Ag. Item # 11 – Discussion on Motion 2010-06 – Discounted Membership/TPF

[Bob Armstrong]

In this thread, we will debate this motion. But we will not vote on it here in this thread. The voting is not to start ‘til 6:00 PM EDT on Sunday, April 11 – I will at that time post a new thread on this as a poll, so we can all vote – it will record the names of the governors voting.

Here is the motion/commentary ( without the notes ):

Motion 2010-06 on CFC Fees

- submitted on behalf of the Grassroots’ Campaign, a group of about 15 CFC members and former members ( named in the notes below ); filed by the mover, Governor Bob Armstrong, and the seconder, Governor Gary Gladstone; “ commentary “ by Bob Armstrong, Grassroots’ Campaign Coordinator, CFC Life Member & CFC Governor .


Motion : Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Gary Gladstone

First-Time CFC Member Introductory Discount –

Section 375 ( Tournament Playing Fee ) of Section 3 ( Motions Applicable to No Other Section ) of the CFC Handbook is deleted. Substituted for it is:

“ 375. An annual membership discount of 40% will be given for first time CFC members ( CFC will publish a rounded off figure for the convenience of organizers ). “


Commentary:

The current CFC Handbook section 375 states that there is a tournament playing fee ( TPF ) ( adult - $20; Junior -$ 10 ), that can be used in registering for CFC-rated tournaments, as an alternative to membership.
We propose to eliminate this alternative to membership, and substitute for it a first-time CFC member discount, that will both encourage new players to enter tournaments, and at the same time, make them CFC members.
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 players, each paying different amounts to support the CFC ( annual member pays $ 36; tournament fee player pays: adult - $ 20; junior - $ 10 ). 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 alternative to membership. It is sometimes now being used by players twice per year, instead of taking out a membership – an adult can play twice and pay $ 40 TPF, whereas the membership in Ontario would be $ 43. But from another point of view, one could say our discount approach is better financially for the TPF player than the current TPF:

1. For the TPF player who plays only 1 tournament per year: An adult now pays $ 20. Under our proposal, it is true he has to pay a bit more – approx. $ 26. But with our method, he becomes a member – he will get the Chess Canada Electronic Newsletter ! And he gets the right to play in an “ unlimited “ number of tournaments at no extra cost. In the second year, however, he will have to become a full member ( $ 43 ).
2. For the TRF player who plays 2 tournaments per year: he pays $ 40. Under our proposal, he will pay just $ 26, and get the right to play in “ unlimited “ number of tournaments. In the second year, however, he will have to become a full member ( Ont. - $ 43 ).

The figures set out below ( modified ) are from the 1st half 2008-9 financial statements in the 2008/9 GL 3:

Analysis of Membership fees

1st half 2009 Year 2008

Annual membership fees collected $ 21,060 $ 44,942
Tournament Playing ( = " tournament membership " ) fees collected $ 1,320 $ 2,987
TOTAL $ 22.380 $ 47,929

It shows that in 2007-8, the tournament memberships formed 6.2% of the total collected. In the 1st half 2008-9, they formed 5.9% of the total. Since then the TPF has been doubled. But the issue remains virtually the same. These figures show that the elimination of tournament memberships affects a very small portion of CFC's income. Some organizers have argued that over 2/3 of TPF players will quit tournament chess forever if we substitute our first-time discount for the TPF. We do not believe this. However, we do not want to lose the tournament membership players. This is the reason for the discount. But there is an issue of fairness between TPF players and annual membership players. All play in the tournament, and all should equally support the national organization. This is why the Grassroots' Campaign is supporting a substitution for the tournament playing fee.

The above numbers show that the chess world will not cave in if tournament membership fees are eliminated. It will be too bad to lose any players, but the financial effect on the CFC will be minimal. And in future, all will be members of the CFC!

Organizers have advised that the full annual CFC membership is a hindrance to getting first time tournament players to sign up for tournaments ( this will be especially so 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.

Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships ( e.g. Quebec ). 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, in addition to the first-time discount..

[Gordon Ritchie]

An alternative would be to offer the choice between a tournament membership of $20 or a first-year discount on CFC. This would resolve the problem of exceptions, etc.
Also, 40% seems a bit steep. Perhaps 25 or 30% would be appropriate.

[John Coleman]

"first time CFC members" assumes the TD will have access to the TDlist at the site, and there wil be no issues with

"you were a member back in 1972"
"no I wasn't, that was someone with the same name"

I dunno, maybe this won't be an issue.

[Ken Craft]

I prefer the status quo and probably will be voting accordingly.

[Paul Leblanc]

I'd like to see a both a discount for new members AND continuance of the tournament membership. In fact, I believe the tournament membership should be returned to the $10 level. Looking at the Grassroot Committee's anaylsis, it seems to me that the revenue loss of doing so would not be significant.

[Hugh Brodie]

Unless something is done for tournament memberships for CFC-rated tournaments held in Quebec (one or two a year) - that number will drop to zero. There has usually been a "friendly agreement" (nothing in writing) that a valid CFC or FQE membership is sufficient.

[Aris Marghetis]

Unless something is done for tournament memberships for CFC-rated tournaments held in Quebec (one or two a year) - that number will drop to zero. There has usually been a "friendly agreement" (nothing in writing) that a valid CFC or FQE membership is sufficient.

That "friendly agreement" might (I really don't know) have been employed for some big CFC events held in Quebec, but when I hold a CFC-rated event in Ottawa, players from across the river in Gatineau, Quebec, need to secure CFC membership. As I have whined (LOL) before, this discourages them!

[Jason Lohner]

I'm with Paul on this, I want the TM to drop back to $10 and a discount for first time members.

[Christopher Mallon]

I am completely against this motion.

It adds another potential layer of headaches for TDs and for the Office (has anyone even asked the office about this?)

Then there is the fact that people who have been inactive since 1991 or so aren't even on our members list anymore.

We have had (minor) issues in the past with people having fake membership names. Would this not potentially encourage this behaviour?

I prefer the status quo over any other option presented so far. What I'd actually like is a flat $30 membership (including provincial dues) for ALL members - no discounts of any kind for youth/senior/anything like that. That would make the TPF pretty much redundant.

[Aris Marghetis]

I am completely against this motion.

It adds another potential layer of headaches for TDs and for the Office (has anyone even asked the office about this?)

Then there is the fact that people who have been inactive since 1991 or so aren't even on our members list anymore.

We have had (minor) issues in the past with people having fake membership names. Would this not potentially encourage this behaviour?

I prefer the status quo over any other option presented so far. What I'd actually like is a flat $30 membership (including provincial dues) for ALL members - no discounts of any kind for youth/senior/anything like that. That would make the TPF pretty much redundant.

OMG, as Org/TD, I would absolutely love a low single flat membership fee!