Agenda for CFC voting members online AGM meetings July 6th-13th, 2014

[Sidney Belzberg]

Canada has always released information about how it voted and intended to vote in the past. I am not sure why this time it should be different.

It is indeed different this time. Out of the 24 votes cast only only 8 supported actual endorsement of KI. Of the 8 votes that supported actual endorsement 3 of the endorsement votes were from the executive. You seem to like "straw polls" as was the case with chess talk. Normally in an NFP "input" from voting members are in the form of real binding votes. This is to avoid scenarios of the executive doing whatever it likes when it likes. AKA corporate governance. This is especially true when at least one of the members of the executive has a self admitted conflict of interest as was publicly declared by him during the last FIDE election. This also brings up the question of why the conflicted executive did not recuse himself from this poll all together or did he?

I agree with you that despite our efforts for early endorsement that does include the US government http://en.chessbase.com/post/first-u...ess-tournament (yes Kirsan is very close friends of Putin as can be evidenced in recent news stories about him http://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpre...ss-tournament/) that if you felt it necessary to take actions to seek input of the governors that is fair game. If you actually had an overwhelming majority of voting members for endorsement or for that matter chess players (as in the poll you put up on chess talk) I would be the first to say that the result was disappointing but it reflected the will of the voting members and the CFC members. This is simply not the case.
What is not fair game is hijacking the powers of the voting members/governors. I have seen more then one voting member publicly declare that this is an embarrassment to Canadian chess but the most embarrassing thing is the lack of corporate governance now in effect.

[Fred McKim]

It was clear to me from day 1 that the decision for an endorsement at this time would be made by the FIDE Rep, with direction from the Executive. In this case the Executive was well aware of the results of a straw poll by Chess Talk Readers and another straw poll by the Class A Members (AKA Governors) when they were voting. In any event the vote was still decisive: 5 for KI and 2 abstentions.

I would suggest that those Class A Members who feel the Executive acted in bad faith, ensure a different Executive is in place effective mid-July when the AGM is over.

[Sidney Belzberg]

The vote my have been decisive although it is debatable as one of the members of the executive should have recused himself. Also the vote was not decisive when executive members are factored out. As stated in the post above the vote to not just vote to pick a candidate but also to actually endorse the candidate was supported by only a small minority as stated in my previous post above. The subject under discussion was why not just vote without endorsement? It is not clear to me why the executive would even bother with a straw poll from chess talk when it apparently does not matter to them given the decisive nature of that particular poll.
I am sure that the Class A members are well aware of their remedies and I hope that they will have alternatives to choose from at the AGM.

It was clear to me from day 1 that the decision for an endorsement at this time would be made by the FIDE Rep, with direction from the Executive. In this case the Executive was well aware of the results of a straw poll by Chess Talk Readers and another straw poll by the Class A Members (AKA Governors) when they were voting. In any event the vote was still decisive: 5 for KI and 2 abstentions.

I would suggest that those Class A Members who feel the Executive acted in bad faith, ensure a different Executive is in place effective mid-July when the AGM is over.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

The vote my have been decisive although it is debatable as one of the members of the executive should have recused himself.

On what basis? If he had done so the vote would have been just as decisive. 4 to 0 with three abstentions instead of 5 to 0 with two abstentions.

Also the vote was not decisive when executive members are factored out.

The executive were also governors and their votes can't simply be "factored out". Kirsan still received the majority of the votes even if you remove ALL of the executive votes.

Also as stated in the post above the vote to not just vote to pick a candidate but also to actually endorse the candidate was supported by only a small minority as stated in my previous post above.

You had no problem asking that same small minority to nominate and endorse Garry without any governor input. You would not be complaining if we followed the wishes of a smaller minority to endorse Garry.

The subject under discussion was why not just vote without endorsement? It is not clear to me why the executive would even bother with a straw poll from chess talk when it apparently does not matter to them given the decisive nature of that particular poll.

The chesstalk poll and threads was useful in revealing how certain people thought.

I am sure that the Class A members are well aware of their remedies and I hope that they will have alternatives to choose from at the AGM.

You seem to assume that this FIDE election issue is the central and most important one for most CFC members whether voting or non-voting. Its not. I and the board followed a fair process which had the outcome of your candidate losing. The behaviour of your candidates representatives certainly played a role in the outcome.

[Sidney Belzberg]

"You had no problem asking that same small minority to nominate and endorse Garry without any governor input. You would not be complaining if we followed the wishes of a smaller minority to endorse Garry."


I was initially told that the FIDE rep was who I was supposed to talk to. You are the one that decided to seek the input of the governors and hold a poll on chess talk. The input of the governors was very clear on the subject of endorsement . Only a small minority actually supported actual endorsement. Whether I would be complaining or not complaining is irrelevant, the fact is that you went against the input of the governors regarding endorsement as well as against the input of the poll you yourself put up on chess talk. It may not seem important but it is as many governors consider this endorsement an embarrassment to Canadian chess and but would have not had a problem with simply casting the vote via secret ballot. By the way if you have any doubt about how the CFC looks take a look at the comments on chessdom. The CFC deserves better.
Moreover the subject of whether the executive can even make the decision in the past was dealt with at the AGM. In an NFP this is done with actual votes and not "straw polls". In short corporate governance was lacking in this area.

[Sidney Belzberg]

You seem to assume that this FIDE election issue is the central and most important one for most CFC members whether voting or non-voting. Its not. I and the board followed a fair process which had the outcome of your candidate losing. The behaviour of your candidates representatives certainly played a role in the outcome.


What I assume is of no relevance. What matters is that you did not follow a fair process at all. You put up a poll and then state that its purpose is something else when your desired candidate only received a single vote. When only a small minority of your board was for endorsement you went ahead and did it anyways. Finally no disclosure has been made as to what benefits the CFC got for this endorsement or any members of the executive who publicly declared in the past that they were conflicted out. None of this justifies your outrage when the FIDE rep is told that the highest levels of the US Government support Gary Kasparov and that this could have ramifications for chess in Canada. If you ask me you put your emotions ahead of what is best for the CFC. Well Vlad you sure showed who is boss!

[Vladimir Drkulec]

It is indeed different this time. Out of the 24 votes cast only only 8 supported actual endorsement of KI. Of the 8 votes that supported actual endorsement 3 of the endorsement votes were from the executive. You seem to like "straw polls" as was the case with chess talk. Normally in an NFP "input" from voting members are in the form of real binding votes. This is to avoid scenarios of the executive doing whatever it likes when it likes. AKA corporate governance. This is especially true when at least one of the members of the executive has a self admitted conflict of interest as was publicly declared by him during the last FIDE election. This also brings up the question of why the conflicted executive did not recuse himself from this poll all together or did he?

I agree with you that despite our efforts for early endorsement that does include the US government http://en.chessbase.com/post/first-u...ess-tournament (yes Kirsan is very close friends of Putin as can be evidenced in recent news stories about him http://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpre...ss-tournament/) that if you felt it necessary to take actions to seek input of the governors that is fair game. If you actually had an overwhelming majority of voting members for endorsement or for that matter chess players (as in the poll you put up on chess talk) I would be the first to say that the result was disappointing but it reflected the will of the voting members and the CFC members. This is simply not the case.

You claim it is not the case. We wouldn't be having this conversation if we had gone counter to the vote of the governors and voted for Garry. That would be fine with you.

What is not fair game is hijacking the powers of the voting members/governors.

You keep wanting to move the goal posts and change the outcome of the game after you have lost it. The CFC had this discussion four years ago and the governors decided yet again that it was an executive decision. The rules changed under the NFP act. It is a directors decision. We sought the input of the governors. You lost in that forum. You lost with the directors. You lost the debate on Chesstalk.

I have seen more then one voting member publicly declare that this is an embarrassment to Canadian chess but the most embarrassing thing is the lack of corporate governance now in effect.

That same voting member publicly stated that he want us to abstain. My discussion with CFC members, voting members and the parents of chess players yields different results from the ones that you are claiming.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

You seem to assume that this FIDE election issue is the central and most important one for most CFC members whether voting or non-voting. Its not. I and the board followed a fair process which had the outcome of your candidate losing. The behaviour of your candidates representatives certainly played a role in the outcome.


What I assume is of no relevance. What matters is that you did not follow a fair process at all. You put up a poll and then state that its purpose is something else when your desired candidate only received a single vote.

Your contention seems to be that a poll on chesstalk where it is possible to stuff the ballot box should be binding.

When only a small minority of your board was for endorsement you went ahead and did it anyways.

You are using words imprecisely. A majority of the board was for endorsement. If you mean by your statement that a minority of the voting members were for endorsement you are also being imprecise. The nature of the questions asked which were by the way exactly as requested by one of the voting members meant that there was not going to be a clear majority because of the multiple options. A more useful exercise might have been a poll with three options. A: Kirsan B: Garry C: abstain.

Finally no disclosure has been made as to what benefits the CFC got for this endorsement or any members of the executive who publicly declared in the past that they were conflicted out.

The biggest benefit that we expect to get from this is a healthier FIDE which is not wracked by conflicts over world politics or political agendas which have nothing to do with chess.

