7C, Life Memberships (Mallon / Zeromskis)

Motion 7C (Provincial Life Membership Fees)

To change Paragraph 12 of By-Law Number One of the CFC Constitution.

The paragraph currently reads:

“12. Any person resident in Canada, may become a Life Member of the Federation. The Life Membership Fee shall be as follows: If the applicant is under 31 years of age - twenty years of Per capita Fees; if the applicant is 31 to 40 years of age - seventeen and one half years of Per Capita Fees; if the applicant is 41 to 50 years of age - fifteen years of Per Capita Fees; if the applicant is 51 to 60 years of age - twelve and one half years of Per Capita Fees; if the applicant is 61 years of age or over - ten years of Per Capita Fees. No Per Capita Fee will be payable by or in behalf of any Life Member after he has been granted Life membership, but this will not affect his financial obligations to any Club, League, or Provincial Organization to which he may belong, save as to said annual Per Capita Fee; provided that these fees may be changed by the Assembly of Governors by resolution.”


The modifications are:

- change “… Club, League, or Provincial Organization to which he …” to “… Club or League organization to which he ...”

- before “No Per Capita Fee …” add “The CFC at the same time will collect any Provincial Life Member Fees set by the provincial affiliate for the province in which the member resides.”

So the new paragraph will read:

“12. Any person resident in Canada, may become a Life Member of the Federation. The Life Membership Fee shall be as follows: If the applicant is under 31 years of age - twenty years of Per capita Fees; if the applicant is 31 to 40 years of age - seventeen and one half years of Per Capita Fees; if the applicant is 41 to 50 years of age - fifteen years of Per Capita Fees; if the applicant is 51 to 60 years of age - twelve and one half years of Per Capita Fees; if the applicant is 61 years of age or over - ten years of Per Capita Fees. The CFC at the same time will collect any Provincial Life Member Fees set by the provincial affiliate for the province in which the member resides. No Per Capita Fee will be payable by or in behalf of any Life Member after he has been granted Life membership, but this will not affect his financial obligations to any Club or League to which he may belong, save as to said annual Per Capita Fee; provided that these fees may be changed by the Assembly of Governors by resolution.”


Background:

This shouldn’t really be needed however some CFC administrations and/or EDs have interpreted the handbook in a way that they do not have to collect provincial life membership fees. This is extremely unfair to the provinces as the provinces themselves have no real way of enforcing collection without the CFC’s cooperation. Effectively, the CFC is reducing provincial revenue for no good reason. This motion makes it clear that the national and provincial life memberships go together and that the CFC is required to collect the fee if the province has set a fee.

First a comment that the Life Membership fees displayed on the "store" link to the website do not follow the formula in para 12 of bylaw 1 and need to be changed immediately.

It is quite clear that CFC Life Members are not exempt from provincial dues. The challenge is to find an efficient way to track and collect renewals. In BC this used to be done by the provincial secretary. A few years ago this was vastly simplified by imposing a small provincial surcharge on every player of every CFC rated event. The CFC office has been very co-operative in collecting the fee and there is no longer a need to track and renew annual provincial memberships. Granted, there was an adjustment period before organizers became used to including this extra cost in their event budgets but it is running smoothly now.

Before commenting further I'd like to hear some discussion about how much extra workload the motion would add to the CFC office - for example regarding the tracking and display of provincial membership expiry dates.

There should be no extra workload. Provincial and National expiry dates should be the same. That's basically the point of the motion.

Will this motion obligate a potential CFC life member to purchase a life membership for his provincial organization at the same time? Or could he still renew the provincial membership annually?

But Chris, there are no expiry dates for CFC Life Members

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Brodie

Will this motion obligate a potential CFC life member to purchase a life membership for his provincial organization at the same time? Or could he still renew the provincial membership annually?

---

The whole point of Chris' motion is require purchase of both at the same time.

This is problematic in BC as BC no longer sells life memberships - as provincial secretary both then and now I remember being very frustrated seeing the annual CFC life member count for BC being in high 60s / low 70s while knowing the provincial life membership count was around 25.

This motion would have no effect on BC; the way it is worded, it says "any Provincial Life Member Fees set by the provincial affiliate for the province in which the member resides.” so if BCCF does not want to collect a life fee and instead wants the activity fees, that is okay.

What would you do in the case of someone who moves from one province that sells life memberships to another province that sells life memberships? Someone who moved to BC from Ontario would get no benefit from the Ontario life membership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

What would you do in the case of someone who moves from one province that sells life memberships to another province that sells life memberships? Someone who moved to BC from Ontario would get no benefit from the Ontario life membership.

---

AFAIK the inter-provincial can of worms has not previously been opened in Canada (except Quebec).

Whatever the outcome of this motion we should try to find an equitable solution to the situation that it is trying to address.

Right now as it stands this is a constitutional amendment which requires a two thirds majority. Presumably once we are compliant with the NFP act this will require a simple majority as a change of regulations which will not require that the federal government be notified. The constitution which we are amending with this motion will not have any importance one way or another by October 18th at the latest as the CFC's constitution will not exist when the CFC no longer exists or it will not exist when we draft, approve and submit NFP compliant bylaws and other required paperwork to get the certificate of continuance.

Chris, thank you for bringing this motion forward. I think it is a no brainer. IMHO, right from day 1 of the Life Membership program, the CFC should have been collecting a provincial share on behalf of the provincial affiliates. For whatever silly political reason it wasn’t done? I wonder if anyone even remembers why not? Before my time!

Anyway, even though it is 50+ years late, let’s get it corrected now. I will be voting YES.

Vlad this is getting a little OT for this thread but I don't see that implemented NFP-compliant bylaws for the government as automatically invalidating the entire CFC handbook. We just have to make sure to take out anything that would conflict with those new rules.

Also I've stated elsewhere repeatedly that some regulation amendments should still require the super-majority to change under the new rules, even if they are not part of what we file with the government.

Thanks Lyle, I mis-read the motion. Now I see that the motion would require new life members to also purchase provincial life memberships where applicable. What about existing CFC life members? Also, I can't think of any reason any of the provincial associations would disagree so perhaps they don't need to be consulted(?)

It would be entirely going-forward. It requires that at the time of selling a CFC Life Membership, if any fees are due to the province those must be collected at the same time.

In other words, no different than regular annual memberships.

The motion does not affect who does or does not have Provincial membership, it's merely ensuring that any designated fees are collected.

As a CFC life member resident in Ontario, I have never been required to pay OCA fees.
It seems to me that by far the best way to handle this is to collect the Life Membership fees as stipulated, and for the CFC to remit a portion to the provincial association in which the given life member resides.
The amount of this portion could possibly be ten times the average provincial association annual fee. The exact amount would be determined by the governors.
This means that all provincial associations would get the same amount. It would be a large enough amount to cover any costs to the provincial association on behalf of that life member.

If such a life member should later move to another province, surely the new provincial association must accept the life member without receiving any portion of any fee. This is required simply as being part of the CFC, as the province is a part of the Dominion of Canada. After all, what real expenses does a provincial association entail in accommodating such a life member?

As I understand it, life membership fees are invested by the Chess Foundation; from this, revenue is paid annually to the CFC to assist with expenses incurred on behalf of all members: website, magazine (mainly). The amount returned annually may or may not equate to an approximation of one annual fee for each life member; the return would depend upon the dividends or interest realised by the Foundation's investments. Reducing the initial investment per life member by giving a portion to the member's current provincial association would not greatly affect the returns on investment. But this would assist all provincial associations where players purchase life memberships over time.

As a CFC life member resident in Ontario, I have never been required to pay OCA fees.
It seems to me that by far the best way to handle this is to collect the Life Membership fees as stipulated, and for the CFC to remit a portion to the provincial association in which the given life member resides.
The amount of this portion could possibly be ten times the average provincial association annual fee. The exact amount would be determined by the governors.
This means that all provincial associations would get the same amount. It would be a large enough amount to cover any costs to the provincial association on behalf of that life member.

If such a life member should later move to another province, surely the new provincial association must accept the life member without receiving any portion of any fee. This is required simply as being part of the CFC, as the province is a part of the Dominion of Canada. After all, what real expenses does a provincial association entail in accommodating such a life member?

As I understand it, life membership fees are invested by the Chess Foundation; from this, revenue is paid annually to the CFC to assist with expenses incurred on behalf of all members: website, magazine (mainly). The amount returned annually may or may not equate to an approximation of one annual fee for each life member; the return would depend upon the dividends or interest realised by the Foundation's investments. Reducing the initial investment per life member by giving a portion to the member's current provincial association would not greatly affect the returns on investment. But this would assist all provincial associations where players purchase life memberships over time.

What Chris says would make a lot of sense IF all provincial associations currently offer life memberships.

I'm not familiar with all province's practices but as BCCF provincial secretary can tell you definitively that BC did (and did when I paid mine) but does not now.

Given BC's current financial model depends on all members paying on a per tournament basis the proposed motion would have the effect of working directly against BC's interests. (And I say that as one who voted against the current provincial fee structure)

[What I'm trying to say gently is that while I supported and still do support the sort of structure Chris M advocates, the majority of my federation's members voted otherwise and as both a CFC Executive member and an elected Governor from British Columbia I must express the mood of our provincial federation even though I may or may not agree with it - in my dual roles I have to speak for what I perceive to be the interests of players nationally and provincially and this is one of the rare times they are in direct conflict. Paul and Mark are in the same position]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle Craver

What Chris says would make a lot of sense IF all provincial associations currently offer life memberships.

I'm not familiar with all province's practices but as BCCF provincial secretary can tell you definitively that BC did (and did when I paid mine) but does not now.

Given BC's current financial model depends on all members paying on a per tournament basis the proposed motion would have the effect of working directly against BC's interests.

---

Lyle, I think you missed a comment from Chris M. earlier. This motion would have no effect on BC finances. A few years ago the BCCF adopted a per tournament fee structure instead of annual provincial dues. CFC accommodated the change, no problem. Provinces will continue to be in charge of their revenues, CFC is merely helping in the administration of collecting dues.

As I see this going forward, it will be up to provincial affiliates to advise the CFC if they wish to impose a Provincial Life Membership on its members. Until that time, nothing is collected.

Exactly what Bob said. The motion does not IMPOSE a fee or certain fee structure, it simply requires the CFC to collect that fee should a province choose to require it. Which should be a no-brainer but apparently is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Field

As a CFC life member resident in Ontario, I have never been required to pay OCA fees.
It seems to me that by far the best way to handle this is to collect the Life Membership fees as stipulated, and for the CFC to remit a portion to the provincial association in which the given life member resides.
The amount of this portion could possibly be ten times the average provincial association annual fee. The exact amount would be determined by the governors.
This means that all provincial associations would get the same amount. It would be a large enough amount to cover any costs to the provincial association on behalf of that life member.

If such a life member should later move to another province, surely the new provincial association must accept the life member without receiving any portion of any fee. This is required simply as being part of the CFC, as the province is a part of the Dominion of Canada. After all, what real expenses does a provincial association entail in accommodating such a life member?

As I understand it, life membership fees are invested by the Chess Foundation; from this, revenue is paid annually to the CFC to assist with expenses incurred on behalf of all members: website, magazine (mainly). The amount returned annually may or may not equate to an approximation of one annual fee for each life member; the return would depend upon the dividends or interest realised by the Foundation's investments. Reducing the initial investment per life member by giving a portion to the member's current provincial association would not greatly affect the returns on investment. But this would assist all provincial associations where players purchase life memberships over time.

---

What I am getting at here is that it will keep it a lot more simple to ask the CFC only to collect one standard fee.
Remit something to the provincial association. This doesn't have to be huge, but something is better than, and fairer, than the current nothing.
Offering life memberships is good for the organisation.
Keeping it simple is best.
I feel that Chris M's motion would make it extremely complex for everyone - for the applicant trying to understand what he or she owes, for the admin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Field

Keeping it simple is best.
I feel that Chris M's motion would make it extremely complex for everyone - for the applicant trying to understand what he or she owes, for the admin.

---

I fail to understand how this is in any way complicated? It is exactly the same as normal annual memberships.

The last Ontario resident who purchased a life membership was instructed by the CFC office to mail a cheque to me directly... with no follow up on whether or not that was actually done, and in fact without even notifying me that that was what they were instructing.

At least, that's the last one I know about...

Is that way less complicated than my proposal?

Many years ago Ontario sold Provincial life memberships to CFC life members. I purchased one at the time but I doubt if any records were kept.
Les Bunning

I believe that the best way to handle this would be to add a small fee to any life membership sold , say $20-$40 . This fee would be remitted to the provincial association where the member resides at that time and then there would be no further requirement for the member to pay any provincial membership fee.
Les Bunning

I would have to agree. BC's fee structure means they would charge a surcharge for rating fees regardless of whether a player if a life member. The same is true in the rest of Canada. Players have to pay the CFC rating fees regardless of Life memberships.

As far as I can tell, making the provincial portion of life membership fees proportional to the provincial portion of annual membership fees is perfectly logical. If anything, the BC model will come out ahead if the player remains active more than 10 years.

Les, your number is too low. I would assume that provincial associations would want a proportional value of the CFC life membership.

For example if annual fees in Ontario are $36CFC +$12OCA = $48, and CFC Life Memberships for 31-40 are $540, then Chris would expect $540*$12/$36 = $180 be charged for OCA life membership.

