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

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Eric:

The mover of the CFC Fees motion at the July CFC AGM in Montreal did state when introducing the motion that one of the reasons for it was to increase revenue to the CFC, given its financial crisis. You have shown how the motion does this.

A number of posters on ChessTalk previously had suggested that rating fees were a more acceptable way to raise general revenue for the CFC, than higher annual membership fees. The motion reflects this view.

Finally, some have argued that the new system is a more " user-pay " system - if you cause the system more updating time, you contribute more to keeping the CFC running. From the CFC point of view, increasing tournaments means more $$ for CFC.

[ Note: this motion was not the Grassroots' position - it had called for a 50 % drop in annual membership fees ( adult to $18 from $ 36, and junior to $ 12.50 from $ 25 ), and 100% increase in rating fees ( adult to $ 6 from $ 3, and junior to $ 1 from $ 0..50 ). This would have been revenue neutral from the CFC point of view - no increased revenue to CFC on these changes. The mover of the July AGM CFC Fees motion was not willing to adopt the Grassroots' position. ]

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

The Grassroots' Campaign and the " Gang of Four " Governors moving/seconding the three CFC Fees motions are being caught in a catch-22.

We are being told we CANNOT amend the existing, passed July CFC AGM motion on CFC Fees. We are told to amend the CFC Handbook section on CFC Fees. But we CANNOT amend the CFC Handbook either - it is woefully out of date ( s. 328 on CFC Membership Fees was last amended at the 2003 AGM; here is what the Handbook says on " Tournament Memberships ": S. 375. Tournament Playing Fee: A tournament fee for first time players in CFC events.....), and has not yet been updated to incorporate either the July AGM motion on CFC Fees. So how can we amend a section that is not yet up to date??

This is classic bureaucratic bafflegab - to stop these motions from going ahead. We have proposed 2 solutions to this conundrum. We wrote to the CFC Secretary, Lyle Carver ( copy to the CFC President, David Lavin, and to Chris Mallon, CFC Treasurer, who first raised the objection to our motions ) on Sunday, Sept. 21 ( a week ago ):

Hi Lyle:

Can you advise whether anyone has now undertaken to update the CFC Handbook to incorporate the July AGM CFC Fees Motion that was passed, and to send it on to me ( as per my last e-mail to Chris, copied to you and David ) ?

I need this if I am to do as Chris ( and I’m not sure if you feel it is required too ) has requested: to amend the Handbook, rather than the passed motion. I am willing to redraft the motions, but if I am to get them into the next GL, then I need the amended Handbook Sections ASAP.

If no one has undertaken to do this, then in the interest of getting these motions into the next GL, could the Executive decide to allow the motions as is ( amending the passed motion ), and then go on and LATER amend the handbook with the AGM motion ( either as amended or not )? Please let me know.

Thanks.

Bob

We have not yet received a reply to our inquiry. We wanted our motions to go into GL # 2, which is due out soon. We are concerned now as to whether these properly brought motions are going to make it to the Governors for vote ( deja vu all over again , given that 5 of our 7 Grassroots' Motions on CFC restructuring were ruled " out of order " at the July CFC AGM ). Surely the new CFC Executive can do better than this??

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

We are being told we CANNOT amend the existing, passed July CFC AGM motion on CFC Fees. We are told to amend the CFC Handbook section on CFC Fees. But we CANNOT amend the CFC Handbook either ...

Just an idea: You reword your Motions in the similar way as July Motion. I.e.,

Motion # 1 {...}
The CFC will discontinue selling tournament memberships effective January 1, 2009.

aka

July Motion
{...}The CFC will discontinue selling family memberships and junior participating memberships effective January 1, 2009. {...}

[Christopher Mallon]

... I'm not sure what the big issue was. I just said that your motions as worded were not legal and thus would have to be reworded. I never said the handbook had to be updated before that could happen.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

... I'm not sure what the big issue was. I just said that your motions as worded were not legal and thus would have to be reworded. I never said the handbook had to be updated before that could happen.

Chris, as the ex-president, Is it possible to question Motion as out-of-order, after it had passed the voting?

It would give the fresh start afterwords

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

Early on, Bob Gillanders suggested to Lyle Craver, that in the interest of expediency, and to make it less complicated, perhaps the July AGM motion could be ignored in moving our motions forward. Lyle Craver, CFC Secretary responded to Bob and I that that could not be done. The July AGM motion was a duly passed Governors' motion, and could not just be treated as if it didn't exist.

Now you seem to be saying the same thing - just ignore the July AGM motion as if it didn't exist, and just amend the out-of-date and unupdated CFC Handbook. I think Lyle will disagree with your solution if you check with him.

Surely the Handbook must be updated so that we can amend a current version of the Handbook. If the Handbook cannot be immediately updated, then we have suggested the expedient solution of allowing us to amend the passed and in effect July AGM motion. Then LATER go and amend the Handbook by incorporating the July AGM motion ( whether amended by us or not ) when there is time and personnel to update it. Seems a possible solution to us.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob,

I was not suggesting that we ignore the AGM motion. I was suggesting that for clarity sake, you should compare your proposals to our current fee structure. That seems less confusing to me.

To help the process along, I have started a new thread starting with a summary of our current fees. A side by side by side comparison of the 3 fee schedules would be helpful I think!

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Sorry about misreading you back then.

But Lyle's comments still carry great weight ( I think Lyle also got the wrong impression of Bob's earlier comments ), and I don't see how the July AGM motion can just be ignored, and we go on and try to amend an out-of-date and not updated CFC Handbook.

I think a comparison of the current fees, AGM motion fees, and the Grassroots' Fees proposal would be helpful.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Good news ! GL # 2 is now in the hands of the Governors, and Governor Ken Craft has confirmed that the 3 Grassroots' Campaign motions on CFC fees are included for voting ( initially for " first discussion " ).

Credits to the Executive for accepting the " common sense " solution to the impasse of the July CFC AGM motion on CFC fees and the unupdated CFC Handbook. The relevant Handbook sections can be updated later, with the whole Handbook updating, using the motion, either amended or unamended, depending on what happens.

It's now up to the Governors.

Bob

[Peter McKillop]

Bob, regarding motion #1, were you able to locate any data on approximately how many dollars/year and how many people/year will be impacted by the proposed termination of the tournament membership? Maybe you've set the information out somewhere and I've missed it.

Thanks.

p.s. I just noticed that the header on my message says that I'm a junior member. Maybe I should do an early renewal!