To be fair the Vancouver bid looks a lot like the 2012 Vancouver bid which was successful. They have informed me that they would be willing to amend the bid to pay $150 per entrant to the youth fund.
To be fair the Vancouver bid looks a lot like the 2012 Vancouver bid which was successful. They have informed me that they would be willing to amend the bid to pay $150 per entrant to the youth fund.
Under Robert's Rules it is possible to move to suspend the rules. It requires a motion, a seconder and a two thirds affirmative vote by the voting members present at the meeting which I understand to mean everyone who has checked in, in the case of this electronic version of a meeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis
In order to show the depths to which I will sink to manipulate the process to favour the Windsor bids, I shall release an only slightly redacted version of the email thread which I have been part of in the background.
:rolleyes:
Re: Request Support for 2016 CYCC Vancouver bid
hattie guo
Reply|
To:
Vladimir Drkulec ; ... Mon 2015-12-14 8:49 PM
From:
hattie guo
Sent: Mon 2015-12-14 8:49 PM
To:
Vladimir Drkulec ;
Hi Vlad,
Thank you very much for pointing out my mistake. I’m sorry for that. Honestly, I didn’t aware the error, and no intention to against the rule. I’ll try to post my statement on ChessTalk as well as CFC Public Forum. Could you please post my statement on the Voting Forum too so that all voting members know this.
Thanks,
Hattie
Hi Everyone,
My name is Hattie Guo and I am the person who has submitted the Vancouver bid for the 2016 CYCC. I, along with several other BC chess parents, want to host the 2016 CYCC in Vancouver, BC and to welcome all the chess playing youths in Canada to our beautiful British Columbia.
I have been informed that our bid has an error in it, in that it should include payment of $150 per player. I did not realize that this was a mandatory item when I submitted the bid. If I did, I would have for sure included that in the original bid. I want to thank CFC President Vlad Drkukec for emailing me personally and explaining this error and what I need to do to rectify it to get the Vancouver bid back on the table for the CFC Voting Members to consider it along with the other 2016 CYCC bids from Windsor, ON and Quebec City/FQE.
To do this, I need the CFC Voting Members help.
1. One CFC Voting Member needs to appeal the CFC President's ruling, and then another CFC Voting Member needs to second the appeal.
- CFC President Vlad Drkulec has stated that he takes no offence if this happens; and we are not doing this in any disrespect to the President. This unfortunately has to be done as part of the procedure to get the Vancouver bid back on the table.
2. The question on the vote would be "Shall the chairperson's decision be sustained" and the choices would be "Yes" or "No." If the voting members vote "No" then the Vancouver proposal is back on the table.
3. If we are successful in getting the Vancouver bid back on the table, I will need someone to help put forward a motion, with another voting member seconding it, to suspend the rules that bids had to be presented before the December 13th meeting presumably. To win, it will require a two thirds majority vote of the members present agreeing to suspend the rules to allow me to amend the Vancouver bid to rectify the mistake and change to include payment of $150 per player (with no cap).
Again, I apologize for my error in the bid. Now I am asking for the CFC Voting Members' help to rectify my mistake. Even if you don't believe the Vancouver bid for the 2016 CYCC is the best bid, please help get the bid back on the table so that it can be voted on with the other 2 bids from Windsor, ON and Quebec City/FQE. If the Vancouver bid is cut short and left off the table due to my error, as it is now, I fear that this will leave a "bad taste" in many people's mouths.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and any help that you can provide.
Hattie Guo
Chief Organizer for the 2016 CYCC Vancouver Bid
From: Vladimir Drkulec
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:34 AM
To: REDACTED
Cc: hattie guo
Subject: Re: Request Support for 2016 CYCC Vancouver bid
If you want to return the bid to the table then my ruling should be appealed by one of the voting members and someone needs to second the appeal. Then you would need to win the vote of the voting members allowing the bid to return to consideration. The question on the vote would be "Shall the chairperson's decision be sustained" and the choices would be "Yes" or "No." If the voting members vote "No" then your proposal is back on the table. I would not be upset if my decision were appealed successfully.
In order to change the bid after you get the bid back on the table you would have to put forward a motion to suspend the rules that bids had to be presented before the December 13th meeting presumably with a voting member proposing it and a seconder. You would then have to win a two thirds majority vote of the members present agreeing to suspend the rules to allow you to amend your bid.
Alternatively you could sneak the amendment in by publicly stating that you would honour CFC rules with respect to the $150 payment to the youth fund.
Alternatively you could redo your bid for 2018 which is the next available CYCC/Canadian Open slot open. If you choose this option, I would suggest taking your time and presenting it for the next meeting in early February or the one in April or the AGM in July or August. Make sure you don't offer a fixed bid of $15,000 to $20,000. These worked in 2010 and 2012 but the reality is that they will not work in 2016. WYCC costs in 2015 were on the order of $35,000.
The likely outcome of a successful Vancouver bid this year would be no Canadian Open once again or else a Canadian Open in Windsor which would likely mean no Windsor players playing in CYCC because they are not likely to want to jump on a plane to go to Vancouver and then have to fly back the next day to play in the Canadian Open in Windsor. I see the Canadian Open in Windsor working only if we get NAYCC and perhaps rethinking the timing of the tournament to move it to August perhaps though I am not even sure this is possible as it was difficult finding dates that playing venues were even open this close to play.
