Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63

Thread: 4. Executive and Officer reports

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    I agree with Pierre, my experience with the FQE program is that it is quite good. Therefore, I welcome Pierre's offer to be part of a new CFC Arbiters' Commission.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    proposal: CFC Arbiters' Commission (perhaps "CFC-AC")

    In my opinion, the two key people to start this off would be Hal and Pierre. Hal because he is by far the most experienced International Arbiter we have (Category A, World Championship, etc) - Over the years, Hal has very often had to perform the duties that an AC would perform. I think he's the obvious first CFC-AC Chair.

    Then in addition to Hal, I propose Pierre as the first CFC-AC Secretary. This choice is based on multiple reasons. First, the FQE program seems quite good, and Pierre is very knowledgeable about it. It also helps that Pierre is from Quebec, and bilingual. I think that if we're going to build something new, then let's do it properly bilingual right from the beginning. Finally, over the years, Pierre has demonstrated the attention to written detail that a better Secretary should have.

    Hoping that both Hal and Pierre accept, here are the next steps to consider:

    1) In consultation with Hal, Pierre builds a motion for the CFC Executive, to establish the CFC-AC.
    2) Hal Bond would be the Chair, and Pierre Denommee would be the Secretary.
    3) Hal and Pierre would choose three Councillors, making the core CFC-AC a team of five IAs/FAs.
    4) Then that core CFC-AC team will decide on whether to have another class of CFC-AC members (example: the FIDE Arbiters' Commission also has "Members")
    5) I offer to serve on the new CFC-AC team. My personal top priority is establishing a national program for Arbiter development, from nothing to National Arbiter.

    Best, Aris.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
    proposal: CFC Arbiters' Commission (perhaps "CFC-AC")

    In my opinion, the two key people to start this off would be Hal and Pierre. Hal because he is by far the most experienced International Arbiter we have (Category A, World Championship, etc) - Over the years, Hal has very often had to perform the duties that an AC would perform. I think he's the obvious first CFC-AC Chair.

    Then in addition to Hal, I propose Pierre as the first CFC-AC Secretary. This choice is based on multiple reasons. First, the FQE program seems quite good, and Pierre is very knowledgeable about it. It also helps that Pierre is from Quebec, and bilingual. I think that if we're going to build something new, then let's do it properly bilingual right from the beginning. Finally, over the years, Pierre has demonstrated the attention to written detail that a better Secretary should have.

    Hoping that both Hal and Pierre accept, here are the next steps to consider:

    1) In consultation with Hal, Pierre builds a motion for the CFC Executive, to establish the CFC-AC.
    2) Hal Bond would be the Chair, and Pierre Denommee would be the Secretary.
    3) Hal and Pierre would choose three Councillors, making the core CFC-AC a team of five IAs/FAs.
    4) Then that core CFC-AC team will decide on whether to have another class of CFC-AC members (example: the FIDE Arbiters' Commission also has "Members")
    5) I offer to serve on the new CFC-AC team. My personal top priority is establishing a national program for Arbiter development, from nothing to National Arbiter.

    Best, Aris.
    We're getting way ahead of ourselves here. No committee was proposed to the executive. No committee was proposed to the voting members in time to get a vote. Commissions are what they do at FIDE presumably because of Swiss law. What we have are committees. The word commission is not mentioned in the Canada Not For Profit Act.

    In evaluating whether to set up such a committee we should look at what it is proposed that they should do and what you are proposing beyond the present practice. What are the costs that you are proposing to the CFC and the Arbiters. Further there are conflict of interest guidelines that have to be adhered to. I would need to understand a lot more of what is being proposed here before signing on to this.

    We also have a full blown program which is provided by the FQE.

    Is this something that should be done with an RFP?

    Is this something that we should even be doing at this time when there are almost no tournaments taking place?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    We're getting way ahead of ourselves here. No committee was proposed to the executive. No committee was proposed to the voting members in time to get a vote. Commissions are what they do at FIDE presumably because of Swiss law. What we have are committees. The word commission is not mentioned in the Canada Not For Profit Act.

    In evaluating whether to set up such a committee we should look at what it is proposed that they should do and what you are proposing beyond the present practice. What are the costs that you are proposing to the CFC and the Arbiters. Further there are conflict of interest guidelines that have to be adhered to. I would need to understand a lot more of what is being proposed here before signing on to this.

    We also have a full blown program which is provided by the FQE.

    Is this something that should be done with an RFP?

    Is this something that we should even be doing at this time when there are almost no tournaments taking place?
    Maybe you're ascribing more to my post than needed. All I'm doing is suggesting that a proper proposal be prepared for the CFC Executive. It sounds like you think that's the right next step as well. I don't care if the word Committee is used rather than the word Commission (in other words, I can easily support that).

    Regarding what this new Committee would do, I would think that a prime objective would be Arbiter development. Like I'm using almost the same words as my previous post. I also agree that the FQE program is good, which is why I'm recommending Pierre be an integral part of the foundation for such a new Committee.

    To be honest, I'm kinda scratching my head, as we actually seem to AGREE on most points?! Why wouldn't we proceed with a proposal? There's no cost, no risks, and quite frankly, except for Quebec, Arbiter development in the rest of Canada is not as good as it should be. Won't this be the start of a good core program?!

    I'll try calling you this afternoon, as it seems we agree much more than we disagree.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    added to last post:

    in case it's not clear, the proposal that I'm suggesting is NOT for THIS meeting:

    it's to be prepared in a thoughtful timely manner for our next quarterly or AGM

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
    added to last post:

    in case it's not clear, the proposal that I'm suggesting is NOT for THIS meeting:

    it's to be prepared in a thoughtful timely manner for our next quarterly or AGM
    Aris and I talked on the phone and now I have a better understanding of what is being proposed.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
    To be honest, I'm kinda scratching my head, as we actually seem to AGREE on most points?! Why wouldn't we proceed with a proposal? There's no cost, no risks, and quite frankly, except for Quebec, Arbiter development in the rest of Canada is not as good as it should be. Won't this be the start of a good core program?!
    I think the program should consider a broader range than just arbiters. Usually the same person wares multiple hats during the tournament. Probably the real motion could be presented during the next quarterly meeting.
    .*-1

  8. #18

    Default

    Committees can be created by both the VM and the Executive. Those created by the Executive can exercise the power of the directors by delegation only if they are composed solely of directors.

    Delegation

    138 (1) Directors of a corporation may appoint from their number a managing director or a committee of directors and delegate to the managing director or committee any of the powers of the directors.

    The Arbiters' Commission/Committee has no need for the Powers of the Directors. The Canadian Olympic Committee has an Athletes' Commission https://olympic.ca/canadian-olympic-...es-commission/ and is under the same NFP Law. The Law don't care how we name things. If we cannot have an arbiters' Commission/Committee, then Basketball Canada, Hockey Canada and Baseball Canada are all in error. It's a basic requirement for any National Sport Organization,

    Pending the approval of the new structure, we could use the TDOCP to make progress. The TDOCP already exist.

    I agree with Aris, now is the right time because most arbiters do nothing because of the pandemic. An NA program concerns only those arbiters who want to act as Chief Arbiter in FIDE Level 3 tournament and begin collecting FA norms by assisting FA and IA. If the CFC is like the FQE, the bread and butter (what's really brings the money in) is the result the efforts of the LTDs. They are simply much more numerous then any other level. Actually, there are more FQE LTDs then there are arbiters of all the higher levels together. If an arbiter fails to become an NA, he would retain his former level and still be able to act as an arbiter in CFC rated tournaments. The impact on the CFC should be zero.

    I agree with the President that is is not the right time to begin actively removing arbiters from the pool with refresher tests or any other method. I do believe that those tests will become mandatory, as they are in practically all other sports. The timing is just wrong, when the CFC finance requires as many competition as possible, as soon as medically possible, and when reducing the number of arbiters would hurt us.

    Nevertheless, NA works in FIDE rated tournament: what they do when they shouldn't, or fail to do when the should have acted, has a direct impact on our reputation.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    I think the program should consider a broader range than just arbiters. Usually the same person wares multiple hats during the tournament. Probably the real motion could be presented during the next quarterly meeting.
    I may agree in other circumstances, but we are in a pandemic, arbiters are free to work on the project and we should begin immediately to take advantage of this abnormal situation. Appointing persons to the Existing TDOCP can jump start the process while we wait for the next quarterly meeting to approve the details of the new format.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    I may agree in other circumstances, but we are in a pandemic, arbiters are free to work on the project and we should begin immediately to take advantage of this abnormal situation. Appointing persons to the Existing TDOCP can jump start the process while we wait for the next quarterly meeting to approve the details of the new format.
    I respectfully suggest we should follow process, some points of which Vlad has pointed out. The TDOCP has been around forever, but has been dormant forever.

    Let's propose a new team that can "own" child-of-TDOCP. Let's get at least Pierre, Hal, and me; to build something the CFC Executive supports before the AGM.

Page 2 of 7 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
  •