The system would have to be proportionally rated. Otherwise I could imagine one provincial organization charging MUCH more than another province for Life memberships.

The other concern I have with this concept is that the CFC puts life memberships in a fund and uses the interest to fund operations, a sensible approach. I have misgivings over whether the provincial associations would manage it as well.

Hi Garland:

I also bought, late on, an OCA Life Membership. At the time I applied, there was great confusion - no one had wanted one for years. I think I paid 10 years ago about $ 60. And I believe there is a formula for calculating the OCA Life membership against the cost of the CFC Life membership, in either the CFC Handbook, or the OCA Constitution/Bylaws. The OCA used it to give me the fee to pay.

Bob A

I am pretty sure that OCA membership is somewhere in the range of $7. CFC and OCA membership for an Ontario player is approximately $49 including HST.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garland Best

The system would have to be proportionally rated. Otherwise I could imagine one provincial organization charging MUCH more than another province for Life memberships.

---

It is in fact up to the provinces to decide on their membership fees, not for the CFC to dictate what any fee should be. For example, the Ontario youth fee is not proportional to the adult fee.

That's true - but at the same time the CFC collects provincial dues and remits them quarterly. That's the primary benefit provincial affiliates get from affiliation.

Back in 1987 I paid $750 for my CFC / BCCF life dues - it was shortly after my 31st birthday and was my present to myself that year. The division was roughly 2/3-1/3 which would make Les' guesstimate quite low. At the time both CFC and BCCF were producing print magazines. BC had 25 life provincial members - so far as I know the only deceased on the current list is Mr Prentice so I'd be surprised if Ontario only had that few given I would suspect the ratio of life members to regular members would be similar in both provinces.

At this point I would have to have some assurance that this motion would pass NCF requirements before I could support it - I'm more interested in the compliance certificate than any particular proposal no matter how worthy until I am sure it passes the NCF test and I haven't yet had time to re-read the regulations to assure myself on this.

[QUOTE=Lyle Craver;23814]What Chris says would make a lot of sense IF all provincial associations currently offer life memberships.
I'm not familiar with all province's practices but as BCCF provincial secretary can tell you definitively that BC did (and did when I paid mine) but does not now.
Given BC's current financial model depends on all members paying on a per tournament basis the proposed motion would have the effect of working directly against BC's interests. (And I say that as one who voted against the current provincial fee structure)

This is the complication I am trying to address.
Not all provinces / territories have active associations.
Associations which exist have different policies and even change their policies over time.

Bob A says he paid $60 as a life membership fee to OCAS 10 years ago.
I bought my CFC life membership maybe 11 years ago, and was not charged any fee for OCA.
Maybe with 10 years' inflation, an appropriate fee would be $70.

Why not collect an additional cross-Canada provincial / territorial fee of $70 straight, on top of any life membership fee.
This keeps it simple, and equal to all across the Dominion of Canada.
Remit this fee to the provincial / territorial association with the regular quarterly remittance.
If not such association exists, remit to Chess Foundation along with CFC fee. Keep record.
If the given member moves to a province or territory which has an active association, remit the given fee to that association; if the member does not move, but the province / territory of residence subsequently forms or reactivates its association, remit the fee.
This would be fair to all associations.
In the absence of an active association, it would add to the interest / dividends earned by the Foundation.

Yes, it would require removing the right of a provincial / territorial association to set a life membership fee for itself.

But it would remove a very obvious problem where provincial life memberships may or may not exist, and where even existing ones have not been effectively administered since the CFC was not required to collect these fees.
It very much simplifies the process: the same fee is collected from every person residing in any part of the Dominion of Canada.
It provides a fair fee to each active association.
Where no active association exists, it would begin to provide funds which would assist a new or revived association in the future.

I'm not inclined to support giving a share of Chess Foundation revenue to the provinces. However, I am considering supporting the original motion. My only remaining concern is that the price tag for a combined CFC/Provincial Life Membership might deter some people from becoming life members. On the other hand, from a BC perspective there would be no provincial life membership fee payable since we no longer sell life memberships.
Would BC honour an Ontario Life Membership by waiving the $4 BCCF event fee for players moving here from Ontario - probably not.

Well then I obviously should have taken out my life membership just before rather than just after I moved from ON to BC!!

BCCF dues at the time were 60% of the CFC level so I paid 60% of the CFC life membership fee to the BCCF.

Two points: (1) this should have been enforced by the CFC 20+ years ago, (2) with the NFP discussion this is a lousy time to be working out the details on this.