CFC Membership - One Category/One Fee?

[Bob Armstrong]

Motion 2011-B - Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee

Moved: Aris Marghetis; Seconded : Chris Mallon

- that CFC replace the memberships for Adult, Family, and Junior, with a single new annual CFC membership, and the rate for the federal portion would be $30.

Note that Aris has subsequently declared that he no longer supports this motion.

This motion, brought at the Governors' Fall Meeting, was adjourned to the Winter Meeting ( January, 2011 ). The governors' have started to debate it on the Governors' Discussion Board. Next it will be debated and voted on at the Winter Meeting, unless the governors decide for some reason to adjourn it again. CFC President Bob Gillanders has indicated he wants it adjourned to the 2011 July Toronto AGM. The reason for this is that the motion is far-reaching, and affects CFC finances, and all ramifications should be thoroughly worked out before the motion is voted on.

One way to evaluate the worth of this motion is to focus on the validity of the current discounted CFC Junior Annual Membership ( it is cheaper than the comparable adult membership ). If the discount is justified, then perhaps the motion should be defeated, because the categories make sense. However, if for CFC, a discounted junior membership seems not justified, then the motion has merit. Different people are doing calculations on the appropriate amount of a new fee, so that CFC will not lose revenue should CFC move to a single membership, but at this point I would like to focus debate on the concept of one membership, not the fee calculations.

Here are some of the pro and con arguments re junior membership that have been raised so far:

For the Junior Discount:

1. Juniors get discounts on all kinds of things, and many other types of memberships, and CFC will look bad if it doesn't fall in line and give juniors a discounted annual membership.

2. Juniors are the future of chess - as such CFC should do all it can to encourage juniors to play, and one way of encouraging them is a lower membership fee.

3. Families with juniors often have tighter budgets, given the number of family members. So a discount increases the chance that scarce family revenue will be spent on a CFC Junior Membership.

4. Even in chess, Juniors are given discounts - for example there is often a junior registration fee for weekend tournaments; there are often junior memberships for chess clubs. CFC will be out of step with other aspects of chess if they discontinue the junior membership discount.

Against the Junior Membership Discount:

1. CFC membership cannot be compared to other situations where juniors get discounts. There may be good reaons in other situations, but not re an annual CFC membership. It is a different situation, and thus can be eliminated.

2. From a membership processing point of view, a junior takes up the same CFC resources as a regular adult - he has a place on the list like an adult, a membership number like an adult, etc.

3. From a tournament rating point of view, a junior in an adult tournament takes up the same CFC resources in maintaining their rating - it is processed the same way as any adult's rating calculation.

4. Juniors get the Canadian Chess News, the same as adults.

5. Administering one category of membership simplifies membership administration and will save some staff time and money.

What input do you have for the governors on this issue of one membership/one fee?

Do you have other arguments on either side?

What view do you support- Existing multiple category & fee or one membership/one fee?

Bob

[roger patterson]

The standard economic argument for different prices for different groups is to maximize revenue by tailoring fees to the ability (willingness) of each group to pay. If anything, juniors these days are less price sensitive than adult players so giving them a discount is not economically justified. Perhaps in days gone by, but those days are gone.

It is not correct to justify different prices based on the idea that tournaments offer discounts etc. Some tournaments offer discounts but my feeling is that fewer and fewer do. My tournaments don't.

As for the cfc looking bad, I'm not sure it can get worse. Not a relevant argument in any case.

[Peter McKillop]

A bit of perspective: 40 years ago, when I was in university, a student membership at the Y cost $30 per year.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

The standard economic argument for different prices for different groups is to maximize revenue by tailoring fees to the ability (willingness) of each group to pay. If anything, juniors these days are less price sensitive than adult players so giving them a discount is not economically justified. Perhaps in days gone by, but those days are gone.

It is not correct to justify different prices based on the idea that tournaments offer discounts etc. Some tournaments offer discounts but my feeling is that fewer and fewer do. My tournaments don't.

As for the cfc looking bad, I'm not sure it can get worse. Not a relevant argument in any case.

Sorry in advance if I sound negative, but this clearly looks like milking the juniors for the benefit of adults. It is widely known junior tournaments far outnumber the adult ones in BC, so my point should be pretty clear!

Adults have (or should have) jobs and money to spend for different kind of expenses such as "leisure". It is impossible for me to understand why we get this continuous argument they cannot pay the yearly membership to CFC, but have no trouble spending X times more on several other "leisure" options... Sadly this situation is not encountered in too many other federations around the World!

P.S. Last but not least junior players and their parents are very reasonable during their participation; let's not even start talking about adults and their "requests"... This is a major reason why there are so few organizers for adult tournaments in BC.

[Fred McKim]

It is clear to me that in all walks of life, here and elsewhere, it is standard for juniors or youth to get reduced memberships and admissions to events (and I'm not just talking about Chess).

