PDA

View Full Version : 6. Officer and Committee Reports



Lyle Craver
12-31-2011, 04:40 PM
This section is reserved for the reports of non-Executive CFC Officers and CFC Committees.

Please enter each report as a separate message in this thread.

Paul Leblanc
01-01-2012, 07:16 PM
Last month I was called upon to investigate a complaint that several tournaments played on one of the internet chess servers were submitted to the CFC and had been rated. One of the players involved in all of the tournaments gained hundreds of rating points.
A search of the CFC Handbook did not reveal any policy regarding internet chess.
It was determined that there was no continuous supervision of the players by an independent TD/Arbiter/Witness.
I recommended to the CFC President that the events be annulled and he accepted my recommendation.
Two analogies came to mind - postal chess, which does not qualify for CFC rating and matches, which generally do not involve a TD but which are accepted for rating with certain conditions.
I propose to create a policy on rating internet events for the CFC Handbook and am seeking input from the governors.

Paul Leblanc
01-01-2012, 08:00 PM
Most of my work since the last report has involved working on a new bonus point formula and chasing down incorrectly submitted Junior events.
I have no update on the overall health of the rating system as I have not yet received the quarterly update to the database from the CFC office.
With help from Roger Patterson and Fred McKim, we have modelled several more options to replace the existing “Stockhausen” bonus formula but I am not ready to table a recommendation. The work at this point is leading me towards a slightly modified version of the “old” bonus point system where rating points gained above a certain level (used to be 26 points for a six round event) count double. We’re running models to see if 26 is the optimum number. Also, it is my intention to “tilt” either the bonus point formula or the basic rating formula towards addressing the issue of under-rated juniors.
On the issue of under-rated juniors, the biggest challenge has been to identify which players are juniors. The database is very incomplete regarding players’ ages therefore any formula that targets junior ratings by using CFC age data will produce incomplete results. As a substitute for age, I tried targeting players who have played a small-ish number of games but found too many adult players swept up in the net. I am currently investigating the use of a low rating floor such as 1000 as a proxy for juniors but of course most of the juniors who play serious events are above that floor.
I have spent many hours chasing down incorrectly rated Junior events. Despite an extensive advertising campaign and direct contact with virtually every Junior event organizer, some events with 30 minute time controls were submitted for Regular rating. In some cases this was done intentionally as a sort of challenge to the CFC rules. Some organizers have adapted their Junior events so that the stronger players use a 60 minute per player time control in order to qualify for Regular rating and the less experienced players use a 30 minute per player time control to qualify for Active rating. I commend this practice.
The incorrectly submitted events have caused considerable work to undo. Due to the exigencies of the CFC office contract there is no quality control of events submitted for rating. Errors that I have pointed out and corrected have incurred “overtime” expenses. Finally, the time control information is missing in most events submitted for rating so the CFC office accepts all events submitted for Regular rating without any ability or mandate to cross-reference the time controls.

Kevin Pacey
01-01-2012, 10:14 PM
Shortly after the October 2011 Online Governors Meeting I asked Executive Director Gerry Litchfield (through President von Keitz) if he would be able to send the new membership drive committee a list of names and email addresses of ex-CFC members that the CFC had email addresses for, and about a week later each committee member had such a list.

There are 2167 ex-CFC members and their email addresses on the list that Gerry made for us. After receiving the list, I asked each committee member if they would volunteer to email about a third of the people on the list, with a personally addressed request for them to consider rejoining the CFC, and both of the other committee members (Vladimir Drkulec and Rob Clark) along with myself agreed to this. I gave the goal of emailing all the ex-CFC members listed by 1 July 2012, i.e. before the 2012 AGM. Each committee member was to choose the wording of his own share of email requests to the ex-CFC members.

Based on the last emails I received from my committee members in December, we have emailed to a total of at least 1300 of the email addresses of ex-CFC members on the list. So far, about a third of my own emails to these ex-CFC members have bounced, and another committee member mentioned to me that he had experienced a similar email failure rate.

The email requests sent by committee members told ex-CFC members on our list to contact Gerry if they wished to rejoin the CFC, though some ex-CFC members replied to committee members anyway. So far, as far as I presently know from other committee members emails to me, 6 such replies were positive, with about the same number of negative responses (which were mostly polite). Early in December, in trying to prepare for this report, I requested that Gerry let me know if possible whether CFC membership totals have changed much since our committee started emailing ex-CFC members on our list, but so far no reply from the ED.

There was another, lesser side to our membership drive effort so far. Even before the membership drive emails to ex-CFC members began in October, I volunteered to compile the names, locations and email addresses of Canadian chess instructors for the CFC website (excluding FIDE and Nationally titled instructors already listed). Later, one ex-CFC member moving to Canada indicated they would rejoin the CFC after I had passed along a link to these instructors names. Here is the link, from the CFC website:

http://chess.ca/instructors


Regarding resources the membership drive committee has at its disposal, other than our list of ex-CFC members from Gerry, on 11 October 2011 President von Keitz informed me that the CFC budget for advertising was currently nil for this term, though he noted it might be possible to justify a carry-over of $500 from last term (the amount set aside for last term's CFC/club brochure program, which was never implimented).

While I waited for our list of ex-CFC members to be sent by Gerry in October, CFC membership drive committee members Rob Clark and Vladimir Drkulec had an interesting idea for what $500 or less as an advertising budget might be used for by the CFC. Rob suggested the CFC might buy [advertising] banner space on a chess website. Vlad suggested that the CFC trade banner space of ours for banner space on other chess sites. Rob and Vlad's suggestions were quickly passed on by me to President von Keitz.

Kevin Pacey
CFC Membership Drive Committee Chairman
Ottawa

Bob Armstrong
01-01-2012, 10:25 PM
Procedures’ Committee Report

The Procedures’ Committee was disbanded in November/11 by President Michael von Keitz on my recommendation, as Chair, since it had no current duties, except supervising the Handbook Updating Subcommittee ( Kerry Liles ). So Kerry became the “ Handbook Updater “, reporting directly now to Treasurer Fred McKim, since he has been handling the new CFC Website file for the executive, and the new website is where the Handbook is now lodged.

Bob A, former Chair of Procedures' Committee

Bob Armstrong
01-01-2012, 10:37 PM
Public Relations Coordinator Report

Bylaw 3 of the CFC Handbook, under Duties of Officers in Section 8C, gives the mandate of the Public Relations Coordinator position ( created at the 2010 AGM ) as:

“ 8C. The Public Relations Coordinator will be responsible for promoting the image of the CFC and for promoting chess generally to the public. As such the Public Relations Coordinator will, among other things:

- deal with mainstream media to promote significant chess news, such as Canadian Chess Champions, a new Canadian GM, major tournaments like the Can. Closed, Canadian Open, Can. Women’s Closed, CYCC, etc., the various benefits accruing from playing chess and other positive aspects of the chess culture. “

Here is the update on activity since the 2011 Fall Meeting ( Oct./11 ):

1. “ News “ items ( on the CFC Website Homepage under “ Latest News “[copies on members’ CFC Chess Chat Forum, Facebook, and Twitter ] ) - Posted 44 news items

2. Press releases: issued 2:

i) Re junior expert Michael Song, Bronze Medal winner in U 12 Open at the 2011 WYCC;
ii) Re Can. GM Mark Bluvshtein, voted 2011 Can. Chess Player of the Year.

3. Media referral: dealt with a few, some as a result of press releases, to 2010 U 10 World Champion, Jason Cao, Michael Song and Mark Bluvshtein.

4. Video Clips ( on the CFC Website video gallery ) - with CFC President, Michael von Keitz, arranged for 5 video clips to be posted. As well, I now have for review a long list of other chess video links for future posting on the website.

5. Discussion Boards: posted numbers of times on the members’ CFC Chess Chat Forum, and the CMA ChessTalk, answering CFC issues raised.

6. New Media Links: I have been provided by members with media links across the country, and will slowly be integrating them into the CFC Media E-mail Groups as time permits.

7. The CFC " News Video " - cooperated in research re the “ news videos “ on the CFC website, done by Friendlyman ( aka Shawn Geley ).

8. New CFC Facebook Non-Profit Page: have built it up from about 35 members to over 100.

Bob A, CFC Public Relations Coordinator

Lyle Craver
01-02-2012, 04:29 AM
So Bob, when chess stories appear in local papers do you want copies?

Bob Armstrong
01-02-2012, 04:49 AM
So Bob, when chess stories appear in local papers do you want copies?

Hi Lyle:

What I need is a link to the article/news clip, so I can post it onto the website.

Bob A

Kevin Pacey
01-02-2012, 06:55 PM
Early in December, in trying to prepare for this [membership drive committee] report, I requested that Gerry let me know if possible whether CFC membership totals have changed much since our committee started emailing ex-CFC members on our list, but so far no reply from the ED.

Kevin Pacey
CFC Membership Drive Committee Chairman
Ottawa

Just today I received an email from ED Gerry Litchfield. He happened to have the 1 January 2012 Membership figures, though could not go back and do the same for December.

The total CFC membership as of 1 January is 1852. The last total was 1821, as of 1 May 2011. As Gerry pointed out, it would be best to compare a given month's totals for the current year with the same given month of the previous year to obtain a truer picture of the trend, given the peaks and valleys in membership levels throughout a given year, but still it is encouraging to see our membership total is up, if only slightly.

Gerry noted that presently he only does an annual comparison of membership totals, i.e. for 1 May of each year. Here is a link to the pdf that he sent me for 1 January 2012 membership level details, i.e. by province and membership types. Hopefully everyone can read it:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=1349f8e4f6dedfca&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D0794cac423%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1349 f8e4f6dedfca%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQXL35Av7styF7gngGX7iSF6xR3gg

Michael von Keitz
01-02-2012, 08:00 PM
Rob suggested the CFC might buy [advertising] banner space on a chess website. Vlad suggested that the CFC trade banner space of ours for banner space on other chess sites. Rob and Vlad's suggestions were quickly passed on by me to President von Keitz.

Kevin Pacey
CFC Membership Drive Committee Chairman
Ottawa

At the time, I suggested I preferred Vlad's angle. As Chair of our Long-Term Planning Committee, I'd recommend that discussion be deferred to him and his fellow committee members.

Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
01-03-2012, 01:30 PM
Last month I was called upon to investigate a complaint that several tournaments played on one of the internet chess servers were submitted to the CFC and had been rated. One of the players involved in all of the tournaments gained hundreds of rating points.
A search of the CFC Handbook did not reveal any policy regarding internet chess.
It was determined that there was no continuous supervision of the players by an independent TD/Arbiter/Witness.
I recommended to the CFC President that the events be annulled and he accepted my recommendation.
Two analogies came to mind - postal chess, which does not qualify for CFC rating and matches, which generally do not involve a TD but which are accepted for rating with certain conditions.
I propose to create a policy on rating internet events for the CFC Handbook and am seeking input from the governors.


Thanks for handling this matter. NO Cyber / Postal / Correspondence or ANY non IN PERSON formats should EVERY be rated. Our CFC Rating system is for Regular Games (greater than 1 hour per player) played IN PERSON -- over the board.

We need to preserve the "integrity" of the OTB regular rating system and stop trying to include formats that fail to meet our requirements (example Junior events with less than 1 hour per player or other Internet forms of chess playing for example). My input is to leave it (our system) alone and create 'other' ratings where necessary (Blitz, Active, Internet, Correspondence and REGULAR).

Lyle Craver
01-03-2012, 04:43 PM
Google Docs is a wonderful tool suited for all sorts of documents and I've used it for lots of things besides chess stuff. It's especially good for Word or Excel type documents and can be used either to allow a specified list of people to alter your document or to post it with viewing either restricted to a group of people or public to anybody who has the link.

I commend it highly.

Unfortunately when I clicked the link given above I did not have permission to see the document so was unable to view it.

Kevin Pacey
01-03-2012, 07:03 PM
Google Docs is a wonderful tool suited for all sorts of documents and I've used it for lots of things besides chess stuff. It's especially good for Word or Excel type documents and can be used either to allow a specified list of people to alter your document or to post it with viewing either restricted to a group of people or public to anybody who has the link.

I commend it highly.

Unfortunately when I clicked the link given above I did not have permission to see the document so was unable to view it.

Hi Lyle

One other person emailed to me that they can't view the pdf in the link either, even though I can.

It may be because I'm lacking certain skills, but at the moment I can only think of offering an improvised table of my own as a substitute for Gerry's 1 Jan 2012 CFC Membership Stats pdf (see 1 May 2011 membership stats on the CFC website for what Gerry means by 'F','H',etc.):

...........F.....H.....J.....L.....O.....Total
Total...32....71...419.376.954.....1852
..AB......1......3....32...26.143......205
..BC......2......9....53...70..97.......231
..MB......1......-....11....4...50........66
..NB......1......-....12.....7..30........50
..NL.......-......-.....1.....6..11........18
..NS......-......-......1...15..24........40
..NT......-......-......-.....-....-.........0
..NU......-......-......-.....-....-.........0
..ON....27....35...279.176.525.....1042
..PE......-......-......4.....2..10........16
..QC......-....18....19...24...41......102
..SK......-......-......2...14....3........19
..YT......-......-......-.....1....1.........2
..US......-......3......3...25...16.......47
..FO......-......3......2.....6....3.......14

Kevin Pacey
01-03-2012, 10:17 PM
At the time, I suggested I preferred Vlad's angle. As Chair of our Long-Term Planning Committee, I'd recommend that discussion be deferred to him and his fellow committee members.

Hi Michael

At the time I took your liking of Vlad's idea as commentary (with further possible thought or investigation by the Executive to follow), rather than a suggestion for the membership drive committee to take action. That's because I thought our committee had (at least as yet) no authority to sign deals on behalf of the CFC with any chess website, based on my memory and interpretation of the CFC Handbook.

A task the membership drive committee was assigned by yourself at the October online meeting, I recall, was to investigate advertising strategies the CFC might use, so I felt Vlad's and Rob's suggestions belonged in my report.

If my memory and interpretation of the Handbook is correct, the Long-Term Planning Committee might devote more discussion to the matter of sharing banner space with other chess websites, but in the end actually inking any deal would need to be left to the Executive, still, unless that committee were given the authority to sign.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-04-2012, 12:41 AM
stats


F H J L O Total
Total 32 71 419 376 954 1852
AB 1 3 32 26 143 205
BC 2 9 53 70 97 231
MB 1 - 11 4 50 66
NB 1 - 12 7 30 50
NL - - 1 6 11 18
NS - - 1 15 24 40
NT - - - - - 0
NU - - - - - 0
ON 27 35 279 176 525 1042
PE - - 4 2 10 16
QC - 18 19 24 41 102
SK - - 2 14 3 19
YT - - - 1 1 2
US - 3 3 25 16 47
FO - 3 2 6 3 14


Can we get a number of new members who joined the CFC recently?

Hugh Brodie
01-04-2012, 03:51 PM
How about the number of tournament memberships? Montreal has had several FIDE-rated events over the last year, and I believe that lots of tournament memberships were sold.

Kevin Pacey
01-04-2012, 05:40 PM
Sorry Hugh and Egidijus, but that's the info Gerry sent me, other than a rehash of the 1 May 2011 totals. Thanks for the new table, Egidijus.

I'd suggest asking Gerry directly (or through an Executive member, as I did) if he'd be able to provide you or other Governors the info. I consider myself fortunate that Gerry was able to send me the figures that he had for 1 Jan 2012 as it was. As it is, I'm not sure these figures are to be released in the minutes of this meeting to the public. I'll leave that up to Lyle and the Executive.

Fred McKim
01-04-2012, 09:03 PM
How about the number of tournament memberships? Montreal has had several FIDE-rated events over the last year, and I believe that lots of tournament memberships were sold.

Tournament memberships don`t count toward membership totals.

Bob Armstrong
01-04-2012, 09:19 PM
It would be helpful if the official designation in the Handbook was used by everyone for this fee: tournament playing fee ( " tournament membership " is nowhere in the Handbook; it is a popular misnomer ).

Bob A

Christopher Mallon
01-05-2012, 01:18 AM
Since I've had no response to multiple requests to have reports separated out, I'll just have to post here and hope the thread doesn't get too confusing.


I propose to create a policy on rating internet events for the CFC Handbook and am seeking input from the governors.

All players should be constantly supervised by a certified TD of some level, the exact level TBD...


The incorrectly submitted events have caused considerable work to undo. Due to the exigencies of the CFC office contract there is no quality control of events submitted for rating. Errors that I have pointed out and corrected have incurred “overtime” expenses. Finally, the time control information is missing in most events submitted for rating so the CFC office accepts all events submitted for Regular rating without any ability or mandate to cross-reference the time controls.

Almost every single email I've received from the CFC office in the last 6 months has had some variation of "This isn't in our contract" or "We'll have to charge extra for this" in it and now especially that I hear about it happening to others I am really starting to find it a bit disgusting. They are treating us like opponents out to get them rather than team players.

I'm sorry, but an email to the CFC office asking why my chess.ca address stopped working should not have been responded to with a threat of extra charges. Do they respond this way to non-Governors?

If an event is rated incorrectly due to incomplete information, that is at least partly the fault of the office for not doing minimal diligence in making sure all the data is filled out; for them to charge overtime to fix the problem later seems a little dishonest at best!

Gerry once told me the procedure for retroactively rating or derating a tournament, and I got the distinct impression that it was along the lines of a 5-minute job at most, even with our awkward ratings software.

Bob Armstrong
01-05-2012, 02:06 AM
Since I've had no response to multiple requests to have reports separated out, I'll just have to post here and hope the thread doesn't get too confusing.



All players should be constantly supervised by a certified TD of some level, the exact level TBD...



Almost every single email I've received from the CFC office in the last 6 months has had some variation of "This isn't in our contract" or "We'll have to charge extra for this" in it and now especially that I hear about it happening to others I am really starting to find it a bit disgusting. They are treating us like opponents out to get them rather than team players.

I'm sorry, but an email to the CFC office asking why my chess.ca address stopped working should not have been responded to with a threat of extra charges. Do they respond this way to non-Governors?

If an event is rated incorrectly due to incomplete information, that is at least partly the fault of the office for not doing minimal diligence in making sure all the data is filled out; for them to charge overtime to fix the problem later seems a little dishonest at best!

Gerry once told me the procedure for retroactively rating or derating a tournament, and I got the distinct impression that it was along the lines of a 5-minute job at most, even with our awkward ratings software.

Hi Chris:

You raise a problem.

I have asked the executive if there is now sufficient money to hire an in-house Executive Director, as we used to do ( I feel we may have to offer a salary somewhat better than that going to Gerry at the moment, and there will also be some overhead costs that will return to us ). This will allow us to amend priorities of the ED as reality changes - without asking him to also do everything he was doing that was full-time.

I am not sure if the executive has in fact discussed my proposal - I have had no communication on this.

Bob A

Bob Gillanders
01-05-2012, 03:46 AM
Almost every single email I've received from the CFC office in the last 6 months has had some variation of "This isn't in our contract" or "We'll have to charge extra for this" in it and now especially that I hear about it happening to others I am really starting to find it a bit disgusting. They are treating us like opponents out to get them rather than team players.

I'm sorry, but an email to the CFC office asking why my chess.ca address stopped working should not have been responded to with a threat of extra charges. Do they respond this way to non-Governors?


Chris, I am very distressed to read these comments. The "scope of work" appendix added to the contract renewal last year was intended to give both parties a better understanding of the service level expected from Outpost. It is meant to be a breathing dynamic instrument, to be updated as needed, not to be used as an excuse for extra billings nor to withhold services.

I am not saying that that is what is happening here. It is not possible to know that for sure from what I have read here. Nevertheless, the office contract is something that needs regular oversight to ensure it remains an effective document and is perceived as fair by both parties.

Before we get too far down the road of complaining about the office in public, could I ask you to send me some of these "this is not in our contract" emails you have received. I think it would be best if you gave the executive a chance to assess the situation.

Perhaps some midterm contract maintenance is needed. If anyone else has similar complaints, please forward them too.

Lyle Craver
01-05-2012, 04:48 AM
Bob A has raised a very good point concerning use of the term "tournament playing fee" instead of "tournament membership".

