5P. Report on Donation from Saskatchewan Chess Association (MOTION ENCLOSED!!!)

[Fred McKim]

From Bob Gillanders' Past President's Report

There is one significant number on the financials which I hope we do not gloss over.
It is the Donations revenue of $ 5,506.50.
But, as I understand it, this is not really good news.
In April, the CFC received a cheque for $ 5,300 from the Saskatchewan Chess Association. They have closed up operations and donated their bank balance to the CFC. Additionally, $ 206.50 that was owing to the SCA was written off to donations.

This means the CFC has no presence in Saskatchewan, and the local organizers see little hope to revive CFC events there. I think we should pause for a moment, and question whether we should be so quick to accept this donation into general revenues.

I would like to see this money used to generate chess activity in Saskatchewan. Find somebody in Saskatchewan who could use the money to hopefully regenerate CFC activity there. But first, I would love to hear from our Governor from Saskatchewan. Can he shed any more light on the situation, do I have my facts correct?

[Fred McKim]

I questioned the application of this money to our General Funds, as well - but was told by Michael (from Gerry) that this was the desire.

You're right, Bob - I think it should be investigated a bit, before it gets completely swallowed by us.

[Christopher Mallon]

I questioned the application of this money to our General Funds, as well - but was told by Michael (from Gerry) that this was the desire.

You're right, Bob - I think it should be investigated a bit, before it gets completely swallowed by us.

If nothing else, we could put it into the Foundation rather than simply spending it.

[Les Bunning]

I agree with Chris. Put it in the foundation and perhaps it can be donated back at a later date if we are satisfied that it could be put to good use in promoting chess in Saskatchewan
Les Bunning

[Christopher Mallon]

Les, technically one of the items on the agenda at the Outgoing meeting is a contribution to the Foundation.

I'd like to move that we contribute $5506.50 to the Foundation for Fiscal 2012-2013. Would you (or anyone else) like to second that?

[Paul Leblanc]

I second the motion. Better to preserve the capital in the Foundation than let it get lost in general revenue and expenses.

[Fred McKim]

I agree with Chris. Put it in the foundation and perhaps it can be donated back at a later date if we are satisfied that it could be put to good use in promoting chess in Saskatchewan
Les Bunning

I think the motion should specify that a SK fund be set up the same way the Pugi fund is. If it is donated directly to the foundation then it should remain there in perpetuity for investments.

If we do this then either the financial statements need to be modified or the donation shows against the 2013/14 budget.

[Fred McKim]

I think the motion should specify that a SK fund be set up the same way the Pugi fund is. If it is donated directly to the foundation then it should remain there in perpetuity for investments.

If we do this then either the financial statements need to be modified or the donation shows against the 2013/14 budget.

I can't recall the foundation spending any of it's principle since I've become a Governor in 1978. Is it actually allowed to ? Paul, Les ?

[Halldor P. Palsson]

The CFC Executive needs to task someone to contact current and former CFC members in SK and try to get organized chess going again. If they need help we should offer it to them.

There are a lot of experienced TDs and organizers in both Alberta and Manitoba that may be able to help with a weekend tournament if that is what is needed.

[Paul Leblanc]

There has never been an expenditure of capital with the exception of the funds "held in trust" for the CFC as a result of the sale of the CFC building several years ago. As most of you know some of that capital was spent upgrading the CFC website.
The Pugi Fund is held in perpetuity (barring a catastrophic collapse of the CFC).
The "Saskatchewan Fund" could be given a status similar to the CFC building funds. I don't have a strong feeling either way but would want to know who will have the authority to draw funds from it. There may also be circumstances when a bit of notice is required to sell investments to access the cash.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Was there any string attached to the cheque (give us back when blah blah).
It reminds me Toronto Chess Building Fund (or similar) - it was transferred to the CFC Foundation, and still some people would like to get that back :/

Though, I would like to hear a story why the Association decided to close.

[Paul Leblanc]

No strings were attached although I made a suggestion at the AGM 2 years ago that the amount by which the web site is amortized every year be remitted to the Foundation. It went nowhere.
When I made the comment about clarity of authority to withdraw funds I was thinking of the Toronto case where there was no provision to reverse the donation.

[Fred McKim]

I wasn't on the CFC Executive when the Foundation received the huge fund from Toronto. However, I think it is safe to say chess is alive an well in Toronto. This is not the case in SK, and we may want to remember that "formally".

I think the Incoming Executive can investigate whether it is feasible to put some or all of the amortized web site amount back in the Foundation for safe keeping.

[Gordon Ritchie]

I have no problem with a notional earmark of $5,300 (not the larger amount in Chris's motion) for promotion of chess in Saskatchewan but would opposed putting it into a special, segregated fund. The foundation money should be kept as flexible as possible.
Gordon

[Ken Craft]

Gordon Ritchie makes eminent sense on this issue.

[Christopher Mallon]

I have no problem with a notional earmark of $5,300 (not the larger amount in Chris's motion) for promotion of chess in Saskatchewan but would opposed putting it into a special, segregated fund. The foundation money should be kept as flexible as possible.
Gordon

What is your reasoning in not putting all of the Saskatchewan money into the Foundation, but instead keeping $206.50 for general revenue?

[Lyle Craver]

I gather from this that the SK federation has effectively wound itself up. As such two things follow from this:
(1) we as an Assembly of Governors need to decide if we wish to elect a SK Governor (the prescribed method when there is no affiliate in a province) and
(2) decide on disposition of funds. I stand with the people who say "Foundation"

[Paul Leblanc]

Certainly, Gordon makes sense concerning flexibility of investment funds. In fact, I pool all resources and invest them together. I use my annual statement to identify how much of the pie belongs to each component.

[David Steer]

I last served on the Executive of the Saskatchewan Chess Association in 2009. This sum of money in question had been "floating around" the chess scene in Saskatchewan for quite some time - for at least several years prior to my involvement with Saskatchewan chess, which began around 2004. Interestingly, however, as an Executive we only became aware of this money after a previous Treasurer contacted the SCA Treasurer in (I believe) 2008. Prior to that, the 2008 Executive had no knowledge of it. This on its own speaks to the lack of organization in Saskatchewan chess circles - the left hand rarely knew what the right hand was doing. Given my discussions with the older members of the Saskatchewan chess community, this was par for the course - a member of two would get ambitious, attempt to organize and direct CFC tournaments, attempt to promote chess locally and provincially, form an Executive given enough political will, and so on. Inevitably the task would become too daunting and the shop would be closed. Years would pass until the next ambitious member appeared and started the process all over again. It should also be mentioned that the money was never officially on the books. We were told by the previous Treasurer that the money was being held in a separate SCA bank account, and there was talk about transferring the funds from the account of the previous Treasurer into an official SCA account, but for long as I was on the Executive the money remained in the "other" SCA account. Nevertheless, the members of the 2008 Executive debated the merits of using some of all of it for the purpose of promoting chess in Saskatchewan, but ultimately, given the sorry state of chess in the province, and given our own increasing pessimism/anomie towards all things related to Saskatchewan chess, it was decided that the money would best be kept in the treasury until a future Executive might have good use for it. The money remained untouched for as long as I served on the SCA Executive.

As I mentioned, this was in 2009. As far as I know, the SCA no longer exists. I believe the SCA lingered on in name only for a couple of years, but if there have been SCA elections elsewhere in the province since 2009 they have happened without my knowledge. I take it for granted that the previous SCA Treasurer decided, after years of waiting for the money to be used for Saskatchewan chess, to donate the money to the CFC. I believe this was an eminently reasonable course of action.

Of course, none of this paints a rosy picture of Saskatchewan chess. For years, I was "that member" that I spoke of earlier - the guy who got ambitious and spent innumerable hours attempting to revive the dead horse. When it no longer felt good to stop beating my head against the wall, however, I retreated from the scene. It goes without saying that I am no longer "that member." To be perfectly honest, I am currently a member of the CFC only because I feel a lingering obligation to chess in Saskatchewan - and a lingering sense of dissatisfaction with my failures as an organizer/promoter of the game. I am a CFC member, that is, only because as far as I know no one else is willing to serve as CFC Governor for the province, all Governors must be CFC members, and by serving as Governor I am at the very least able to keep a Saskatchewan presence at the CFC table. Biding the province's time until the next "that member" shows up.

I have no strong opinion on how this SK money should be used. I like to believe that there will come a time in which CFC chess flourishes in Saskatchewan, at which point the money might prove to be highly useful. It should also be mentioned that while CFC-related events no longer take place in the province, scholastic tournaments are run on a semi-regular basis. Perhaps the money might be used to further the interests of scholastic chess in Saskatchewan. I look forward to discussing these issues further with whomever is interested.

I wrote a letter to GM Spraggett on the topic of organizing chess under difficult circumstances last year. To my great surprise he printed my letter on his blog recently, along with his very sensible reply. Anyone who wants further insight into chess in Saskatchewan might gain from reading it.