I don't think that those who are doing this only for the sake of simplifying how much to charge for a CFC membersip are really thinking this through. The negative publicity is going to be horrible.

For those of you who actually think that juniors don't deserve a reduction in annual fees, there's probably nothing I can say to change your minds.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I think to discuss this discount question we should separate:
(normal) membership;
rating fees;

and at the end to know a goal: a large number of members or a large amount of money to collect from them :) or smth in between.


Just a simple mind question: would the CFC survive if everybody bought the life memberships and the main CFC income would be from interest? :)

[Stuart Brammall]

Just a simple mind question: would the CFC survive if everybody bought the life memberships and the main CFC income would be from interest? :)

If we could get 5% interest, and if everyone buying is <30, we could cover the federal portion of the membership.

As it stands most life member pay no provincial dues (although this is not really their fault, considering the provincial affiliates generally lack the infrastructure to process someone buying a provincial membership)

[Stuart Brammall]

I should mention that 5% is an impossibly high rate of return, considering current GIC and Bond rates...

[Valer Eugen Demian]

It is probably a populistic view, but those truly interested in chess should support their federation on a regular/ annual basis. Keeping proportions it is the same with being member of a professional organization (P Eng, CGA, MD, etc).

Why do people have such a low view of their own national chess federations? Is it because in Canada we do not know better but accept chess as a recreational activity? The majority of the World sees it differently and I strongly doubt they are wrong...

[Bob Armstrong]

Motion 2011-A - Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee

Moved: Aris Marghetis ( no longer supporting the motion ); Seconded : Chris Mallon

- that CFC replace the memberships for Adult, Family, and Junior, with a single new annual CFC membership, and the rate for the federal portion would be $30.

This Motion 2011-A came on for discussion again at the 2011 Governors' Winter On-line Meeting. I supported the motion by a " commentary ". I would like to share with the CFC members what happened to the motion and the views I expressed.

A. The Confidentiality Issue

1. Though the meeting is confidential while taking place, and details are not to be disclosed during the course of the meeting, the CFC Handbook calls for the production and presentation of " Minutes " of the meeting thereafter, within 7 days, to the governors for approval ( these are in addition to the " Summaries " which were to have been produced during the meeting, but never were ). The Governors have 3 days to respond, and then the Secretary 3 days to correct the Minutes if necessary. Then s. 22A on Meeting Procedures, section ( 7 ) states:

" After 3 days, the Minutes, as corrected if necessary, shall be immediately published in a Governors’ Letter, to be posted immediately on the CFC Website. "

This means that at most, the Minutes are to be published " immediately " after the passage of 13 days after the close of the meeting. The meeting closed on January 22, and so 16 days have now passed. But the Minutes have not yet even been posted on the Governors' Discussion Board for the Governors to comment on.

2. In the light of this delay, and the fact that the content of the meeting is to be disclosed after the meeting in " Minutes ", I would now like to share a shortened, and edited, and updated summary of my view of the progress of Motion 2011-A, before, during and after the meeting. I will mostly restrict myself to my actions and views, what I said, and facts dealing with the actual processing of the motion, and avoid presenting the views or statements of other governors, pending the eventual publishing of the Minutes.

B. Some History

3. At the 2010 Fall meeting, the motion 2011-A ( Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee ) was moved by Aris Marghetis, seconded by Chris Mallon, with the initial intention that it be voted on at the meeting.

4. Bob G, as Chair, under his view of the powers of the Chair, ruled that the motion would be adjourned to the 2011 Winter Meeting - it was complex and needed more consideration and debate than would be allowed prior to a meeting vote. I would have preferred that the Chair put a motion to the governors whether they would adjourn their motion, rather than asserting that he had power as Chair to unilaterally do this.

5. Between Meetings, the mover, Aris Marghetis, indicated he was withdrawing his support of the motion as mover.

6. There is some governor opinion that in a case like this, another governor can come forward to substitute for the original mover. Others say that it is not necessary and the motion can simply proceed, and the mover cannot withdraw his name as mover, only his support. I indicated that if a substitute mover was required, I would step forward - but Bob G ruled I was unsuitable as a substitute.

7. A final relevant pre-meeting fact in this analysis of Motion 2011-A, is that at the 2010 Fall Meeting, the assembly struck the Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee. Bob G deferred the staffing of that committee, and so it again came onto the agenda of the 2011 Winter Meeting.

B. At the 2011 Winter Meeting

8. The motion 2011-A got dealt with as originally filed, showing the original mover/seconder, for the agenda item dealing with " discussion " of the motion, despite Aris’ withdrawing of support, and with no substitute mover having replaced him. It seemed in my view, that President Bob Gillanders, as Chair of the meeting, had ruled that there was no need for a substitute mover, and the motion was proceeding as originally filed. Bob G never has confirmed this procedural analysis of mine.

