6. Officer and Committee Reports

[Bob Armstrong]

Since I've had no response to multiple requests to have reports separated out, I'll just have to post here and hope the thread doesn't get too confusing.



All players should be constantly supervised by a certified TD of some level, the exact level TBD...



Almost every single email I've received from the CFC office in the last 6 months has had some variation of "This isn't in our contract" or "We'll have to charge extra for this" in it and now especially that I hear about it happening to others I am really starting to find it a bit disgusting. They are treating us like opponents out to get them rather than team players.

I'm sorry, but an email to the CFC office asking why my chess.ca address stopped working should not have been responded to with a threat of extra charges. Do they respond this way to non-Governors?

If an event is rated incorrectly due to incomplete information, that is at least partly the fault of the office for not doing minimal diligence in making sure all the data is filled out; for them to charge overtime to fix the problem later seems a little dishonest at best!

Gerry once told me the procedure for retroactively rating or derating a tournament, and I got the distinct impression that it was along the lines of a 5-minute job at most, even with our awkward ratings software.

Hi Chris:

You raise a problem.

I have asked the executive if there is now sufficient money to hire an in-house Executive Director, as we used to do ( I feel we may have to offer a salary somewhat better than that going to Gerry at the moment, and there will also be some overhead costs that will return to us ). This will allow us to amend priorities of the ED as reality changes - without asking him to also do everything he was doing that was full-time.

I am not sure if the executive has in fact discussed my proposal - I have had no communication on this.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

Almost every single email I've received from the CFC office in the last 6 months has had some variation of "This isn't in our contract" or "We'll have to charge extra for this" in it and now especially that I hear about it happening to others I am really starting to find it a bit disgusting. They are treating us like opponents out to get them rather than team players.

I'm sorry, but an email to the CFC office asking why my chess.ca address stopped working should not have been responded to with a threat of extra charges. Do they respond this way to non-Governors?

Chris, I am very distressed to read these comments. The "scope of work" appendix added to the contract renewal last year was intended to give both parties a better understanding of the service level expected from Outpost. It is meant to be a breathing dynamic instrument, to be updated as needed, not to be used as an excuse for extra billings nor to withhold services.

I am not saying that that is what is happening here. It is not possible to know that for sure from what I have read here. Nevertheless, the office contract is something that needs regular oversight to ensure it remains an effective document and is perceived as fair by both parties.

Before we get too far down the road of complaining about the office in public, could I ask you to send me some of these "this is not in our contract" emails you have received. I think it would be best if you gave the executive a chance to assess the situation.

Perhaps some midterm contract maintenance is needed. If anyone else has similar complaints, please forward them too.

[Lyle Craver]

Bob A has raised a very good point concerning use of the term "tournament playing fee" instead of "tournament membership".

I remember some 10+ years ago discussing this in detail with then President Francisco Cabanas who first championed the idea. The differentiation was based on the notion that players that paid the fee would think it involved rights and privileges beyond the duration of the event.

Francisco thought of this as a marketing tool and felt we should be sending copies of En Passant to first time "members" (quotations deliberate) along with an invitation to take a full membership.

I've always had mixed feelings about the merits of this fee and do think it has had a downwards effect on membership levels though it is a fair question to ask how committed someone who pays 2 or 3 fees per year is to the objectives of the CFC and thus how much of a loss it might actually be.

I hate over-specificity with terminology more than most people but this is one case where we really should and I thank Bob for reminding us.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I'd suggest asking Gerry directly (or through an Executive member, as I did) if he'd be able to provide you or other Governors the info.

I would suggest for your committee to have a full picture of the members' dynamics. If a such simple question about who (or how many) recently joined requires the Execs permission to ask the Director with an uncertainty of getting the answer, the whole system really must be greased.

Organizations, who value their members, publish lists of newly joined members or families. For the CFC with ~2000 members, everyone must be counted and appreciated.

[Pierre Dénommée]

What is bought is a licence to play rated Chess. In France, they have no problem calling it a licence. But to be completely accurate, all players in France pay for a Licence to play, not for a membership. Only the Chess Clubs can be a member. Chess clubs presidents and delegates attend the AGM.

Bob A has raised a very good point concerning use of the term "tournament playing fee" instead of "tournament membership".

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

What is bought is a licence to play rated Chess.

+ elect and/or nominate governors.

[Pierre Dénommée]

This applies to regular members but not to tournament members. Furthermore, you can elect your Governors only if your province has at least an Interim Provincial Authority.

+ elect and/or nominate governors.

[Kevin Pacey]

I would suggest for your committee to have a full picture of the members' dynamics. If a such simple question about who (or how many) recently joined requires the Execs permission to ask the Director with an uncertainty of getting the answer, the whole system really must be greased.

Organizations, who value their members, publish lists of newly joined members or families. For the CFC with ~2000 members, everyone must be counted and appreciated.

Let's wait and see if the Executive takes up your suggestion, Egidijus. It's not under my committee's control to demand the extra information that you wish for. I also don't wish to bother Gerry any more than I have to.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

The long term planning committee has been somewhat dormant after a flurry of initial emails. I was distracted due to significant time requirements of duties with respect to the CFC masters representative position and the launch of the new title system and housekeeping with respect to the old title system and the membership drive committee (it takes a long time to send over 700+ emails and sort through the bounce backs).

I have been gathering reference material in the area of long term planning, sports marketing, strategy and long term planning for non-profit organizations. I have also located a number of resources for preparing a long term plan including software that I used to generate plans previously (BizPlan Builder and Marketing Plan Builder). I have also been accumulating strategic and long term plans for non-profit companies and agencies which will be helpful in formulating a plan for the CFC. We have already circulated a strategic plan developed for the English Chess Federation which will certainly have some relevance to developing a similar plan for the Canadian Chess Federation.

I expect that we should have a reboot of the Long Term Planning committee starting with a face to face meeting in January or February with a view to producing a more substantial interim report in three months time.

One book that I have found that is quite relevant to our own issues is Peter F. Drucker's, "Managing the Nonprofit Organization - Principles and Practices." I recommend it to the Executive and others interested in developing a vision for the CFC. It is probably available in most library systems and from online book sellers including Amazon.ca.

Another book that is very relevant to our task is "Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations" by John M. Brown, though that one would be much more difficult to find. I have it and am finding it quite invaluable to the present task.

Books that are not specific to non-profits but are still highly relevant to the preparation of a long term plan for the CFC are the classic "Competitive Strategy" and "Competitive Advantage" by Michael Porter which provide templates and frameworks which are relevant to developing a picture of the current situation relative to where we would like to be.