Review of CFC Fees?

[Bob Armstrong]

In July 2008 in Montreal at the CFC AGM, the governors passed a motion changing a number of membership categories and CFC fees as of January 1, 2009. Then in 2008/09 GL 2, the Executive brought the following motion

Motion 2009-06: (Moved Michael Barron, Seconded Lyle Craver)
To reconsider Les Bunning/Peter Stockhausen motion regarding membership and rating fees passed at the AGM.

President David Lavin stated that he supported motion 2009-06. In that GL he went on to state:

" I stated when running for the CFC Presidency that we need a holistic solution to the problems that the CFC is facing. These ad hoc motions [ 3 Grassroots' Camaign motions on CFC Fees ] moved by Barry Thorvardson and seconded by Garry Gladstone do not take into account the overall operating budget of the CFC. Financial decisions made in a vacuum are foolish in the extreme. Until the effect of the implementation of SwissSys, the outsourcing of the book and equipment business to FEN, and the implementation of the new ezine are clear, we lack the information required to make an informed decision on what membership and rating fees should be. "

The motion was passed in December 2008 reinstituting the old regime of membership and fees, without any changes. The Grassroots' Campaign withdrew its 3 motions in favour of the Executive motion.

The restructuring David was referring to has now been concluded.

I have been advised that the governors are now working on trying to develop a balanced budget for 2009-10.

The Grassroots' Campaign would like to know if the Governors will now be carrying out a full review of CFC fees as part of the budget setting process, and fixing revenue for the coming year? If they will be, who will be doing it, and when? Will the review be accepting input from the membership as part of this review?

Bob

[Peter Stockhausen]

Hi Bob,

Very Interesting.

I wonder who "advised you" that the Governors are working on a "balanced budget"? Can you tell or is it "Deep Roots"?

This Governor has not heard about this at all, which is probably a good thing. After all, can you picture 50+ people (most of whom are numerically challenged) trying to come with a budget?

Cheers
Peter

[Peter Stockhausen]

Hi Bob,

Very Interesting.

I wonder who "advised you" that the Governors are working on a "balanced budget"? Can you tell or is it "Deep Roots"?

This Governor has not heard about this at all, which is probably a good thing. After all, can you picture 50+ people (most of whom are numerically challenged) trying to come with a budget?

Cheers
Peter

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Peter:

I cannot tell a lie - it was Bob G [ = Deep Roots ] NOT talking about the elephant:

01-06-2009, 10:25 PM
Bob Gillanders
CFC Executive Director

Anyone know where we left the elephant gun ?

But seriously Bob,

We are all currently focused on achieving 3 goals,

1......
2. ......
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 [ G ]

I hope someone of the governors knows about this - it's one of the reasons the CFC won't discuss the elephant ( the looming $ 24,700 [ Grassroots projection BEFORE the cuts to salary and office expenses on Jan. 15 ] deficit for 2008-9 ).

Bob A.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Peter:

On a related point - do the Executive ever tell the Governors what they are doing? ( or consult them ? )

Bob

[Kerry Liles]

Hi Peter:

On a related point - do the Executive ever tell the Governors what they are doing? ( or consult them ? )

Bob

Yes, via the GL.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Kerry:

That's really great ! It means that I have as much information as an ordinary member as the Governors ( just delayed a few days, since you get the GL earlier than I do ).

But will I, as a member, still be getting the GL in future? The new webzine doesn't post them anymore !!! Worriesome....For the moment I can go to the " Legacy " link, and get them off the old website...but how long is that going to last???

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Bob, please stop worrying about nothing.

The reason there is still a "legacy" site is because the new site does not have all features implemented. It will last until it is no longer needed.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

Thx - I'm somewhat relieved.

How about an anwer to the questions in the original post now??

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

It has now been a week since I made the original post in this thread, to the CFC Executive. I had anticipated a quick reply from either CFC Treasurer Chris Mallon, or CFC President, David Lavin. But this was not to be - we, the CFC members, have received no reply. They ignore us when they want to.

Bob G, CFC ED, assured us that CFC was going full tilt now at trying to develop a balanced budget for 2009-10. Well part of setting a budget is knowing your revenue. And part of revenue ( the lion's share in CFC ) is from CFC Fees ( membership and rating ). So it makes sense to us, that you would want to know, in fixing the buget, whether it was necessary to adjust fees - seems like a no-brainer. So CFC must know whether or not they intend to review CFC fees.

So our questions should be quite simple to answer; they were:

" The Grassroots' Campaign would like to know if the Governors will now be carrying out a full review of CFC fees as part of the budget setting process, and fixing revenue for the coming year? If they will be, who will be doing it, and when? Will the review be accepting input from the membership as part of this review? "

Why are these proving so difficult to answer, especially if they are now fixing the 2009-10 balance budget ? Surely they know if they are going to review CFC Fees!

So why are Chris and David unwilling to tell us, and answer these simple questions?

Maybe you can help us understand this - why do you think they are refusing to answer the membership on this?

Are the fees considered too controversial an issue to tackle at this time? If so, just say : " NO - we're not doing a full review of CFC fees. "

Seems to be a communication failure here.

We hoped the Governors were going to take the initiative here, especially after the debacle of passing CFC fees changes at the July, 2008 CFC AGM, and then in December rescinding them, so nothing changed. We hoped that we could present our brief to them on CFC Fees, and leave it up to them to decide whether to implement our proposals.

In the light of total failure of communication on this issue, what are we now to do?

Unfortunately, it seems again the CFC Executive is forcing US into resubmitting our motions on CFC Fees directly to the Governors for a vote, rather than the Governors bringing the necessary motions based on our proposals ( we had originally withdrawn our 3 fees motions, brought in the fall of 2008, believing that the CFC Governors were intending to hold a fees review, once they had rescinded the AGM fees motion; now we find ourselves with nothing happening ).

We didn't want to go through the hoops again of bringing motions as ordinary members, but I guess we have no choice, in the face of Executive lack of communication, and Governor paralysis.

The Grassroots' Campaign will continue toward the implementation of its platform.

Bob