Review of CFC Fees?

[Ken Craft]

I presume their will be a new recommendation by the AGM.
I would be very surprised if the Grassroots motions passed if they were reintroduced.
Yes, Bob, the executive should answer your questions publicly.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

Thanks for encouraging the CFC Executive to answer member questions publicly.

As to a new fees recommendation, do you not think it would be better to do it BEFORE the start of the upcoming fiscal year on May 1, rather than wait 'til the AGM in July?

Bob

[Paul Leblanc]

My gut feeling is that it would be prudent to maintain the status quo on membership and rating fees until we get at least one year of financial results after implementing the recent cost saving measures.
Here is my reasoning: There would be huge resistance to an increase in fees given the cancellation of the paper magazine. On the other hand, a cut in fees would be immediately seized upon as the new status quo and make it almost impossible to raise them again if the financial forecast doesn't turn out as rosy as hoped.
As to why the Executive has not made a decision on this, I suppose they are waiting for further data on the cost of the on line magazine and the revenue from the new method of on-line sales before trying to forecast their overall revenue needs. In other words, getting a good grip on costs before determining what revenue is needed instead of the other way around. It may be a prudent way of approaching the issue.
Just my two cents worth, Bob.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Paul:

You may well be right. What you say makes sense.

I have had some members of the Grassroots' Campaign also take this position with me - that it may be a bit premature to do a review on fees yet - that we need to see the " new costs of running CFC ", now that the restructuring is done, before we know if we should raise CFC fees, or even whether some might be able to be cut.

In the light of your comments, I think I will again canvas the Grassroots' Campaign group, to see if they agree with you that it is premature for us to bring our three CFC fees motions back on the table, and indeed, for the Governors to yet do a review.

It seems from Governor Ken Craft's post, that he would not expect a recommendation on fees until the July CFC AGM, that he also agrees with you.

We will review our position in the light of the comments posted here.

This members' discussion board seems to be fulfilling its mandate, in the light of this most useful debate.

It is too bad that the Executive do not join in more, and that more Governors do not participate.

Bob

[Michael Barron]

Hi Bob:

I can confirm that the CFC Executive are really trying now to develop a balanced budget for 2009-10.
You're right - a part of setting a budget is knowing your revenue.
Another part - is knowing your expenses.
And expenses depend on organization's goal.

What is a goal of the Chess Federation of Canada?
Is it merely to survive one more year?
Or - as the CFC website http://www.chess.ca/about_us.htm says -
to promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada?

I believe, before balancing the budget we need to answer this fundamental question:
What does the CFC need the money for?

All other decisions will depend on this answer.
Open discussion of this matter could help us to make right decisions for the benefit of chess in Canada.

To facilitate this discussion I would like to propose the following Motion:
"The CFC as organization should undertake the following tasks and could spend up to 50% of available resources (subject to the Assembly of Governors approval) for:
1) support local chess clubs and organizers;
2) organization and promotion of Canadian Chess Championships;
3) negotiations with prospective corporate and government sponsors;
4) support elite players representing Canada at International chess competitions."

I'm still looking for a seconder...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

I believe the membership will be most appreciative of the fact that you have raised your issue in the members' discussion board, so they can respond. Hopefully more governors will follow your lead.

I agree that now that restructuring has occurred, and the house seems to be almost back in order ( if the CFC can actually produce a balanced 2009-10 budget, that is realistic and achievable ), it is time to step back and once again look at the core goals of the CFC - clearly two of these, in my opinion are:

1. promote chess in Canada - this involves work with media and marketing our product; it also involves supporting organizers to provide a variety of tournaments that will draw in new players, not just existing CFC tournament regulars. It also involves promoting casual chess as a liesure activity, to make it a more mainstream activity in Canadian society.

2. selling memberships in the CFC - this is mainly done through getting new players into tournament play, and maintaining existing members through regular renewals. The tournament play is both in weekend/longer tournaments, and in chess clubs across Canada. This is critical to the survival of the CFC since a lion's share of the CFC revenue comes through memberships.

