5P. Report on Donation from Saskatchewan Chess Association (MOTION ENCLOSED!!!)

[Christopher Mallon]

Bob and/or Paul would you be willing to work with me on a plan to set up official Provincial accounts with the Foundation? The provinces could choose to either receive interest payouts like the CFC does from their share, or to allow the interest to accumulate in their share? Combined with this would be an explicit section in the Handbook stating that the CFC collects provincial Life dues at whatever rate is set by the Provinces, and remits them to the Provincial accounts?

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob and/or Paul would you be willing to work with me on a plan to set up official Provincial accounts with the Foundation? The provinces could choose to either receive interest payouts like the CFC does from their share, or to allow the interest to accumulate in their share? Combined with this would be an explicit section in the Handbook stating that the CFC collects provincial Life dues at whatever rate is set by the Provinces, and remits them to the Provincial accounts?

Oops, now I see possibly maybe why provincial life shares may have been omitted (or forgotten) in the original makeup of the life memberships plan, this is way too much administration for tiny bits of money.

I would prefer the following: if Life membership is say $400 and Ontario wants a 15% share, or $60, just collect $460 from member, $400 goes to foundation and $60 just goes directly to OCA. Otherwise, maybe we just forget about it. Simplicity does have benefits.

[Christopher Mallon]

Oops, now I see possibly maybe why provincial life shares may have been omitted (or forgotten) in the original makeup of the life memberships plan, this is way too much administration for tiny bits of money.

I would prefer the following: if Life membership is say $400 and Ontario wants a 15% share, or $60, just collect $460 from member, $400 goes to foundation and $60 just goes directly to OCA. Otherwise, maybe we just forget about it. Simplicity does have benefits.

That *would* certainly be better than the status quo. However - the problem is that gets lost in general funds. How would the CFC Governors like it if we put life membership fees into general funds rather than the Foundation? Probably not very much.

The "bits" of money would only be tiny initially. The whole foundation was once rather tiny compared to its current value.

It might be a "tiny bit" of money for the big CFC but for the OCA with an annual budget of under $6000 it's a bigger issue. Having 178 Life members in Ontario means that likely most of those have not (and will not) be paying OCA membership dues - and there is apparently nothing the OCA can do about that.

Really, it just comes down to a few extra cheques per year that the CFC must write... is it really THAT big of an administrative headache?

[Lyle Craver]

That *would* certainly be better than the status quo. However - the problem is that gets lost in general funds. How would the CFC Governors like it if we put life membership fees into general funds rather than the Foundation? Probably not very much.

The "bits" of money would only be tiny initially. The whole foundation was once rather tiny compared to its current value.

It might be a "tiny bit" of money for the big CFC but for the OCA with an annual budget of under $6000 it's a bigger issue. Having 178 Life members in Ontario means that likely most of those have not (and will not) be paying OCA membership dues - and there is apparently nothing the OCA can do about that.

Really, it just comes down to a few extra cheques per year that the CFC must write... is it really THAT big of an administrative headache?

In BC the "life shares" have always been paid to the BCCF directly and placed in the BC Chess Foundation - there are like in Ontario a lot of CFC life members who are not BCCF life members. (Not sure of the exact number from memory but between 20-25) vs 73 CFC Life Members in BC.

It's a national problem and as a provincial executive member let me say it's been a minor sore point going back to the previous century. (I.e. before 2000)

[Bob Gillanders]

In BC the "life shares" have always been paid to the BCCF directly and placed in the BC Chess Foundation - there are like in Ontario a lot of CFC life members who are not BCCF life members. (Not sure of the exact number from memory but between 20-25) vs 73 CFC Life Members in BC.

It's a national problem and as a provincial executive member let me say it's been a minor sore point going back to the previous century. (I.e. before 2000)

What? A BC Chess Foundation! oh, do tell.
So, how much money do you have?

[Garvin Nunes]

Chris,

The sunset clause I suggested was meant as a motivator to get Saskatchewan organizers to utilize the funds. Without a deadline, often things just don't get done. The flaw in your motion:

Moved Mallon/LeBlanc: The CFC contribute $5506.50 to the Foundation for Fiscal 2012-2013.

is that the intent of my original suggestion, that the funds be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan, will be lost if the funds are parked in the Foundation and forgotten about. Remember, ultimately the Foundation earnings do flow back into CFC general revenues. I believe, yourself and most others do agree with me that this money should be used in Saskatchewan. To ensure that happens, I would like to suggest the following amendment to your motion:

Add: This money will be named the Saskatchewan Fund, and is to be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan once an acceptable plan is approved by the Governors.

Are we agreed?

If I understand Bob's version of the motion correctly he has agreed with Chris Mallon's idea of putting the money in the foundation but added that when an appropriate candidate from Saskatchewan is able to start a cfc affiliated organization promoting chess in that province again the money would be given to that organization.

This version of the motion no longer has a sunset clause.

I would like to second this version of the motion.

[Paul Leblanc]

The CFC is required by the constitution to collect provincial dues and remit them to the province.

In BC everyone, including CFC life members, pays $4 per event and that is remitted to the CFC by organizers then in turn remitted to the BCCF by the CFC. This is BC's version of provincial membership fees.

There was a time when BC sold Provincial Life Memberships, and there are still actually a couple of these life members playing in events. They are exempt the $4 event fee. The BCCF website has a list of them. The money collected from the sale of BCCF life memberships went into a BC Chess Foundation and occasionally the BCCF added to the Foundation when cash on hand exceeded requirements.
If you go to the BCCF website and click on "AGM" you will see the BC Chess Foundation's Annual Report although I see the secretary hasn't posted the most recent one yet.

[Paul Leblanc]

En Passant magazine, August 1984, p.3: "Provincial membership is not included [in Life membership fees]"


En Passant magazine, August 1995, IBC: "Provincial dues are not included in Life rates."


Chess Canada magazine, August 2005, p. 3: "Provincial dues are not included in Life rates."


CFC By-Law Number One, Section 12 (http://chess.ca/handbook#lifemember): "No Per Capita Fee will be payable by or in behalf of any Life Member after he has been granted Life membership, but this will not affect his financial obligations to any Club, League, or Provincial Organization to which he may belong, save as to said annual Per Capita Fee; provided that these fees may be changed by the Assembly of Governors by resolution."

[Bob Gillanders]

If I understand Bob's version of the motion correctly he has agreed with Chris Mallon's idea of putting the money in the foundation but added that when an appropriate candidate from Saskatchewan is able to start a cfc affiliated organization promoting chess in that province again the money would be given to that organization.

This version of the motion no longer has a sunset clause.

I would like to second this version of the motion.

Thanks Garvin, but I did not intend that starting a new provincial association was a requirement, only that the plan be approved by the governors.

[Lyle Craver]

I initially made this thread a "sticky" as it contained a motion it was important all Governors see. Now the voting process is underway, I am unsticking every thread that isn't a poll (besides the agenda) - discussion is still allowed but the emphasis is on "The Voting Booth" threads.