7D. "The Voting Booth" Windsor Bid for 2015 CYCC

[Lyle Craver]

Fellow Governors / VMs - the details of the Windsor bid for the 2015 Canadian Youth Chess Championship (CYCC) can be found at http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?4004-9b-Bids-2015-cycc

Voting options are (1) accept the bid, (2) reject the bid and (3) abstain.

At present this is the only bid for the 2015 CYCC.

Voting begins immediately and ends at the conclusion of the meeting which is scheduled for 2200 Sunday July 13 (unless the meeting is extended which is not planned at this point)

[Michael Barron]

I'm voting to reject this bid, because scheduling CYCC for July creates many problems that we see this year:
- it conflicts with PanAm YCC,
- it doesn't leave time for proper registration and preparation for WYCC,
- it can't qualify players for NAYCC in June.
If organizers could change CYCC dates to March, I would support this bid.

[Sasha Starr]

I'm voting to reject this bid, because scheduling CYCC for July creates many problems that we see this year:
- it conflicts with PanAm YCC,
- it doesn't leave time for proper registration and preparation for WYCC,
- it can't qualify players for NAYCC in June.
If organizers could change CYCC dates to March, I would support this bid.

Agree with your reasons. I vote to reject this bid.

Thanks, Sasha Starr.

[Garland Best]

I'm voting to reject for different reasons. This bid was proposed only within the past couple of days. There is no bid for the Canadian Open. We were not given any times to discuss the merits of the bids.

We need more time to see if another bid can be offered for the CYCC and CO. We can always revisit this at the next meeting.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

I agree with Garland, I think it would be best to revisit this bid at the next meeting.
Regarding the idea of holding the CYCC in March - this would solve a lot of problems. Its a risk though, since its something that has not been tried before. Perhaps there could be a survey done during the current CYCC asking if there is support for such an idea?

[Fred McKim]

So, one rejection is because we don't hold it with a Canadian Open, another because we don't hold it in the spring (obviously not going to line up with a Canadian Open bid). I think if somebody wants to hold the event in March let them bid on it, otherwise don't tinker. We've had several CYCC / CO's in different places. The rules of the CFC cvlearly call for bids to be received by the AGM. Let the Tournament Co-ordinator help find someone to run the CO. You four who posted in front of me would all be good candidates for that officer position.

[Félix Dumont]

I think the bid is a very good one.
However, I share the concerns regarding the Canadian Open. It would be surprising if we received a nice bid for the CO (unless it is by CMA?) if the CYCC is not organized with it.
Still, as a Quebec governor I must represent the players from my province, which are clearly more interested in the CYCC. Last year, more than 20 Quebec kids played in the CYCC, while 2 or 3 Quebec players were at the CO (Gatineau excluded). Windsor took the time to put forward a good bid, and in absence of other bids I will vote yes.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

I think the CFC should stick with the CO & CYCC model so I vote no.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I don't think that it is very wise to reject the only bid. I also don't understand why you think the CMA would be interested in putting on this tournament after they have said that they are not interested.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I'm voting to reject for different reasons. This bid was proposed only within the past couple of days. There is no bid for the Canadian Open. We were not given any times to discuss the merits of the bids.

We need more time to see if another bid can be offered for the CYCC and CO. We can always revisit this at the next meeting.

You can revisit it at the next meeting but it is likely that this bid in its present form will not be an option at the next meeting. We may be able to put together something at a different location in Windsor but if you want the scenic venue there is no assurance that it will be available in three months and the price may change by then. This hotel is the only one in Windsor that is kid friendly and would be able to handle a 350 player event if we were indeed able to attract that many players. Caesar's at the casino would probably be able to handle the size but there are issues with large parts of the venue including the pool being off limits to kids.

[Lyle Craver]

I too would prefer more time to evaluate the bid.

That said, in the days before the online AGM it was common for bids to be presented that no one other than those physically got the chance to see ahead of time. This is one of the things we hoped to improve on with the Online AGMs but we're still in a transitional stage.

At least this way we have representation from coast to coast (though NS and NL are not represented here as no nominations were received) which is definitely not the case in the old days - I well remember giving my proxy to the chair with instructions that it was to be voted (a) by any BCCF Executive or BC Governor present or (b) any Governor from AB/SK/MB present but (c) in no case to be voted by _____". The president overlooked point C and gave my proxy to the player noted as the one I >didn't< want my proxy voted by because he was from Thunder Bay and was thus the westernmost Governor present! (To be fair the Governor did fairly vote my proxy and the president was very apologetic afterwards)

There is no doubt that the days where we could have an AGM with 4 provinces (not counting Quebec which would make 5) totally unrepresented are gone forever. No question about it the present system is huge work for the President and Secretary but that's the price we've voluntarily agreed to pay.

