The Elephant in the Room

[Bob Armstrong]

The Elephant in the Room

The saying “ No one will talk about the elephant in the room “ describes a situation where something is large and obvious and uncomfortable, but no one wants to take a chance on raising the issue.

Well CFC has an elephant in the room. The looming 2008-9 deficit is projected by the Grassroots’ Campaign to be $ 24,700 ( 1st half - $ 8,717; 2nd half - $ 16,000 ). Now in 2007-8 it was $ 33,251. And in 2006-7 it was $ 48,677. So there has been some progress. And the CFC in 5 months this past year has done much restructuring ( as called for by the Grassroots' Campaign ) - for which they are to be congratulated. But the current year’s deficit will still be sizeable ( elephantine ).

What has been the CFC response to this revelation by the Grassroots’ Campaign ? – deafening SILENCE.

There have been three recent postings dealing with the Grassroots’ projection and its evolving calculation: 1) May 1 – October 31, 2008 CFC Deficit – Where from Here?; 2) Projected CFC Revenue/Expenses for Nov. 1, 2008 – April 30, 2009; and 3) CFC Budgets – Are They Coming??. How many comments, replies, criticisms have you seen posted on any of the three Canadian chess chat discussion boards by any of the CFC Executive? Initially they responded on their own board – there were 6 replies on the CFC Chess Forum to the first post ( none on ChessTalk or the Ottawa CC Discussion Board ). But then they went SILENT – no responses on any boards to the 2nd and 3rd posts ( except the picture-only “ tank “ post on CFC Chess Forum ).

At some point after the first post, CFC President David Lavin changed strategy, and decided no longer to debate in front of the membership in public. He advised me privately that he would not reply post to me any more ( he said because I posted on multiple boards – you evaluate whether that is a reason not to post on his own CFC Chess Forum ). Has he now muzzled the other members of the Executive too?

Why is the CFC afraid to talk about the elephant in the room in public? The Grassroots’ Campaign has developed a 2nd half budget, carefully measured against the actual 1st half expenses. Why can’t CFC do the same? Privately the President and Treasurer have said the Grassroots’ figures are “ off base “. If so, why won’t they disclose their own figures in public ( and I drafted and sent to them a blank 2nd half budget statement to complete, that can be understood by a layman, to make it easy on them )?

The Grassroots’ Campaign has asked for cuts in office expenses, staff salaries and the E-zine ( on-line Chess Canada ) NOW to try to deal with the elephant in our room THIS YEAR ( the full Grassroots' Platform on Restructuring will soon be published ). Again - - CFC response - - public silence.

Is the CFC Executive just resignedly accepting this deficit?

Governors run the CFC and are responsible for its well-being – they need to direct the Executive as to general policies to be followed. They should look closely at this elephant and decide if they agree with the Executive direction ( non-direction? ) on this issue. And the Governors should not let themselves also be muzzled. They should, in public, express their views to the membership, ask for input, and engage in debate. The membership can provide valuable ideas.

This would move things forward – and the elephant would get discussed – as it should be.

Bob
( Because of David’s position on posting, I will not copy this post from the CFC Chess Forum for 2 days. And if he or other executive post in reply, when I copy to other boards, I will also copy their comments, so there is full disclosure at all sites.)

[Bob Gillanders]

But seriously Bob,

We are all currently focused on achieving 3 goals,

1. Vacating the CFC Condo by Jan 15th
2. Giving birth to the webzine
3. Balancing the budget for fiscal 2010 (starting May 1, 2009).

Achieving these goals are critical to our continued improvement. Our best course of action is to remain focused on these goals.

I hope you can be just a little more patient.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I very much appreciate you publicly responding so quickly on behalf of the CFC so the members know where the CFC stands on the issue raised in this post.

So the answer is that CFC will NOT discuss the elephant in the room ( the $ 24,700 deficit projected for 2008-9 ) because CFC is " focused " on the 3 current goals you set out. Well, it is at least an answer that the CFC members can now evaluate for themselves.

The Grassroots' Campaign's comments on the 3 current CFC goals are:

1. Vacating the CFC Condo by Jan 15th - GC Comment : seems like a good goal - good luck with the move;
2. Giving birth to the webzine - GC Comment - How can CFC afford it with a GC projected deficit this year of $ 24,700 ( Former CFC President and Treasurer Peter Stockhausen estimated it would cost $ 10,000/year, and we fear he may be low ) ?
3. Balancing the budget for fiscal 2010 (starting May 1, 2009). - GC Comment : Cuts will be necessary before May 1, 2009 in order to have any hope of coming out with a balanced 2009-10 budget.

GC fears " patience " is costing the CFC money it cannot afford.

We do acknowledge the good progress made by the CFC this year so far. We also hope for CFC's " continued improvement " and will hopefully watch CFC's steps in the final 4 months of this fiscal year.

Bob

[Ken Craft]

Meet the new executive, same as the old one. Transparency is not its strong suit.

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob,

I see you have followed thru with your "promise" of copying our responses on this thread to chesstalk.

Do you really feel this is necessary? I don't think so. We are discussing the finances of the CFC, an important issue. I feel it is reasonable to ask that interested parties make the small extra effort to visit CFC forum.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I would like to be able to post only on CFC Chess Forum. As you know, I was the one who initiated reviving it when it had been closed for some time.

