Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: 2011 CYCC Competing Bids

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Cohen
    I notice that less than half of the CFC Governors voted.
    I guess that rules out one theory on why the results aren't known yet (still counting...)

  2. #22

    Default

    Hi Kerry:

    I think the governors are waiting for Bob G to announce the final vote results here. The voting is concluded now and the results in.

    Bob

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,313

    Default vote results

    Congratulations to Richmond Hill.

    I posted this message from Lyle on the governors board in the wee hours this morning:


    Gentlemen, this has been the closest vote in recent CFC history!

    Richmond Hill (14) Armstrong, Bond, Brammall, Craft, Gillanders, Haley, Jin, Mallon, Marghetis, McDonald, Moore, Nadeau, Nunes, von Keitz

    Toronto (12) Barron, Birarov, I Bluvshtein, M Bluvshtein, Craver, Dutton, Field, Leblanc, McKim, Palsson, Smith, Zeromskis

    Abstentions: none

    Good luck to the Richmond Hill organizers and I hope they have a great tournament!

    Lyle Craver
    Secretary, Chess Federation of Canada


    ps. The Executive are now exploring a Canadian Open only bid from the Toronto team.

  4. #24

    Default CYCC Bid Participation by CFC Governors

    Here is a post from the confidential Governors' Discussion Board that I recently posted ( slightly edited ):

    CYCC Bid Participation by CFC Governors

    I have mixed feelings about govenor participation in this CYCC bid process.

    The debate, I thought, showed very high participation by the governors in both viewing and posting. Many excellent questions were raised. The bidders had good access to the governors for input, and answering questions. Although there may be need to establish some guidelines around last minute bid improvements and concluding debate, I feel the process was flexible, and it allowed us to get the best bids on the table.

    My two concerns are :

    1. amendments during the voting period - I do have problems with this, since it may mean some voters have to recall their vote and vote again in light of amendments after they had voted; somehow I think amendments should not be allowed after the voting has started; there was a lengthy debate period with good access to bidders; there is no reason amendments could not have been conceded earlier, before the voting start time, which everyone knew;

    2. Debate during the voting period - I am not sure of this, but I think the thread for debate should be closed once voting has started. If governors want to lobby other governors, and declare their voting intentions, to try to sway others, somehow I think this should be done before voting starts, not during the voting period. It can lead to voters being influenced after their vote, and wanting to recall their vote, and re-vote.

    Lastly, I must say that although governor participation in the process was high, voting was not.

    Only 43 % voted ( 26/60 ). And this on a very contentious issue on a national tournament. If governors aren't elected to garner, and vote on when necessary, national tournament bids, what are they supposed to be doing? We had 70 % attendance at our last quartely Fall Meeting - in the light of this I had expected to be well beyond 50% vote participation. The vote is substantial, but I would suggest the provincial affiliates look carefully at whether their Provincial Representatives voted, and if not, inquire why not.

    I do note 3 things re this voting:

    1. Life Governors - only 30% voted ( 3/10 );
    2. Governors at Large ( excluding Life Governors ) - 45% % voted ( 5/11 ).
    3. Provincial Representative Governors - 46% ( 18/39 )

    So the only group underrepresented is the life governors, and some of us have been saying for a while now that the majority do not actively participate any longer, and this should be dealt with.

    Bob

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
    Here is a post from the confidential Governors' Discussion Board that I recently posted ( slightly edited ):

    CYCC Bid Participation by CFC Governors

    I have mixed feelings about govenor participation in this CYCC bid process.

    The debate, I thought, showed very high participation by the governors in both viewing and posting. Many excellent questions were raised. The bidders had good access to the governors for input, and answering questions. Although there may be need to establish some guidelines around last minute bid improvements and concluding debate, I feel the process was flexible, and it allowed us to get the best bids on the table.

    My two concerns are :

    1. amendments during the voting period - I do have problems with this, since it may mean some voters have to recall their vote and vote again in light of amendments after they had voted; somehow I think amendments should not be allowed after the voting has started; there was a lengthy debate period with good access to bidders; there is no reason amendments could not have been conceded earlier, before the voting start time, which everyone knew;

    2. Debate during the voting period - I am not sure of this, but I think the thread for debate should be closed once voting has started. If governors want to lobby other governors, and declare their voting intentions, to try to sway others, somehow I think this should be done before voting starts, not during the voting period. It can lead to voters being influenced after their vote, and wanting to recall their vote, and re-vote.

    Lastly, I must say that although governor participation in the process was high, voting was not.

    Only 43 % voted ( 26/60 ). And this on a very contentious issue on a national tournament. If governors aren't elected to garner, and vote on when necessary, national tournament bids, what are they supposed to be doing? We had 70 % attendance at our last quartely Fall Meeting - in the light of this I had expected to be well beyond 50% vote participation. The vote is substantial, but I would suggest the provincial affiliates look carefully at whether their Provincial Representatives voted, and if not, inquire why not.

    I do note 3 things re this voting:

    1. Life Governors - only 30% voted ( 3/10 );
    2. Governors at Large ( excluding Life Governors ) - 45% % voted ( 5/11 ).
    3. Provincial Representative Governors - 46% ( 18/39 )

    So the only group underrepresented is the life governors, and some of us have been saying for a while now that the majority do not actively participate any longer, and this should be dealt with.

    Bob
    It is possible that some of the Governors did not vote by purpose. At the end of the day both bids became very similar (talking about CYCC). May be it was hard for some of the Governors to make their preferences, and they decided not to vote at all.

    It may be considered that they just abstained.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Itkine
    It is possible that some of the Governors did not vote by purpose. At the end of the day both bids became very similar (talking about CYCC). May be it was hard for some of the Governors to make their preferences, and they decided not to vote at all.

    It may be considered that they just abstained.
    But that is exactly the point: by abstaining, their non-vote is recorded and at least it does not look like inactivity... big difference.

  7. #27

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong

    1. Life Governors - only 30% voted ( 3/10 );
    2. Governors at Large ( excluding Life Governors ) - 45% % voted ( 5/11 ).
    3. Provincial Representative Governors - 46% ( 18/39 )
    The fact that a miserable 26/60 governors voted must be quite embarrassing for CFC.
    Abstention does not equal "not voting" by any means. People who abstain at least bother (somewhat) to participate. Abstention through ignorance is inexcusable. But clearly 34/60 governors just don't give a damn. Quite sad on such an important topic in chess in Canada.

    Alex F.

  8. #28

    Default

    Do people who turn down a mandate to be a governor really have the right to comment on such things? :0

    Something I would have thought you would have learned at Hart House:

    If you want something done right, do it you yourself.
    Last edited by Stuart Brammall; 11-23-2010 at 05:18 PM.

  9. #29

    Default Can Op Ch 2011

    After the vote, Chess Institute of Canada presented a bid for the Canadian Open only, at the Westin Harbour Castle in Toronto. CFC Executive is deliberating. As Hal graciously offered to withdraw the Guelph bid while they do so, we are expecting the Open to be in Toronto again, and for CYCC and CO groups to work together to promote chess. Happy endings all around.

    David :-)

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Brammall
    If you want something done right, do it you yourself.
    Too much bureaucracy
    I've always been of the opinion that it's better to have 6 active governors who *want* to be governors, than to have 60 filled in spots to avoid vacancies.

    Alex F.

    PS.
    maybe one day...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •