Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: 5.3 FQE-CFC deal renewal

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,203
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default 5.3 FQE-CFC deal renewal

    Discussion of FQE-CFC deal renewal. The attached file is just a starting point for the discussions between the CFC and FQE. Due to restrictions in the Canada Not For Profit Act it is not possible to reserve board positions other than by running and being elected.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 08-25-2019 at 05:21 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Due to restrictions in the Canada Not For Profit Act it is not possible to reserve board positions other than by running and being elected.
    This has already been checked by the FQE Lawyer: it is possible. Under the Act, a category of members may have the exclusive right to vote for a certain directors. We just need to recognise the FQE chess players as a separate class of members and give them the right to elect two directors. The real problem is that the VM do not elect directors who choose the officers, they elect a person to a particular office. This does not fit our current structure because we would have to decide which position are to be given to Quebec. It is hard because it is a Constitutional change, but it is possible.

    It is also possible to add two new Directors at Large on the Executive and reserve them for Quebec.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,203
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    This has already been checked by the FQE Lawyer: it is possible. Under the Act, a category of members may have the exclusive right to vote for a certain directors. We just need to recognise the FQE chess players as a separate class of members and give them the right to elect two directors. The real problem is that the VM do not elect directors who choose the officers, they elect a person to a particular office. This does not fit our current structure because we would have to decide which position are to be given to Quebec. It is hard because it is a Constitutional change, but it is possible.

    It is also possible to add two new Directors at Large on the Executive and reserve them for Quebec.
    Constitutional changes require a two thirds majority and likely years of negotiation with voting members and even possibly our regular members if you are talking about a fundamental change in structure. It took me two years to get the NFP continuation approved when the very survival of the CFC was an issue against a tight deadline. This was after a year or more spent by the previous NFP committee. I learned from their mistakes and adapted my approach which was ultimately successful. After much discussion there were governors still confused about the consequences of voting no. We cannot negotiate terms here in the meeting though we can discuss them with the principals of the FQE, which we will do. My duty and the duty of every director is to act in the best interests of the Chess Federation of Canada which I will always do and which any director whether he comes from Ontario, Quebec, BC or PEI would always be expected to do.

    For any deal to work you will have to convince first me, then the board, then the voting members and ultimately the regular members that it is a fair deal. I am even willing to work with a slightly unfair or unfavourable deal if it all works to the greater good of chess in Canada. There are many moving parts involved and we are moving in the right direction overall. I would like us to continue to move in the right direction, together preferably.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    C My duty and the duty of every director is to act in the best interests of the Chess Federation of Canada which I will always do and which any director whether he comes from Ontario, Quebec, BC or PEI would always be expected to do.
    That is why VM representing a province loose this title upon election to the Executive. A director no longer represent a province because he must act in the best interests of the Chess Federation of Canada. The Executive must never become a bunch of people acting in the interest of their own province to the detriment of the CFC. If I had seen the FQE proposal this way, I would have voted against it at the FQE AGM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,203
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    This has already been checked by the FQE Lawyer: it is possible. Under the Act, a category of members may have the exclusive right to vote for a certain directors. We just need to recognise the FQE chess players as a separate class of members and give them the right to elect two directors. The real problem is that the VM do not elect directors who choose the officers, they elect a person to a particular office. This does not fit our current structure because we would have to decide which position are to be given to Quebec. It is hard because it is a Constitutional change, but it is possible.

    It is also possible to add two new Directors at Large on the Executive and reserve them for Quebec.
    My read of the initial proposal was that there would be one director for the FQE and another for French New Brunswick. I have not heard from anyone in New Brunswick. Lets say its two on the board for the FQE and we remove New Brunswick from the equation. Currently revenues from rating fees, memberships and the Foundation (which compensate for foregone membership fees of life members) are on the order of $116,651. Rating fees indicated in the proposal would be $4503. Another $1000 on top for memberships. For a contribution of 4.6% of total revenues, 28.6% (2 of 7) or 22.2% (2 of 9) of the board would be chosen by special members from the FQE. Given the very uphill battle fought for continuation where the outcomes were continue to exist or cease to exist, I can't see how we could sell that to voting members from places like BC, Alberta or anywhere for that matter. Remember that we need two thirds of them to agree with this. While your lawyers may be right that this is technically feasible in some way if we contort our constitution in this manner, I think that we need to be grounded in reality. I still think that it runs counter to the provisions of the NFP act.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    824

    Default

    For every dollar received by the Province, the FQE does spend $1.40. This requirement from the Minister, that the FQE generate its own revenues streams, is what prevents it from sending $36 per player to Ottawa. The FQE cannot collect $1 from the Province and spend an equal amount. If the FQE was to abandon the membership and the FQE rating fees, it would loose its recognition by the Minister. Those two sources of income are mandatory, not accessory. Off course, new revenue streams could be developed, but that takes time and those incomes must be recurrent each year.

    With the situation as it is, nobody should expect the FQE to send to the CFC any amount of money that would make the FQE looks less competent in the eyes of the Minister.

    Having a permanent office and a phone line would be quite an asset for the CFC. Recently, a member of a FIDE Commission called the FQE instead of the CFC because she couldn't find the CFC telephone number. The subject of this call, a possible irregularity at the NAYCC, was far from trivial.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,203
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    For every dollar received by the Province, the FQE does spend $1.40. This requirement from the Minister, that the FQE generate its own revenues streams, is what prevents it from sending $36 per player to Ottawa. The FQE cannot collect $1 from the Province and spend an equal amount. If the FQE was to abandon the membership and the FQE rating fees, it would loose its recognition by the Minister. Those two sources of income are mandatory, not accessory. Off course, new revenue streams could be developed, but that takes time and those incomes must be recurrent each year.
    That is useful information, that I am hearing for the first time, but it doesn't change the rest of the equation.

    With the situation as it is, nobody should expect the FQE to send to the CFC any amount of money that would make the FQE looks less competent in the eyes of the Minister.

    Having a permanent office and a phone line would be quite an asset for the CFC. Recently, a member of a FIDE Commission called the FQE instead of the CFC because she couldn't find the CFC telephone number. The subject of this call, a possible irregularity at the NAYCC, was far from trivial.
    We have a permanent office and phone. It comes up first when I type in "Chess Federation of Canada phone number" into google and second when I use Duckduckgo. I'm not sure why it didn't work for the FIDE official.

    The FQE came up with a creative proposal which has some promise as a way going forward but we also have to be realistic about what is possible on both ends. A constitutional rewrite is not a good starting point as that likely involves two years of negotiations, politicking and paralysis. I would prefer to take that time and energy and put it into working our CSTA contacts and generating more activity for the members.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    Since when are provincial organizations bound to set provincial dues equal to national dues and commit to remitting 100% of their take to the national body? Not in any organization I know of when there are national and provincial affiliates (and my knowledge goes well beyond chess). I would be amazed if there are not hundreds of non-profits in Quebec where there is a provincial association affilated with a national organization thus I am astonished that the provincial minister would be startled by such a situation.

    I would not support a proposal that required a constitutional amendment to make it work.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    Since when are provincial organizations bound to set provincial dues equal to national dues and commit to remitting 100% of their take to the national body? Not in any organization I know of when there are national and provincial affiliates (and my knowledge goes well beyond chess). I would be amazed if there are not hundreds of non-profits in Quebec where there is a provincial association affilated with a national organization thus I am astonished that the provincial minister would be startled by such a situation.
    If a CFC membership cost $36 somewhere and $86 in Quebec (the current cost of an FQE membership is $50 for one year) we could expect that many players would purchase a CFC membership in another province and play in Quebec. Your solution is possible, but any increase in the FQE membership fee requires a vote of the voting members at an AGM. That would be very hard to obtain because all FQE members would be entitled to vote on this issue.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,976
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    For every dollar received by the Province, the FQE does spend $1.40. This requirement from the Minister, that the FQE generate its own revenues streams, is what prevents it from sending $36 per player to Ottawa. The FQE cannot collect $1 from the Province and spend an equal amount. If the FQE was to abandon the membership and the FQE rating fees, it would loose its recognition by the Minister. Those two sources of income are mandatory, not accessory. Off course, new revenue streams could be developed, but that takes time and those incomes must be recurrent each year.

    With the situation as it is, nobody should expect the FQE to send to the CFC any amount of money that would make the FQE looks less competent in the eyes of the Minister.

    Having a permanent office and a phone line would be quite an asset for the CFC. Recently, a member of a FIDE Commission called the FQE instead of the CFC because she couldn't find the CFC telephone number. The subject of this call, a possible irregularity at the NAYCC, was far from trivial.
    I don't think any of us at the CFC totally understand the FQE business model, but we have understood that a grant is given from the Provincial Government the purpose of which is to assist the FQE operate as a quasi-National Federation.

    I'm trying to understand your Math:

    Are you saying that if the Government grant is something like $80K, then the FQE has to generate other revenue of at least $32K on top of this ? That would give them up to $112K for office expenses and programs. I think in the old agreement the FQE agreed to pay $8 per FQE member, I'm not sure where the $36 (the price of a CFC Membership) is coming from.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •