Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 134

Thread: CFC Executive Candidates Start to Come Forward - Gillanders

  1. #1

    Default CFC Executive Candidates Start to Come Forward - Gillanders

    On May 17 on the CMA ChessTalk, Bob Gillanders, former CFC Governor, former CFC Treasurer, and former CFC Executive Director, declared as follows:

    " I was asked quite directly if I knew of anyone interested in the CFC presidency. The rumour mill apparently has been busy. The answer is Yes. I am considering running for CFC President myself. (or alternatively, returning as Treasurer). To be clear, I am only considering it, this is not a declaration. Some soul searching still to be done. "

    It is great that one of the candidates ( or potential candidates ) has now come forward. Maybe others also, for all the executive positions, will start to declare themselves. It would give CFC Governors and members a chance to question them on their platforms, and help judge who might be best for what positions.

    What do you think are the pro's and con's of a " Gillanders for President " candidacy? Does he have support to run?

    Bob

  2. #2

    Default CFC Candidates - Gillanders

    Hi Bob (A.),


    People like Bob (G.) is what CFC and chess politics needs.
    People who are *active* in playing and organizing, people who can be found in person on the field. The reason why CFC politics and certain provinces / leagues are in the toilet is because you have people running the show "because there was nobody else to do it". That nonsense has really got to end. Acclamations, pushing positions around, to people who don't want to do it or are completely inadequate for the job.

    You take a look at Bob Gillanders and you see all the success he's brought to the community:

    - active in several clubs (Mississauga, Hamilton, Burlington to name a few)
    - is the head man at the Mississauga Chess Club
    - plays weekend events
    - is involved in chess politics at SWOCL (South Western Ontario Chess League) -- by the way SWOCL is embarassing other Ontario leagues with less members and way more activity due to having the right people on the political side
    - has experience with treasury / accounting
    - got CFC back on track after a down period, as the CFC's ED.
    (and more I am sure)

    As a member of Canada's chess community and occasional organizer, I'd definitely like to see people like Bob Gillanders on any executive at chess level, including CFC's. Bob has experience, passion, and delivers! People like Bob don't even need a "platform". History speaks for itself: Bob Gillanders will do a great job at the CFC political level. Platforms are great and should be in place, but we've all seen how they don't necessarily mean much by themselves.


    Alex Ferreira
    Last edited by Alex Ferreira; 05-17-2010 at 02:56 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    I don't see a downside to Bob G's candidacy.

    I wonder what Bob G.'s position is on communication with the Governors....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,323

    Default Communication

    First, thank you Alex for that very kind endorsement.

    Ken, from my earliest days of my CFC involvement, almost 3 years ago now, I have identified poor communication as a major problem. Communication at all levels, Exec vs Governors, Exec vs Members, Exec vs staff.

    In 2007, I restored basic communications with governors via email.

    I applaud the efforts by Bob Armstrong with the online governors meetings. Effective 2 way communication is the answer.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,323

    Default Talk me out of it, please!

    To facilitate better communication, I guess I had better tell everyone my new email address. It is rgillanders@cogeco.ca

    The old rogers account is dead as of today. Thank God, those guys were driving me crazy.

    So, I am thinking about a campaign platform. What are the important issues facing the CFC in the upcoming year? How do we move the yardsticks down the field?

    Please send me your thoughts by email, or post them here.
    And would somebody talk me out of this madness, please!
    Last edited by Bob Gillanders; 05-19-2010 at 10:30 PM.

  6. #6

    Default

    Hi Bob:

    Don't tell me we have a Presidential Candidate who actually wants to dialogue with the Governors/members - what a novel idea !

    And on a discussion board no less.

    Bob

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders
    And would somebody talk me out of this madness, please!
    After one year you might be a celebrate at the Kevin's blog

  8. #8

    Default 2 Ratings Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders

    So, I am thinking about a campaign platform. What are the important issues facing the CFC in the upcoming year? How do we move the yardsticks down the field?
    Hi Bob:

    I have developed my own list of " Goals for the CFC ", things I'd like seen dealt with - they are not all critically important - some are; some are just non-urgent possible improvements. So to get the dialogue going, here is my Goal # 5 ( I'll lob a soft one to start ):

    5. Ratings – They are a major member benefit. There are 2 issues that arise:

    A) FIDE Rating System - I would like to see the CFC system replaced by the FIDE rating system ( is for over 1200’s ) – I see no benefit in Canada having a separate system ( a position long espoused by IM Tom O’Donnell I believe ). CMA, if they’d agree to rate adults, could certainly do the U 1200’s – though technically I’m not sure how this would happen when both over 1200’s and U 1200’s are in the same cross table. But I’m sure there is an answer.

    B ) Underrated Juniors - Currently, the CFC runs into the “ underrated junior “ problem re their regularly playing against older adult class “ C “ players, and this issue seems to arise across the country. Many adults feel they are losing too many rating points in these games, when their strength has not really diminished any – it is that the juniors are much stronger than their rating. We do need to find some rating adjustment method that keeps up better with the rapid improvement of juniors.

    So Bob - any comments on whether these are issues for the CFC to deal with? Any comments on what you think could be done on these two rating issues? Just an attempt to start a dialogue on a non-critical issue, though one important to some.

    Any input on these issues for Bob from anyone else?

    Bob
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 05-20-2010 at 01:03 AM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Hi Bob:

    Regarding ratings, I can think of several reasons for not wanting to switch to FIDE, one of which is brought forward in your point B. Right we have a system where ratings and crosstables are updated weekly. It's quite normal for a tournament to be entered and updated on the website by the Wednesday following its completion (i.e. only a few days). IMHO, the crosstables in the database are one of the CFC's greatest assets. Steps that I would like to see taken would be to allow a "tournament report" or summary to be entered along with the tournament data. Additionally, that database needs to be preserved and/or repaird. A lot of the crosstables are no longer accessible

    Regarding point B, it's not so much an "underrated junior" issue than it is a "stale" rating issue, albeit it one that shows up more commonly with junior players. If a junior plays only one tournament a year (i.e. the Ontario High School Championship), they will not get a "permanent" rating until their fifth or sixth year of competition. And at that point their "rating" will be the average of their play going back for years. And since that initial permanent rating is based upon an average of their opponents ratings, you can only imagine the mess you get when most of their opponents have been similarly rated juniors. The question is: how do you deal with it? I'm not sure.

    Steve

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
    I would like to see the CFC system replaced by the FIDE rating system....

    Bob
    Absolutely NOT. I am horrified to hear such a suggestion!

    The CFC rating system is a key benefit of membership. The flaws in the system can be easily fixed, whereas switching to FIDE system, you lose all control. I prefer a made in Canada solution.
    Last edited by Bob Gillanders; 05-20-2010 at 01:39 AM.

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... 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
  •