4K. Kalev Pugi Fund Committee Report

[Patrick McDonald]

I have to agree.
I believe the members of this group have agreed on a proposed process but need to nail down the process and times for deadlines.


The problem to this point is that applications come in at varying times and we never really know how much there is to work with at any point in time.


It would be best to have a process where there is a deadline for all applications for Pugi bursaries and all applications are evaluated and the total funds for that year are then distributed fairly between accepted applications.


I believe that this has been agreed upon, at least in principle, but we have not put this process into action.


This has also had the net effect of applicants not hearing back from the Pugi fund as we don't really know what to say to applicants as we know we have given some money out but don't really know how much is left and when other applications might come in and when we may get more funds to work with.


I would like to propose that we get the set amount for how much can be given out for any given year.


*What date would that number come to us?*


We need to set an application period during which we can receive applications for these bursaries.


This date will have to depend on what the above date will be.


We accept applications over a 4 week period and close this out for any new applications telling people that they will have to apply in the following year.


We then evaluate the applications received and divy up the funds available between these applications.


I would like to personally apologize to those applicants over the past couple of years who have found this committee to be less than responsive.


I will agree to participate on this committee only if we can agree on the above process and can set this into action for this coming year.

[Lyle Craver]

Patrick has succinctly stated the problems that the Fund committee have to deal with. He speaks for me as well particularly in his closing summary.

By its nature the Fund operates differently from the Chess Foundation of Canada and over my time on the committee we have often spent to the limit of what we can in a course of a year with 3-4 months to go - and do not have a good way of announcing that we will not be receiving applications in the interim. This is not bad planning but simply a reflection of the annual cycle of events.

Further - there is the ongoing debate within the committee as to whether it is more beneficial to offer fewer but larger grants or to or to spread things further around. This is a serious concern particularly given the decline in the Canadian dollar with resultant increases in travel costs. I have been one who favors the former (fewer but larger grants) but know this is likely to disappoint more applicants. We could easily deplete the fund's capital but that would violate the terms of the bequest and lead to rapid depletion of funds - this would violate our terms of reference and is something I would oppose very strongly.

Plain and simply - at present rates of return this means fairly small disbursements over the next 3-5 years and I get the strong impression from applications that many believe we have far more available to grant than is actually the case.

Again I agree with Patrick 100% and I thank him for expressing things better than I could.

[Paul Leblanc]

According to the Financial Statement you have $446 remaining (after accounting for the $1400 you recently approved). It looks like the two cheques I sent for $923 each for fiscal year 2014 and 2015 have been included in this amount.
The next cheque will be sent to the CFC in June 2016 and will be around $950. You can use this as a planning figure.

[Paul Leblanc]

Bob Gillanders advised me just now that the second $923 has not been spent so you have a balance of $1369. Good news.