I remember some 10+ years ago discussing this in detail with then President Francisco Cabanas who first championed the idea. The differentiation was based on the notion that players that paid the fee would think it involved rights and privileges beyond the duration of the event.

Francisco thought of this as a marketing tool and felt we should be sending copies of En Passant to first time "members" (quotations deliberate) along with an invitation to take a full membership.

I've always had mixed feelings about the merits of this fee and do think it has had a downwards effect on membership levels though it is a fair question to ask how committed someone who pays 2 or 3 fees per year is to the objectives of the CFC and thus how much of a loss it might actually be.

I hate over-specificity with terminology more than most people but this is one case where we really should and I thank Bob for reminding us.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-05-2012, 11:23 AM
I'd suggest asking Gerry directly (or through an Executive member, as I did) if he'd be able to provide you or other Governors the info.

I would suggest for your committee to have a full picture of the members' dynamics. If a such simple question about who (or how many) recently joined requires the Execs permission to ask the Director with an uncertainty of getting the answer, the whole system really must be greased.

Organizations, who value their members, publish lists of newly joined members or families. For the CFC with ~2000 members, everyone must be counted and appreciated.

Pierre Dénommée
01-05-2012, 03:25 PM
What is bought is a licence to play rated Chess. In France, they have no problem calling it a licence. But to be completely accurate, all players in France pay for a Licence to play, not for a membership. Only the Chess Clubs can be a member. Chess clubs presidents and delegates attend the AGM.


Bob A has raised a very good point concerning use of the term "tournament playing fee" instead of "tournament membership".

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-05-2012, 03:31 PM
What is bought is a licence to play rated Chess.

+ elect and/or nominate governors.

Pierre Dénommée
01-05-2012, 05:25 PM
This applies to regular members but not to tournament members. Furthermore, you can elect your Governors only if your province has at least an Interim Provincial Authority.



+ elect and/or nominate governors.

Kevin Pacey
01-05-2012, 06:10 PM
I would suggest for your committee to have a full picture of the members' dynamics. If a such simple question about who (or how many) recently joined requires the Execs permission to ask the Director with an uncertainty of getting the answer, the whole system really must be greased.

Organizations, who value their members, publish lists of newly joined members or families. For the CFC with ~2000 members, everyone must be counted and appreciated.

Let's wait and see if the Executive takes up your suggestion, Egidijus. It's not under my committee's control to demand the extra information that you wish for. I also don't wish to bother Gerry any more than I have to.

Vladimir Drkulec
01-07-2012, 02:10 PM
The long term planning committee has been somewhat dormant after a flurry of initial emails. I was distracted due to significant time requirements of duties with respect to the CFC masters representative position and the launch of the new title system and housekeeping with respect to the old title system and the membership drive committee (it takes a long time to send over 700+ emails and sort through the bounce backs).

I have been gathering reference material in the area of long term planning, sports marketing, strategy and long term planning for non-profit organizations. I have also located a number of resources for preparing a long term plan including software that I used to generate plans previously (BizPlan Builder and Marketing Plan Builder). I have also been accumulating strategic and long term plans for non-profit companies and agencies which will be helpful in formulating a plan for the CFC. We have already circulated a strategic plan developed for the English Chess Federation which will certainly have some relevance to developing a similar plan for the Canadian Chess Federation.

I expect that we should have a reboot of the Long Term Planning committee starting with a face to face meeting in January or February with a view to producing a more substantial interim report in three months time.

One book that I have found that is quite relevant to our own issues is Peter F. Drucker's, "Managing the Nonprofit Organization - Principles and Practices." I recommend it to the Executive and others interested in developing a vision for the CFC. It is probably available in most library systems and from online book sellers including Amazon.ca.

Another book that is very relevant to our task is "Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations" by John M. Brown, though that one would be much more difficult to find. I have it and am finding it quite invaluable to the present task.

Books that are not specific to non-profits but are still highly relevant to the preparation of a long term plan for the CFC are the classic "Competitive Strategy" and "Competitive Advantage" by Michael Porter which provide templates and frameworks which are relevant to developing a picture of the current situation relative to where we would like to be.