PDA

View Full Version : 30 Motion 2011-L – "A Single CFC Annual Membership"



Lyle Craver
04-01-2011, 01:32 AM
THIS MOTION IS FOR DISCUSSION ONLY AND IS NOT UP FOR VOTE AT THIS MEETING

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim

- 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 $34.

Bob Armstrong
04-01-2011, 08:44 AM
Bob Armstrong's Motion 2011-L Commentary:

A. Two Issues :the following have arisen in governor discussion:

1. Amount of a single Annual CFC Membership Fee – The current national portion of the annual fee collected is $ 36. It is felt that the new fee should be revenue neutral – that is, it will neither increase nor decrease expected CFC membership revenue for 2011-12. Bob G posted that the $ 30 in an earlier motion 2011-A was low, and that CFC would lose over $ 5000 next year if that $ figure was passed.

At the same meeting, Treasurer Fred McKim stated that “ it would make sense that the tournament playing fee ( popularly called the tournament membership fee ), both adult and junior, be combined at the same time “ into a single fee. But this has been in the past a most controversial issue. Motion 2010-06 sought to replace the tournament playing fee with a first time CFC’er discounted annual membership. It was defeated in a straw vote at the 2010 Spring “ Trial “ On-line Meeting. Therefore, the mover and seconder withdrew their support for the motion. Thus the Minutes of the Outgoing Governors’ 2010 AGM state: “ Motion 2010-06 - First-time CFC Member introductory discount - Armstrong withdraws as mover. Gladstone withdraws as seconder. Motion withdrawn. “ Given this, it is felt best to first establish a new single annual membership, and then have a further discussion/motion whether the tournament playing fee still makes sense. I fear loss of support for Motion 2011-Z if the two issues are linked in one motion.

2. Any justification for the current junior membership discount? - If the discount for juniors is justified, then perhaps the motion should be defeated, because at least one of the categories make sense. However, if for CFC, a discounted junior membership seems not justified, then the motion has merit.

B. Issue # 1 - Annual Fee Required:

As of May 10, 2010, CFC had about 1,430 annual paying members ( Honourary and Life Members eliminated ). In 2009-10, memberships generated $ 46,767
Assume the Junior, Junior Participating and Family, are collapsed into the single fee, giving a junior membership of 472.

A. the $ 33 scenario - a $ 33 annual membership fee would generate 1,430 X $ 33 = $ 47, 190 .. Thus $ 33 annual membership would be about revenue neutral on two conditions:

1. Juniors in 2011-12 would have to renew 472 memberships. ( Note: if 56 ( 12 % ) of the juniors refuse to renew at the higher rate – this would lessen the revenue by 56 X $ 33 = $ 1,848. This leaves revenue of only $ 45,342.. So in this case, $ 33 would lead to an unacceptable decrease in revenue ) ;
2. All 958 adults would have to renew.

B. the $ 34 scenario – this would generate 1, 430 X $ 34 = $ 48, 620. The excess revenue would allow 12 % ( 56/472 ) of the juniors to refuse to renew, due to the increase, and still the unification of memberships would be revenue neutral.

We feel some latitude must be allowed for non-renewing juniors. So we have opted for an annual unified membership fee of $ 34.

C. Issue # 2 - Merits of the Motion

The motion seeks to simplify the administration of CFC memberships, by eliminating multiple categories, and instituting only 3 memberships – an annual membership, as desired by this motion, the existing “ Life Membership “ and the Honourary Membership. This is clearly beneficial from an administrative point of view, and is less time-consuming for staff, and thus saves CFC some member administration costs.

Here are some of the arguments that have been made on both sides of this issue:

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 reasons in other situations, but not re an annual CFC membership. It is a different situation, and thus can be eliminated. Roger Patterson of BC has noted:

“ 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. “

However, I note the comment of Governor Valer Eugen Demian:

“ … 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! “

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. In fact, though, for all junior events, there is a different step required, since the cost of rating is different. This adds to administrative work.

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

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

D. Timing

a ) The Issue

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. And CFC can live with the multiple annual membership categories, which have now existed for some time. So it would seem that Motion 2011-Z should await a review and recommendation by the eventual Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee, whenever it is finally staffed and starts to function. 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. Again there was lively discussing of the issues, and after the meeting I lobbied to get the Committee staffed and functioning. In discussing membership/rating fees, the committee was also to discuss the issues underlying Motion 2011-Z. 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. 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,has indicated the new website will come on line in the time leading up to the July AGM. In this case, since it appears there will be no functioning Committee before the Meeting, there will be no recommendation on Motion 2011-Z. For this reason, the motion should be postponed ‘til there is a committee recommendation.

As well, Bob G and Fred have felt that the new CFC website might affect the debate on this motion, and the CFC membership structure.

b ) Proposed Action

Motion 2011-Z should be “ debated “ at the 2011 Spring Meeting. But as to voting, I will ask for the Chair to call a vote “ to postpone the motion to a fixed time, namely the July AGM agenda “. I am working on the assumption that only the governors can decide the course of its processing, within Robert's Rules of Order. Thus it is up to the Governors whether to discuss and vote on the Motion 2011-Z at the 2011 Spring Meeting, or to “ postpone “ it to the 2011 July AGM.

E. Conclusion

Governor/Treasurer Fred McKim ( who only seconded this motion so it could be brought to debate/vote, but he does not support it ) has noted that : “The negative publicity is going to be horrible. “ It is my view, as mover, however, that nevertheless, for a CFC membership, a junior discount is not warranted from an administrative cost point of view, nor otherwise, and CFC should move to a single annual membership for all.

Valer Eugen Demian
04-01-2011, 03:11 PM
It is not the first time when CFC tries to do this to juniors. I hope this will be defeated again. There are countless examples where the youth get reduced participation fees.

One real example: the place I am renting for our "Golden Knights" chess club since 2005 has the rent reduced to a decent level because it is strictly an activity for juniors. Same place would be 3 times the charge if the activity could involve adults. Q.E.D.

Bob Armstrong
04-01-2011, 07:35 PM
I'd like to put a little perspective into the debate here on what is now Motion 2011-L at this 2011 Spring Meeting.

A Junior membership ( national portion ) is $ 24. Under a unified annual membership, the motion would raise their annual fee to $ 34.

The motion is proposing a $ 10/yr whopping increase ( less than $1/mo. ) ! Are droves of juniors not going to renew because of this? My brother and sister-in-law spend $ 5000/year for their son's elite hockey. This is not going to break the bank, or lead to loss of juniors.

And CFC reaps no financial benefit as a result of passing the motion, because adults are getting a decrease in annual fee. The motion is revenue neutral from the CFC perspective - no decrease nor increase in annual membership revenue. It is not a CFC cash grab.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
04-02-2011, 10:39 AM
Governors may want to look at the very healthy debate I'm having on the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum ( http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=1535 ) with CFC member, and often CFC volunteer, Steve Karpik, on this motion.

Bob

Hugh Brodie
04-03-2011, 12:42 AM
As a Quebec governor, I would have to vote against this motion. The Quebec Open and the Montreal Open (and maybe one or two in the Gatineau area) will be the only CFC tournaments to be rated this year in Quebec. The majority of entrants will not play in more than one (maybe two) of these events each year. Why penalize them with a $34 fee?

In past years, the Quebec Open organizers have often absorbed the then $10 CFC tournament fee for those who weren't already members. Nothing is mentioned about CFC fees on the Quebec Open web page (the Invitational and Open sections are FIDE rated):

http://www.fqechecs.qc.ca/coq/coq2011-pub-eng.pdf

The organizers of the Montreal Open (in September - top section FIDE rated) have assumed that a CFC tournament membership will still exist, and wants to charge $10 (absorbing any other costs). "Absorbing" the remaining $24 for each of 50 or so players in the top section is a hefty $1200.

http://fqechecs.qc.ca/index.php?typ=actu&categorie=37&id=3206

Bob Armstrong
04-03-2011, 01:32 AM
Hi Hugh:

This motion does not eliminate the tournament playing fee ( popularly called a tournament membership ). It still will exist if the motion passes. It is now $20 for an adult and $ 10 for a junior. So Quebec non-CFC members will not have to pay the new $ 34 annual fee, unless for some reason they want to join.

Bob

Paul Leblanc
04-04-2011, 10:11 AM
Does anyone have the history of CFC membership fees over the past 10 years or so? I actually feel that we should be raising the fees a dollar or two right now just to keep ahead of the game. Otherwise, the day will come sometime down the road when we need a large increase and that will lead to more than the usual acrimonious and pointless discussions.
$36 is just such a ridiculously low fee to belong to a national organization. It will cost me 50 times that much to play in the Canadian Open!

Fred McKim
04-04-2011, 10:19 AM
Does anyone have the history of CFC membership fees over the past 10 years or so? I actually feel that we should be raising the fees a dollar or two right now just to keep ahead of the game. Otherwise, the day will come sometime down the road when we need a large increase and that will lead to more than the usual acrimonious and pointless discussions.
$36 is just such a ridiculously low fee to belong to a national organization. It will cost me 50 times that much to play in the Canadian Open!

I think "we" have made a decision that the CFC membership fees and rating fees would be reviewed once the web site is up and operating.

We are trying to keep the current motion simple and revenue neutral.

Garland Best
04-04-2011, 06:35 PM
I recall seeing one posted on either Chess Talk, or possibly the old "Ottawa Chess Club" bulletin board. I recall Jonathan Berry suppling the data, although I could be mistaken.


Just for reference, $40 today would be the equivalent of $14.33 in 1980. (Reference: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html ) If someone has a copy of the CFC magazine from that time, you can do a comparison.

Christopher Mallon
04-05-2011, 11:50 PM
They were last changed around 2003 or so, up $3 as I recall.

The fact that the balanced unified fee needs to be $34 to break even shows that we have been falling a bit behind on the inflation curve.

Of course now we have apparently discovered that we need to charge HST.....

Lyle Craver
04-06-2011, 04:27 PM
My personal view is that the tournament "membership" has hurt the CFC membership numbers more than any other single factor.

In fairness to my good friend Francisco Cabanas who was CFC president and main advocate for this measure at the time I predicted this before the original motion was passed. I regret to say I think history has proven me right.

This is an interesting motion though I would not want to see it used to eliminate Life Memberships which I do thing are a net gain for the Federation. Unlike our American cousins we did not spend the capital from these but invested it prudently and I think it's a useful way to donate to the CFC.

(I confess I'm not unbiased - I purchased my CFC and BCCF life memberships 24 years ago)

Bob Armstrong
04-06-2011, 06:10 PM
Hi Lyle:

The motion does not affect the Life Membership, which would be available as always.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
04-06-2011, 09:36 PM
BobA, it does affect the price of those memberships if I'm not mistaken...

Bob Armstrong
04-06-2011, 10:00 PM
Hi Chris:

Yes - no effect on the Life Membership staying in existence. But - does affect Life Membership price, since it is a function of the annual membership.

Bob

Ken Craft
04-07-2011, 08:11 AM
I wonder if terminating Life Memberships could result in a class action lawsuit?

Christopher Mallon
04-07-2011, 08:52 AM
Who ever said they wanted to terminate life memberships?

Some people have said they want to stop selling them, but that's different.

Ken Craft
04-07-2011, 09:23 AM
The idea of terminating them has been suggested by some in the past. It doesn't seem to have developed any traction. Abolishing annual memberships and moving to a very high rating fee might in reality to remove any benefits having purchased a life membership would have provided.

Stuart Brammall
04-07-2011, 12:37 PM
Abolishing annual memberships and moving to a very high rating fee might in reality to remove any benefits having purchased a life membership would have provided.

This was discussed before: If we were to move to a rating fee only model the life membership rating fee could remain at $3. I have not advocated to take away the life membership benefits.

Further, if you think $8, which is the suggested figure, is "very high" for a rating fee, you could always call it a tournament membership:p. It would have all the same benefits as current membership (that is to say, none).

Christopher Mallon
04-07-2011, 05:48 PM
Yes I know many people including myself in the past have suggested no longer selling them. Not many that I've seen if any have ever said we should strip away those already sold.

Lyle Craver
04-07-2011, 05:52 PM
When BC went to this kind of 'membership', a moratorium on new life memberships was part of the proposal.

Christopher Field
04-07-2011, 11:13 PM
I seem to be saying "no" a lot in this meeting.

We need to continue to get more juniors to join. They are the future of the CFC. They (or their parents) should enjoy a lower membership fee, of a family membership in the case of 2 or more brothers / sisters.
Once they turn 20, we hope that they will make the choice to purchase an adult membership.