9. However, though the motion was on the agenda as it was supposed to be, Bob Gillanders only allowed for “ discussion “ of the motion, and appeared to have adjourned the “ voting “ on the motion, since a voting agenda item did not appear ( it was never made clear whether this adjournament was to the 2011 Spring Meeting or the 2011 July Toronto AGM ). I already posted the meeting agenda on this board at the start of the meeting, so members are already aware of this. Bob G's reason for these rulings seemed to be, in my view, that the motion is far-reaching, and affected CFC finances, and all ramifications should be thoroughly worked out before the motion was voted on. Again, I would have preferred that the voting agenda item had been there, and Bob G had asked the governors to vote to adjourn the voting again to a future meeting.

10. In discussion on Motion 2011-A, I stated on Jan. 16:

“I think that this motion should simply be adjourned by the Assembly to the 2011 Spring quarterly meeting, and I will so move now….. Will you [ Bob G ] or Lyle please advise us how to now deal with my motion to adjourn Motion 2011-A, and to vote on that. “

Neither Bob G nor Lyle ever responded to me, nor did the chair call a vote on my motion to adjourn the motion for discussion and vote to the 2011 Spring Meeting.

11. On Jan. 17, during the 2011 Winter Meeting, the Secretary “ closed “ the discussion thread “ at the request of the President. “ No governor requested this. Ostensibly, it appeared Bob G ordered this because there was also a debate on membership occuring in a slightly different form under Agenda Item # 13, and he wanted the debate on Motion 2011-A continued there. However no governor raised this particular issue again under that thread, though there was much lively debate on different fees issues ( I will refrain from going into the content of that debate, and who said what ).

Continued in Part II below

[Bob Armstrong]

D. Post-Meeting

12. After the meeting I lobbied to get the Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee staffed and functioning. In discussing membership/rating fees, the committee was also to discuss the issues underlying Motion 2011-A. It was hoped they would have some recommendation for the governors when the motion came on for discussion and vote at the 2011 Spring Meeting ( if that was its destiny ). However, Treasurer Fred McKim advised that the executive was further delaying the functioning of the committee until CFC had its new website, since this might affect whether CFC should offer an annual membership fee, a tournament fee ( old rating fee ), or a combination as now. Unfortunately, the Treasurer, who is carrying the new website file on behalf of the executive, seems to have indicated that the earliest likely completion date of the website will be sometime in April, after the 2011 Spring Meeting. In this case, since it appears there will be no functioning Committee before the Meeting, there will be no recommendation on Motion 2011-A for the 2011 Spring Meeting.

E. The 2011 Spring Meeting ( April )

13. This last fact has led me to state that I would again therefore, make a motion at the upcoming 2011 Spring Meeting to adjourn Motion 2011-A to the July Annual General Meeting. It would not be beneficial from a member point of view, to see the CFC changing its membership fee structure a couple of times potentially , within a short time - once at the 2011 Spring Meeting, and then again at the July AGM, based on the recommendations then having been produced by a functioning Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee. And CFC can live a while longer with the multiple annual membership categories, which have now existed for some time. So it would seem that Motion 2011-A should await a review and recommendation by the eventual Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee, whenever it is finally staffed and starts to function.


F. Conclusion

14. Though Motion 2011-A is a bit battered and bruised by the course of its processing, the motion is good, simple and clear. It is legitimately filed originally in the 2010 Fall Meeting, and still valid. It is a good motion to debate and vote on. I have had divided response to the single membership issue on the governors’ discussion board, and the CFC members’ Chess Chat Forum. So it is a live issue. Admittedly though, Motion 2011-A has some flaws and complications – mover has withdrawn; $ 30 fee figure is inadequate; it needs an amending motion to increase it to $ 32, as CFC Treasurer Fred McKim has costed it at the 2011 Winter Meeting on Jan. 16 – to be revenue neutral. There is no groundswell of support for this motion, either at the governor nor member levels, but there is some lively divided opinion so far. On the other hand, it now has legislative currency - that is worth something – the motion got properly filed ( though Bob G seems to have some reasoning that this may not be so and calls the circumstances of introduction “ questionable “ ); it got debated initially on the floor of the 2010 Fall Meeting, before getting “ adjourned by the Chair “; it got onto the 2011 Winter Meeting agenda, even if only for “ discussion “ and not “ vote “; the discussion thread got discussed at the meeting, before Bob G “ closed “ the thread; I made a motion, before the thread got closed, to “ adjourn the motion “ for discussion and vote to the 2011 Spring Meeting ( though the chair never recognized my motion to adjourn, nor called a vote on my motion ).
So there is some real value to this motion, and to its continuance to full debate and voting. Hopefully, the motion will get adjourned at the 2011 Spring Meeting, and then the governors will finally get to have full debate and vote on it, in the light of any report from the Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee, at the AGM.

15. I wanted members to know early on after the meeting what had happened to this motion, since I have posted for members on it before the meeting. I hope this has brought everyone up to speed on where the motion 2011-A is now at.

Bob