Item # 9 – Tournament Director and Organizer Certification Program ( TDOCP ) Committe

[Bob Armstrong]

Item # 9 – Tournament Director and Organizer Certification Program ( TDOCP ) Committee – Mandate

Introductory Post - by Chris Mallon

10/8/29 Governors’ Discussion Board Post - I'll be looking for 2-4 people in total [ for the Committee ], and obviously preference going to certified and / or experienced arbiters and organizers…My intention is to work with the committee to develop a certification program and then recommend it in toto to the governors for approval…I see no reason why we can't include organizers.

[Michael von Keitz]

As I have mentioned previously, I am interested in serving on this committee.

[Stuart Brammall]

As someone who has organised and arbitrated events with no experiece whatsoever I must say that rather then making it more difficult for people who wish to volunteer there time to run chess tournament through forcing them through a certification process, we should instead look to make it easier in any way we can.

Have we had complaints abouts organizers or arbiters?
What has prompted this?

I can tell you all that if such a program existed 3 years ago there would have been no events organized at Hart House, which would have effectively reduced Toronto to one event per year at that time.

After taking the arbiter's course at the Canadian Open, and seeing who failed-- some the most active volunteers (Egorov, Ferreira) and some of the most experienced (Ficzere), nobody would consider banning them from running there event.

There have been no complaints, and these volunteers are infinately valuable.
Do not alienate or regulate them, the CFC stands on the shoulders of these volunteers.

[Fred McKim]

I can't picture any test the CFC was to put forward for arbiting, to be as demanding as the FIDE test must have been.

[Christopher Field]

I agree that we don't want to put a lot of difficulties in the way of amateur organisers. As a long-time organiser and TD, I have simply never found the time to take a course. I have, however, read both FIDE and CFC manuals extensively.

On the other hand, having a certification programme in place is a good idea. Having more potential organisers and directors with more knowledge of tournament needs and conditions can only benefit our players.

I would be willing to serve on this committee.

Christopher Field.

[Stuart Brammall]

The rigour of any proposed test is not what I am questioning--- it is the wisdom of adding a barrier in the path of potential new volunteers.

[Bob Gillanders]

Stuart, I hear you loud and clear.

I would oppose any move to make certification mandatory. I do not see the CFC ever refusing to sanction or rate an event because it didn't have a certified TD or organizer on board.

But....improving the quality of our organizers and TD's is certainly a laudible goal..

Instead, let us nurture the natural tendency for self improvement....

[Mark S. Dutton, I.A.]

The rigour of any proposed test is not what I am questioning--- it is the wisdom of adding a barrier in the path of potential new volunteers.

How right you are Stuart.

We need to encourage MORE not LESS.

At the same time, we need to step up and help those who do volunteer by assisting them with getting the tools and knowledge they need to do the job as good as possible.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

It does not hurt to have a licensing system (it's so popular thing in Canada)
Will you allow any volunteer to run a Canadian Open or Closed. (you got a point

(just curious - How many organizers have the CFC? I might go through crosstables to get this info 2010.)

[Christopher Mallon]

I like how people start jumping on the problems they see with this before I even post what my vision for it is!

In brief,

I would like to see a three-part system.

The first part has a very simple test - covering basic knowledge that you really SHOULD have before directing a tournament, volunteer or not. You can attempt it any number of times (the point is to learn, not to exclude). Once you pass, you're a certified TDO and can run rated events.

The next part is the NTD certification. This might require some or all of the following: seminars, written/oral tests, "norms", reference checks, interviews. I'm just tossing ideas out here at this point, specific implementation would be decided by the committee. There would probably be a cost to this level, depending on the complexity of the process. NTD would be required before the CFC would support applications for FA/IA/IO titles.

The third part is maintaining a TDO mentoring program. This could take several forms. It would certainly include a forum for TDOs on the CFC site where advice could be sought. It might also include setting up NTD candidates with a mentor arbiter who can provide advice and guidance.

Now, notice that I have used the term TDO throughout, and the reason is after some thought I believe it is important that TDs learn the organizing side, and organizers learn the arbiter side. I've heard too many horror stories, some of them quite recent, about one or the other not knowing what the other was doing and giving conflicting information, so I believe it's important that it be integrated in this fashion.

There has been some suggestion that the provinces run some part of this program, however in my opinion, the last thing we need is another hodgepodge system. I intend to steer the committee towards developing a national system.

As to the question of Mandatory? Not Mandatory? The purpose of the system is to educate, not to exclude. I propose no cost for the lowest level of certification, more than likely some grandfathering of existing TDs to that level (some even to NTD), and newcomers basically either just pass the test right away, or they learn some things and then pass the test and can run events. So, I would argue that after some period of time, it COULD and SHOULD be made mandatory, however that is a question for down the road, I don't propose that it be mandatory right away.

In any case, that is my basic framework. I'm looking for probably four people to work with, I don't want a huge committee, and I wouldn't mind some non-Ontario perspectives either! If you are still interested, please let me know, and of course I'm open to suggestions from the Governors.