Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: 7C, Life Memberships (Mallon / Zeromskis)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    Chris, thank you for bringing this motion forward. I think it is a no brainer. IMHO, right from day 1 of the Life Membership program, the CFC should have been collecting a provincial share on behalf of the provincial affiliates. For whatever silly political reason it wasn’t done? I wonder if anyone even remembers why not? Before my time!

    Anyway, even though it is 50+ years late, let’s get it corrected now. I will be voting YES.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,140
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Vlad this is getting a little OT for this thread but I don't see that implemented NFP-compliant bylaws for the government as automatically invalidating the entire CFC handbook. We just have to make sure to take out anything that would conflict with those new rules.

    Also I've stated elsewhere repeatedly that some regulation amendments should still require the super-majority to change under the new rules, even if they are not part of what we file with the government.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Thanks Lyle, I mis-read the motion. Now I see that the motion would require new life members to also purchase provincial life memberships where applicable. What about existing CFC life members? Also, I can't think of any reason any of the provincial associations would disagree so perhaps they don't need to be consulted(?)
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,140
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    It would be entirely going-forward. It requires that at the time of selling a CFC Life Membership, if any fees are due to the province those must be collected at the same time.

    In other words, no different than regular annual memberships.

    The motion does not affect who does or does not have Provincial membership, it's merely ensuring that any designated fees are collected.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  5. #15

    Default

    As a CFC life member resident in Ontario, I have never been required to pay OCA fees.
    It seems to me that by far the best way to handle this is to collect the Life Membership fees as stipulated, and for the CFC to remit a portion to the provincial association in which the given life member resides.
    The amount of this portion could possibly be ten times the average provincial association annual fee. The exact amount would be determined by the governors.
    This means that all provincial associations would get the same amount. It would be a large enough amount to cover any costs to the provincial association on behalf of that life member.

    If such a life member should later move to another province, surely the new provincial association must accept the life member without receiving any portion of any fee. This is required simply as being part of the CFC, as the province is a part of the Dominion of Canada. After all, what real expenses does a provincial association entail in accommodating such a life member?

    As I understand it, life membership fees are invested by the Chess Foundation; from this, revenue is paid annually to the CFC to assist with expenses incurred on behalf of all members: website, magazine (mainly). The amount returned annually may or may not equate to an approximation of one annual fee for each life member; the return would depend upon the dividends or interest realised by the Foundation's investments. Reducing the initial investment per life member by giving a portion to the member's current provincial association would not greatly affect the returns on investment. But this would assist all provincial associations where players purchase life memberships over time.

  6. #16

    Default

    As a CFC life member resident in Ontario, I have never been required to pay OCA fees.
    It seems to me that by far the best way to handle this is to collect the Life Membership fees as stipulated, and for the CFC to remit a portion to the provincial association in which the given life member resides.
    The amount of this portion could possibly be ten times the average provincial association annual fee. The exact amount would be determined by the governors.
    This means that all provincial associations would get the same amount. It would be a large enough amount to cover any costs to the provincial association on behalf of that life member.

    If such a life member should later move to another province, surely the new provincial association must accept the life member without receiving any portion of any fee. This is required simply as being part of the CFC, as the province is a part of the Dominion of Canada. After all, what real expenses does a provincial association entail in accommodating such a life member?

    As I understand it, life membership fees are invested by the Chess Foundation; from this, revenue is paid annually to the CFC to assist with expenses incurred on behalf of all members: website, magazine (mainly). The amount returned annually may or may not equate to an approximation of one annual fee for each life member; the return would depend upon the dividends or interest realised by the Foundation's investments. Reducing the initial investment per life member by giving a portion to the member's current provincial association would not greatly affect the returns on investment. But this would assist all provincial associations where players purchase life memberships over time.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    What Chris says would make a lot of sense IF all provincial associations currently offer life memberships.

    I'm not familiar with all province's practices but as BCCF provincial secretary can tell you definitively that BC did (and did when I paid mine) but does not now.

    Given BC's current financial model depends on all members paying on a per tournament basis the proposed motion would have the effect of working directly against BC's interests. (And I say that as one who voted against the current provincial fee structure)

    [What I'm trying to say gently is that while I supported and still do support the sort of structure Chris M advocates, the majority of my federation's members voted otherwise and as both a CFC Executive member and an elected Governor from British Columbia I must express the mood of our provincial federation even though I may or may not agree with it - in my dual roles I have to speak for what I perceive to be the interests of players nationally and provincially and this is one of the rare times they are in direct conflict. Paul and Mark are in the same position]

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    What Chris says would make a lot of sense IF all provincial associations currently offer life memberships.

    I'm not familiar with all province's practices but as BCCF provincial secretary can tell you definitively that BC did (and did when I paid mine) but does not now.

    Given BC's current financial model depends on all members paying on a per tournament basis the proposed motion would have the effect of working directly against BC's interests.
    Lyle, I think you missed a comment from Chris M. earlier. This motion would have no effect on BC finances. A few years ago the BCCF adopted a per tournament fee structure instead of annual provincial dues. CFC accommodated the change, no problem. Provinces will continue to be in charge of their revenues, CFC is merely helping in the administration of collecting dues.

    As I see this going forward, it will be up to provincial affiliates to advise the CFC if they wish to impose a Provincial Life Membership on its members. Until that time, nothing is collected.
    Last edited by Bob Gillanders; 01-06-2014 at 07:00 PM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,140
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Exactly what Bob said. The motion does not IMPOSE a fee or certain fee structure, it simply requires the CFC to collect that fee should a province choose to require it. Which should be a no-brainer but apparently is not.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Field View Post
    As a CFC life member resident in Ontario, I have never been required to pay OCA fees.
    It seems to me that by far the best way to handle this is to collect the Life Membership fees as stipulated, and for the CFC to remit a portion to the provincial association in which the given life member resides.
    The amount of this portion could possibly be ten times the average provincial association annual fee. The exact amount would be determined by the governors.
    This means that all provincial associations would get the same amount. It would be a large enough amount to cover any costs to the provincial association on behalf of that life member.

    If such a life member should later move to another province, surely the new provincial association must accept the life member without receiving any portion of any fee. This is required simply as being part of the CFC, as the province is a part of the Dominion of Canada. After all, what real expenses does a provincial association entail in accommodating such a life member?

    As I understand it, life membership fees are invested by the Chess Foundation; from this, revenue is paid annually to the CFC to assist with expenses incurred on behalf of all members: website, magazine (mainly). The amount returned annually may or may not equate to an approximation of one annual fee for each life member; the return would depend upon the dividends or interest realised by the Foundation's investments. Reducing the initial investment per life member by giving a portion to the member's current provincial association would not greatly affect the returns on investment. But this would assist all provincial associations where players purchase life memberships over time.
    What I am getting at here is that it will keep it a lot more simple to ask the CFC only to collect one standard fee.
    Remit something to the provincial association. This doesn't have to be huge, but something is better than, and fairer, than the current nothing.
    Offering life memberships is good for the organisation.
    Keeping it simple is best.
    I feel that Chris M's motion would make it extremely complex for everyone - for the applicant trying to understand what he or she owes, for the admin.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •