the new position set out above. We agree that this new position seems more adventageous to all involved. We will now monitor the situation, and give the CFC more breathing room to clarify its financial situation.

We hope that more governors will enter into discussion with members here on this board. Recently we have seen posting Chris Mallon, Michael Barron, Ken Craft, Peter Stockhausen, Egis Zeromskis and yourself ( hope I didn't leave any Governor out ). We hope to see those numbers increase, as the effectiveness of debate on this board is more greatly acknowledged.

And we hope that ordinary members will continue to post here, and in greater numbers, to make full use of this most effective tool for member dialogue.

I was the one who initially approached Chris Mallon to revive this board after it had been left closed for some timie by the CFC. He got approval from President David Lavin to go ahead and revive it. I am pleased to see that it has matured into a good national chess discussion website, alongside ChessTalk ( and some would argue the Ottawa CC Message Board ), and that it is proving an effective tool for moving forward CFC matters.

Our 4 GC Motions are:

Motion # 1:
Junior Rating Fee: Should the CFC see fit to raise rating fees in future, on no account shall the junior rating fee be increased more than 100% ( that is, at maximum a raise from $ 0.50 to $ 1 )

Motion # 2:
Tournament Playing Fee ( = “ tournament membership “ ): Section 375 of Section 3 ( Motions Applicable to No Other Section ) of the CFC Handbook is deleted.

Motion # 3:
Tournament Playing Fee: Should Motion # 2 above fail, Section 375 of Section 3 ( Motions Applicable to No Other Section ) of the CFC Handbook, shall be amended by :

i ) deleting in the first sentence the words: “ for first time players in CFC events, for foreign players, and for players whose name does not appear on the last Annual List, “;
ii ) deleting the amount “ $ 10.00 “, and substituting for it the amount “ $ 20.00 “, subject to obtaining the consent of the provinces/territories for their portion of the fee also increasing 100%;
iii ) deleting the words in the second sentence: “, one copy of the magazine, and an invitation to join the CFC “.

Motion # 4:
First Time CFC Member Discount : If the tournament playing fee is eliminated, section 375 of the CFC Handbook will become:

375. First Time CFC Member Discount: An annual membership discount of 40% will be given for first time CFC members ( CFC will publish a rounded off figure for the convenience of organizers ).


Bob

Michael Barron
02-08-2009, 10:33 PM
Thank you, Bob, Paul and Garland, for your feedback!

Yes,
Annual Revenue minus fixed expenses = available resources. Up to 50% of that could be spent annually on the stated goals.

Yes,
this motion is too vague. It's invitation for discussion. It could be modified as result of comments from CFC members and Governors.

As Egidijus said in another thread, the question is not how much but for what.
The Executive are working now on preparing balanced budget for next financial year, and I would like to see in the budget some chess programs, even with $0 cost.

I strongly advise that we first consider what for we need money, then how much we need, and only then how can we get necessary funds, otherwise we always will be running a deficit.

Tony Ficzere
02-12-2009, 05:26 PM
I really think that you are wasting your time on this type of work.

I will stress this yet again.

The CFC needs to look at other ways to raise money. Playiing around with membership fees and rating fees is not the way.

If we rely on membership and rating fees to sustain ourselves, we will not be able to function as we did even 10 years ago.

There are literally thousands of companies out there who would give the the Chess Federation of Canada, if only asked. To the best of my knowledge, nobody is knocking on doors. Most of the work can be done infront of your computer. Why is nobody doing this? The CFC still is a "REGISTERED CHARITY" and as such is in a position to get money from a variety of private sector companies.

This money can be used to farm for new members in a variety of ways. You will be able to increase your numbers if this money is spent in an intellegent and responsible way.

Bob Armstrong
02-12-2009, 05:44 PM
Hi Tony:

I know little about sponsorship. I will take your word for it. Maybe the CFC Executive needs to look more closely at your ideas.

