Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

  1. #1

    Default Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

    Today, on behalf of the Grassroots' Campaign, the " gang of 4 " governors ( Barry Thorvardson, Gary Gladstone, Nikolay Noritsyn and Natalia Khoudgarian ) sent 3 " binding " motions on CFC fees to the CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver, to be included in the next GL, and voted on by the Governors. These arise out of the original Grassroots' platform, for which only " straw vote " motions were initially brought, and which items are still outstanding.

    Here is the Motions/Backgrounder submitted:

    Backgrounder to 3 Governors’ CFC Fees Motions September 17, 2008

    ( motions submitted by Bob Armstrong, with permission of mover/seconder; commentary prepared by Bob Armstrong, Grassroots’ Campaign Coordinator )

    Motion # 1 – Moved: Barry Thorvardson; Seconded: Gary Gladstone –
    CFC Tournament Membership Elimination – The Incoming Governors’ 2008 AGM Motion on CFC fees is amended by deleting from the fourth sentence the words “ the tournament membership shall be $ 10 per tournament for adults, and $ 5 per tournament for juniors. “ and shall be replaced with “ CFC shall eliminate tournament memberships – if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament, s/he must purchase an annual/life membership “.

    Commentary: From the minutes of the AGM, we reproduce for convenience the relevant motion:

    The following is moved by Les Bunning and seconded by Peter Stockhausen.

    Effective January 1, 2009, the membership fee for adult members shall be $30.
    The membership fee for junior members shall be $20. The CFC will
    discontinue selling family memberships and junior participating memberships
    effective January 1, 2009. Effective January 1, 2009, the tournament membership
    shall be $10 per tournament for adults and $5 per tournament for juniors. Players
    in a tournament in which all of the players are juniors shall not be required to be
    members but shall be required to submit the CFC rating fee of $5 per player.
    Effective January 1, 2009, the CFC rating fee shall be $5 per player per
    tournament or match.

    Chess players must support their national organization by membership and annual membership fee, if they want it to exist. CFC must have sustainable revenue. There is no reason for two classes of members, one subsidizing the other. Also, when tournament memberships were introduced, they were meant as a one-time only thing, to encourage first timers to play tournament chess – they were not meant to become a continuous use membership. Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships. This motion makes clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases re annual memberships seem warranted.

    Note: this motion, slightly amended, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008. Also, the CFC membership fees motion passed at the same Governors’ AGM in July, as can be seen, did not eliminate tournament memberships, despite the prior straw vote.

    Motion # 2 – Moved: Barry Thorvardson; Seconded: Gary Gladstone –
    CFC Annual Membership Discount – The Incoming Governors’ 2008 AGM Motion on CFC fees is amended by adding after the third sentence: “ Effective January 1, 2009, to encourage individuals to become CFC members, first time CFC members shall be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year. “

    Commentary: See original motion above under Motion # 1. Organizers have advised that the annual CFC membership is a hindrance to getting first time tournament players to sign up for tournaments ( especially when tournament memberships have been eliminated ); so the 40% reduction for first-time CFC’ers attempts to ameliorate this difficulty. Even with the discount, the CFC will be collecting more than it did on tournament membership. Also, this replaces the tournament membership, which originally when introduced was meant to be a one-time only option.

    Note: this motion, slightly amended, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008. Also, the CFC membership fees motion passed at the same Governors’ AGM in July, as can be seen above, did not incorporate the annual member discount, despite the prior straw vote.

    Motion # 3 – Moved: Nikolay Noritsyn; Seconded: Natalia Khoudgarian –
    CFC Junior Rating Fee Reduction – The Incoming Governors’ 2008 AGM Motion on CFC fees is amended by:
    a) in the fifth sentence, the word “ junior “ shall be placed before the words “ rating fee “, and “ $ 1 “ shall replace “ $ 5 “;
    b) in the last sentence, adding before the words “ rating fee “ , the word “ adult “; and
    c) Adding at the end of the motion the sentence: “ Effective January 1, 2009, the junior rating fee shall be $ 1 per player per tournament or match “.

    Commentary :

    In CFC’s 2007-8 financial year, CFC took in from rating fees approx. $ 25,000. It was originally proposed by the Grassroots’ campaign that this be doubled to $ 50,000 [ Junior rating fee would go to $ 1 ( from $0.50 ); regular rating fee would go to $ 6/ player/ event ( from $ 3 ) ],. This was to shift CFC’s general revenue burden from membership to rating fees, as a more acceptable way to get general revenue – basically, a more “ user-pay “ system. This would give CFC an extra $ 25,000 revenue.

    In the same year, CFC took in approx. $ 50,000 from membership fees of all kinds. With the extra $ 25,000 from increased rating fees, CFC would now have to raise only $ 25,000 from membership fees, or a reduction of 50 %. This meant annual membership fees could be decreased by 50% [ annual adult membership could go to $ 18 ( from $ 36 ) and annual junior membership could go to $ 12.50 ( from $ 25 ) ].

    What happened at the Incoming Governors AGM in July, was that the annual adult membership was reduced, but only to $ 30 and the annual junior membership to only $ 20 [ the reason was that the CFC wanted to increase the amount of revenue in redistributing the burden between membership and rating fee. It did not want the change to be revenue neutral ( what was gained by the rating fee increase, was lost by the membership reduction ) ]. Once restructuring is completed, if there is a surplus, the grassroots campaign will move to further reduce the annual membership.

    Junior organizers have clearly indicated that the huge 900% increase in junior rating fee ( from $ 0.50 to $ 5 ) will seriously damage their junior programs, and cast doubt on holding CFC-rated junior tournaments. Since juniors are so important to the future of chess in Canada, and CFC wants to encourage them to take up the game, we propose to increase the junior rating fee only 100%, from $ 0.50 to $ 1 ( note that the adult rating fee was increased only 66 2/3 % ). Our motion appears to increase the junior rating fee, but this is only due to the nature of the motion. We are amending an existing , passed motion. In fact we are lowering it from the proposed $ 5 to $ 1 ( a reduction of $ 4 ). A raise in rating fee is justified given the CFC’s financial situation, and the reduction in annual membership, but the 100% increase is more reasonable.

    [ Note : The CFC motion also did not quite double the adult rating fee. It increased it to $5 ( not $ 6 ). Given this increase, and the increase in revenue from the modest annual membership reduction, we feel that the adult rating fee can stay where the CFC motion placed it, and need not be increased to $ 6 ].

    General 3- motion note:

    The amended motion, if all three motions are passed, would then read:

    Effective January 1, 2009, the membership fee for adult members shall be $30.
    The membership fee for junior members shall be $20. The CFC will
    discontinue selling family memberships and junior participating memberships
    effective January 1, 2009. Effective January 1, 2009, to encourage individuals to become CFC members, first time CFC members shall be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year. Effective January 1, 2009, CFC shall eliminate tournament memberships – if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament, s/he must purchase an annual/life membership. Players in a tournament in which all of the players are juniors shall not be required to be members but shall be required to submit the CFC junior rating fee of $1 per player. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFC adult rating fee shall be $5 per player per
    tournament or match. Effective January 1, 2009, the junior rating fee shall be $ 1 per player per tournament or match


    Revision 3
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 09-17-2008 at 07:54 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    I would suggest to improve this:
    "if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament"

    What do you know as "CFC tournaments"? (probably Open, Closed, Youth.)
    Do you mean tournaments which are CFC rated?

    Would you consider to use a term "CFC-rated events" as in Handbook's Section CFC RATING SYSTEM & FIDE RATED EVENTS including matches as well?
    http://www.chess.ca/section_7.htm

  3. #3

    Default

    Hi Egis:

    We had meant both CFC and CFC-rated tournament. We hope it will be understood that way ( though technically you are probably correct ).

    Bob

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    As history teaches us - lets write what we mean without any other interpretations.

  5. #5

    Default

    If as you say (i.e. I haven't attempted to verify it) the Bunning/Stockhausen motion was for a straw vote only, then I don't understand why you need your three motions. Why amend a straw vote? Why didn't you just submit one motion containing the wording you're recommending? Perhaps there is some nuance of parliamentary procedure I'm missing?

  6. #6

    Default

    Hi Peter:

    Sorry - maybe something is unclear in the presentation. The Bunning/Stockhausen motion was not a straw vote, but a binding one, and it passed. It was the 7 Grassroots' Motions that were the " straw vote " motions. The fees set in the Bunning/Stockhausen motion are now going to come into effect on Jan. 1, 2009, unless amended.

    Bob

  7. #7

    Default

    Thanks for the clarification, Bob. I see where I made my mistake.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nanaimo, BC
    Posts
    149

    Default

    As a former administrator, I'd say that the reduction in fees
    to first-timers will cause unrest. Not only will it result in
    players with expired memberships hiding the fact that they were
    once CFC members ("That guy with the same name must be somebody
    else, I've never been a CFC member.")--and why should the
    organizer who wants this undecided person to enter the tournament,
    why should this organizer follow up that statement too
    rigorously?--thus affecting the integrity
    of pairings and of the rating system itself, but there will also
    be resentment by that same category of player. From the CFC's
    point of view, administratively, it is cheaper to renew an old
    membership than to create a new one, so with the proposed
    measure the CFC would re-embark on the perilous path of artificial
    (and complex) fee structures.

    In Ye Olde Days, many organizers offered free or reduced entry
    fees to players joining the CFC for the first time. Both entry
    fees and CFC memberships have since inflated, but our brains may
    still be stuck in 1975 prices. Or maybe it doesn't happen so
    often simply because the idea was forgotten / not promoted. As an
    incentive, the CFC could (as I have been suggesting for decades)
    offer rebates / discounts / commissions on membership fees (and
    perhaps also on rating fees) to organizers (those who collect
    the fees on the CFC's behalf and remit them). That would create
    a promotional fund in the organizer's pocket. Obviously, it is
    good for the organizer to attract new CFC members, otherwise he
    will never replace the ones who inevitably drop out.

    When David Lavin first broached the possibility of his candidacy
    for CFC President in the Spring, he stated that he could have,
    within a couple of weeks, a restructuring plan for the CFC and
    a business plan to go with it. I am not a Governor, but ... do
    these plans exist, and what do they say? At the time, a popular
    model on the forums was a CFC with no membership fee at all. I'm
    not saying that I would support such a model, but if that is the
    one that David Lavin has chosen, or if it is the one that the
    Governors choose, the tidying up of current fees may be wasted
    effort.


    OT: There's something tricky about these boards. I noticed another
    poster, at the chesstalk board, complain that the board had
    swallowed his posting, and the same thing just happened to me.
    To be exact, I was merrily typing away on the second paragraph
    and maybe hit two keys at once and all the text above the cursor
    suddenly disappeared. It was not on the Windows Clipboard!
    Thus forewarned, I am composing this in a text editor and intend
    to copy and paste. Since the forum text box, unlike HTML,
    interprets line breaks as hard line breaks, this message may appear
    with peculiar width and line breaking.

  9. #9

    Default Roadblock to 3 Grassroots' Campaign CFC Fees Motions

    Posted on ChessTalk on Sept. 23 :

    A member of the Executive has objected to the form of the motions. The motions amend the AGM CFC Fees motion passed in July. It is contended that the motions have to amend the CFC Handbook, not a passed motion.

    But it appears the Handbook has not yet been updated by incorporating the passed AGM motion. So how are we supposed to amend the Handbook?

    I have asked that the CFC immediately undertake to update the Handbook and give me the updated copy, so I can do as they request , and revise the motions to amend the Handbook. I want it ASAP because I want the motions in GL # 2 if at all possible.

    I am still awaiting an answer as to whether anyone in the CFC has been charged to update the relevant section of the Handbook and send it on to me ASAP !

    Bob

  10. #10

    Default Grass Roots Proposal

    It's strange but I was thinking what is the real world implication of the changes to the CFC Fee Structure.

    From what I can read, the Annual Mermbership will decrease to $30.00 from $36.00 and the rating fee will increase to $5.00.

    This season I should be playing in the following tournaments:
    EOCA Grand Prix: 10
    EOCA Active Mini-Prix: 4
    Canada Day Hart House or Labour Day: 1
    RA Club-Regular: 4 plus three pickups: 7
    RA Club-Active: 3

    Total: 25

    Under the present scheme: 25*3 + 36 = $111.00
    Under new scheme: 25*5 + 30 = $155.00
    Increase: $44.00
    %Increase: $40%

    That increase is approximately one Chess DVD-ROM or two chess books.

    That seems like a pretty hefty increase from the year before. It strikes me that you are penalizing people for playing chess.

    It would be interesting to see who actually voted for the motion at the 2008 AGM. Are they governors who are playing a lot?

    Eric
    Last edited by Eric Van Dusen; 09-25-2008 at 05:18 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •