Quote Originally Posted by Garland Best View Post
I don't think Yelizaveta realizes what can happen when she writes "Also, if I go as a coach next year, I will not have any problems being a guardian for anyone 14 years and older. If the budget towards having a family member to come is hectic, the child can use myself or another coach as a guardian."

I run a scout venturers troup for six boys, ages 15 and 16. To do this for Scouts Canada I needed FIVE character references, both male and female, undergo interviews, and go though a full police check.
The problem even with this somewhat stringent procedure is that someone like former hockey coach Graham James or any number of members of the clergy who have been later charged with crimes against children would no doubt have easily gotten the requisite character references and passed the police clearance.

In addition I have to go through tens of hours of online training. All for good reason. The liabilities associated with being responsible for youths are horrendous. If something ever went wrong on one of these events, the repercussions could destroy the CFC.
It would simply not be possible for someone who is acting as a coach for ten players to adequately supervise them in a foreign country and undertake to provide the chess coaching required. The CFC can find coaches but finding guardians is extremely dangerous. The members of the executive would also be exposed to the loss of all of their assets if something ever went horribly wrong. The laws of entropy assure that the potential for things to go horribly wrong is there always and it doesn't even have to be in any way the fault of the coach/guardian for the consequences to the child, the coach, the CFC and the liable members of the board to be catastrophic.

I'm sure the CFC Youth Commitee is well aware of these concerns and follows some set of rules and guidelines. However just compare the two organizations and you will see just how poorly protected we are.
This is grounds for concern.