Vlad
From: hattie guo
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 11:45 PM
To: REDACTED
Subject: Re: Request Support for 2016 CYCC Vancouver bid
Hi REDACTED,
1. The CFC President has stated: "It is outside of our rules and policies as outlined in the handbook. I rule that it should be withdrawn from this assembly." Does this mean that the Vancouver bid is disqualified for voting?
2. If so, what can we do to get the Vancouver bid back in to be eligible for voting?
3. I am willing to change the Vancouver bid to pay $150 per player with no cap. Note that I was not aware of this rule before and I am asking that an exception be made so that I can change my bid to meet the mandatory requirements for a CYCC bid.
Thanks,
Hattie
Oops because of internet lag my post went up twice.
As those who follow chesstalk may know I have been accused of shilling for the Windsor bid and that the whole affair stinks and is unfair.
The time to be fair and objective was back at the AGM. If I had not lit a fire under the Windsor group very late in the calendar, I have no doubt that we would be sitting here lamenting the lack of leadership that brought us to a situation where there were no bids on three important events on the Canadian chess calendar. There were no bids as of almost mid December. Such sniping is very trying and leaves me wondering at times why I bother and continually subject myself to this.
Its actually less work to put a bid together than it is to make the effort required to skype, email and phone all the usual suspects and hope that they will please, pretty please organize these tournaments and then wait for their replies while they scurry to and fro talking to hotels and halls trying to make the deals and forge the links that allow everything to come together. Both Hal Bond and I spent a lot of time doing this last year with respect to the Canadian Open.
Like Aris, I do believe that the best bid should win unless there are some overarching reasons to bend the rules. There is no overarching reason to bend the rules here. All three applicants have hosted the CYCC in the last three and a half years. It is nobody's turn. Pick the best bid and look at what is in the best interest of the CFC and organized chess in Canada. That is your duty.
For those who want me to sit on the sideline out of some misplaced sense of fairness, you could have had that if you had submitted a bid by say November 30th. After December 1st, all bets were off. I don't expect to make one penny on any of these bids and if the Windsor bids are accepted I will probably be financially disadvantaged in the sense that I will spend a lot of unpaid time doing a lot of volunteer work to make this the best experience for the players while following all of the rules much as I did for CYCC Windsor 2015. Live with it. It is the lot of a chess volunteer as most of you reading this well know.
Vlad's summary pretty much matches my memory of how things were last July.
Moving forward I would very much like to see a short document on what prospective bidders need to know. As most of the Executive know, I am a big fan of some of the things the USCF does to solicit events. One of the things I like best on their site is http://www.uschess.org/docs/forms/Ho...F%20Events.pdf where the URL should make it plain what the document is about.
I'd like to see a Canadian version of this as well as an event calendar on our site - one of the private e-mails I've seen decries the fact that all the regulars seem to know the procedure while newcomers have a tougher time first time round and it's all too easy to overlook something important. Years ago I had a lot of help from Peter Stockhausen but never did attempt anything bigger than the Vancouver Keres Memorial (which is an important regional event but not national in scope). Obviously things have changed dramatically in the last 15-20 years.
I would like to support the Vancouver bid; however, I have a few reservations about it: 1) Would the approval of a bid in Vancouver negatively impact the viability of the Canadian Open bids from Quebec City/Windsor due to financial shortfall? 2) Would it be possible to change the CYCC in Vancouver dates to a different time as having the Canadian Open in the east right after the CYCC in the west would prevent most juniors from attending both events?
Moving the CYCC out west would affect the viability of both of the Canadian Open bids, I am sure though I can speak with certainty only about the Windsor bid. I would continue to try to obtain support to do a Canadian Open but the Windsor organizers would have to evaluate the viability of the stand alone event. It might be made to work if we get an infusion of funds from the city which is a distinct possibility but less of a possibility without a junior event. The two risky events here are NAYCC and the CO. We could move both to less costly and less convenient locations but fundraising will suffer if they are not downtown, I think.
Having a Canadian Open back to back with a CYCC across the country will probably be disastrous for one of the tournaments at least and maybe both. I would be surprised if you got any players who played in both events.
CYCC is the highest stage for junior chess in this country. Being as such it deserves the best possible organizing effort from anyone interested to bid on it. If this assembly believes the Vancouver bid can be upgraded to meet the minimum requirements to be accepted for discussion and voting, please proceed down the not so simple road of putting it back on the table. In my opinion there would still be a considerable gap between meeting the minimum requirements and the best possible offer; however that can be dealt by voting on it...
The 2012 organizing committee did an extensive amount of work ahead of time and had it prepared for about a couple of years. It was unfortunate and heartbreaking what happened with the CFC fees (it should have never happened) because of an individual, but beside that I do not agree that bid was similar with this one they are trying to put forward. It was not even close!
I recall some of the language in the 2012 bid but do not remember all of the details though I was in Toronto when it was proposed and voted for it at the AGM. Since you worked on it, it is likely your recollection is more accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valer Eugen Demian