Motion 2011-L - Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee
PEI CFC Governor, and CFC Treasurer, Fred McKim and I, have filed today a motion for the 2011 Spring Meeting, for a single annual CFC membership. Are you in favour or against the motion and why?
Here is the motion/commentary:
Motion 2011-L – A Single CFC Annual Membership
11/3/29
Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim ( for the purpose of debate only )
- 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 $34.
.
Commentary:
A. Two Issues :the following have arisen in governor discussion:
1. Amount of a single Annual CFC Membership Fee – The current federal portion of the annual fee collected is $ 36. It is felt that the new fee should be revenue neutral – that is, it will neither increase nor decrease expected CFC membership revenue for 2011-12. Bob G posted that the $ 30 in an earlier motion 2011-A was low, and that CFC would lose over $ 5000 next year if that $ figure was passed.
At the same meeting, Treasurer Fred McKim stated that “ it would make sense that the tournament playing fee ( popularly called the tournament membership fee ), both adult and junior, be combined at the same time “ into a single fee. But this has been in the past a most controversial issue. Motion 2010-06 sought to replace the tournament playing fee with a first time CFC’er discounted annual membership. It was defeated in a straw vote at the 2010 Spring “ Trial “ On-line Meeting. Therefore, the mover and seconder withdrew their support for the motion. Thus the Minutes of the Outgoing Governors’ 2010 AGM state: “ Motion 2010-06 - First-time CFC Member introductory discount - Armstrong withdraws as mover. Gladstone withdraws as seconder. Motion withdrawn. “ Given this, it is felt best to first establish a new single annual membership, and then have a further discussion/motion whether the tournament playing fee still makes sense. I fear loss of support for Motion 2011-Z if the two issues are linked in one motion.
2. Any justification for the current junior membership discount? - If the discount for juniors is justified, then perhaps the motion should be defeated, because at least one of the categories make sense. However, if for CFC, a discounted junior membership seems not justified, then the motion has merit.
B. Issue # 1 - Annual Fee Required:
As of May 10, 2010, CFC had about 1,430 annual paying members ( Honourary and Life Members eliminated ). In 2009-10, memberships generated $ 46,767
Assume the Junior, Junior Participating and Family, are collapsed into the single fee, giving a junior membership of 472.
A. the $ 33 scenario - a $ 33 annual membership fee would generate 1,430 X $ 33 = $ 47, 190 .. Thus $ 33 annual membership would be about revenue neutral on two conditions:
1. Juniors in 2011-12 would have to renew 472 memberships. ( Note: if 56 ( 12 % ) of the juniors refuse to renew at the higher rate – this would lessen the revenue by 56 X $ 33 = $ 1,848. This leaves revenue of only $ 45,342.. So in this case, $ 33 would lead to an unacceptable decrease in revenue ) ;
2. All 958 adults would have to renew.
B. the $ 34 scenario – this would generate 1, 430 X $ 34 = $ 48, 620. The excess revenue would allow 12 % ( 56/472 ) of the juniors to refuse to renew, due to the increase, and still the unification of memberships would be revenue neutral.
We feel some latitude must be allowed for non-renewing juniors. So we have opted for an annual unified membership fee of $ 34.
C. Issue # 2 - Merits of the Motion
The motion seeks to simplify the administration of CFC memberships, by eliminating multiple categories, and instituting only 3 memberships – an annual membership, as desired by this motion, the existing “ Life Membership “ and the Honourary Membership. This is clearly beneficial from an administrative point of view, and is less time-consuming for staff, and thus saves CFC some member administration costs.
Here are some of the arguments that have been made on both sides of this issue:
For the Junior Discount:
1. Juniors get discounts on all kinds of things, and many other types of memberships, and CFC will look bad if it doesn't fall in line and give juniors a discounted annual membership.
2. Juniors are the future of chess - as such CFC should do all it can to encourage juniors to play, and one way of encouraging them is a lower membership fee.
