Ordinary Member/Governor Dialogue

[Bob Armstrong]

Over the last while, a number of governors seem to have committed themselves to hanging out on a regular basis on this members' CFC Chess Forum. They are willing to dialogue with members on CFC issues, what members want from the CFC, how members view the CFC, and whatever else the membership might want to raise.

So visit this members' CFC Chess Forum on a regular basis to join in the discussions, to raise issues, to post your views for governors to respond to. It can only help the CFC to have greater member input.

Governor Bob Armstrong

[Bob Gillanders]

Over the last while, a number of governors seem to have committed themselves to hanging out on a regular basis on this members' CFC Chess Forum. They are willing to dialogue with members on CFC issues, what members want from the CFC, how members view the CFC, and whatever else the membership might want to raise.

So visit this members' CFC Chess Forum on a regular basis to join in the discussions, to raise issues, to post your views for governors to respond to. It can only help the CFC to have greater member input.

Governor Bob Armstrong

Silence is golden? No complaints, I guess everyone is happy!:rolleyes: ;)

Where is the money from the sale of the condo? AFAIK, it is still being held in trust at the lawyers awaiting instructions from the executive. Many months ago, then Treasurer Mallon said the money would be sent to the Chess Foundation for safekeeping where it could earn interest. Has this been done? Perhaps Treasurer Smith could give us an update.

This is neither a complaint nor a criticism, merely a question!:confused:

[Ken Craft]

This Board should be closed in favour of re-routing traffic to the original Canadian Chess board, Chesstalk. There was no poular demand for this board and it has served no useful purpose when we had a perfectly valid vehicle at Chesstalk. Cooperation not competition is what the Canadian chess community needs.

[Christopher Mallon]

So Ken, you want Governors to do "private" discussion and voting on Chesstalk? :p

I'm all for cooperation but that might be going a little far.

[Maurice Smith]

Silence is golden? No complaints, I guess everyone is happy!:rolleyes: ;)

Where is the money from the sale of the condo? AFAIK, it is still being held in trust at the lawyers awaiting instructions from the executive. Many months ago, then Treasurer Mallon said the money would be sent to the Chess Foundation for safekeeping where it could earn interest. Has this been done? Perhaps Treasurer Smith could give us an update.

This is neither a complaint nor a criticism, merely a question!:confused:
The money was transferred to the Foundation September 16th. I believe this was a decision of the previous Executive. I found out the day it was transferred. Well at least it is in a safe place. If only the interest rates would start to climb.

[Christopher Mallon]

The money was transferred to the Foundation September 16th. I believe this was a decision of the previous Executive. I found out the day it was transferred. Well at least it is in a safe place. If only the interest rates would start to climb.

It most certainly was NOT the decision of the previous exec - and if it had been, it would have happened way before September! So don't try to pass that one off, please.

As it happens, I do agree that it should be in the Foundation, however such a move is explicitly in the purview of the Governors, not the executive.

[Bob Gillanders]

The money was transferred to the Foundation September 16th. I believe this was a decision of the previous Executive. I found out the day it was transferred. Well at least it is in a safe place. If only the interest rates would start to climb.

Thanks for the update Maurice. As for interest rates, I have a mortgage to pay, so I'm quite happy to see them remain low.;)

Could you tell us the amount transferred?:D

[Bob Gillanders]

It most certainly was NOT the decision of the previous exec - and if it had been, it would have happened way before September! So don't try to pass that one off, please.

As it happens, I do agree that it should be in the Foundation, however such a move is explicitly in the purview of the Governors, not the executive.

Chris, please review the 2010 budget in GL6 prior to AGM.
It clearly indicates that condo proceeds of 75k were earmarked for the Foundation. (ie. 155k + 75K).:D

[Christopher Mallon]

Earmarked perhaps, but that's very different from giving the order for it to be done.

Not to mention the budget was apparently not approved at the AGM.

[Ken Craft]

I meant the PUBLIC portion of the Board, Chris. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

So visit this members' CFC Chess Forum on a regular basis to join in the discussions, to raise issues, to post your views for governors to respond to. It can only help the CFC to have greater member input.

Governor Bob Armstrong

Good words.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I know we differ on this. I agree that many chessplayers are satisfied with ChessTalk.

But I think there is benefit in CFC having its own space for governors and CFC members to discuss CFC matters. There is no need for CFC to be cribbing off a CMA site to do this. I see it as part of CFC's mandate to dialogue with members, and to promote chess. A national organization should provide this service to members.

And the numbers coming to this board are slowly increasing. I would say there are about 40 hardcore CFC supporting governors/CFC members who show up on a regular basis, and post. I note that this thread itself has almost 200 views to the present.

I don't see it as particulary taxing to monitor 2 national boards, of which one deals with more general topics usually, and this board with generally current CFC issues, with governors posting here and dialoguing with the membership.

Bob

[Eric Van Dusen]

Greeting Governors,

I normally monitor the following CFC boards: Governors and English Chat. I will be adding the French sites.

With the web site problems, I was monitoring Chesstalk, but with my laptop in for repairs, that monitoring was sporadic. I normally do not surf Chesstalk as it is not particular useful for rational dialogue.

As for emails to the president, the VP sorts the mail and sends me the high priority ones to my work email. The other emails I try to get to at my yahoo account about once a week. With the website down and the flu, I decided to take a break from emails and work on some long-term projects.

At the moment, I am dealing with a specific situation with respect to posts on Chesstalk. It my opinion that the CFC needs to have a policy on public posting.

I find that too many issues that could be managed internally by the office or on the CFC Governor board are first publicized on Chesstalk. Now some people in the chess community would consider what I just stated as sacreligious but what I am respectfully suggesting is what people do in the normal mundane world, for example, bad service at a shop or store. Much of what passes for comment on public boards brings the Chess Federation of Canada and chess in Canada into disrepute. I suppose the analogy would be washing your dirty laundry in public. One long-term project is to secure corporate sponsors through a Fundraising Committee. My fear is that if a prospective sponsor ever surfed Chesstalk, that sponsor would just find some other activity to sponsor.

[Ken Craft]

And how would one enforce a CFC policy on public posting?

[Eric Van Dusen]

Ken,

The policy will be developed and approved by the governors. The governors main role is the development of policy.

My main point is that the CFC has turned the corner of concentrating on its survival. It is time to concentrate on the CFC's main task, which is promotion of the game of chess, in my opinion.

My concern with many posts on Chesstalk is that reputations are damaged, relationships are damaged, and the promotion of chess and its reputation as a game and the reputation of the CFC as a corporation is damaged.

The CFC Fundraing Committee is going to work hard on fundraising and corporate sponsorships. In my opinion careless and malicious posts by CFC members and governors is working at cross-purposes and undermining this committee's efforts.

The truth of the matter is that the reputation of a corporation is an important asset. The executive and the governors have a duty of care to protect that reputation. As president, I have a fudiciary responsibility to carry out the wise stewardship of all of the CFC's resources.

Currently, I am working on a situation which I will not deal with publicly but it is sufficient to say that the people involved have suffered hurt which in turn has damaged not only this particular chess community but also the CFC's relationship with that community. I see my efforts as president to help in the healing of these relationships in order to reach some sort rapprochement and enable that community to get on with the CFC mandate: Play chess and promote chess.

[Ken Craft]

I think the concerns in paragraphs 3 and 5 would trample on one's right to freedom of expression.

[Kerry Liles]

I could swear that last night I saw rather different posts from the Prez. The Prez first claimed he had to look into what people could or could not post on this and other boards [that post is more or less still here]

... and then backed up over his foot by referring (inadvertently by name?) to a problem he seemed to have with an individual). Chris Mallon then pointed out that post by the Prez contradicted what he was saying he was going to clamp down on! [this post is gone now]

[Ken Craft]

What a sweet smell on a Friday morning...

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I could swear that last night I saw rather different posts from the Prez.

it was a mirage :p

Anyway, I found good to have a possibility to edit own posts within 24 hours (probably the time span is infinity here), unless somebody quoted them.

[John Coleman]

I found good to have a possibility to edit own posts within 24 hours (probably the time span is infinity here), unless somebody quoted them.A non-chess board that I frequent has a similar policy... the OP can edit his post, unless a comment has been made.

All of us have posted something and then had second thoughts. (It is probably better to have the second thought before posting...);)

[Christopher Mallon]

It's nothing mysterious, I just pointed out that Eric was breaking his own proposed rule and he came back and edited both the posts to remove it.

Moderators (like Eric) don't have time restrictions on editing. I don't know about normal users.

[Ken Craft]

I find the whole idea of a communication policy to be invidious. If consecutive executives communicated better with the Governors and the membership, there would be fewer speculative posts.

[Steve Douglas]

I find the whole idea of a communication policy to be invidious. If consecutive executives communicated better with the Governors and the membership, there would be fewer speculative posts.

I think the basic problem is that the *Governors* don't communicate with the membership. If the overall functioning of the CFC (and I use that term very loosely) is the province and responsibility of the governors, perhaps you can understand how the average member feels when *neither* body (governors or executive) chooses to communicate? From my seat the governors tend to do one of two things: wring their hands about the actions of the executive; wring their hands about other governors being do-nothings.

So if the current president wants to bring in policies regarding governor communication and/or behaviour, it sounds good to me.

I still want somebody to explain why my magazine shrunk from 6 to 4 issues and then disappeared. Pointing fingers at "the executive" is not responsible governance.

Steve

P.S. See how good this forum can be as a separate entity from ChessSquawk?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Steve:

Bottom line is that print media is very expensive, and CFC was running 5 consecutive years of on average $ 30,000 deficits, because of it in large part.
It had to go, to bring CFC back to good financial health ( along with some other restructuring ).

Hey ! A Governor communicating with an ordinary member on the CFC members' CFC Chess Forum ! It's what should be happening.

Bob

[Steve Douglas]

Hi Steve:

Bottom line is that print media is very expensive, and CFC was running 5 consecutive years of on average $ 30,000 deficits, because of it in large part.
It had to go, to bring CFC back to good financial health ( along with some other restructuring ).

Hey ! A Governor communicating with an ordinary member on the CFC members' CFC Chess Forum ! It's what should be happening.

Bob

Hi Bob:

I was probably a little too facetious in my post. My issue with the magazine was not that it was dropped because of costs. My bigger issue was that of communication. To the average member, the management/governance structure of the CFC is fairly opaque. Things happen with no explanation, or communication, etc.

I think this forum does serve a good purpose. While ChessTalk is good, it is nonetheless run/moderated by an organization that is in competition with the CFC in some ways. I think the CFC will be better served with a discussion forum where they are not relying upon the good graces of somebody else. Additionally, it does allow for direct executive and/or governor dialogue with individual members.

Steve

P.S. This is not to show disrespect toward Larry Bevand in any way.

[Eric Van Dusen]

I find the whole idea of a communication policy to be invidious. If consecutive executives communicated better with the Governors and the membership, there would be fewer speculative posts.

Hi Ken,

As a citizen of Canada, you have the right to your opinion with a number of limitations as set forth by the Constitution of Canada and subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

What I am talking about is the rights and responsibilities of a Governor within the corporation of the CFC.

What bothers me the most is that there are plenty of shortcomings and problems within the CFC that can easily be handled by contacting the office, posting on the governor's web site, or contacting an executive member directly by email or phone. However, what most governors do is post publicly first, before exhausting the private methods first.

Ken, if you find the above paragraph unreasonable, then by all means provide myself and the rest of the CFC community a counter-argument.

Furthermore, I believe it is reasonable to provide expectations regarding rights and reponsibilities regarding public communication vis a vis the CFC, especially if one is a governor, who do represent the leadership link between the executive and the CFC members at large.

Leadership implies responsibilities.

Regarding speculation, it is my opinion that it serves little constructive purpose except rarely.

[Ken Craft]

Leadership indeed has responsibilities. With the executive only infrequently communicating with the Governors, the Governors are not aware of what they do not know. The individual or group with the information have the obligation to share the information in a timely manner. In short, if the executive communicated more often the Governors wouldn't feel like they were being kept in the dark. Your proposed "communication policy" treats a symptom not the cause and will make it easier for the executive to horde information and now the ability to suppress dissenting opinions.

My counter-propsal: more timely and transparent communication by the Executive.

[Eric Van Dusen]

Ken,

Please define 'more timely' in specific terms. Do you have a frequency in mind? In my estimation, there have not been any more updates because there has been little to update.

The other issue Ken that you do not see to care to address is what to do about postings by CFC Governors that cause damage to other members of the CFC as well as the CFC's reputation. Please let me know what you would propose to regulate such postings.

[Ken Craft]

How about more frequent Governor's Letters. Let's say once a month. Especially given our antiquated debating and voting system. The longer the time between GLs the longer it takes to make decisions.

You seem more concerned about the second issue than I am. I, frankly, am unwilling to give power to anyone to determine what constitutes " postings by CFC Governors that cause damage to other members of the CFC as well as the CFC's reputation." Any way you slice it this is an attempt, upon the reccomendation of the President, to stifle debate, censor and censure criticism. In short, I wouldn't regulate these postings since I believe no one has the authority to do so.

[Christopher Mallon]

Is this all in response to some apparent threat by Kevin Spraggett to sue the CFC?

[Ken Craft]

Is that a question for Eric, Chris?

[Christopher Mallon]

Yup .

[Bob Gillanders]

This thread was started by Bob Armstrong to promote dialogue between CFC officials and their membership. It did just that.

I got a question answered about the condo money, Steve got a question answered about the magazine, Ken got his question about why we need a CFC public board discussed. Excellent.

Then the discussion got around to censorship of posts. Eric expressed his wish that members first express their criticisms thru official channels before posting on chesstalk and thus avoid excessive "washing all our dirty laundry in public". Ken, naturally objected to any hint of censorship. In my opinion, both gentlemen were making some valid points. But now.....

the inevitable escalation of hostilities. KS has "gone over the top" and now has compared Prez VanDusen's call for responsible postings to Nazi propoganda.:mad:

I ask, is there no room in the chess community for reasoned debate?:o

[Eric Van Dusen]

Is this all in response to some apparent threat by Kevin Spraggett to sue the CFC?

My suggestion of policy is based in part on Spraggett's threats, but also the situation in Kingston where two members in a leadership capacity hired lawyers to deal with damaging comments posted on a public board.

In addition, I am attempting to professionalize the CFC in its aim to promote chess in Canada. One part of the strategy is a Fund Raising Committee of which one member, Gary Gladstone, is a professional fundraiser.

Larry Bevand runs a public posting board regarding chess but he or Chess and Math use it on an occasional basis. I would think Larry sleeps well at night knowing how members of the CFC use his board to impact the reputation of the CFC negatively. The reputation of a corporation is an asset. I have a responsibility as well as the governors to protect and promote any asset that the CFC has. What I am saying is just a logical extension of corporate governance.

From time to time I surf Chesstalk, much of the comments are unreasoned, unreasonable, unprofessional, destructive, and damaging to the public perception of chess as a game, to members of the CFC, and to the CFC as a corporation. How can the CFC garner corporate sponsorship if its reputation is so battered by such comments? The CFC has public boards as well as a Governor’s board but few Governors use it.

With regard to public posts, all that I am requesting is that someone give some thought to the following questions:
1) Have I exhausted all private methods to get my concerns heard?
2) Is my post constructive to the basic aim of the CFC, which is to promote chess?
3) Is my intention to help chess or is to hear my own voice?

While I could think of more guiding questions, I believe this a starting point.

[Eric Van Dusen]

This thread was started by Bob Armstrong to promote dialogue between CFC officials and their membership. It did just that.

I got a question answered about the condo money, Steve got a question answered about the magazine, Ken got his question about why we need a CFC public board discussed. Excellent.

Then the discussion got around to censorship of posts. Eric expressed his wish that members first express their criticisms thru official channels before posting on chesstalk and thus avoid excessive "washing all our dirty laundry in public". Ken, naturally objected to any hint of censorship. In my opinion, both gentlemen were making some valid points. But now.....

the inevitable escalation of hostilities. KS has "gone over the top" and now has compared Prez VanDusen's call for responsible postings to Nazi propoganda.:mad:

I ask, is there no room in the chess community for reasoned debate?:o

Hi Bob,

I hardly want to stifle reasoned debate and the proliferation of good ideas.

I will take a case in point. A governor, which is attending an international tournament, needs the CFC office to help with the registration. The first time I hear about this issue is a public post. It would have been better to contact the CFC office first.

I do not mind answering questions of information. That is part of my job. I also know full well that communication is also part of my job. Communication has been hampered recently by a number of factors including the breakdown of the website and the breakdown of my laptop. Even when hindrances to not exist, I, however do request that a reasonable amount of time to respond.

I find it upsetting that someone would compare myself to a Nazi but KS has just proved my point about irresponsible comments damaging the reputation of a person and a corporation.

[roger patterson]

Larry Bevand runs a public posting board regarding chess but he or Chess and Math use it on an occasional basis. I would think Larry sleeps well at night knowing how members of the CFC use his board to impact the reputation of the CFC negatively.


as well as your previous remarks about David Lavin.


Perhaps you could lead by example and refrain from making spurious perjorative comments about individuals yourself.

[Christopher Mallon]

My suggestion of policy is based in part on Spraggett's threats, but also the situation in Kingston where two members in a leadership capacity hired lawyers to deal with damaging comments posted on a public board.

Wow, those two are still going at it? That situation has been re-filed at every single new CFC President since Halldor's time.

[Ken Craft]

Kevin has called out the President on this topic on his blog today.

[Eric Van Dusen]

Be that as it may, Michael made the choice to work with me as president. He calculated that I had a leadership style that was easier to work with than the “burn-baby-burn” style of David Lavin.

Speaking of “burn-baby-burn”, it strikes me that Spraggett has sacrificed a confidence and a friendship

Hi Dr. Patterson,

I would like to refer you to Kevin Spraggett's Blog entitled "CFC Election: A Two Horse Race", posted on July 2, 2009,where the following was written:

1) What was thought of at first as confidence from David has since been revealed as mere arrogance.
2) Then followed a Portrait of David Lavin with the caption, 'Burn baby burn' leadership style.

My attempt at a little humor using Kevin Spraggett's words of disappointment with David Lavin had reminded me of the kettle calling the teapot black, but perhaps I am the only the one that got burned.

Regarding Larry Bevand's sleeping habits, I have had early morning meetings with Larry, and he appears to be refreshed and in good spirits.My supposition is that he had slept well the night before.

I was trying to leaven the bread with a little jocularity, but perhaps the laugh was on me.

I will quit while I am behind.

[Ken Craft]

This exchange underscores the futility of any speech policy.

[Bob Armstrong]

It has been pleasant to see the traffic slowly grow at the CFC Chess Forum. And we have dealt with a number of CFC issues over the last while, as well as other normal chess event notices, etc.. There have been discussions on:

1. The Nature of the Can. Junior Prize;
2. Concern about public criticism of the CFC on chess chat sites by Governors and others;
3. The new CFC Procedure's Committee, and its subcommittees, the CFC AGM Modernization Committee and the Governors' Voting Modernization Committee;
4. The new CFC Fundraising Committee;
5. This topic of ordinary member/governor dialogue;
6. CFC Website security and a possible new CFC Website;
7. Progress of the CFC in the first couple of months of the new van Dusen administration.

These are valuable topics for the ordinary members and governors to dialogue on. I think they prove the worthwhileness of this CFC members' board.

If there is improvement in making use of this board that might be considered, it would be that members/governors express their own opinions on things more often. There are often many " views " of topics, but I find that many viewers do not respond to requests for personal opinions, or for them to state a position on a difficult CFC issue. Replies need not be elaborate, nor lengthy. But giving a precise statement of where you stand on an issue does have influence on others' thinking, and sometimes helps show in what direction something is moving. I hope we all will recognize that this board's usefulness is increased as more and more often we can read about the views and positions of other members.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

I am still waiting for an answer. Some time ago, on this thread, I asked about the status of the proceeds from the condo sale, if whether or not those funds had made their way to the Chess Foundation. After some time, the answer came back simply Yes, with the date. My obvious follow up question, how much? hasn't been answered.:( (My apologies if I have missed it)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I am still waiting for an answer. Some time ago, on this thread, I asked about the status of the proceeds from the condo sale, if whether or not those funds had made their way to the Chess Foundation. After some time, the answer came back simply Yes, with the date. My obvious follow up question, how much? hasn't been answered.:( (My apologies if I have missed it)

B.G., I think I've read that questions about the CFC affairs should be made not public :rolleyes:

[Kerry Liles]

B.G., I think I've read that questions about the CFC affairs should be made not public :rolleyes:

The answers are often NOT made public either!

[Ken Craft]

It seems systemic.;)

[Bob Gillanders]

The answers are often NOT made public either!

Well, eventually my question will get answered in the financial reports which are made public via the Governor's Letters! I guess I just need to have some patience.

Oh, that begs another question. The next GL is when?

Since Bob A. has asked for member comments, I have a few regarding GL's. The Governors' Letters need to have fixed dates. I'm not sure we need them every month, but the dates must be predictable. The executive, or secretary, should set the dates for the upcoming year, deadlines for submissions and publication.

Some flexibility to accomodate Lyle's schedule is okay. It is not acceptable to impose deadlines which may cause our volunteers harm. A notification, when necessary, that the GL will be a few days late will be fine.

The submission deadlines for the next GL need to be extended. Often the submission deadline for the next one is only a few days after publication. This is ridiculous. At least 3 weeks please! The publication date should only be about a week after the submission deadline, no more.

And if the executives can't get their reports in on time, that's too bad. They can post their report on the discussion board if it's urgent, otherwise it goes on the next GL.

End of rant. 30. We now return you to the usual squabbling and insults.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I thought I saw a figure in the range of # 50,000, maybe somewhat more.

You also might contact Maurice - he can give you the exact figure - I believe he doesn't monitor this board, so he won't see your request.

Bob

[Ken Craft]

A member of the executive doesn't monitor the Federation's discussion board? Is that what I heard you write, Bob?

And I agree with Mr. Gillanders' "rant"...

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

A member of the executive doesn't monitor the Federation's discussion board? Is that what I heard you write, Bob?

If a person logins, it can seen when he came here: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=lastvisit&pp=30
I add - this forum is very inactive. Compare same thing at chesstalk: http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/memberlist.php?order=DESC&sort=lastvisit&pp=50

It would be great that the CFC would create a poster with its advertisement (site, newsletters, forum, main tournaments). I could help to hang it at tournaments :)

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob:

I thought I saw a figure in the range of # 50,000, maybe somewhat more.

You also might contact Maurice - he can give you the exact figure - I believe he doesn't monitor this board, so he won't see your request.

Bob

Yes, I could contact Maurice directly, but I thought others may want to know the answer also. Maurice did respond on this venue. In his shoes, I think I would have given a few more details, and checked back later for any further questions.

It is unrealistic to expect all of the CFC executives to be constantly logging in to answer questions. Perhaps somebody should be tasked with the role of monitoring the board and seeing that answers are forthcoming. Just a thought!:)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Just a thought!:)

I think, we should stop thinking :D