None of this justifies your outrage when the FIDE rep is told that the highest levels of the US Government support Gary Kasparov and that this could have ramifications for chess in Canada.

If we had received a communication from the highest levels of the US government we would have taken that into consideration. We received no such communication. Obviously they didn't care enough to tell us that they cared.

If you ask me you put your emotions ahead of what is best for the CFC. Well Vlad you sure showed who is boss!

Being boss in this context is showing up and doing the work that is required. You have indicated that you were able to handle this for two weeks as FIDE rep and then you realized that the task was too difficult for you to do an adequate job. You demand that we remove our FIDE rep from the deliberations when he is the one who has the most insight about FIDE matters.

I had misgivings about Garry's candidacy from the beginning but the debate on Chesstalk and the governors forum only increased those misgivings. If his representatives were behaving in this manner before they were in power how would they behave in positions of power? I have no intention of rehashing everything that was said and done on chesstalk.

[Sidney Belzberg]

"You lost the debate on Chesstalk."
Really???? Kirsan got one single vote in the poll you yourself put up.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if we had gone counter to the vote of the governors and voted for Garry
The governors clearly wanted this restricted to a vote without endorsement. What my conversation would have been in other scenaros does not negate this fact.

"If you remove the votes of executive members the straw poll numbers were: Endorse GK- 7; vote for GK-1; Abstain-3; Endorse KI-6; Vote for KI-3."

By the way without the executive the majority wanted an enodrsement for Gary however it is irrelevant as it was still a minority that wanted an endorsement of any type.

We sought the input of the governors. You lost in that forum. You lost with the directors.

The point is that you went ahead and did an endorsement against the will of the governors. It may surprise you that I actually care about more then Gary when it comes to chess. I actually care about the CFC and have supported it in the past. I really believe a great deal of damage has been inflicted on the CFC by publicly endorsing Kirsan. You have yet to show the membership the benefits and seem to avoid the question of what the CFC received in return for endorsing Kirsan. I hope it was worth it. If you ask me the membership stats are appalling and Gary's involvement in Canadian Chess (whether he won or lost the FIDE) would have gone a long way in changing this and by the way your beloved FIDE rep agreed with this when we first met. Good luck but I predict if you are reelected the same abysmal state of the CFC will continue and probably get worst. You can talk until you are blue in the face but the damage has been done against the will of the governors.

The biggest benefit that we expect to get from this is a healthier FIDE which is not wracked by conflicts over world politics or political agendas which have nothing to do with chess.


This contradicts what a governor told me. CFC clearly received a benefit in return for Kirsan's endorsement that you have not disclosed to the CFC membership. You also have not given any reason why it is a secret to the members. Is this your idea of how an NFP should be run?

Your contention seems to be that a poll on chesstalk where it is possible to stuff the ballot box should be binding.

Nope , it was your idea and choice to put up the poll in this particular venue and it appears that you restated its purpose when the poll was very lopsided against you.

If we had received a communication from the highest levels of the US government we would have taken that into consideration. We received no such communication. Obviously they didn't care enough to tell us that they cared.

Maybe it is time you wake up and see the world the way it is. If I tell you the US Govt supports Gary as well as members of his ticket you had better believe it, see link below. i am glad that Gary or anyone from his group did not call in any favors and have anyone contact you. Your immature attitude would have been unbecoming.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/first-u...ess-tournament

Some of the governors wanted that. More didn't want that. Fifteen out of twenty four voted for an endorsement.

Yes and 8 governors out of 24 were for endorsing Kirsan hardly overwhelming support of this approach.In fact not counting the executive that sought guidance from the governors more governors endorsed Gary but it was still only 7 out of 24. At best the only mandate the executive had (assuming they took the straw poll seriously) was to vote without endorsement. You seem to cherry pick what you want to answer, ie What was the payoff or promise the CFC received from the Kirsan campaign and why it is a secret that is withheld from the membership? Anyway's I have nothing further to add. The CFC lost a very valuable ally in Gary regardless of what they think of Gary's supporters and friends. In the words of a chess historian about the CFC endorsing Kirsan "You're getting into bed with some pretty evil people who are not only bad for chess, but plain old bad."

[Vladimir Drkulec]

"You lost the debate on Chesstalk."
Really???? Kirsan got one single vote in the poll you yourself put up.

And the crazies came out of the woodwork and revealed themselves. Ask yourself whether in the absence of the chesstalk threads whether we would have got the results that we got in the votes that counted.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if we had gone counter to the vote of the governors and voted for Garry
The governors clearly wanted this restricted to a vote without endorsement.

Some of the governors wanted that. More didn't want that. Fifteen out of twenty four voted for an endorsement.