I also agree that there is little to be found in fees. Raising annual membership fees would seem likely unacceptable to members. Raising rating fees somewhat is likely possible, but will not generate a lot of money.

Our platform of getting rid of the tournament playing fee, we think is almost revenue neutral for CFC. The issue is more one of fairness in our view ( and we know we have some strong opposition on this ). And looking down the road when only CFC membership will be available.

Bob

Kerry Liles
02-12-2009, 06:04 PM
I really think that you are wasting your time on this type of work.

I will stress this yet again.

The CFC needs to look at other ways to raise money. Playiing around with membership fees and rating fees is not the way.

If we rely on membership and rating fees to sustain ourselves, we will not be able to function as we did even 10 years ago.
... etc...


I agree that getting donations is important and that too little is being done in this area. However, I think the basis of Bob's suggestions about fees comes from the premise that the current membership fees were established when there was a completely different set of deliverables: there was a printed magazine that is no more.

At the moment, the CFC membership fees are too high and this whole issue needs to be addressed. It is true that the sale of the building and move to distributed home offices and getting out of the direct retail business changes the economic landscape in other ways too.

I think the Executive is currently looking at the current financial situation and a budget/plan and I certainly hope re-alignment of fees is a direct result of that process. In my opinion, THAT is one of the most important thing to be done right now.

Michael Barron
02-12-2009, 10:25 PM
Hi Kerry:

Don't you think that the problem is not that the CFC membership fees are too high, but that the CFC members get too little for these fees?

If the CFC spends all collected money for the purpose of collecting money, $43 is certainly too high.
I would say, even $3 is too high.

But if the CFC spends collected money for the purpose of promoting chess and organizing chess competitions, I would gladly pay $43 and even more.

I absolutely agree with Tony:
Playiing around with membership fees and rating fees is not the way.

The most important thing to be done right now is to give collected money to the people who could bring the most benefit for Canadian chess - to local chess organizers.

Unfortunately, both CFC and OCA are delaying membership rebates remitting for months, if not for years... :(

Christopher Mallon
02-13-2009, 09:04 AM
Michael, you know very well the OCA has sent out virtually all the money it has to the leagues and we are paid up through 07-08.

Jason Lohner
02-13-2009, 05:44 PM
The CFC needs to reach out to casual players, not just the 'hardcore' tournament player. Unless the CFC makes itself more casual friendly, membership will continue to decline. Right now there is very little that the CFC offers to casual players, and If Bob has his way then there will be NOTHING that will entice these people to join the CFC.

At my local club (6-8 people a week!) I am the only CFC member although some of them have been in the past. Not one of them is remotely interested in the CFC.

The last tournament I played in was a non-cfc event that was filled with these casual/club players. A few of them play in one CFC event/year and use the Tournament membership. Not one of them will continue to play in CFC rated tournaments if it is eliminated (yes I asked them!!!). Why would they when there is a non CFC option out there that is just as fun? The TD of this tournament plans to run it twice a year. That is plenty for most of these guys. These are the people the CFC should be trying to attract, Unfortunately the CFC is going in the exact opposite direction.

Michael Barron
02-13-2009, 10:13 PM
Chris,

Yes, I know it very well.

I know as well:
1) The CFC Handbook says in ARTICLE ONE - http://www.chess.ca/section_2.htm :
"Every three months the CFC Executive Director will remit fees due to the Provincial Associations";
2) 08-09 fiscal year started May 1, 2008;
3) now is February 2009 - three times three months since May 1, 2008.

Could you please clarify:
Did the OCA receive any Provincial fees since May 1, 2008?

Bob Gillanders
02-14-2009, 12:54 AM
Cheques to the provinces for provincial dues covering the period of May 1, 2008 to October 31, 2008 will be in the mail next week. The cheques were sent to Ottawa this week for second signatures.

Long overdue, yes, I know.

Michael Barron
02-14-2009, 11:40 PM
Thank you, Bob, for good news!

Hopefully this time the OCA could remit rebates to the Leagues faster... :)