The other priorities you mention in your motion are also important, but I put them after my first two.

I wish you luck on your motion. I am somewhat concerned about its comprehensiveness - this sometimes leads to a diluting down of support because everyone has varying opinions, the more things that are included. As well, I am not sure how easy it will be to monitor the expenditure side of your motion - how to measure the items comprising the 50% of revenue allocated.

But it seems a good start at trying now to get CFC aligned with its core objectives.

Bob

[Paul Leblanc]

By "up to 50% of available resources", do you mean:

Annual Revenue minus fixed expenses = available resources. Up to 50% of that could be spent annually on the stated goals.

If so, I think your motion has some potential.

[Garland Best]

Hi Bob:

To facilitate this discussion I would like to propose the following Motion:
"The CFC as organization should undertake the following tasks and could spend up to 50% of available resources (subject to the Assembly of Governors approval) for:
1) support local chess clubs and organizers;
2) organization and promotion of Canadian Chess Championships;
3) negotiations with prospective corporate and government sponsors;
4) support elite players representing Canada at International chess competitions."

I'm still looking for a seconder...

Michael, as written, this motion is meaningless. Quite simply it is too vague.
- "Up to 50%" can mean 0%.
- As noted, available resources is not defined. If we are running a deficit, does that mean no resources are available?
- Each task has no definition. "support local chess clubs and organizers" could range from posting their names on a website to subsidizing their operations.

I strongly advise that you reconsider your motion.

The current executive appears to be close to acheiving it's initial goal, namely ensuring the expenses of basic services do not exceed the CFC's income. Only once that goal is reached, and we have a realistic forecast of income and expenses can we consider how to spend the leftover money to further promote chess in Canada. And this has to be directed to specific actions, not vague goals.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Paul:

You [ Governor Paul Leblanc ] may well be right. What you say makes sense....

In the light of your comments, I think I will again canvas the Grassroots' Campaign group, to see if they agree with you that it is premature for us to bring our three CFC fees motions back on the table, and indeed, for the Governors to yet do a review.......

We will review our position in the light of the comments posted here.

Bob

Hi Paul:

As a result of your considered intervention, and similar ones raised within the Grassroots' Campaign by some members, the GC did carry our an internal review of our stratey on the CFC Review of CFC Fees, and what to do about our motions on CFC fees. As a result of this consultation, I then wrote to the GC endorsers/supporters as follows:

" February 7, 2009

Hi to All Grassroots’ Campaign Endorsers/Supporters:

We currently have a 3-pronged Platform on CFC Fees, based on the original three motions we brought before the Governors in the Fall of 2008, and which we subsequently withdrew, when the Executive indicated they wanted to rescind their own July 2008 CFC AGM motion on fees. The CFC President, David Lavin, felt then that the fees issue had to be dealt with in the context of the overall financial situation of the CFC.

Since CFC restructuring ( most of which we had campaigned for ) has now been completed, we had been applying public pressure on the Governors to hold a full review of CFC fees. We wanted to submit our Platform to the review and let the Governors determine whether to include our proposals in their final recommendation on fees.

Unfortunately, David was not forthcoming as to whether the Governors would be carrying out such a review. He refused to answer our question as to whether the CFC would be carrying out a Review of Fees. In the meantime our platform languished.

However, some Grassroots’ers and some posters on the CFC Chess Forum indicated to us that we should review our policy, and that it was premature to demand a full CFC Review on CFC Fees, and to bring back on our 3 redrafted motions, based on our platform. The financial picture was not yet clear enough, despite restructuring having occurred.

As a result, there was a consultation among the Grassroots’ Campaign to determine if we should change our strategy. Numbers of Grassroots’ers provided me with their opinions, and we took into account the opinions of other CFC members who had posted on the members’ CFC Chess Forum.

