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

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

I understand that you are just forming your committee, and still evaluating volunteers. So it is early on.

You are also already canvassing for ideas on the " mandate " of the committee, which I assume the committee will decide on once formed.

Can I ask that once that is done, that the committee then put out to the members a " TD and TO Discussion Paper ", which sets out a history of the certication issue in Canada, and sets of questions that you feel the committee needs to answer, and on which you would like Member/Public input. I have already canvassed the topic with one member, and there are some very interesting comparisons with the cycling world in Canada, and Commissars and Cycling Organizers. This member would be willing to put in a brief brief to the committee on the questions that might be posed.

Thanks.

Bob

[Michael von Keitz]

Letting alone the obvious reality that officials in virtually every physical sporting activity go through training prior to being able to step on the pitch, pool deck, or sheet of ice in any official capacity, consider the category of "mental sports," which chess falls under. Even here, the officials are typically required to undergo training - the CFC is the exception, not the rule. The American Contract Bridge League, the American Checkers Federation, the Canadian Bridge Federation, the United States Chess Federation and more, all have some sort of TDOCP in place. Under the CFC's current system, Joe Blow can crawl out of the sewers tomorrow, run a tournament - poorly - and still see the money collected and the event rated by the CFC. To characterize a TDOCP as some affront to current arbiters and organizers is completely contrary to the purposes of the program. This is not a statement that all TDs and organizers in our system are incompetent, but that we can offer a superior product to that which we presently have available - self-directed trial-and-error, with some level of grandfathering for the fortunate few.

In my own personal experience, if anything, I found the lack of a formal TDOCP to be discouraging - in running a few CFC-rated events in my high school days, I had no one to refer to for guidance, saw the mention of a certification program in the handbook, ultimately enquired, and was informed that it had become defunct. The goal of this program is to help potential volunteers, such as my (slightly) younger self, to make a quick transition from inexperienced to fully capable. I don't see that as being a cardinal sin.

All of this said, my vision is slightly different than Chris'. I would like to see a two-tiered system (one for organizers and one for tournament directors), each of which will employ the following: a mandatory one-day seminar, experience as a deputy arbiter (organizer) in one event with no complaints and experience as a chief arbiter (organizer) in one event with no complaints. In my view, meeting these requirements should qualify you for the title of Regional Tournament Director (Organizer). Next, I feel that experience as deputy or chief with three premiere provincial events should qualify you for the NTD (O) title. Once the NTD (O) title has been achieved, you are qualified to start collecting FA/IA (IO) norms by serving as deputy or chief at Canada's premiere events (Closed, Open, etc.).

[Aris Marghetis]

Hello there, sorry for the late arrival, but here are my 2 input points for now :

1) I also offered to be part of this commitee, and am awaiting that decision.

2) There have already been some posts advocating some kind of mandatory aspects, with some of them, IMHO, rather strongly worded. I guess I would concur most with Stuart above, that we need to be very careful how hard we push this. We cannot even establish a cycle of guaranteed big events, due primarily to lack of Organizer bids, and yet we are considering pushing volunteers away? Seriously guys, from conversations with other TD/O types, many of them often think of hanging it up. So instead, why don't we reset the initial vision of this committee COMPLETELY, to one that only has to do with SUPPORTING TD/O types? IMHO, THAT will improve Organizing/TDing.

[Bob Armstrong]

This is not really my field, but it seems to me that many want a " voluntary " system.

That is, TD's/O's are encouraged to take the course/test, to improve their own competence, and to perhaps increase the demand for them, by having advertisable credentials.

The system would not be " mandatory ", in that TD's/O's could still operate without the credentials.

Is this a majority view of the governors?

Bob

[Aris Marghetis]

This is not really my field, but it seems to me that many want a " voluntary " system.

That is, TD's/O's are encouraged to take the course/test, to improve their own competence, and to perhaps increase the demand for them, by having advertisable credentials.

The system would not be " mandatory ", in that TD's/O's could still operate without the credentials.

Is this a majority view of the governors?

Bob

But how does a test actually help volunteers improve? Why not offer mentors?

[Michael von Keitz]

But how does a test actually help volunteers improve? Why not offer mentors?

I know this wasn't necessarily directed at me, but, in case you might be equating the two, I am advocating for a seminar - not a test. Coupled with practical experience as a deputy TD (O), this seems, in some sense, to equate to mentoring to me.

[Bob Gillanders]

No that isn't a typo.

I am hearing too many words like mandatory, tests, seminars, qualified. Instead of restricting or screening TD and organizers we need to focus more on the encouragement, assistance, and education of our volunteers. Maybe we should change the name to:

TDOAP = Tournament Directors & Organizers Assistance Program.

The first task of the committee could be to start a monthly column in CCN to educate our volunteers and members on the rules of chess and tournament play. Perhaps a quiz or a hypothetical dispute scenario to mediate. The answers would be in the next issue of CCN. Members who give the best answers are acknowledged. A contest. Have some fun with it.

[Christopher Mallon]

I think we need only look to the most recent appeal to the NAC to see why a certification program is needed!

Also please note that mentoring was a part of my plan, there's no need to start up a separate program for that.

Not to mention, if the CFC even wants to *dream* about becoming a registered sporting association.... name ONE of those, just one! that doesn't have mandatory certification for its officials!

Is it wrong to expect even a tiny level of professionalism here? Is it too much to expect them to spend a small amount of time to attain certification?

[Stuart Brammall]

I do not think having a certification program will substantially reduce the number of desputes similar in nature to the last NAC appeal.
It will prevent people from taking the time out of their lives to run rated events--- Perhaps not in the major centres where experience can be readily accessed, but certainly in rural areas, where competitive chess is just gaining its footing.

Even with the most qualified individual events get screwed up... just look at the Canadian Open.

[Aris Marghetis]

I know this wasn't necessarily directed at me, but, in case you might be equating the two, I am advocating for a seminar - not a test. Coupled with practical experience as a deputy TD (O), this seems, in some sense, to equate to mentoring to me.

Hi Michael, all right, we seem to be converging! I also like Bob's post below about something like "assistance program", and Stuart's about smaller places.