3. Families with juniors often have tighter budgets, given the number of family members. So a discount increases the chance that scarce family revenue will be spent on a CFC Junior Membership.
4. Even in chess, Juniors are given discounts - for example there is often a junior registration fee for weekend tournaments; there are often junior memberships for chess clubs. CFC will be out of step with other aspects of chess if they discontinue the junior membership discount.
Against the Junior Membership Discount:
1. CFC membership cannot be compared to other situations where juniors get discounts. There may be good reasons in other situations, but not re an annual CFC membership. It is a different situation, and thus can be eliminated. Roger Patterson of BC has noted:
“ The standard economic argument for different prices for different groups is to maximize revenue by tailoring fees to the ability (willingness) of each group to pay. If anything, juniors these days are less price sensitive than adult players so giving them a discount is not economically justified. Perhaps in days gone by, but those days are gone. “
However, I note the comment of Governor Valer Eugen Demian:
“ … this clearly looks like milking the juniors for the benefit of adults. It is widely known junior tournaments far outnumber the adult ones in BC, so my point should be pretty clear! “
2. From a membership processing point of view, a junior takes up the same CFC resources as a regular adult - he has a place on the list like an adult, a membership number like an adult, etc.
3. From a tournament rating point of view, a junior in an adult tournament takes up the same CFC resources in maintaining their rating - it is processed the same way as any adult's rating calculation. In fact, though, for all junior events, there is a different step required, since the cost of rating is different. This adds to administrative work.
4. Juniors get the Canadian Chess News, the same as adults.
5. Administering one category of annual membership simplifies membership administration and will save CFC some staff time and money.
D. Timing
a ) The Issue
It would not be beneficial from a member point of view, to see the CFC changing its membership fee structure a couple of times potentially , within a short time. And CFC can live with the multiple annual membership categories, which have now existed for some time. So it would seem that Motion 2011-Z should await a review and recommendation by the eventual Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee, whenever it is finally staffed and starts to function. At the 2010 Fall Meeting, the assembly struck the Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee. Bob G deferred the staffing of that committee, and so it again came onto the agenda of the 2011 Winter Meeting. Again there was lively discussing of the issues, and after the meeting I lobbied to get the Committee staffed and functioning. In discussing membership/rating fees, the committee was also to discuss the issues underlying Motion 2011-L. It was hoped they would have some recommendation for the governors when the motion came on for discussion and vote at the 2011 Spring Meeting. However, Treasurer Fred McKim advised that the executive was further delaying the functioning of the committee until CFC had its new website, since this might affect whether CFC should offer an annual membership fee, a tournament fee ( old rating fee ), or a combination as now. Unfortunately, the Treasurer, who is carrying the new website file on behalf of the executive,has indicated the new website will come on line in the time leading up to the July AGM. In this case, since it appears there will be no functioning Committee before the Meeting, there will be no recommendation on Motion 2011-L. For this reason, the motion should be postponed ‘til there is a committee recommendation.
As well, Bob G and Fred have felt that the new CFC website might affect the debate on this motion, and the CFC membership structure.
b ) Proposed Action
Motion 2011-Z should be “ debated “ at the 2011 Spring Meeting. But as to voting, I will ask for the Chair to call a vote “ to postpone the motion to a fixed time, namely the July AGM agenda “. I am working on the assumption that only the governors can decide the course of its processing, within Robert's Rules of Order. Thus it is up to the Governors whether to discuss and vote on the Motion 2011-Z at the 2011 Spring Meeting, or to “ postpone “ it to the 2011 July AGM.
E. Conclusion
Governor/Treasurer Fred McKim ( who only seconded this motion so it could be brought to debate/vote, but he does not support it ) has noted that : “The negative publicity is going to be horrible. “ It is my view, as mover, however, that nevertheless, for a CFC membership, a junior discount is not warranted from an administrative cost point of view, nor otherwise, and CFC should move to a single annual membership for all.
Bob
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Steve Karpik