Yes we could do better on bid presentations. However there is no question that this year despite our participation being nowhere near 100% (which annoys me no end) our participation is undeniably broader than before and we no longer have travesties such as the one referred to above where the AGM was in a geographically isolated location.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

So, one rejection is because we don't hold it with a Canadian Open, another because we don't hold it in the spring (obviously not going to line up with a Canadian Open bid). I think if somebody wants to hold the event in March let them bid on it, otherwise don't tinker. We've had several CYCC / CO's in different places. The rules of the CFC cvlearly call for bids to be received by the AGM. Let the Tournament Co-ordinator help find someone to run the CO. You four who posted in front of me would all be good candidates for that officer position.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent to create a new requirement that potential bidders have to bid on a package of events in order to bid on the event that they want. This has never been a requirement. As for a March tournament date for CYCC, I don't think it would be viable in Windsor or maybe anywhere where the tournament site was not free or close to it. You would see a precipitous drop in numbers of players attending from out of province.

I think if after three financially successful CYCC's in Ottawa, Montreal and Windsor we might be able to experiment with a possible financial disaster in 2016. I think we will still have enough in the youth fund to pay for WYCC. I would suggest that to mitigate the chance of disaster the tournament would have to be in Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver on the weekend where the two major provinces' March breaks overlap with a schedule from Friday to Monday so each of the two largest provinces players would miss just one day of school. Of course I don't like this scenario because it leaves the rest of the provinces out in the cold but under that scenario the tournament could be moderately successful.

Of course we could put it in Vancouver during their March break which would not coincide with those of Ontario, Quebec or Alberta if my memory serves me correctly. Cue outrage from affected Ontario parents. Look at your feelings about that idea and understand why a March break tournament is not the best idea.

The Pan Am youth tournament is usually only attended by a few Canadian players. Thankfully so as this year they moved their dates after players and families had already made arrangements to attend the originally scheduled dates. Communicating with the organizers is difficult. The biggest issue with having a Pan Am tournament that conflicts with CYCC is only a problem if you add a useless provision that you can only attend WYCC if you attend CYCC leaving Pan Am participants out in the cold. The job of the CFC should not be to prevent the best Canadian players from competing on the world stage. I know that view may be controversial in some quarters.

[Garvin Nunes]

Hi everyone. I voted to support the bid for the following reasons:

1. The Windsor community and organizers are known for their success in running junior events and are bidding unopposed for this opportunity. The default position should be to reward this.

2. Those who wanted to organize both the CYCC and the Canadian Open in 2015 as a combined event should have had their bids in by now. The fact they haven't isnt a good enough reason to short change the Windsor organizers in terms of time they will have to work on the event.

3. The other objections I have heard so far are taken care of by our rules governing the CYCC. It specifically spells out how much money the CFC vs the organizers get from each entry and so on.

There is no legit debate to be had on these types of issues. Ill note: I dont personally agree with our laws micromanaging so much of how these events are to be run. In my view that only hurts the organizers flexibility.

The fact of the matter is, however, thats the way our laws are currently. Now if someone wants to debate rule changes at a future AGM for 2016 events so be it...

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Now if someone wants to debate rule changes at a future AGM for 2016 events so be it...

I wanted to submit a motion regarding "playing up", at least to start a discussion amongst Governors.

As for a current bid: a normal bid, and even the best as there are no others.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Hi everyone. I voted to support the bid for the following reasons:

1. The Windsor community and organizers are known for their success in running junior events and are bidding unopposed for this opportunity. The default position should be to reward this.

2. Those who wanted to organize both the CYCC and the Canadian Open in 2015 as a combined event should have had their bids in by now. The fact they haven't isnt a good enough reason to short change the Windsor organizers in terms of time they will have to work on the event.

3. The other objections I have heard so far are taken care of by our rules governing the CYCC. It specifically spells out how much money the CFC vs the organizers get from each entry and so on.

There is no legit debate to be had on these types of issues. Ill note: I dont personally agree with our laws micromanaging so much of how these events are to be run. In my view that only hurts the organizers flexibility.

The fact of the matter is, however, thats the way our laws are currently. Now if someone wants to debate rule changes at a future AGM for 2016 events so be it...

Thanks Garvin,

There was some who indicated that they wanted to vary the format and the entry fee etc. and I indicated to them that I would have to vote against that bid. Strictly speaking the old bylaw has gone away with the transition to the NFP act but this bid conforms with the $150 to the CFC youth fund for each entry. Trying to force a change of policy on the only bid whether the requirement for a combined bid or moving the date of the tournament is ill advised where it is not based on any specific rule nor any consensus of the voting members.

We do need to move away from micromanaging the conduct of tournaments. The effect of this is that we have only one bid for all of our major tournaments so far. With NFP and the FIDE election behind us we will be able to start addressing this and work on either finding organizers for the other events or organize it ourselves in a break even fashion or at least in a fashion where the losses are acceptable to us. Because our finances are somewhat more solid than in past years we can probably afford to spend some money to break the bottleneck.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Strictly speaking the old bylaw has gone away with the transition to the NFP act but this bid conforms with the $150 to the CFC youth fund for each entry.

What bylaw has gone? Do you mean that all CFC Handbook at this moment is just an ink on the paper?

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I wanted to submit a motion regarding "playing up", at least to start a discussion amongst Governors.

As for a current bid: a normal bid, and even the best as there are no others.

We can have a discussion on the soon to be renamed governors forum. If you get the motion in about four weeks before the next meeting we will put it on the agenda though perhaps by then we will have lots of things to vote on.

I have a situation of someone who is newly arrived in the country with two kids that play chess and has become a permanent resident but doesn't have the $500 to enter the two kids in the CYCC. Any support for waiving the CFC portion of the CYCC fee for these two kids? We are not really set up for these last minute situations. There are lots of poor kids out there who can't afford to play in CYCC. The person lives in Montreal I believe and has no job and is living on his savings with no idea how long they need to last.

If I were to exercise dictatorial powers I would probably let them play at a reduced cost since technically the marginal cost to the CFC of such a decision will be negligible. Any feedback on this idea?

[Ken Einarsson]

If I were to exercise dictatorial powers I would probably let them play at a reduced cost since technically the marginal cost to the CFC of such a decision will be negligible. Any feedback on this idea?

i would agree to allow the kids to play at a reduced cost. Poverty should not be a hindrance to allow a child to play in a chess tournament. i believe that the CFC should set up a program to undertake this initiative with a proper governance structure similiar to "kidsports" to avoid abuse of the program.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

What bylaw has gone? Do you mean that all CFC Handbook at this moment is just an ink on the paper?

The NFP act was a reset of everything. The handbook still has force as intended policy but is no longer the bylaw until we redo every section in a way that complies with the NFP act. This will take years I suspect. We probably shouldn't try to replace it clause by clause.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

The NFP act was a reset of everything. The handbook still has force as intended policy but is no longer the bylaw until we redo every section in a way that complies with the NFP act. This will take years I suspect. We probably shouldn't try to replace it clause by clause.

Sorry, did not get it. Are the CYCC rules valid as set in the handbook? Do they need to be modified or just confirmed?

[Fred McKim]

We can have a discussion on the soon to be renamed governors forum. If you get the motion in about four weeks before the next meeting we will put it on the agenda though perhaps by then we will have lots of things to vote on.

I have a situation of someone who is newly arrived in the country with two kids that play chess and has become a permanent resident but doesn't have the $500 to enter the two kids in the CYCC. Any support for waiving the CFC portion of the CYCC fee for these two kids? We are not really set up for these last minute situations. There are lots of poor kids out there who can't afford to play in CYCC. The person lives in Montreal I believe and has no job and is living on his savings with no idea how long they need to last.

If I were to exercise dictatorial powers I would probably let them play at a reduced cost since technically the marginal cost to the CFC of such a decision will be negligible. Any feedback on this idea?

Vlad. I would be willing to match a % deduction equal to what the organizers do. If they reduce their share 50% - likewise, 100% - likewise. In any event they would not be eligible for the WYCC if they just moved here.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Sorry, did not get it. Are the CYCC rules valid as set in the handbook? Do they need to be modified or just confirmed?

They are no longer our bylaw though they are still our policy. We can make it our bylaw again in the future but I suggest that we start over and arrange everything logically so that there is not a long confusing bylaw where something near the end modifies everything that came before as we have now. Bylaws should really concern themselves with corporate governance and not the details of a particular tournament which changes with every bid.

[Michael Barron]

I think if after three financially successful CYCC's in Ottawa, Montreal and Windsor we might be able to experiment with a possible financial disaster in 2016. I think we will still have enough in the youth fund to pay for WYCC. I would suggest that to mitigate the chance of disaster the tournament would have to be in Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver on the weekend where the two major provinces' March breaks overlap with a schedule from Friday to Monday so each of the two largest provinces players would miss just one day of school.

Thank you, Vlad!
This suggestion make sense.
Still, I believe, the best dates are from Thursday to Sunday - this will allow at least players from some of the provinces to take advantage of their March break and don't miss a school.

Hopefully, you could form working Youth Committee, consisting of all mentioned cities (and many others) representatives, which could consider all the details and organize successful CYCC in March 2016 - like it was done in 2011.