Incidentally, if by some strange happenstance someone reading this knows of a Saskatchewan CFC member who is interested in serving as Saskatchewan governor, please let me know. The sooner I am able to hand the reins over to the next "that member," the better it will be for Saskatchewan chess.

[Fred McKim]

The following is the presented motion to be voted on.

Moved Mallon/LeBlanc: The CFC contribute $5506.50 to the Foundation for Fiscal 2012-2013.

There is time for amendments.

[Bob Gillanders]

The following is the presented motion to be voted on.

Moved Mallon/LeBlanc: The CFC contribute $5506.50 to the Foundation for Fiscal 2012-2013.

There is time for amendments.

No, no. This is not were the consensus has been moving. The concept is that the Saskatchewan donation be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan. The funds should not be going to the Foundation! The funds should be kept in the hands of the CFC, but as a segregated amount, similar to the youth fund. I would also like to see a sunset clause, if funds not used in say 3-5 years, then it goes to general revenues.

Further to Paul's comment regarding amortization of the website costs, with a balanced budget (more or less), the amortization of the website costs means we are recuperating the cash expended from the website, see our cash balance of 27k (see financial statements). The cash balance should be monitored by ED and Treasurer and excess funds sent to the Foundation (in trust) for investment.

[Fred McKim]

No, no. This is not were the consensus has been moving. The concept is that the Saskatchewan donation be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan. The funds should not be going to the Foundation! The funds should be kept in the hands of the CFC, but as a segregated amount, similar to the youth fund. I would also like to see a sunset clause, if funds not used in say 3-5 years, then it goes to general revenues.

Further to Paul's comment regarding amortization of the website costs, with a balanced budget (more or less), the amortization of the website costs means we are recuperating the cash expended from the website, see our cash balance of 27k (see financial statements). The cash balance should be monitored by ED and Treasurer and excess funds sent to the Foundation (in trust) for investment.

It's my understanding from reading the threads that this motion has been put forward. I assume it can be retracted during this discussion period OR someone can put forward an amending motion.

I agree that there needs to be some kind of reckoning of this money so it could be used in the future for chess in SK and yes we should be considering putting the amortized web site money back into the Foundation (CFC portion of the fund) to build up for our next capital expenditure.

[Christopher Mallon]

No, no. This is not were the consensus has been moving. The concept is that the Saskatchewan donation be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan. The funds should not be going to the Foundation! The funds should be kept in the hands of the CFC, but as a segregated amount, similar to the youth fund. I would also like to see a sunset clause, if funds not used in say 3-5 years, then it goes to general revenues.


This is exactly what should NOT happen to them, and this is exactly what putting them into the foundation will avoid. And I'm not sure what posts I'm missing that show this as being some kind of consensus that is being reached...

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Thank you for the report Mr. David Steer.

It can be very hard to find replacements for our organizers/TDs that burn out in the way you describe.

[Pierre Dénommée]

Those funds should be held separately and used to pay the incorporation fees of the new Saskatchewan Chess Association if a serious team wants to create it. The remaining funds should be given back to the new Provincial affiliate.

[Paul Leblanc]

The Foundation can hold funds with conditions such as Pierre describes. The advantage of the Foundation is a return of 4% vs 0% in the CFC bank account.

[Bob Gillanders]

Chris,

The sunset clause I suggested was meant as a motivator to get Saskatchewan organizers to utilize the funds. Without a deadline, often things just don't get done. The flaw in your motion:

Moved Mallon/LeBlanc: The CFC contribute $5506.50 to the Foundation for Fiscal 2012-2013.

is that the intent of my original suggestion, that the funds be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan, will be lost if the funds are parked in the Foundation and forgotten about. Remember, ultimately the Foundation earnings do flow back into CFC general revenues. I believe, yourself and most others do agree with me that this money should be used in Saskatchewan. To ensure that happens, I would like to suggest the following amendment to your motion:

Add: This money will be named the Saskatchewan Fund, and is to be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan once an acceptable plan is approved by the Governors.

Are we agreed?

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Chris,

The sunset clause I suggested was meant as a motivator to get Saskatchewan organizers to utilize the funds. Without a deadline, often things just don't get done. The flaw in your motion:

Moved Mallon/LeBlanc: The CFC contribute $5506.50 to the Foundation for Fiscal 2012-2013.

is that the intent of my original suggestion, that the funds be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan, will be lost if the funds are parked in the Foundation and forgotten about. Remember, ultimately the Foundation earnings do flow back into CFC general revenues. I believe, yourself and most others do agree with me that this money should be used in Saskatchewan. To ensure that happens, I would like to suggest the following amendment to your motion:

Add: This money will be named the Saskatchewan Fund, and is to be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan once an acceptable plan is approved by the Governors.

Are we agreed?

Obviously the people in Saskatchewan don't see any prospect of this happening in any reasonable time frame or else they would have held on to the funds. Promoting chess is a very broad catch phrase which often describe complete and utter wastes of money that do nothing to really promote chess.

We do have to look on this situation as a symptom that what we are doing is not working (at least in Saskatchewan and a number of other parts of the country). This is a wake up call and calling something the Saskatchewan fund may make us feel better for a moment but sometimes it is better to feel bad and do some introspection and find a way to turn around a bad situation by facing reality and taking some hard steps that need to be taken including admitting that we need to try something different.

We did something similar to what Saskatchewan is doing now in Windsor many years ago when we wound up the Windsor Chess Association which put on a Canadian Open and held many local CFC rated chess events in the early to mid 1990s. Eventually people got tired of the work of raising money to be spent on people who were behaving in a less than constructive manner. We wound it up and spent the money on various chess projects (including a donation to the Olympiad fund if I recall correctly) and then the individuals involved (including me) went into chess hibernation for at least ten years. When I came back in 2007 the CFC was a shadow of its former self.

I think that we should put the money in the foundation and if residents of Saskatchewan approach us with some worthy chess initiatives we should remember this money and look favourably upon initiatives that make sense. I don't like the idea of the funds going into general revenues in any way, shape or form. The reality is that whether you call it the Saskatchewan fund or anything else these funds are going to remain in the foundation until such time as we find a way of doing things differently.

[Christopher Mallon]

Personally I'd like to see provincial accounts as part of the Foundation and I plan to talk to the Foundation people about that after the AGM. The CFC should be collecting the 15% of life membership fees provincial portion and putting it into a provincial account.

Now, if we want to go with provincial accounts and have this 5600 be in the SK account and simply accumulate value until such time as there is a new SCA at which point they can start getting the interest payouts, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I will object strenuously to anything that would leave this money easily accessible. We've already had enough problems in Canadian chess with easily accessible money - all it takes is the wrong person to come around...

[David Steer]

I am absolutely delighted to inform the CFC that Robert Sasata, Saskatchewan's strongest player and its unofficial ambassador, has agreed to take over as Governor for SK. Robert has young kids who are chess players and he tells me that he has decided to get back to organizing events so that they might make progress. I post this here because I am almost certain that he will have strong opinions about how the money should be used. I'll report back when I hear more from him.

[Fred McKim]

I am absolutely delighted to inform the CFC that Robert Sasata, Saskatchewan's strongest player and its unofficial ambassador, has agreed to take over as Governor for SK. Robert has young kids who are chess players and he tells me that he has decided to get back to organizing events so that they might make progress. I post this here because I am almost certain that he will have strong opinions about how the money should be used. I'll report back when I hear more from him.

David: I think the proper procedure should be to tender your resignation after the meeting, and the President can appoint someone else to replace you. Robert will have to fulfill the standard requirements such as getting a CFC membership and joining the forum, etc. Lyle can advise.

[David Steer]

Thanks Fred. Cheers.

[Lyle Craver]

To we have a definite confirmation that the Saskatchewan Chess Association has in fact been legally wound up? As provincial secretary in BC we have a similar clause in our constitution though one we hope never to be invoked.

[Lyle Craver]

Governors - generally speaking the most appropriate place for a motion is NOT in a discussion thread but rather under new business.

Since the President has made no comment as to whether the motion is in fact in order, I have taken the liberty of making this thread a "sticky" thus moving it to the top of the thread list *AND* changing the title to make it obvious that there's a motion here. Nonetheless I do expect some Governors to miss this fact which is why the motion is better put in a separate "New Business" thread. Thanks - LC

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Moved Mallon/LeBlanc: The CFC contribute $5506.50 to the Foundation for Fiscal 2012-2013.

I would like to amend it that the funds originated from Saskatchewan are transferred to the Foundation only as in bank with a possibility to withdraw by a future Saskatchewan provincial affiliate. An interest gain is used for Saskatchewan players wishing to play in National championships (could K.Pugi committee to be responsible?)

[David Steer]

Egidijus' amendment seems sensible to me. Given Robert Sasata's coming involvement I believe that the funds will prove highly useful to his endeavors.

[Paul Leblanc]

This is becoming pretty complicated for such a small amount of money. In my opinion, it should have been a straightforward executive decision to put the money in the Foundation until Sask. gets their act together then give it all back.

[Paul Leblanc]

Chris, there is no provincial portion of life memberships. CFC life members must continue to pay provincial memership dues.

[Christopher Mallon]

Chris, there is no provincial portion of life memberships. CFC life members must continue to pay provincial memership dues.

As a matter of fact, the provinces are allowed to set their own membership rates. Years ago Ontario set their life membership rate at 15% of the CFC's fee, but the CFC has steadfastly refused to collect these fees despite the constitution appearing to require them to do so.

Also, even if a player must continue to pay provincial membership dues, I don't see the CFC doing anything at all to enforce that... do you? No, as it currently stands, if someone becomes a CFC Life Member, and they aren't a particularly honourable individual (Bob Armstrong comes to mind, and I believe there are at least a couple others, who sought out the OCA to pay their lump sum fee), the provinces have no way to collect the money they are owed whether that be a lump sum or annual fees. The CFC, after all, will continue to rate events they play in without checking to see if their provincial membership is paid up.

[Bob Gillanders]

Chris, there is no provincial portion of life memberships. CFC life members must continue to pay provincial memership dues.

If this is true, it is completely impractical. Of course, one of the primary benefits of buying a life membership is that you are no longer required to pay annual dues. If however, you still need to pay provincial dues, well that's just stupid.

Since life memberships started way way back, could somebody with a long history with the CFC please chime in and tell us the truth. Did we actually introduce CFC life memberships without considering Provincial dues? Really, did we really do that? Or has history distorted the truth?

Expecting provinces to collect dues from life members is ridiculous and impractical. Let's settlement this, either start collecting a provincial dues share for new life members now and remit to the provincial affiliates, or else forget it!

[Christopher Mallon]

Bob and/or Paul would you be willing to work with me on a plan to set up official Provincial accounts with the Foundation? The provinces could choose to either receive interest payouts like the CFC does from their share, or to allow the interest to accumulate in their share? Combined with this would be an explicit section in the Handbook stating that the CFC collects provincial Life dues at whatever rate is set by the Provinces, and remits them to the Provincial accounts?

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob and/or Paul would you be willing to work with me on a plan to set up official Provincial accounts with the Foundation? The provinces could choose to either receive interest payouts like the CFC does from their share, or to allow the interest to accumulate in their share? Combined with this would be an explicit section in the Handbook stating that the CFC collects provincial Life dues at whatever rate is set by the Provinces, and remits them to the Provincial accounts?

Oops, now I see possibly maybe why provincial life shares may have been omitted (or forgotten) in the original makeup of the life memberships plan, this is way too much administration for tiny bits of money.

I would prefer the following: if Life membership is say $400 and Ontario wants a 15% share, or $60, just collect $460 from member, $400 goes to foundation and $60 just goes directly to OCA. Otherwise, maybe we just forget about it. Simplicity does have benefits.

[Christopher Mallon]

Oops, now I see possibly maybe why provincial life shares may have been omitted (or forgotten) in the original makeup of the life memberships plan, this is way too much administration for tiny bits of money.

I would prefer the following: if Life membership is say $400 and Ontario wants a 15% share, or $60, just collect $460 from member, $400 goes to foundation and $60 just goes directly to OCA. Otherwise, maybe we just forget about it. Simplicity does have benefits.

That *would* certainly be better than the status quo. However - the problem is that gets lost in general funds. How would the CFC Governors like it if we put life membership fees into general funds rather than the Foundation? Probably not very much.

The "bits" of money would only be tiny initially. The whole foundation was once rather tiny compared to its current value.

It might be a "tiny bit" of money for the big CFC but for the OCA with an annual budget of under $6000 it's a bigger issue. Having 178 Life members in Ontario means that likely most of those have not (and will not) be paying OCA membership dues - and there is apparently nothing the OCA can do about that.

Really, it just comes down to a few extra cheques per year that the CFC must write... is it really THAT big of an administrative headache?

[Lyle Craver]

That *would* certainly be better than the status quo. However - the problem is that gets lost in general funds. How would the CFC Governors like it if we put life membership fees into general funds rather than the Foundation? Probably not very much.

The "bits" of money would only be tiny initially. The whole foundation was once rather tiny compared to its current value.

It might be a "tiny bit" of money for the big CFC but for the OCA with an annual budget of under $6000 it's a bigger issue. Having 178 Life members in Ontario means that likely most of those have not (and will not) be paying OCA membership dues - and there is apparently nothing the OCA can do about that.

Really, it just comes down to a few extra cheques per year that the CFC must write... is it really THAT big of an administrative headache?

In BC the "life shares" have always been paid to the BCCF directly and placed in the BC Chess Foundation - there are like in Ontario a lot of CFC life members who are not BCCF life members. (Not sure of the exact number from memory but between 20-25) vs 73 CFC Life Members in BC.

It's a national problem and as a provincial executive member let me say it's been a minor sore point going back to the previous century. (I.e. before 2000)

[Bob Gillanders]

In BC the "life shares" have always been paid to the BCCF directly and placed in the BC Chess Foundation - there are like in Ontario a lot of CFC life members who are not BCCF life members. (Not sure of the exact number from memory but between 20-25) vs 73 CFC Life Members in BC.

It's a national problem and as a provincial executive member let me say it's been a minor sore point going back to the previous century. (I.e. before 2000)

What? A BC Chess Foundation! oh, do tell.
So, how much money do you have?

[Garvin Nunes]

Chris,

The sunset clause I suggested was meant as a motivator to get Saskatchewan organizers to utilize the funds. Without a deadline, often things just don't get done. The flaw in your motion:

Moved Mallon/LeBlanc: The CFC contribute $5506.50 to the Foundation for Fiscal 2012-2013.

is that the intent of my original suggestion, that the funds be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan, will be lost if the funds are parked in the Foundation and forgotten about. Remember, ultimately the Foundation earnings do flow back into CFC general revenues. I believe, yourself and most others do agree with me that this money should be used in Saskatchewan. To ensure that happens, I would like to suggest the following amendment to your motion:

Add: This money will be named the Saskatchewan Fund, and is to be used to promote chess in Saskatchewan once an acceptable plan is approved by the Governors.

Are we agreed?



If I understand Bob's version of the motion correctly he has agreed with Chris Mallon's idea of putting the money in the foundation but added that when an appropriate candidate from Saskatchewan is able to start a cfc affiliated organization promoting chess in that province again the money would be given to that organization.

This version of the motion no longer has a sunset clause.

I would like to second this version of the motion.

[Paul Leblanc]

The CFC is required by the constitution to collect provincial dues and remit them to the province.

In BC everyone, including CFC life members, pays $4 per event and that is remitted to the CFC by organizers then in turn remitted to the BCCF by the CFC. This is BC's version of provincial membership fees.

There was a time when BC sold Provincial Life Memberships, and there are still actually a couple of these life members playing in events. They are exempt the $4 event fee. The BCCF website has a list of them. The money collected from the sale of BCCF life memberships went into a BC Chess Foundation and occasionally the BCCF added to the Foundation when cash on hand exceeded requirements.
If you go to the BCCF website and click on "AGM" you will see the BC Chess Foundation's Annual Report although I see the secretary hasn't posted the most recent one yet.

[Paul Leblanc]

En Passant magazine, August 1984, p.3: "Provincial membership is not included [in Life membership fees]"


En Passant magazine, August 1995, IBC: "Provincial dues are not included in Life rates."


Chess Canada magazine, August 2005, p. 3: "Provincial dues are not included in Life rates."


CFC By-Law Number One, Section 12 (http://chess.ca/handbook#lifemember): "No Per Capita Fee will be payable by or in behalf of any Life Member after he has been granted Life membership, but this will not affect his financial obligations to any Club, League, or Provincial Organization to which he may belong, save as to said annual Per Capita Fee; provided that these fees may be changed by the Assembly of Governors by resolution."

[Bob Gillanders]

If I understand Bob's version of the motion correctly he has agreed with Chris Mallon's idea of putting the money in the foundation but added that when an appropriate candidate from Saskatchewan is able to start a cfc affiliated organization promoting chess in that province again the money would be given to that organization.

This version of the motion no longer has a sunset clause.

I would like to second this version of the motion.

Thanks Garvin, but I did not intend that starting a new provincial association was a requirement, only that the plan be approved by the governors.

[Lyle Craver]

I initially made this thread a "sticky" as it contained a motion it was important all Governors see. Now the voting process is underway, I am unsticking every thread that isn't a poll (besides the agenda) - discussion is still allowed but the emphasis is on "The Voting Booth" threads.