Item #16B - Motion 2011-B - Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee

[Bob Armstrong]

Motion 2011-B - Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee - For Discussion
Moved: Aris Marghetis; Seconded : Chris Mallon

- that CFC replace the memberships for Adult, Family, and Junior, with a single new annual CFC membership, and the rate for the federal portion would be $30.

This thread is for discussion only. A separate voting thread will be created at 9:00PM EDT tonight.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

This thread is for discussion only. A separate voting thread will be created at 9:00PM EDT tonight.

That feels like a very big rush. ~8 hours for discussion and amendments
and I think this is a constitutional amendment.

What is "a single new annual CFC membership"
How will it be called? Do we need that "new"? How does this motion interfere with the Handbook (probably it should list all changes there)?

I would say the motion sound like an idea, than the motion.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

The meeting procedures call for all votes to start at 9:00 PM EDT tonight, Monday, Oct. 4, whether on the agenda initially, or arising out of the meeting.

The background is that the motions have arisen out of an agenda thread, and there has been lots of prior discussion on various aspects of the thread, including the concepts in the motion. It is not perfect, but we cannot have the meeting go on interminably because motions arise from the floor.

If someone is unhappy with the motion, then they will have to vote it down, and then generate future discussion on it, with a view to bringing back in future an improved motion.

I don't think under our meeting format, we have the capacity to vote on any move to adjourn a motion, unless perhaps the mover and seconder agreed to such a proposal.

I'm no expert on rules of procedure, but I also don't think the Chair can rule the motion out of order on some basis, once the voting has started on the motion.

Bob

[Christopher Field]

I agree that this is too much of a rush.
There hasn't been a full discussion.
Costs for the federation -- on-line magazine, etc -- need to be analysed.
Family situations -- 2 or more family members -- need consideration.

Finally, what about the "tournament membership"?
I would certainly be willing to propose a motion that this fee be reduced to $10.
I would also like to see it give access to the next magazine.
Further, that it be allowed to be a "deposit" toward a full membership, if the full membership is purchased within 2 months.

Christopher Field.

[Bob Gillanders]

This motion cannot go ahead at this time.

Changing the membership structure is a major restructuring of the CFC revenues. Voting on this motion must be deferred to the next quarterly meeting. The governors need time to consider the motion.

With all due respect to Aris and Chris, this motion needs to be debated properly. You simply can't present a motion and expect a vote to commence the same day.

Lyle was correct in his concerns that the online meeting maybe needed another dress rehearsal.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

As I understand you, as Chair you are ruling that this motion be akjourned to the Winter Quarterly ( Jan. 2011 ) Governors' On-line Meeting.

I therefore will not start a motion voting thread for it tonight.

As a further comment, I feel that it is beneficial to have governors commence motions at meetings. The issue is whether they are the type that can go ahead because there has been sufficient discussion, or they are straightforward ( eg. like the establishing of a committee ), or whether the chair feels they need to be adjourned for " sober second thought ". I think there is nothing wrong with the meeting procedures, and still believe that the governors were right to implement the procedures without a further " trial " meeting.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob,

Please table this motion to the January 2011 meeting. It definitely has not received the due consideration required.

I just ran the numbers. Based on our current membership, implementing this motion would cost us $ 3,090 in membership dues.

We can't afford the hit.

Currently 971 adults at $36 plus 456 Juniors at $24 = $ 45,900
Proposed 1,427 @ $30 = $ 42,810

Cost = $ 3,090

[Fred McKim]

There are other implications concerning our contract with EKG that could also be costly if we decided to simply reduce Membership fees. It would be best to introduce any membership fee retructuring in line with a new administrative services contract.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

There are other implications concerning our contract with EKG that could also be costly if we decided to simply reduce Membership fees. It would be best ot introduce any membership fee retructuring in line with a new administrative services contract.

Does a clause about freezing (or changing) the membership fees exist in the contract?

[Fred McKim]

We pay a certain percentage of membership fees, rating fees, sales to the contractor.

Should we take action that effectively reduced our membership fees, we could still be on the hook for what the unreduced fees would have been.

This is why we probably would have to tie a restructuring of fees into a new contract.

If we were simply increasing fees, it would be no issue.