Out of this consultation, the Grassroots’ Campaign has decided to change its strategy. A consensus has now developed among Grassroots’ers that:

1. I will now draft the three motions on CFC Fees, based on our current Platform, so that they are available to be filed with the CFC on short notice; we will ask the prior Governor movers/seconders to again be prepared to move the motions;

2.We will sit on these 3 motions for a while to see what, if anything, the CFC does towards a full CFC fees review; our motions will be most effective if brought within a CFC Review;

3. We will cease pressuring CFC to hold an immediate full CFC fees review. We can renew this request in future , when the CFC financial picture is clearer ( perhaps once they have issued the hoped-for balanced 2009-10 budget, for the year starting May 1 ); and

4.The situation will be monitored and from time to time we will reassess whether to renew our request for a full fees review, and whether to submit our three motions, regardless of review or not.

Thanks to all who contributed to this debate. The outcome seems most reasonable.

As usual, thanks for your continuing support of our efforts to implement the balance of the platform we initiated back in the summer of 2008.

Bob "

Thank you Paul for your willingness as a Governor to dialogue here on the members' discussion board with the Grassroots' Campaign. We were influenced significantly by what you said, and so now have the new position set out above. We agree that this new position seems more adventageous to all involved. We will now monitor the situation, and give the CFC more breathing room to clarify its financial situation.

We hope that more governors will enter into discussion with members here on this board. Recently we have seen posting Chris Mallon, Michael Barron, Ken Craft, Peter Stockhausen, Egis Zeromskis and yourself ( hope I didn't leave any Governor out ). We hope to see those numbers increase, as the effectiveness of debate on this board is more greatly acknowledged.

And we hope that ordinary members will continue to post here, and in greater numbers, to make full use of this most effective tool for member dialogue.

I was the one who initially approached Chris Mallon to revive this board after it had been left closed for some timie by the CFC. He got approval from President David Lavin to go ahead and revive it. I am pleased to see that it has matured into a good national chess discussion website, alongside ChessTalk ( and some would argue the Ottawa CC Message Board ), and that it is proving an effective tool for moving forward CFC matters.

Our 4 GC Motions are:

Motion # 1:
Junior Rating Fee: Should the CFC see fit to raise rating fees in future, on no account shall the junior rating fee be increased more than 100% ( that is, at maximum a raise from $ 0.50 to $ 1 )

Motion # 2:
Tournament Playing Fee ( = “ tournament membership “ ): Section 375 of Section 3 ( Motions Applicable to No Other Section ) of the CFC Handbook is deleted.

Motion # 3:
Tournament Playing Fee: Should Motion # 2 above fail, Section 375 of Section 3 ( Motions Applicable to No Other Section ) of the CFC Handbook, shall be amended by :

i ) deleting in the first sentence the words: “ for first time players in CFC events, for foreign players, and for players whose name does not appear on the last Annual List, “;
ii ) deleting the amount “ $ 10.00 “, and substituting for it the amount “ $ 20.00 “, subject to obtaining the consent of the provinces/territories for their portion of the fee also increasing 100%;
iii ) deleting the words in the second sentence: “, one copy of the magazine, and an invitation to join the CFC “.

Motion # 4:
First Time CFC Member Discount : If the tournament playing fee is eliminated, section 375 of the CFC Handbook will become:

375. First Time CFC Member Discount: An annual membership discount of 40% will be given for first time CFC members ( CFC will publish a rounded off figure for the convenience of organizers ).


Bob

[Michael Barron]

Thank you, Bob, Paul and Garland, for your feedback!

Yes,
Annual Revenue minus fixed expenses = available resources. Up to 50% of that could be spent annually on the stated goals.

Yes,
this motion is too vague. It's invitation for discussion. It could be modified as result of comments from CFC members and Governors.

As Egidijus said in another thread, the question is not how much but for what.
The Executive are working now on preparing balanced budget for next financial year, and I would like to see in the budget some chess programs, even with $0 cost.

I strongly advise that we first consider what for we need money, then how much we need, and only then how can we get necessary funds, otherwise we always will be running a deficit.