But I have monitored the " views " to multiple thread postings, and consistently I have found at least double the rate of " views " at ChessTalk to CFC Chess Forum. So there are more members who go to ChessTalk than the CFC Chess Forum ( though the Chess Forum seems to have developed a reasonable following since it began ). And some CFC members do not come here, though they go to ChessTalk. So if I wish to reach members on something important, then I must also post on ChessTalk.

You will notice that often I do post ONLY on CFC Chess Forum, where I am not concerned that all members see it ( eg. My current post on top FIDE Canadians ). And often I post on CFC Chess Forum, and don't copy it for one or two days to ChessTalk. I do this specifically to promote the CFC Chess Forum. There must be posts of interest here that are not on ChessTalk, to help keep it interesting, and to entice " viewers/posters " to check it out on a regular basis.

I am the biggest booster of the CFC Chess Forum. I post here more than any other member.

And I post here more than Governors, who should be posting here and debating with the membership on CFC issues here on their own discussion board. But they aren't. Why not? They could bring issues from their private discussion board here for debate/dialogue with members. I hope they will in future.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

What has been the CFC response to this revelation by the Grassroots’ Campaign ? – deafening SILENCE.

What do you mean by the CFC in this sentence?

Does your group of grass-cutters consist of the CFC governors? Then they must act with Motions and not with press releases!!!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

Unfortunately, it is my experience that Governors will not generally join grassroots' movements, where this movement intends to bring motions, that are then coming before those governors for vote. I had governors in the original group of the Grassroots' Campaign. They have all withdrawn, though nearly all of them have asserted that they still support the movement, but didn't think their names should be attached to a platform as endorsers.

I don't agree with this. Why can't governors stand up and be counted right at the beginning? It is not a conflict of interest. They have a right to take up causes and try to get them to successful vote, just like ordinary members.

And " press releases " are necessary to build member support for some position, and to convince governors of its correctness through public debate of the members.

Then we hope a governor will take up the cause, and bring the necessary " Motion "!!

The Grassroots' Campaign has suggested various cuts NOW to reduce the elephant in the room ( the projected $ 24,700 deficit for 2008-9 ). If governors are concerned about this, why doesn't one of them bring a " Motion " of their own accord? The Grassroots' Campaign would willingly support them.

As a last resort, if no Governors bestir themselves, then the GC does seek out a sympathetic governor to bring the necessary motion(s) - remember our famous " gang of 7 " on CFC Restructuring straw vote motions that went to the July 2008 CFC AGM in Montreal? Remember the " gang of 4 " governors who brought the recent 3 motions on CFC Fees ( which were withdrawn in favour of the Executive's motion on fees - speaking of which, when is the CFC going to hold its full " Review on CFC Fees " so that we can make our submission to it ? ).

If necessary, we will be bringing motions. We were asked to lay off for the moment while CFC pursues 3 current goals. We are being patient...for a short while.

Bob

[Michael Barron]

Hi Bob:

You're doing a good work stirring the pot, but you should understand that Governors in general represent many people with different opinions, and as such they can't endorse controversial ideas.
If you want wider suport for the Grassroots' Campaign, you should remove from it's platform all issues that could cause controversy.

For example, I support your recent Platform on CFC Restructuring (with possible slight modifications):

"1. Office Expenses:
CFC must move to an “ E.D. Home Office “ arrangement.

2. Staff Salaries, Benefits and Travel :
These costs must be dramatically reduced; we recommend elimination of the CFC part-time staff position.

We believe that only if steps # 1 and # 2 above are implemented, will there be a possibility of a balanced 2009-10 budget, and the CFC be able to avoid step # 3 below.

3. On-line Chess Canada :
The CFC must revisit its commitment to an on-line Chess Canada, as being a projected $ 10,000 annually ( and this may be low ) we cannot currently afford, if it causes CFC to run a deficit in 2009-10. Work should temporarily be suspended on it until it is clear CFC can afford it."

I could add that the CFC Executive are currently discussing the future of the CFC Office.
The continuity of the CFC Office operations is the main priority in transition period.

CFC budget and CFC Office arrangement are related issues.
The main question is: ""What does the CFC need the money for?"

I believe, that the CFC needs the money to implement the stated objectives of the organization: to promote the game of chess in Canada and organize chess competitions.
This work requires dedicated people, time and money to be done properly.
The main task here - to approach prospective corporate sponsors and attract additional funds for Canadian chess.

Gordon Ritchie had shown in 2007 that this is possible.
To bring some fruits this work should be done on regular basis - event after event, year after year.

I think, the CFC should allocate at least half of available resources for this task.
If Grassroots' Campaign would support this idea, it could improve image of chess in Canada, help to organize National Chess Championships and bring additional revenue for the CFC.

But there could be different opinions...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

Thanks very much for sharing, as a Governor, and Executive, your views with the membership. I hope it generates some good discussion.

And you are right - if ideas are controversial, then you will have some supporting, and some opposing. And sometimes to move forward, ideas will have to be controversial. You must work with who you have, and try to convert those on the other side.

I appreciate your support for the Grassroots' Campaign Platform on Restructuring. I know it is a difficult and critical time for the CFC with the office unit now gone. I'm sure there are many ideas among the Executive as to how to proceed now. We proposed these cuts now, because CFC is starting afresh on Jan. 15, and because we projected a $ 24,700 deficit for this year, and had hoped it might be pared down a little with cuts now. We realize that CFC has a lot on its plate at one time, and handling everything at once is certainly not easy.

Hopefully the more streamlined CFC of the future will be better able to carry out its goals you mention ( " to promote the game of chess in Canada, and organize chess competitions " ), and to focus more on sponsorship.

Bob