CFC Executive Candidates Start to Come Forward - Gillanders

[Bob Armstrong]

On May 17 on the CMA ChessTalk, Bob Gillanders, former CFC Governor, former CFC Treasurer, and former CFC Executive Director, declared as follows:

" I was asked quite directly if I knew of anyone interested in the CFC presidency. The rumour mill apparently has been busy. The answer is Yes. I am considering running for CFC President myself. (or alternatively, returning as Treasurer). To be clear, I am only considering it, this is not a declaration. Some soul searching still to be done. "

It is great that one of the candidates ( or potential candidates ) has now come forward. Maybe others also, for all the executive positions, will start to declare themselves. It would give CFC Governors and members a chance to question them on their platforms, and help judge who might be best for what positions.

What do you think are the pro's and con's of a " Gillanders for President " candidacy? Does he have support to run?

Bob

[Alex Ferreira]

Hi Bob (A.),


People like Bob (G.) is what CFC and chess politics needs.
People who are *active* in playing and organizing, people who can be found in person on the field. The reason why CFC politics and certain provinces / leagues are in the toilet is because you have people running the show "because there was nobody else to do it". That nonsense has really got to end. Acclamations, pushing positions around, to people who don't want to do it or are completely inadequate for the job.

You take a look at Bob Gillanders and you see all the success he's brought to the community:

- active in several clubs (Mississauga, Hamilton, Burlington to name a few)
- is the head man at the Mississauga Chess Club
- plays weekend events
- is involved in chess politics at SWOCL (South Western Ontario Chess League) -- by the way SWOCL is embarassing other Ontario leagues with less members and way more activity due to having the right people on the political side
- has experience with treasury / accounting
- got CFC back on track after a down period, as the CFC's ED.
(and more I am sure)

As a member of Canada's chess community and occasional organizer, I'd definitely like to see people like Bob Gillanders on any executive at chess level, including CFC's. Bob has experience, passion, and delivers! People like Bob don't even need a "platform". History speaks for itself: Bob Gillanders will do a great job at the CFC political level. Platforms are great and should be in place, but we've all seen how they don't necessarily mean much by themselves.


Alex Ferreira

[Ken Craft]

I don't see a downside to Bob G's candidacy.

I wonder what Bob G.'s position is on communication with the Governors....:D

[Bob Gillanders]

First, thank you Alex for that very kind endorsement.:)

Ken, from my earliest days of my CFC involvement, almost 3 years ago now, I have identified poor communication as a major problem. Communication at all levels, Exec vs Governors, Exec vs Members, Exec vs staff.

In 2007, I restored basic communications with governors via email.

I applaud the efforts by Bob Armstrong with the online governors meetings. Effective 2 way communication is the answer.

[Bob Gillanders]

To facilitate better communication, I guess I had better tell everyone my new email address. It is rgillanders@cogeco.ca

The old rogers account is dead as of today. Thank God, those guys were driving me crazy. :mad:

So, I am thinking about a campaign platform. What are the important issues facing the CFC in the upcoming year? How do we move the yardsticks down the field?

Please send me your thoughts by email, or post them here.
And would somebody talk me out of this madness, please! :eek:

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Don't tell me we have a Presidential Candidate who actually wants to dialogue with the Governors/members - what a novel idea !

And on a discussion board no less.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

And would somebody talk me out of this madness, please! :eek:

After one year you might be a celebrate at the Kevin's blog :D

[Bob Armstrong]

So, I am thinking about a campaign platform. What are the important issues facing the CFC in the upcoming year? How do we move the yardsticks down the field?



Hi Bob:

I have developed my own list of " Goals for the CFC ", things I'd like seen dealt with - they are not all critically important - some are; some are just non-urgent possible improvements. So to get the dialogue going, here is my Goal # 5 ( I'll lob a soft one to start ):

5. Ratings – They are a major member benefit. There are 2 issues that arise:

A) FIDE Rating System - I would like to see the CFC system replaced by the FIDE rating system ( is for over 1200’s ) – I see no benefit in Canada having a separate system ( a position long espoused by IM Tom O’Donnell I believe ). CMA, if they’d agree to rate adults, could certainly do the U 1200’s – though technically I’m not sure how this would happen when both over 1200’s and U 1200’s are in the same cross table. But I’m sure there is an answer.

B ) Underrated Juniors - Currently, the CFC runs into the “ underrated junior “ problem re their regularly playing against older adult class “ C “ players, and this issue seems to arise across the country. Many adults feel they are losing too many rating points in these games, when their strength has not really diminished any – it is that the juniors are much stronger than their rating. We do need to find some rating adjustment method that keeps up better with the rapid improvement of juniors.

So Bob - any comments on whether these are issues for the CFC to deal with? Any comments on what you think could be done on these two rating issues? Just an attempt to start a dialogue on a non-critical issue, though one important to some.

Any input on these issues for Bob from anyone else?

Bob

[Steve Douglas]

Hi Bob:

Regarding ratings, I can think of several reasons for not wanting to switch to FIDE, one of which is brought forward in your point B. Right we have a system where ratings and crosstables are updated weekly. It's quite normal for a tournament to be entered and updated on the website by the Wednesday following its completion (i.e. only a few days). IMHO, the crosstables in the database are one of the CFC's greatest assets. Steps that I would like to see taken would be to allow a "tournament report" or summary to be entered along with the tournament data. Additionally, that database needs to be preserved and/or repaird. A lot of the crosstables are no longer accessible

Regarding point B, it's not so much an "underrated junior" issue than it is a "stale" rating issue, albeit it one that shows up more commonly with junior players. If a junior plays only one tournament a year (i.e. the Ontario High School Championship), they will not get a "permanent" rating until their fifth or sixth year of competition. And at that point their "rating" will be the average of their play going back for years. And since that initial permanent rating is based upon an average of their opponents ratings, you can only imagine the mess you get when most of their opponents have been similarly rated juniors. The question is: how do you deal with it? I'm not sure.

Steve

[Bob Gillanders]

I would like to see the CFC system replaced by the FIDE rating system....

Bob

Absolutely NOT. I am horrified to hear such a suggestion!

The CFC rating system is a key benefit of membership. The flaws in the system can be easily fixed, whereas switching to FIDE system, you lose all control. I prefer a made in Canada solution.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Definitely a definite answer !! Thanks.

I'll lob a few more your way later, after some others have chimed in.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Not to mention using the FIDE system costs more money, doesn't rate below 1200, and adds lots of extra overhead and forms.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

As I said, I'll lob some of my " Goals for the CFC " at you for your comments, to get an idea of some of your platforms in your run for CFC President. Here is my second of my " one-a-day " issues - my Goal # 1:

1. Finances – The 2010-11 budget is a balanced one. It needs to stay balanced as we go through the year. And the Governors should know as soon as possible, as the Executive immediately does, whether the budget presented is the one being implemented at the May 1 start of the 2010-11 fiscal year ( The governors still don't know the result of the March 31 vote ).

The new website should be not be an operating expense, but a capital expense out of the $ 65,809 “ Office Sale Savings Fund “.deposited for investment with the Chess Foundation.

Bob, any comments on this " goal "? Anyone else have any input?

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

We find ourselves in an odd situation, we have a budget for 2010-2011, but we don't know if it is approved yet! So I will comment on both scenarios.

If the budget has been approved, then I would consider that the will of the governors, and proceed accordingly. That is great news that it is balanced!

If the budget is not approved, then the priority of the new executive would be to get a new budget approved ASAP. I am confident that is achievable! :)

I am comfortable with treating the cost of a new website as a capital expenditure. A new website is critical, costs have been estimated at between 5k and 10k. We have the funds, let's get it done. :)

[Paul Leblanc]

I intend to support Bob's campaign and will post some more detail later but I wanted to emphasize a bit of philosophy and one or two specific issues at this time.

1. It is critical to maintain a balanced budget. We have achieved this with considerable pain and this needs to be the cornerstone of any executive.
2. The CFC cannot be all things to all people. The core responsibilities, that I have discussed before in a different forum need to be agreed on and stuck to. I'll post more on this later.
3. The Executive Director position needs to be brought back into the CFC and report to the President. Gerry Lichfield is a talented and dedicated fellow but the current contractual arrangement is just not flexible enough for him to be responsive to the needs of the organization.
4. The website needs immediate attention but let's not spend like drunken sailors to address the problem. It's not so much the format and technology, it's the outdated and incomplete information. See item 3 above.
5. There is indeed a problem with under-rated juniors. I raised this in the CFC Governors' forum. I'm not sure if the rating auditor has looked at it but he needs to. It is really bad out here in BC.

[Hal Bond]

Bob Gillanders, I support your candidacy, but your horror horrifies me!

I think this is a bold move (switching to FIDE ratings) that warrants a full hearing with the Governors. We have the exclusive rights to FIDE ratings in Canada and yet we dilute their meaning with a national system. I have not always felt this way - FIDE used to have a 2000 floor and a published list twice per year. Now the FIDE floor is at 1200 and a new list every 2 months. Further, the events are rated very quickly so you can see your expected rating change. If players below 1200 remained unrated we would shed some of the under rated junior problems too.

There are difficulties - cost being one of them. But as a Federation we could mark up the FIDE costs as we see fit, possibly reducing membership dues in place of higher user fees. We could also review the provincial rebate system to take ratings into account. I think a more Elo-centric revenue redistribution to various programs is worthy of consideration too.

Our national office would have an easier time forwarding tournaments instead of managing the whole ratings system. We would also have a much bigger card to play in Quebec. Currently FQE ratings are valued equally to CFC ratings by their membership. FIDE ratings on the other hand are the gold standard of ratings and have a much better chance of success in Quebec.

This is just my opinion of course - it's not a simple move and it has no chance at all without input and debate by all stakeholders - Governors, organizers and members.

[Christopher Mallon]

4. The website needs immediate attention but let's not spend like drunken sailors to address the problem. It's not so much the format and technology, it's the outdated and incomplete information. See item 3 above.


I would argue that it's actually all 4 things. The format and technology make it unnecessarily difficult to keep the information up to date and complete.

[Stephen Wright]

5. There is indeed a problem with under-rated juniors. I raised this in the CFC Governors' forum. I'm not sure if the rating auditor has looked at it but he needs to. It is really bad out here in BC.

For what it's worth, I wrote the following to the CFC executive and other parties in September of 2007 - I am not aware of the situation changing any since then:

I realize that the CFC likely has far more pressing concerns at the moment, but I would like to bring to your attention a problem which I feel has had and is still having a profound effect on the ratings system. This is junior-only events with short time controls being rated under the regular system, rather than active. For a number of years the following article was in effect:

711.2 Rating of Junior Events

All pure Junior and Scholastic tournaments will be regular rated unless 50% or more of the participants have regular ratings over 1500, or the time control is less than 30 minutes per player per game. [See GL2 1999-2000, October 1999]

This article was rescinded in 05-06GL9 yet, at least in B.C., nearly all junior events are still rated regular, despite the fact the time control is usually 30 minutes per player. I'm not sure how prevelant this situation is elsewhere in the country, but I do know the whole series of events from Mr. Pelts' Chess Academy are played at time controls which fall under active guidelines, yet are rated regular.

A new junior player will acquire a (regular) rating from scholastic events, then looking for ways to improve will enter an adult (mixed) event. The problem is that the two ratings pools are considerably different; there are many kids with ratings of 400 or 600, but very few adults rated lower than 1000. Thus the initial rating gained through scholastic events will be deflated in comparison with the adult/mixed pool. A case in point - this is the CFC information for Andrew Datcu-Romano:

Tournament Old Perf New T/Rds Date Type
Langley Labour Day Open 419 1225 604 1.5/6 9/3/2007 R
2007April Junior Open Under 800 469 266 419 1.5/5 4/22/2007 R
2007BC Chess Challenge Kindergarten 534 387 469 0.0/6 4/7/2007 R
Fraser Valley Regional K12 CC K G1 700 500 548 2.0/5 3/18/2007 R
Vancouver Regional K Gr 1 548 451 534 0.5/5 3/17/2007 R
2006 South Fraser Challenge 1 0 397 699 0.0/5 3/26/2006 R

This person just played in his first 'adult' event, the Labour Day Open, and has a new rating of 604. However, the previous events were played at active time controls, which means that his first regular rating should actually be over 1200 - quite a difference. The result is juniors with deflated regular ratings, which will have an adverse effect on the overall ratings pool.

Why are scholastic games still being rated regular? I suspect ignorance is a large problem - people knew of 711.2, but are not aware that it has been rescinded (over a year later it still has not been removed from the CFC site). Or organizers respond to pressure from parents, who want their kids to get regular ratings as soon as possible. Or not realizing there are two ratings system. I have mentioned that 30 minute junior games should be rated active to some organizers, but have generally been ignored.

So what should be done? The CFC does not have the manpower or resources to play policeman with every tournament submitted for rating (although events with five games in one day is a red flag that they shouldn't be regular rated), but the CFC Handbook could at least reflect the current rules. It would also help that when the rules change this fact is advertised in some way - I suspect very few people read the GLs, and people assume that what they already know is the way things are, unless contrary information is communicated. Could Chess Canada perhaps be used for this purpose, to educate organizers and players to changes?

Stephen Wright
BCCF President

[Christopher Mallon]

Actually London used to run one-day Regular events, SD/60 that had a pile of rounds in one day, so you have to be careful about that too.

[roger patterson]

Not to mention using the FIDE system costs more money, doesn't rate below 1200, and adds lots of extra overhead and forms.

and you could add: not to mention the CFC rating system makes money for the CFC [according to rumor :-) ] and is perhaps the CFC's most valuable asset.

Another point - FIDE rated events must be run under FIDE rules. I'm not sure what idiosyntric differences the CFC rules may have but there is some level of freedom there that one might not want to give up.

[Pierre Dénommée]

and you could add: not to mention the CFC rating system makes money for the CFC [according to rumor :-) ] and is perhaps the CFC's most valuable asset.

Another point - FIDE rated events must be run under FIDE rules. I'm not sure what idiosyntric differences the CFC rules may have but there is some level of freedom there that one might not want to give up.

If you go by the book,

A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:

1. do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess, and
2. are limited to the territory of the federation concerned, and
3. are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament.


Which means the end of all CFC Tournament Rules.

But FIDE rates tournaments played under USCF rules (violation number one) and paired according to USCF pairing rules (violation number two), some of which are using an alteration of the pairings to increase norm chances (violation number 3).

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

As I've mentioned, I have a wish list of " Goals for CFC for 2010-11 ". Some are big, some are small, some are crucial, some are just modest improvements. So I'm lobbing them at you every few days, just to get an idea of some planks of your " Presidential Platform " - I hope others will ask you some questions too, to flesh out some other platform topics.

Here is my Goal # 6 for you to comment on:

6. New CFC Website – The current website is old, unattractive, hard to upgrade, and very vulnerable to hacking. The Executive should deal initially with this as an administrative matter, to develop a Request for Proposals ( RFP ). Eric van Dusen, 2009-10 President, had personally taken on this task, but found it more complex and challenging than anticipated, and made no progress. I initially had arranged for a Toronto Information Technology specialist to contact Eric directly and volunteer to do the Request for Proposals. He is good, and supportive of the CFC, and a chess player and helped me on the Grassroots’ Campaign – he advises that Eric never gave clear instructions as to what he should do this past year , and he made no progress on this file. One of the new Executive must take on this file, and develop a RFP.

Once a RFP is developed, then a Committee of Governors should definitely see the RFP before it goes out, and be given a cost estimate. They should then make a recommendation to all governors, who should be asked to approve the project.

I have been advised that to do the job right, CFC should spend $ 10.000 - $ 15,000 – I am willing to invest this, out of the $ 65,809 office sale savings fund, put into the Chess Federation of Canada.

Anyone else have any thoughts re this " goal " ?

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob,

We are very much on the same page here. I take it as a given that we are past the "do we need a new website stage?" by now. So let's get it done.

Developing a good RFP is crucial in defining exactly what you want. It is a more involved process than most people appreciate, and integrating the rating program adds a level of complexity.

I confess to be "technically challenged" when dealing with computers! They drive me nuts!:mad: Fortunately, when I was ED, I had Vincent Chow to lean on for "all things" computer. For a year and a half, he kept the rating system and website working smoothly, anticipating problems, and quietly making improvements. :) So, I would again lean on Vince for council.

I would hope to complete the RFP process by September. Identify potential individuals to do the work (hopefully Vince would be available), make a recommendation to the governors, and get the approval. It is even possible we could have the new website by Christmas. :D (note: possible!!)

[Alex Ferreira]

Hi Bob:

As I've mentioned, I have a wish list of " Goals for CFC for 2010-11 ". Some are big, some are small, some are crucial, some are just modest improvements. So I'm lobbing them at you every few days, just to get an idea of some planks of your " Presidential Platform " - I hope others will ask you some questions too, to flesh out some other platform topics.

Here is my Goal # 6 for you to comment on:

6. New CFC Website – The current website is old, unattractive, hard to upgrade, and very vulnerable to hacking. The Executive should deal initially with this as an administrative matter, to develop a Request for Proposals ( RFP ). Eric van Dusen, 2009-10 President, had personally taken on this task, but found it more complex and challenging than anticipated, and made no progress. I initially had arranged for a Toronto Information Technology specialist to contact Eric directly and volunteer to do the Request for Proposals. He is good, and supportive of the CFC, and a chess player and helped me on the Grassroots’ Campaign – he advises that Eric never gave clear instructions as to what he should do this past year , and he made no progress on this file. One of the new Executive must take on this file, and develop a RFP.

Once a RFP is developed, then a Committee of Governors should definitely see the RFP before it goes out, and be given a cost estimate. They should then make a recommendation to all governors, who should be asked to approve the project.

I have been advised that to do the job right, CFC should spend $ 10.000 - $ 15,000 – I am willing to invest this, out of the $ 65,809 office sale savings fund, put into the Chess Federation of Canada.

Anyone else have any thoughts re this " goal " ?

Bob

Hi Bob,

On the whole I disagree. I think the CFC website should be simple and user-friendly. I have no problems finding what I am looking for when searching for something new, if it's actually there. Some sections are completely outdated, probably because nobody cares. People use the website to check their ratings. A few others go as far as checking crosstables and the forum, or tournaments in their area.
Is this really worth investing $10,000 on? For CFC's purposes, you could probably get a high school kid to do something comparable in return for volunteer hours.
If CFC has money to burn then by all means, go for it! The only legitimate concern is low security as we've recently seen.

Alex F.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Alex:

Just one point - the website outdatedness is not because no one cares. It has to do with the outsourcing contract to EKG. We only get 3.5 days of an ED ( Gerry Litchfield ). He is good, but simply has too little time - I have been asking for website updates for a year now, and only got a few done, because it is not a " money-making " priority.

I think we need a full-time ED ( an " employee " ), for whom we have total control over priorities.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Continuing on my wish list of " 2010-11 Goals for CFC ", to get more of an idea of your " Presidential Platform ", here is my Goal # 3 for your comments:

3. ED/Outsourcing – I never agreed with what CFC President David Lavin did in late 2008 in outsourcing the whole CFC office functions, including Executive Director ( and it should have been a governor decision ). I have publicly called for non-renewal of the outsourcing contract with EKG ( no criticism of Gerry ) - not sure of its exact termination date, but I thought it was a 2 or 3 year contract ( need help from an Executive on this ). I think CFC needs an employee ( home office ) , for whom it can determine the priorities ( This is why the website was not being updated – not a priority for EKG, and not enough time ). It needs to be 5 days a week ( not 3.5 as in the outsourcing contract ), and CFC will have to pay to have this. We will have to look at sustaining revenue to pay for this ( which may mean increasing membership fees ? )

Anyone else have any comments?

Bob

[Kerry Liles]

Hi Bob:

Continuing on my wish list of " 2010-11 Goals for CFC ", to get more of an idea of your " Presidential Platform ", here is my Goal # 3 for your comments:

3. ED/Outsourcing – I never agreed with what CFC President David Lavin did in late 2008 in outsourcing the whole CFC office functions, including Executive Director ( and it should have been a governor decision ). I have publicly called for non-renewal of the outsourcing contract with EKG ( no criticism of Gerry ) - not sure of its exact termination date, but I thought it was a 2 or 3 year contract ( need help from an Executive on this ). I think CFC needs an employee ( home office ) , for whom it can determine the priorities ( This is why the website was not being updated – not a priority for EKG, and not enough time ). It needs to be 5 days a week ( not 3.5 as in the outsourcing contract ), and CFC will have to pay to have this. We will have to look at sustaining revenue to pay for this ( which may mean increasing membership fees ? )

Anyone else have any comments?

Bob

Until Bob Gillanders and Vincent Chow (and I believe Paul Beckwith?) were unilaterally sacked by the CFC president, we HAD full-time, competent people working on these matters. Their only request was to have a reasonable rate of pay. Instead, only critical functions are now outsourced on a part-time basis.

Blowing $10K or more on a website is a complete waste of money.

[John Coleman]

At the moment, the CFC website is down. Just temporary, we hope.

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob:

Continuing on my wish list of " 2010-11 Goals for CFC ", to get more of an idea of your " Presidential Platform ", here is my Goal # 3 for your comments:

3. ED/Outsourcing – I never agreed with what CFC President David Lavin did in late 2008 in outsourcing the whole CFC office functions, including Executive Director ( and it should have been a governor decision ). I have publicly called for non-renewal of the outsourcing contract with EKG ( no criticism of Gerry ) - not sure of its exact termination date, but I thought it was a 2 or 3 year contract ( need help from an Executive on this ). I think CFC needs an employee ( home office ) , for whom it can determine the priorities ( This is why the website was not being updated – not a priority for EKG, and not enough time ). It needs to be 5 days a week ( not 3.5 as in the outsourcing contract ), and CFC will have to pay to have this. We will have to look at sustaining revenue to pay for this ( which may mean increasing membership fees ? )

Anyone else have any comments?

Bob

Bob, wow, the degree of difficulty in your questions just went thru the roof!:eek: I am going to trend softly on this issue, bite my tongue so to speak, and self censor my comments. I see no need to open up old wounds unnecessarily, I trust you understand. The CFC has been thru hell with the restructuring and balancing the budget. Time to move on.:)

The relationship between the CFC executive and office staff has a troubled history. Of course, many organizations and companies do so as well, but we are hampered as well with systematic factors which aggrevate the situation. The annual turnover of the executive, 60+ governors, geography, declining membership, lack of resources, and unrealistic expectations. Add to that the occasional inevitable clash of personalities, and you get the CFC! :)

I would favour a return to a full time Executive Director. Giving competent people the time needed to get the job done properly is how we will improve our profile and deliver member services. I really don't believe 3.5 days is adequate. But the obvious question is: Can we really afford it?

The answer is Yes! We simply need to recognize it as a priority item.

There are other options.
No paid staff, just volunteers.
Part time ED, with Executives doing extra chores.
Reduce services.

But are any of these really feasible or desirable? No. :(

As to increasing membership dues, let's demonstrate that we have earned it first.

[Christopher Mallon]

Just one point - the website outdatedness is not because no one cares. It has to do with the outsourcing contract to EKG.

It has virtually nothing to do with that. Some stuff on the website has not been updated since the mid-90s, which includes a lot of time when we had TWO full-time office workers.

[Larry Bevand]

Bob, wow, the degree of difficulty in your questions just went thru the roof!:eek: I am going to trend softly on this issue, bite my tongue so to speak, and self censor my comments. I see no need to open up old wounds unnecessarily, I trust you understand. The CFC has been thru hell with the restructuring and balancing the budget. Time to move on.:)

The relationship between the CFC executive and office staff has a troubled history. Of course, many organizations and companies do so as well, but we are hampered as well with systematic factors which aggrevate the situation. The annual turnover of the executive, 60+ governors, geography, declining membership, lack of resources, and unrealistic expectations. Add to that the occasional inevitable clash of personalities, and you get the CFC!

I would favour a return to a full time Executive Director. Giving competent people the time needed to get the job done properly is how we will improve our profile and deliver member services. I really don't believe 3.5 days is adequate. But the obvious question is: Can we really afford it?

The answer is Yes! We simply need to recognize it as a priority item.

There are other options.
No paid staff, just volunteers.
Part time ED, with Executives doing extra chores.
Reduce services.

But are any of these really feasible or desirable? No.

As to increasing membership dues, let's demonstrate that we have earned it first.

Hi Bob,

I think Gerry is a huge asset to the CFC and it is one of the main reasons the organization will post a $12,000 surplus this year...the first surplus since Mickey met Minny :).

There is no doubt that there are things that have still to be done. My suggestion is to keep Gerry. He is awesome. He knows more about the operation than anyone else at this point. It is hard to find people as dedicated as him...someone who cares...someone who is doing the job because he believes in what he is doing...the paycheque is secondary.

From the surplus, you could probably afford 4 days instead of 3.5 and still end up in the black. If there are specific projects that he does not have the skills for, then you can sub-contract those projects to other people on a project by project basis based on your budget and finances.

If you lose Gerry...the red ink will begin to flow again!

Of course, I realize CFC folks know better, so now I will sit back and watch :).

Larry

[Christopher Mallon]

Hahaha Larry, some will probably argue that you always lie and therefore we must do the opposite! Way to go!

I do agree with you though. Now is not the time to be rocking the boat, we only just finished plugging all the leaks!

[Bob Gillanders]

I think Gerry is a huge asset to the CFC....
Larry

I agree. If you read into my comments any criticism of Gerry, it was not intended.

He is doing a splendid job. :)

[Bob Gillanders]

Blowing $10K or more on a website is a complete waste of money.

We do need to be frugal. I believe we can get a good website for $5k. :)

The rating system is also in need of a good overhaul. It does kick out a few very strange ratings on occasion. This project could be undertaken also along with the new website.

Total cost for these 2 projects would be $10-$15k. :)

Both projects will need to be fully explored, costed, and approved. But if it can solve all our website and rating complaints, IMHO, money well spent! :D

[Steve Douglas]

I agree. If you read into my comments any criticism of Gerry, it was not intended.

He is doing a splendid job. :)

Hi Bob:

Good luck with your campaign, although I do think that volunteering to be CFC president is like volunteering to be captain of Columbus's fourth ship.

Steve

(Nina, Pinta, Santa Maria, and the one that fell over the edge....)

[Christopher Mallon]

Is it the ratings software that spits out odd things, or the actual system itself?

I know the way the system handles unrated players and provisional players is not even close to ideal. It is possible to be the only rated player in a tournament and still lose points!

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob:

Good luck with your campaign, although I do think that volunteering to be CFC president is like volunteering to be captain of Columbus's fourth ship.

Steve

(Nina, Pinta, Santa Maria, and the one that fell over the edge....)

Thank you Steve. But I would remind everyone that I have not yet declared my candidacy for President, we are just speaking hypothetically. A policy discussion if you like, what would you do as Prez. I invite everyone to join in.

Response has been positive, but I would appreciate a lot more feedback.
My email address is rgillanders@cogeco.ca

[Bob Gillanders]

Is it the ratings software that spits out odd things, or the actual system itself?


what?:confused: Yes.

The rating software does have difficulties with unrated and provisional rated players in unusual tournament situations. Fortunately, when it does go wrong, the errors are usually obvious.

[Christopher Mallon]

Simple solution to that, borrowing from FIDE:

Only games vs. rated players count towards your rating.

In fact you could go farther and make it only games vs. players with permanent ratings count towards your rating. So no unrated or provisional.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

What you've done ( perhaps unwittingly ) is similar to putting your foot in a meat grinder - there's no ways to go but in ! You are on an inevitable path to a Presidential Campaign declaration ( which will be a good thing ! ).

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I continue to ask you to flesh out your " almost " Presidential Campaign ( you are protesting that you have not yet formally declared ) by again lobbing one of my wish list " 2010-11 Goals for CFC " at you every few days ( I had hoped some others would also raise some other topics for Bob to comment on ). Here is my Goal # 2 for you to comment on as a non-candidate:

2. Budget – The 2010-11 Budget was voted on by the governors back on March 31, 2010. But the results of the vote have still not been published, despite my best efforts, supported by numbers of other governors. I think the results of important votes like this on finances ( and in fact all votes ) should immediately be posted on the members’ CFC Chess Forum. There is no reason to have to await the next GL months away, in this day and age.

A legitimate question is who should present the budget? Should it be the old administration, prior to the start of the fiscal year on May 1? The objection to this is that when the new administration is elected in July, the first thing they do is “ revise “ the budget, and then it may not be presented for months thereafter.

I prefer to let the new administration present the budget, with a fixed August 31 deadline ( even if it is 4 months into the fiscal year ). It seems too duplicative to have the governors debate in March, an old administration budget, and then in August have to have a debate again on a “ revised budget” . Then the budget must be voted on by the Governors in September. It was a good precedent, however, that the 2010-11 budget was presented more than a month before the start of the fiscal year, by the old administration, and voted on a full month before. It showed that the governors are concerned about CFC spending, and want to keep it under control, after the previous 5 years of consecutive deficits of about $ 30,000.

I think we should also change the fiscal year to October. 1 – September 30. This way the new budget should be passed BEFORE the start of the fiscal year it applies to. This does mean however, that the new administration will only have the first 9 months financial statements of the current year to work from ( Oct. 1 – June 30 ). I hope that this also means that the 9-month statement could be prepared in time for the July CFC AGM.

Anyone else have any comments?

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

It is absolutely absurd, even by CFC standards, that we don't know the results of the budget vote. What is the problem?

Bob, do I understand this correctly, that even the current governors don't know the results of the vote? :confused:

Preparing a budget is just basic good governance, a must. Nothing clarifies policy better than a commitment of funds.

I prefer to keep the yearend date of April 30th. It works well with a July AGM. The outgoing(/returning) Executive should prepare a budget prior to the AGM as part of their election platform. Should a new executive emerge, they should complete their budget by September. This budget would really be a hybrid of actual(est) results to Oct 31 and budget numbers for Nov-April.

And of course, budgets need to be ratified by the governors. This means transparency, debate, and discussion, for as long as it takes! The new online governors forum will speed up this process. :)

All hypothetically speaking of course. :D

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Who has an authority to change/post contents at chess.ca?
(why does (s)he so passive?)

[Kerry Liles]

Who has an authority to change/post contents at chess.ca?
(why does (s)he so passive?)

Gerry Litchfield is able to change the website. I have no idea IF anyone else can (I presume there must be others?). Gerry doesn't generally decide what to put there, I don't know who has the authority to ask him to post something changed or new...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

At this point, for a March 31 Budget vote, only the Secretary and the President know the vote results to my knowledge - lots of pressure by governors to get the results posted - all to no avail. I really don't think they are trying to hide anything - I think Eric is just failing to deal with it - he promised to instruct Lyle to publish the results in a post on April 12 at the Governors' On-line Meeting. He apparently hasn't done this, and now he is on Presidential leave of absence. I have asked " Acting President " , Stijn de Kerpel, V-P, to instruct Lyle - hasn't happened.

I've just given up and hope it will be in the next GL # 5.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis and Kerry:

When I have a website update I think needs doing, I write Stijn de Kerpel, V-P, who is in charge of office matters, and copy Gerry. Some of my petitions have been successful, many are still languishing ( on 3.5 days a week, apparently updating the website is not enough of a priority - it is not " Income-generating " I was told once ).

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

it is not " Income-generating " I was told once

Loosing members/sponsors probably is a very profitable business :eek:

[Ken Craft]

Far too many loose members.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I just tried to e-mail you at the above new address, and it got rejected. Can you e-mail me so I can get the right one, if this one is now not working.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob:

I just tried to e-mail you at the above new address, and it got rejected. Can you e-mail me so I can get the right one, if this one is now not working.

Bob

Done. Anybody else having a problem?

address is rgillanders@cogeco.ca

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I sent a few e-mails to you - they haven't bounced back yet, so maybe it was just an obnoxious rejection the first time.

Let me know that you did in fact receive them.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I continue to ask you to flesh out your " almost " Presidential Campaign ( you are protesting that you have not yet formally declared ) by again lobbing one of my wish list " 2010-11 Goals for CFC " at you every few days ( I had hoped some others would also raise some other topics for Bob to comment on ). Here is my Goal # 4 for you to comment on ( as a non-candidate ):

4. Newsletter – CFC was lucky to have Tony Ficzere initiate the newsletter – he is an excellent editor. The newsletter has contributed in large measure to saving the CFC with the membership. I don’t know if we could now do it for less than the $ 18,000 it now costs. Tony initially advised he spent 40-50 hours per issue – so CFC was paying a quite reasonable hourly rate of about $ 15- $19/hr.. I don’t know if Tony can now produce it in less time, given we now have the template, and he has substantial experience in doing it now ( though the last few Issues have been put out a few days later than his 21st of the month publication date – is the task in fact taking longer? ). This should be canvassed with Tony by the Executive.

The newsletter is unique - members can get international information on all the plethora of chess websites now available, as well as the direct reporting websites of large tournaments, that now have their own live games/ news bulletins/ etc.. So I don’t know if members consider getting international information in the newsletter all that much of a benefit. Somehow, I think an all-Canada product, which has info you can’t get elsewhere, is very valuable, and seen as a significant benefit by CFC members. I don't think a Canadian supplement in some international newsletter will suffice.
I don’t think we should go back to the webzine format . I think members like the convenience of the newsletter coming to them, rather than them having to remember to go to a site, and when they do, maybe finding that there is no new content since their last visit ( for example if the new Issue is late a few days ). I think we have a good product at the moment, and the format should be continued.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this topic?

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

The new CFC newsletter has been a big hit with those who get it. I just got my copy this morning, it keeps ballooning, now up to 95 pages! Tony has done a great job.

Some readers maybe suffering sticker shock, $ 18,000! :eek: But I would remind everyone that the quarterly printed magazine, cancelled 2 years ago, cost $ 40,000 per year, or 10k/ issue. The newsletter, just 1.5k/ issue.

The printed magazine was often criticized for too much international content. I hope the newsletter doesn't follow the same path. I prefer a strong Canadian content policy. Perhaps say 25% international content?

If you're a member, and you're not getting the newsletter, don't miss out, just give the CFC office your email address! :) But then, if your reading this post, you've probably already done that.:)

[Paul Leblanc]

I agree that the bulletin is a core CFC activity, right up there with the four other vital roles: maintain a good website, operate a rating system, oversee the various Canadian championships, coordinate Canada's links with FIDE including the Olympiad and Zonals.
Do this within a balanced budget and leave the responsibility to run events and promote chess to the organizers and provincial organizations. Just don't pass dumb resolutions to make their job harder.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I continue to ask you to flesh out your " almost " Presidential Campaign ( you are protesting that you have not yet formally declared ) by again lobbing one of my wish list " 2010-11 Goals for CFC " at you every few days ( I had hoped some others would also raise some other topics for Bob to comment on ). Here is my Goal # 7 for you to comment on ( as a non-candidate ):

7. National Championships -.We are not getting bids at the AGM when we need them, which gives good lead time for tournament advertising, preparation, etc. We need to see why the system is not working very well. I did support ( I seconded ) GM Mark Bluvshtein’s Motions 2010- 13 & 14 attempting to improve the system from the elite player’s point of view - including introducing an obligation on organizers of major tournaments to make some reasonable effort to obtain sponsors. Some have suggested CFC, and these amendments, now place too great a burden on the organizers of major tournaments. I think that is not the problem – it lies elsewhere.

I have also brought a motion with Mark to institute the position of Tournament Coordinator, a non-Executive officer position in the CFC. One of his jobs will be to find steps that will encourage early bidding on National Tournaments. But I am unsure what can be done by CFC in this regard – in a general sense, it may be that more support generally to organizers by CFC, and promotion of more people becoming organizers and TD’s, would increase the potential pool of bidders. This also will be in the mandate of the Tournament Coordinator.

Anyone else have comments?

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

This is the elephant in the room. (well, one of them anyways):(

I am wondering who, if anyone, will bid on the 2011 Canadian Open!

Can I ask our historians for some background research. In the last 20 years, what has been the bidding history of the CO?

Thanks.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

for some background research. In the last 20 years, what has been the bidding history of the CO?

What do you mean? In one of the GLs, somebody wrote that for a good Open it is necessary start early as possible, giving 24 month :rolleyes:

[Bob Gillanders]

What I meant by bidding history is:

2010 Toronto, other bids: none
2009 Edmonton, other bids: none
2008 Montreal, other bids: none
2007 Ottawa, other bids: none
etc etc

How far back do we need to go until we find competing bids!

Canadian Opens have become very successful in terms of GM participation. Which raises the bar for potential organizers. Has this become an unwelcome barrier? I recall many enjoyable Canadian Opens with only a few GM's. Let's do some research before we draw conclusions.

Is there a correlation between GM participation and bids? Does the success of recent years, ie. explosion of GM participation, has this lead to the unwelcome result of fewer organizers, willing and capable of hosting the CO?

If so, what do we do about it?

[Christopher Mallon]

I think the last time there were competing bids was for 2004, but all but Kap were ruled "out of order"

[Garland Best]

What I meant by bidding history is:

2010 Toronto, other bids: none
2009 Edmonton, other bids: none
2008 Montreal, other bids: none
2007 Ottawa, other bids: none
etc etc



I recall in 2007 that Hal Bond put in a competing bid.

[Bob Gillanders]

I think the last time there were competing bids was for 2004, but all but Kap were ruled "out of order"

Details please, if you have them.
What other bids for 2004, and why were they ruled "out of order", by who and why! Were they serious bids?

Hal - did you bid on the 2007 Canadian Open?
Was it a serious bid? or a rescue "I can do it in an emergency if CFC gets no bids?" type bid. :)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Details please, if you have them.
What other bids for 2004, and why were they ruled "out of order", by who and why! Were they serious bids?

Hal - did you bid on the 2007 Canadian Open?
Was it a serious bid? or a rescue "I can do it in an emergency if CFC gets no bids?" type bid. :)


Bob, you should have a good night reading at http://www.chess.ca/governorsletters.shtml (more than 10 years of GLs)
Both 2007 bids are at http://www.chess.ca/Gls/06-07GL2.pdf

[Pierre Dénommée]

Still nobody officially running, I will think if I want to run :cool: .

[Bob Gillanders]

Still nobody officially running, I will think if I want to run :cool: .

Hey Bob A. - Does that constitute one toe in the meat grinder!!:D

[Christopher Mallon]

Yes and the discussion about the 2004 bids can be found in 03-04 GL 1 I believe.

I had forgotten about 2007. It was definitely a serious bid.

[roger patterson]

Details please, if you have them.
What other bids for 2004, and why were they ruled "out of order", by who and why! Were they serious bids?

Hal - did you bid on the 2007 Canadian Open?
Was it a serious bid? or a rescue "I can do it in an emergency if CFC gets no bids?" type bid. :)

They were not ruled "out of order". I presume that reference is a little joke. The governers present voted on them to establish order of preference.

From memory there were:
1) the Kapuskasing bid
2) a bid by David Cohen , Toronto based. The principal problem with that bid was that it has a cutoff deadline for acceptance that was basically immediate.
3) a bid by Bruce Harper for a Vancouver Canadian Open combined with a Victoria CYCC. The basic problem with that bid was that it had no details.

and I think, one other bid which escapes me at the moment.

[John Coleman]

... one other bid which escapes me at the moment.Trois Rivieres

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I continue to ask you to flesh out your " almost " Presidential Campaign ( you are protesting that you have not yet formally declared - are you going to declare soon? the CFC AGM is only about a month away now ) by again lobbing one of my wish list " 2010-11 Goals for CFC " at you every few days ( I am pleased to see others are commenting and also raising some other topics for Bob to comment on ). Here is my Goal # 8 for you to comment on ( as a non-candidate ):

8. FIDE Representative – David Lavin, 2008-9 CFC President, and current Governor, sought in Motion 2010-01 ( eventually ruled out of order ) to move the FIDE Rep. responsibility to the Vice-President position. The governors were generally against this idea. I was especially influenced by the heavyweight opinions on this of past FIDE Reps/past CFC Presidents Maurice Smith and Phil Haley, and current FIDE Rep/past President, Hal Bond. They all advised the FIDE Rep position took a lot of time to do right, and that it really needed to be a separate position. If this is true, which I believe it is, then it certainly should not be combined with some other executive position.

Anyone else have any comments?

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

I agree with the heavyweights, Maurice, Phil, and Hal. They understand the position best. FIDE rep is a key post, you need someone focused on that task. :)

[roger patterson]

I agree that the bulletin is a core CFC activity,.

Can't say that I agree with that. If it were, surely it would part of the constitution - to deliver a magazine. Sure, it's something the CFC does and spends a lot of money on, but it's not a core responsibility. The core responsibility might be something like 'to promote chess and disseminate Canadian chess news' which might be done by a magazine - but there are other possibilities. I could easily envisiage a CFC without a magazine. I can't really envisage a CFC without national championships.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

If it were, surely it would part of the constitution - to deliver a magazine

It is in a constitution (the Handbook) in a very strange way:


" GENERAL INFORMATION
...
Each Ordinary, Junior, Life, Affiliate, Institutional or Honorary member receives a subscription to En Passant chess magazine. This is not an official CFC publication, but the price of subscription is included in the membership fee. Thus every CFC member is able to keep up to date with chess in Canada. En Passant is now available on selected news-stands across the country."



"FAMILY MEMBERSHIP

6. Any spouse and/or child or sibling of an Ordinary Member of the CFC who is resident at the Ordinary Member's address and who purchases his membership at the same time may join the CFC at a rate 50% lower than the applicable individual membership rate. Such spouse and/or child or sibling will enjoy all rights and privileges of CFC membership except that they will not receive the magazine."

Thus meaning, that others will receive :D

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Actually London used to run one-day Regular events, SD/60 that had a pile of rounds in one day, so you have to be careful about that too.

They are still running them about once a month but they are 4 round events.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Well, its another new day, and dawn will be coming here in another 5-6 hours. So I will continue to pursue my self-appointed task of tossing you every few days, one of my wish list " 2010-11 Goals for CFC ", to comment on as part of your " almost " Presidential Campaign ( you are protesting that you have not yet formally declared - are you going to declare soon? the CFC AGM is only about a month away now ). I am pleased to see others are commenting and also raising some other topics for Bob G. to comment on. Discussing these issues benefits the CFC, and governors get to hear the opinions of a non-candidate ( better than no candidate ! ).

Here is my Goal # 9 for you to comment on:

9. Role of the V-P – the V-P position is currently unspecified as to role – to help the President. The current administration put the V-P in charge of “ office matters “, given that we have an outsourcing contract with EKG for the office services, including Executive Director. Rather than sending office matters to Gerry Litchfield directly, I was told to send them to Stijn de Kerpel ( V-P ), who would vet them – handle what he could himself; pass on to Gerry what seemed necessary; and determine which matters would not be dealt with for lack of ED time. This is an unfortunate necessity it seems, because of the outsourcing contract, and the fact that CFC does not have its own “ employee “ Executive Director, for whom it alone determines the priorities ( and this may include moving up from the ED spending 3.5 days a week ( part-time ), to full time ). But even then, it will still fall to one executive member to liaise with the employee, and the V-P seems as good as anyone.

But I think there could be assigned , in practice ( need not be in the Handbook ), some other specific responsibilities – for example – the monitoring of the 2 CFC Discussion Boards, and the responding to relevant posts on behalf of the executive ( or the referring of some posts to other executive members to respond, where it is particularly pertinent for them to respond themselves ); liaising directly with the Provincial Affiliate Presidents on CFC matters – keeping them informed; writing a column on CFC politics/current CFC issues in the Canadian Chess News; etc.. This will make it more likely that the V-P position will be a stepping stone to the Presidency, and thus provide more continuity. In addition, I would still expect the President to post regularly on the 2 CFC Discussion Boards ( members’ CFC Chess Forum and the CFC Governors’ Discussion Board ), and to spend some time himself monitoring the Boards from time to time, though he could rely on the V-P for being alerted to when he should be responding personally.

Anyone else have any comments?

Bob A

[Paul Leblanc]

The problem I have with "promote chess" and other ways of saying this is that although it sounds good it too vague. It is more of a mission statement than a core activity. I prefer as much as possible to define CFC activities that can be well defined, costed and validated.

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob,

Probably best to leave the duties of the VP as unspecified and vague. Stijn took charge of office matters back in 2007 simply because he was the only Executive member living in the Ottawa area. Logical. He has continued in that role to date.

Gerry is capable of running the office, and he can/should liason with the appropriate Executive member whenever needed. No need to create a bottleneck.

I think it is reasonable to expect all CFC executives to monitor the CFC discussion boards once a week.

As for chesstalk, extra monitoring for sure.......:)

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob, you should have a good night reading at http://www.chess.ca/governorsletters.shtml (more than 10 years of GLs)
Both 2007 bids are at http://www.chess.ca/Gls/06-07GL2.pdf

I was really hoping one of you eager beavers would compile a historical list of bids on the CO for me. I don't want to read thru 10 years of GL's. I did that back in 2007 when I was trying to understand the financial mess. All it gave me was nightmares! :eek:

[Bob Gillanders]

The problem I have with "promote chess" and other ways of saying this is that although it sounds good it too vague. It is more of a mission statement than a core activity. I prefer as much as possible to define CFC activities that can be well defined, costed and validated.

You state very well the 5 core activities in your previous post. :)

We run into PR problems by not emphasizing that those 5 core activities all contribute to our mission statement of "promote chess".
The newsletter, the website, national championships, etc all "promote chess".
We need to define some realistic goals and work towards them.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

Well, its another new day, so I will continue to pursue my self-appointed task of tossing you every few days, one of my wish list " 2010-11 Goals for CFC ", to comment on as part of your " almost " Presidential Campaign ( you are protesting that you have not yet formally declared - are you going to declare soon? the CFC AGM is only about a month away now ). I am pleased to see others are commenting and also raising some other topics for Bob G. to comment on. Discussing these issues benefits the CFC, and governors get to hear the opinions of our most vocal Presidential non-candidate.

Here is my Goal # 10 for you to comment on:

10. Term of CFC Executive – Some have suggested we move to 2-year terms from the current 1-year. I am not convinced of this. The CFC has been dissatisfied with Presidents after one year on a regular basis over the last number of years. I am not sure we want to be stuck with a President who we find, part way through the term, is not doing the job. If a President is good, then he can certainly run again and get elected – I note in the past the three consecutive term presidency of recent 2009-10 Treasurer, Maurice Smith.

Anyone else have any comments on this issue?

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

It would appear that the current 1 year sentence is punishment enough! Masochists may opt for additional time, whereas I may consider an early release program on humanitarian grounds! :rolleyes: :D

[Kerry Liles]

Hi Bob G:

Well, its another new day, so I will continue to pursue my self-appointed task of tossing you every few days, one of my wish list " 2010-11 Goals for CFC ", to comment on as part of your " almost " Presidential Campaign ( you are protesting that you have not yet formally declared - are you going to declare soon? the CFC AGM is only about a month away now ). I am pleased to see others are commenting and also raising some other topics for Bob G. to comment on. Discussing these issues benefits the CFC, and governors get to hear the opinions of our most vocal Presidential non-candidate.

Here is my Goal # 10 for you to comment on:

10. Term of CFC Executive – Some have suggested we move to 2-year terms from the current 1-year. I am not convinced of this. The CFC has been dissatisfied with Presidents after one year on a regular basis over the last number of years. I am not sure we want to be stuck with a President who we find, part way through the term, is not doing the job. If a President is good, then he can certainly run again and get elected – I note in the past the three consecutive term presidency of recent 2009-10 Treasurer, Maurice Smith.

Anyone else have any comments on this issue?

Bob A

As you point out, the term is not important if the President is a good one. It is hard to have a long term plan when the term is so short. Even the US presidency (at 4 years) consumes a huge amount of the president's time preparing for the next election - whether or not he/she intends to run again.

Perhaps the process for removing a CFC President should be simpler: say a 2/3 majority of the Governors can vote to remove the president? (nevermind the obvious problem of getting 2/3 of the Governors to vote).

I am afraid that these sorts of "procedural issues" pale in comparison to the real issues of the CFC: nothing is actually happening on any front because the Executive is largely inactive and there are too many Governors with too small a percentage of them doing *anything* - even voting! Until you radically change this to a simple model with people who are actually doing something, there will be no change.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

So far, you are the highest profile non-candidate who has come forward for CFC President. The CFC Executive election is only 5 weeks + 1 day away ( Tuesday, July 13 ). Will you be declaring your position soon? Will you be putting forward a full platform, based somewhat on your postings in this thread? Will you have a slate of candidates running with you for the other executive positions? I think the governors are now interested in the answers to these questions ( and the members ).

Also, I think the governors/members have much appreciated your very wide-ranging comments on current CFC issues, big and small, as I have thrown at you so far, 10 items from my personal " 2010-11 Goals for the CFC " for comment ( and others too have chimed in with comments to which you have responded ). I think this goes a long way toward cementing support for your candidacy - no other candidate has been willing to discuss the issues openly before declaring their intentions - one would think that if someone was running, they would have at least brought themselves forward, as you have, to answer questions as at least a potential candidate. I have seen two others mulling over out loud whether they might try for the Presidency, but neither has said anything further, nor engaged the governor electorate. You are to be congratulated for this precedent.

Here is my Goal # 11 for you to comment on:

11. Arbiters in Canada – Some have suggested abandoning our domestic qualification program, in favour of only FIDE certification. I do not agree. My concern here is that the qualifications for FIDE are expensive, and opportunities to get the norms are not that often. Would we be able to generate enough IA’s to service the Canadian tournament scene? – in smaller centre’s local TD’s seem needed in order to hold tournaments at all – they aren’t even getting current Canadian qualifications. Look at for example the IA conference planned for the 2010 Canadian Open with Stephen Boyd - $ 200 per person.
But if it can be done practically, I’d reconsider, since it is not an area I have a great deal of information on nor experience with – the reason I’d maybe reconsider is that CFC has not been able to do anything on this front over the years, and TD’ing in Canada has just languished in terms of formal qualifications.

Anyone else have comments on this issue?

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

I have signed up for the FA program at the Canadian Open. Thanks to Erik, Stephen, and Hal for making it possible.:)

As for a domestic program, it needs to be simple, very simple, and free!

Training people at the club level is vital. How many chess clubs live or die on the efforts of one individual? I encourage every club organizer/TD to mentor somebody. And then somebody else!

[Christopher Mallon]

The FIDE side must not be ignored since I believe they are moving towards only certified arbiters being able to run FIDE rated events.

[Bob Gillanders]

Will you be declaring your position soon? Will you be putting forward a full platform, based somewhat on your postings in this thread? Will you have a slate of candidates running with you for the other executive positions? I think the governors are now interested in the answers to these questions ( and the members ).

Response to my undeclared campaign has been positive. A sufficient number of brave volunteers have stepped forward (privately). I hope to make an announcement soon, perhaps as early as wednesday. :)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Response to my undeclared campaign has been positive. A sufficient number of brave volunteers have stepped forward (privately). I hope to make an announcement soon, perhaps as early as wednesday. :)

Don't forget to send a copy to a Secretary for an inclusion into the GLs (it should be delivered one month before AGM :rolleyes:

[Hal Bond]

Kerry - I take great exception to your comment about this year's executive. Most of us have been extremely active. The work is not always visible and often forgotten.

Stijn DeKerpel is in contact with the Gerry almost every day. We have a surplus this year because we have discounted the office job to the bare bones and some of us have to pick up the slack.

Maurice Smith has been a very active Treasurer - bringing not one but two budgets to the Governors for approval. Unprecedented! He has also been active on the Handbook revisions, which requires constant updating.

Michael Barron has worked very hard as Junior Co-ordinator as every JC must do - facilitating our WYCC participation in 2009 as well as this year's CYCC. He has also been very prompt with executive email communication which is also continuous.

This is my 3rd year on the Executive (this century at least) and it has been the most demanding. Part of it included two zonal championships, a week overseas fighting for our Zone and several International Titles for our players and Arbiters, and now driving the fundraising campaign for our Olypmic Teams. Almost 20 hours per week on average.

I'm sure you are not the only one who thinks this way, but it comes back to Bob G's earlier reference to Executive burn out - made worse by the thanklessness of the task. Actually I'd settle for thankless, it's the derision and thoughtless criticism that gets me down sometimes.

[Kerry Liles]

Kerry - I take great exception to your comment about this year's executive. Most of us have been extremely active. The work is not always visible and often forgotten.

Stijn DeKerpel is in contact with the Gerry almost every day. We have a surplus this year because we have discounted the office job to the bare bones and some of us have to pick up the slack.

Maurice Smith has been a very active Treasurer - bringing not one but two budgets to the Governors for approval. Unprecedented! He has also been active on the Handbook revisions, which requires constant updating.

Michael Barron has worked very hard as Junior Co-ordinator as every JC must do - facilitating our WYCC participation in 2009 as well as this year's CYCC. He has also been very prompt with executive email communication which is also continuous.

This is my 3rd year on the Executive (this century at least) and it has been the most demanding. Part of it included two zonal championships, a week overseas fighting for our Zone and several International Titles for our players and Arbiters, and now driving the fundraising campaign for our Olypmic Teams. Almost 20 hours per week on average.

I'm sure you are not the only one who thinks this way, but it comes back to Bob G's earlier reference to Executive burn out - made worse by the thanklessness of the task. Actually I'd settle for thankless, it's the derision and thoughtless criticism that gets me down sometimes.

Hal, I see your point and I can only reply that my intention was to complain about the lack of communication from the Executive. Obviously that was not very clear. I know that there are people who do a lot of work for the CFC and they are under a lot of pressure for "immediate" results. Since I am not a Governor, I cannot see what transpires on the Governors-only board, so one has to use the level of communication observed in the public board (I suppose we can include Chesstalk too) and the GLs. From my perspective, there has not been a lot of communication from the CFC Executive - in fact, if it weren't for Bob Armstrong, we would be back to relying on the minimal information in the GLs.

[Paul Leblanc]

Kerry, you have raised a very valid issue. The executive might be doing a good job but Hal's post above is a rare situation report from the executive.

The governors are as much in the dark as the members. I did a quick count of postings on the Governors' Discussion Board for the past two months and here is a summary of who posted comments:

Armstrong 46
Craft 11
Mallon 9
Demian 5
McDonald 5
Zeromskis 5
Leblanc 4
Ritchie 3
Bond 3
Barron 3
Craver 2
Bluvstein 1
Coleman 1

CFC President 0
CFC Vice President 0
CFC Treasurer 0
Women's Coordinator 0
Rating Auditor 0
Executive Director 0

And most of the issues raised were inconclusive because of the absence of executive discussion

[Bob Armstrong]

The count of posts in the last 2 months then is : Armstrong 46 - 13 Other Governors 52. When one considers that therefore in 2 months, only 14/60 governors have posted, one has some cause for concern re governor activity.

But this can be a bit misleading, since there are numbers of governors who come to " view " on a somewhat regular basis, but who are reticent to post their opinions, for some reason. So one cannot just look at the " posters " stats to see the use being made of the GDB. You also have to take into account the " views ", which gives a broader and more active picture of the Board.

Despite the infrequent use of the GDB by other Governors to raise issues for debate, there are a number of governors, shown in Paul's post, who do come on a somewhat regular basis, and will make reply comments.

So I have continued on my crusade as major poster, to make the GDB relevant, by continuing to post where I want confidential discussion, or I want to hear governor opinion, before I go for member input ( where I can, I prefer to make initial posts on the members' CFC Chess Forum, to foster governor/member dialogue ). I know there will be a limited viewership, and even fewer reply posts, but I think it is serving a purpose for those of us who make use of it, and there is always the hope a few more governors will start monitoring it on a more regular basis.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

This is good news for the CFC - I look forward to your Presidential campaign, and the campaigns of your slate when announced. Good luck in the elections.

Bob A

[Ken Craft]

Hal,
The issue is, and has been, timely communication with the Governors and the membership. Is it too much to expect that Executive members will keep Governors and members apprised of what they are doing in a timely manner?
A measure of communication by the executive would purchase a lot of good will, I am sure.

[Christopher Mallon]

Not everything has to be formal communication either, in my opinion. Just being actively online and engaging in conversations goes a long way, even if they are unrelated to any CFC business.

What I'd love to see would be a declaration that all CFC business will be done on the forum rather than by email .. hint hint ;)

[Ken Craft]

I eagerly await the announcement of Bob G's slate.

[Bob Gillanders]

I eagerly await the announcement of Bob G's slate.

Hi Ken, The anticipation is killing me too. :)

All candidates have been advised of the pending announcement, a necessary courtesy.
As soon as I hear back from everyone......:)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I have been lobbing at you as an " almost " Presidential candidate over the last while, numbers of my " 2010-11 Goals for CFC " for you to comment on, so we would get an idea of your platform on many key issues. You have quickly responded to my questions, and the comments/questions from many others who have joined in this thread. Your communication in this thread is impressive. It bodes well that communication will be a high priority for you, now that you have formally declared yourself in the race for President ( and with a slate no less ).

So I would like you now, as Presidential Candidate, and any of your slate, to comment on my Goal # 12:

12. Chess Promotion – This goal is the one I think CFC has to spend some time and thought on now.

In the last few years, CFC has been just trying to survive, to put the ship back on course. We have had severe restructuring, in order to put the financial books back into order, after 5 years of about $ 30,000 deficits annually. We have dealt with CFC administrative procedures, to try to update the CFC decision-making and make it effective – we have now a proposed quarterly Governors’ On-line Meeting; we have looked at reducing the no. of governors, and at a governor activity rule. We have examined the roles of the CFC Executive, and there are motions to clarify these, and to add some needed positions. All of these have been absolutely necessary, to keep CFC from tripping over its own shoelaces all the time. Hopefully, these administrative efforts ( not sexy, kind of tedious, and yet necessary ) are now far enough advanced, that CFC can finally look at one of its major objectives, chess promotion to the public.

There should first be some thought put into what would be an effective CFC membership drive. Chess promotion to potential members is a first phase of chess promotion. Would it target just lapsed members? Would it try for the internet crowd? And if so, how?

As well, the CFC must establish some type of ongoing program for chess promotion to the general public – this should include working with chess clubs across Canada to get them involved in such a promotion project. I have moved a motion to establish a non-Executive Officer position of Public Relations Coordinator, which I hope will further this goal. It 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:

- work with chess clubs and organizers across Canada to raise the profile of the CFC and chess generally;
- work with the editor of the Canadian Chess News E-newsletter to develop content that is club specific;
- work with the Canadian Chess News editor and celebrity chess commentators to develop paid content that raises the profile of the e-newsletter and the CFC and chess generally.
- 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.

Finally the CFC needs to look at their role in promoting not only CFC-rated tournaments, but non-CFC-rated tournaments for the casual players. The cost would be kept down by them not having to have a CFC membership, nor pay a tournament playing fee, and thus it should be easier to attract the casual player to try the tournament format. This should lead them eventually to wanting to play in formal tournaments, and thus obtaining CFC membership.

Is this a " core " objective of CFC, and if so, will this be the year CFC starts to make progress on it?

Anyone else have comments on this item?

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Bob (A.), you have not addressed the primary difficulty inherent in the PR position. That is, how do you get someone to take the job??? The position has existed for something like five or six years and never been filled, I don't think they even bother trying at the AGMs anymore.

[Bob Gillanders]

The question "Why doesn't the CFC do more to promote chess?" is certainly been one of the 800 lb gorillas in the room. It is usually posed as a rhetorical question with negative connotations. We have been consumed with financial and governance issues in recent years, but perhaps now......well let's not get ahead of ourselves......we haven't solved those problems completely yet!:(

If you define "chess promotion" in broader terms, all CFC activities apply. In an earlier post, Paul LeBlanc describes the core activities of the CFC as:

1. Maintain a good website
2. Operate a rating system
3. Oversee the various Canadian Championships
4. Coordinate Canada's link with FIDE including the Olympiad and Zonals, and
5. publish Canadian Chess News.

Certainly all these activities promote chess!:)

Can we do more? Yes.:) But.....:(

While keeping within our budget, with realistic expectations,
and communicate, communicate, communicate!!

I realize the above answer is short on specifics, but I wanted to get that said first. I do have a few specific proposals, but I would like to hear some ideas from you first.

"you" means anybody reading this post, not just Bob A.

[Jean Hebert]

They all advised the FIDE Rep position took a lot of time to do right, and that it really needed to be a separate position. If this is true, which I believe it is, then it certainly should not be combined with some other executive position.
Anyone else have any comments?


The CFC should pay attention to avoid that his FIDE rep is not put into a situation of conflict of interest. People getting a pay from FIDE, such as international arbiters at FIDE events, should not be CFC FIDE rep at the same time, unless they renounce all paid activities offered by FIDE during their mandate as FIDE rep. Arbiters have been very well treated by the current FIDE leadership which in my view makes them dubious candidates to defend CFC interest. This for example, partly explains why Mr Bond is so keen on replacing CFC ratings by FIDE ratings. Clearly Hal's honesty as a person is not in question here, but it is human to lean towards the hand that feeds you. That hurts one's judgment.

Of course, there is also the cynical approach which may justify the status quo. Who would want to be FIDE rep without getting some advantages or some favours for himself ? There is the principled approach (the one I generally favor) or the cynical (practical ?) approach. Which one is it going to be ?

[Jean Hebert]

... the CFC must establish some type of ongoing program for chess promotion to the general public – this should include working with chess clubs across Canada to get them involved in such a promotion project. I have moved a motion to establish a non-Executive Officer position of Public Relations Coordinator, which I hope will further this goal. It 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:

- work with chess clubs and organizers across Canada to raise the profile of the CFC and chess generally;
- work with the editor of the Canadian Chess News E-newsletter to develop content that is club specific;
- work with the Canadian Chess News editor and celebrity chess commentators to develop paid content that raises the profile of the e-newsletter and the CFC and chess generally.
- 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.

Finally the CFC needs to look at their role in promoting not only CFC-rated tournaments, but non-CFC-rated tournaments for the casual players. The cost would be kept down by them not having to have a CFC membership, nor pay a tournament playing fee, and thus it should be easier to attract the casual player to try the tournament format. This should lead them eventually to wanting to play in formal tournaments, and thus obtaining CFC membership.

Is this a " core " objective of CFC, and if so, will this be the year CFC starts to make progress on it?

Anyone else have comments on this item?


Bob,
You describe very precisely what should be done and what a "Public Relations Coordinator" should do. The problem is that the job description you give does not match a part time volunteer position. It describes a full-time paid job to be tackled by a quite competent and dynamic person (a PR person), or possibly by a small team of volunteers well leaded.

[Bob Gillanders]

The CFC should pay attention to avoid that his FIDE rep is not put into a situation of conflict of interest.....

Jean, it is possible to carry the notion of conflict of interest to a harmful extreme. We are all shocked too often by real cases in government, where we see deceit and large sums of money. We see neither here. Hal's work at FIDE events are know to all, and as for large sums of money? Really?

On the flip side, having a FIDE rep who is well respected in FIDE circles will only help enhance Canada's position globally. :)

My vote is for Hal. :D

Besides, if it was an issue, there is nothing to stop another candidate from running against Hal.
Perhaps they could run on a platform of no FIDE experience!

[Jean Hebert]

It would appear that the current 1 year sentence is punishment enough! Masochists may opt for additional time, whereas I may consider an early release program on humanitarian grounds! :rolleyes: :D

Bob,
I would think that getting enough time to actually deliver what you can deliver is no "punishment" but rather an opportunity. That is if one has goals and plans other than put a title on his CV. In politics of any sort, one year is too short. And regardless of the lenght of your mandate, you can always quit invoking medical reasons. :)
If being CFC President is considered "masochist", what do you hope to accomplish in that frame of mind ? Or in any other frame of mind for that matter ? I read this thread closely and I am still clueless.

[Jean Hebert]

Jean, it is possible to carry the notion of conflict of interest to a harmful extreme. We are all shocked too often by real cases in government, where we see deceit and large sums of money. We see neither here. Hal's work at FIDE events are know to all, and as for large sums of money? Really?

On the flip side, having a FIDE rep who is well respected in FIDE circles will only help enhance Canada's position globally.

My vote is for Hal.


I suggest that you make your own research on how much FIDE arbiters were paid at the last World Cup in Khanty-Mansyisk, for example. It was no pocket change. You might then be less inclined to dismiss fundamental problems through smilies.
Regarding Canada's "respected" position in FIDE circles, do not feed your illusions about its greatness. In the chess world Canada is firmly established as a third world country with a zone status merely due to its geographical size and position. Not much to lose there. No other zone wants us.

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob,
You describe very precisely what should be done and what a "Public Relations Coordinator" should do. The problem is that the job description you give does not match a part time volunteer position. It describes a full-time paid job to be tackled by a quite competent and dynamic person (a PR person), or possibly by a small team of volunteers well leaded.

I agree with Jean and Chris. The job description is pretty scary. Who would take this on as a part time volunteer?

Chop it up into bite size pieces?;)

[Jean Hebert]

They all advised the FIDE Rep position took a lot of time to do right, and that it really needed to be a separate position. If this is true, which I believe it is, then it certainly should not be combined with some other executive position.
Anyone else have any comments?


The CFC should pay attention to avoid that his FIDE rep is not put into a situation of conflict of interest. People getting a pay from FIDE, such as international arbiters at FIDE events, should not be CFC FIDE rep at the same time, unless they renounce all paid activities offered by FIDE during their mandate as FIDE rep. Arbiters have been very well treated by the current FIDE leadership which in my view makes them dubious candidates to defend CFC interest. This for example, partly explains why Mr Bond is so keen on replacing CFC ratings by FIDE ratings. Clearly Hal's honesty as a person is not in question here, but it is human to lean towards the hand that feeds you. That hurts one's judgment.

Of course, there is also the cynical approach which may justify the status quo. Who would want to be FIDE rep without getting some advantages or some favours for himself ? There is the principled approach (the one I generally favor) or the cynical (practical ?) approach. Which one is it going to be ?

[Hal Bond]

What about a 10 year plan? Why not dream a little?

My bias is toward distinctions on the world stage - both as hosts and participants. So my ultimate 2020 vision would be to host the Olympiad and win it. Likewise for every major event on the FIDE calandar.

As hosts "it's only money". My guess is an Olympiad will likely cost $20 million in 2020, the World Championship match maybe $5 - 10 million. The WYCC maybe $2 million due to its extra attendees.

Mark Bluvshtein said it well. Players and organizers need each other. For our players to dominate the top 10 in 10 years we need money and the right plan. World Class Training Academies, high level tournaments, media profile, satisfied sponsors. Paid professionals. Program budget of $250,000 per year.

It's easier to sell excellence at premium than mediocrity at 30% below cost. Let's strengthen our brand and aim highest!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

In this case, the description is more like a long-term program. As a volunteer position, only so much can be expected. The volunteer would be expected to take on " bite size pieces " only ( as you say ). Over time though, it would have an impact.

Wouldn't it be nice though, if sometime in the future, CFC could make this enough of a priority, that they could turn this into a part-time paid position ! As Hal has said, there has to be some room for dreaming - even if it seems over the top.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Hal:

Not to rain on your parade, but do we have bids coming to the AGM for our own domestic tournaments for 2011 - the Canadian/Zonal Championship; and the Canadian Open? We've got a few home problems to solve, before we take on the world !

Bob

[Hal Bond]

I got my first Arbiter Appointment from FIDE in 2002, I became FIDE Rep in 2009. The Arbiter payments at the World Cups which I attended were significantly less those for players who exited the first round.

Within FIDE, Canada is not known for strong players but our other contributions are well knwn and respected.

I think the question of the FIDE Elections is worth discussing. In terms of my conflict, both camps have indicated that they want me to continue as an arbiter. I have been appointed to the Olympiad as a Sector Arbiter, so if I am re-elected this summer at our AGM I will be able to attend the Congress at no cost to the Federation.

Canada is still considering its position and the will likely be deferred to the incoming assembly.

[Fred McKim]

Not everybody may realize that since day 1, the FIDE representative has been on their own as far as funding to attend FIDE Congresses goes.

Going back in time we have to thank John Prentice, Nathan Divinsky, Phil Haley, and now Hal Bond (and I'm sorry if I've missed anybody) for representing our interests.

I'm sure Hal would continue to help our International interests evn if he wasn't
the FIDE rep (maybe some day we can actually provide support to this position, but I suspect this person's going to be a volunteer to the organization for long time to come)

[Ken Craft]

I think Maurice is the only one you left out Fred alrhough wasn't Belzberg FIDE Rep for a short period of time in 2001?

[Fred McKim]

Yeah, it was an off-the-top-of-my-head list. I certainly didn't intend to slight anybody who was elected for this position (and there was more than one occasion where there were with multiple credible candidates).

[Bob Gillanders]

What about a 10 year plan? Why not dream a little?

My bias is toward distinctions on the world stage - both as hosts and participants. So my ultimate 2020 vision would be to host the Olympiad and win it. Likewise for every major event on the FIDE calandar.

As hosts "it's only money". My guess is an Olympiad will likely cost $20 million in 2020, the World Championship match maybe $5 - 10 million. The WYCC maybe $2 million due to its extra attendees.

Mark Bluvshtein said it well. Players and organizers need each other. For our players to dominate the top 10 in 10 years we need money and the right plan. World Class Training Academies, high level tournaments, media profile, satisfied sponsors. Paid professionals. Program budget of $250,000 per year.

It's easier to sell excellence at premium than mediocrity at 30% below cost. Let's strengthen our brand and aim highest!

Oops! Did I forget to explain the concept of reasonable expectations? :o :o :D

[Ken Craft]

It's your slate, Bob. I assume you did some vetting before approaching candidates?;)

[Hal Bond]

Is it so hard to imagine a Canadian Olympiad within a decade?

I would happily sit on the 2020 Vision Commission under the right circumstances.

[Fred McKim]

Ken: All joking aside, while it might have the appearance of being a "slate" of candidates for CFC Executive positions, I think the list is just that, a list of people who are willing to do their best for the CFC. I think Bob wanted to be sure that every position would have at least one position openly willing to fill it, at least a few weeks before the AGM.

I would be happy if all of the positions were actively contested at the AGM, and certainly I will help the CFC, whether elected or not at that time.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

I interpreted Bob's " slate " as meaning that he had talked to candidates who were willing to run, with him running for President. They basically were stating that they felt they could work well with Bob as President. In a sense, by being included in a slate, they were endorsing Bob's run for President.

By the same token, Bob is saying that he has confidence in the named people for the specific positions, thinks he can work with them, that they will be good in the positions, and that he also endorses their run for their positions.

Not only does the process Bob has followed guarantee at least one candidate per position at the AGM, it gets them declared before the AGM, so the governors, who are the voters, and the members, who are interested, get a chance to question all of the candidates on their platforms. It also gives the electorate a first declaration that it seems the multiple candidates will be able to work together.

This is how I interpreted " slate ".

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Is it so hard to imagine a Canadian Olympiad within a decade?

I would happily sit on the 2020 Vision Commission under the right circumstances.

I could see it happen! Of course you'd need a lot of luck on top of a ton of hard work, but if you start now......

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Hal:

- in Kapuskasing? Aren't Olympiads always played in the north?

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Alert? :)

[Pierre Dénommée]

11. Arbiters in Canada – Some have suggested abandoning our domestic qualification program, in favour of only FIDE certification. I do not agree. My concern here is that the qualifications for FIDE are expensive, and opportunities to get the norms are not that often. Would we be able to generate enough IA’s to service the Canadian tournament scene? – in smaller centre’s local TD’s seem needed in order to hold tournaments at all – they aren’t even getting current Canadian qualifications. Look at for example the IA conference planned for the 2010 Canadian Open with Stephen Boyd - $ 200 per person.
But if it can be done practically, I’d reconsider, since it is not an area I have a great deal of information on nor experience with – the reason I’d maybe reconsider is that CFC has not been able to do anything on this front over the years, and TD’ing in Canada has just languished in terms of formal qualifications.

Anyone else have comments on this issue?

Bob

The only authority that certifies arbiters in Canada is the FQE. All attempts to begin a genuine Canadian certification program have been tabled at an AGM and all attempts to elect someone to the TDOCP at an AGM has failed. A motion that has been voted by the Governors for the granfathering of active arbiters in the system has subsequently been ruled out of order by the president and has remained deadwood.

It makes me wonder what are the real issues and why are some persons so determined in ensuring that no Canadian program exist.

Getting Arbiter Certification working is the primary reason I was considering running for President. As far as I am concerned, only the president could makes this thing work unless an Arbiter's representative position is added to the Executive with the sole mission to put in place Arbiters Certification. Because of the mandatory 30 days notice for AGM motions, that would require swift action.

Maybe we should do like basketball and outsource the arbiter certification to a separate entity. The involvement of Canada Basketball in Official Certification is limited to writing the recommendation for the International level of Certification : the Canadian Association of Basketball Officials handles the rest. That would require that Canadian IA be willing to serve.

Going 100% FIDE for Arbiter Certification is not a solution if we want to keep our rating. Furthermore, French Canada requires a native French speaker accredited for giving FIDE seminars in French. Quebec does not want to be forever dependent on foreign French speaking lecturers. It is a simple question of cost : the local lecturer does not take a plane or stay in a hotel. With a single seminar in French per year, it will take three years for the assistant lecturer to become a lecturer, which is quite long.

[Pierre Dénommée]

As for a domestic program, it needs to be simple, very simple, and free!

We need competence over simplicity.

In which other sport can you become an arbiter for free? The Quebec cycling federation offers the lecture for free, but then you must purchase an arbiter's license before actually doing it in a competition.

Simplicity and cost should be factor only at club level. At higher level, we want skill and knowledge.

[Pierre Dénommée]

The FIDE side must not be ignored since I believe they are moving towards only certified arbiters being able to run FIDE rated events.

This is already the case. All that remains is to see if FIDE will strictly enforce it.

[Christopher Mallon]

David Lavin approved an "Arbiter's Council" and we got all set up with parameters to go with... and poof, everyone vanished and stopped replying to posts. Go figure.

[Pierre Dénommée]

David Lavin approved an "Arbiter's Council" and we got all set up with parameters to go with... and poof, everyone vanished and stopped replying to posts. Go figure.

Has it been made public? Has a call for participation been made? Are members to be elected at the next AGM?

Why are people vanishing when we try to establish a certification program? All other National Sports Organisation in Canada do have Arbiter, (Referee, Umpire, Judge) Certification program. We need to know who is opposed and why. To block something so trivial, it takes a person quite high in the hierarchy opposing it.

Off course, it is possible to delegate most of the program to the provinces. The CFC should be involved directly in the National, FIDE and International level. The Provincial levels (to be created) should be left to the provinces and the regional and local level should be left to the Leagues. Only Examinations and Arbiter Seminars content should be national.

[Jean Hebert]

Not to rain on your parade, but do we have bids coming to the AGM for our own domestic tournaments for 2011 - the Canadian/Zonal Championship; and the Canadian Open? We've got a few home problems to solve, before we take on the world !

You are quite right Bob. We have lots of smaller tasks to perform reasonably well before pretending to be ready for an olympiad. By the way I don't think that organizing events, such as the Canadian/Zonal Championship or the Canadian Open, should be seen as "problems". They actually are "opportunities" to move chess forward. Nobody wants to deal with "problems".

[Michael von Keitz]

First of all, Bob, I don't think I have actually come out and said that I am in support of your candidacy. Allow me to rectify that now, in pledging my full support and my vote.

I do have some questions, however, though I will start with just one: would you potentially be in support of there being only one governor for every 100 membership equivalents (or, for that matter, 1-to-75), as opposed to the current 1-to-50 rule? It seems to me that this would serve to lower the chances of deadwood being elected to the board.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

In 2009 in Edmonton , at the AGM, I had a motion 2009-14 to reduce the Provincial Representative governors, by moving from 1 gov/50 to 1 gov/100. It was soundly defeated. It had been tried 5 years earlier as well, and got even more soundly defeated the first time.

Many governors told me then that they felt an " Activity Rule " had to be tried before the reduction of governors. This is now motion 2010-05 at this year's AGM.

Also, I have on the AGM agenda motion 2010-03 which seeks to eliminate the 10 past president life governors as voting governors. It was recently passed by the governors in a " straw vote ". We'll see what they do in the " official vote ".

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

First of all, Bob, I don't think I have actually come out and said that I am in support of your candidacy. Allow me to rectify that now, in pledging my full support and my vote.

I do have some questions, however, though I will start with just one: would you potentially be in support of there being only one governor for every 100 membership equivalents (or, for that matter, 1-to-75), as opposed to the current 1-to-50 rule? It seems to me that this would serve to lower the chances of deadwood being elected to the board.

With the 50/1 ratio, some provincial affiliates do struggle to find enough active governors. With 60+ governors, this does requires considerable effort to communicate and keep them all informed. For these reasons, I have supported past efforts to reduce the number of governors. However, these measures have been defeated. Time to try something else.

The motion to impose an activity rule is still pending. It imposes a minimum level of involvement to retain governor status. I do believe governors have a responsibility to keep informed on the issues, and to vote.

Those are my views as a CFC member and incoming governor. These are questions for the governors to decide, not the president nor the executive. As a presidential candidate, I have answered your question, but I do not plan on actively supporting either side in this debate.

Instead, I hope to raise the credibility of the CFC whereby more good people want to be CFC governors! :)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Just to provide a bit more information on the Activity Rule, it is motion 2010-05. Also, the motion in its original form was defeated recently in a close vote in a " straw vote " at the Governors' Quarterly On-line Meeting in April:

View Poll Results: Motion 2010-05 Instituting a new " Governor Activity Rule " Should be Adopted.

Yes
Alick Tsui, Bob Armstrong, Christopher Mallon, Herb Langer, Hugh Brodie, Ilia Bluvshtein, Jason Lohner, John Coleman, Ken Craft, Michael Barron, Michael von Keitz, Patrick McDonald, Paul Leblanc 13 - 43.33%

No
Bill Evans, Egidijus Zeromskis, Ellen Nadeau, Fred McKim, Garvin Nunes, Gordon Ritchie, Halldor P. Palsson, John Erickson, Ken Einarsson, Les Bunning, Mark Bluvshtein, Mark S. Dutton, I.A., Simon Ong, Stijn De Kerpel, Valer Eugen Demian, Vlad Rekhson 16 - 53.33%

Abstain
Eric Van Dusen 1 3.33%

It, in its orginal form, was also recently voted on ( as of April 23 ) in another " straw vote ", and the results are to be published in the GL # 5 ( don't know if it will get defeated again or not ).

But as a result of input from those voting against the motion, it was amended and now has specific procedures outlined in it re default - here is the new motion:

Motion 2010-05 - Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Jason Lohner

( submitted on behalf of the CFC Constitutional Coalition, a grassroots’ group of about 40 ordinary CFC members and a few governors, named below in the Notes )

There shall be added to CFC By-law # 2, a new section 23 as follows:

“ 23. Governor Inactivity Rule

( 1 ) Any governor, no matter whether provincial representative governor, or governor at large, including the Executive, appointees, etc., who does not vote in two consecutive Governors’ meetings, shall be removed from office and their position shall no longer be part of a quorum until their replacement, if any.;
( 2 ) Should it happen that in meeting, there are no motions for either discussion or vote, then the participation required will merely be attendance.
( 3 ) For the purposes of this section, the CFC Secretary shall do the monitoring of attendance, since he has the records on attendance;
( 4 ) The Secretary shall send a warning notice to any governor missing a meeting.;
( 5 ) A governor who misses two consecutive meetings can be excused by the President for some exceptional reason;
( 6 ) Once removed by the Secretary, or President, the Governor and his provincial/territorial body/appointing body shall be notified by the Secretary .
( 7 ) The Secretary shall also request that a provincial/territorial body hold a by-election to fill the vacancy, or that the appointing body appoint a replacement, for the balance of the removed governor’s term. "

It is hoped that with these good changes, the majority of governors will vote to pass the motion this time at the CFC AGM in July.

Bob

[Fred McKim]

Is a Governor's letter considered a meeting ?

If so, how would you count attendance if there is no voting ?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

Since I've become a Governor, I've always thought that when a vote is called in the Governors' Letter, or by e-mail, it is considered a meeting by the governors, chaired by the President, with the CFC Secretary acting as Secretary, and those present are those who vote.

Bob

[Michael von Keitz]

Bob Gillanders, I support your candidacy, but your horror horrifies me!

I think this is a bold move (switching to FIDE ratings) that warrants a full hearing with the Governors. We have the exclusive rights to FIDE ratings in Canada and yet we dilute their meaning with a national system. I have not always felt this way - FIDE used to have a 2000 floor and a published list twice per year. Now the FIDE floor is at 1200 and a new list every 2 months. Further, the events are rated very quickly so you can see your expected rating change. If players below 1200 remained unrated we would shed some of the under rated junior problems too.

There are difficulties - cost being one of them. But as a Federation we could mark up the FIDE costs as we see fit, possibly reducing membership dues in place of higher user fees. We could also review the provincial rebate system to take ratings into account. I think a more Elo-centric revenue redistribution to various programs is worthy of consideration too.

Our national office would have an easier time forwarding tournaments instead of managing the whole ratings system. We would also have a much bigger card to play in Quebec. Currently FQE ratings are valued equally to CFC ratings by their membership. FIDE ratings on the other hand are the gold standard of ratings and have a much better chance of success in Quebec.

This is just my opinion of course - it's not a simple move and it has no chance at all without input and debate by all stakeholders - Governors, organizers and members.

Bob, I seem to have missed your reply to the issues Hal raised. I assume he hasn't swayed your opinion, but do you have some potential counterpoints and/or additions to the conversation?

[Michael von Keitz]

I have supported past efforts to reduce the number of governors. However, these measures have been defeated. Time to try something else.

Just to clarify, I am aware of the previous attempt, but, essentially, I just wanted your take on its potential reintroduction. If Bob A's motions go through at the AGM, I picture a similar motion to the previous effort being put in front of the governors in a year or so, and I hope that you - as an incoming, what I hope to be, multi-term President - will be in support of the initiative. Anyway, we can temporarily close the book on it.

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob, I seem to have missed your reply to the issues Hal raised. I assume he hasn't swayed your opinion, but do you have some potential counterpoints and/or additions to the conversation?

I am still against the idea of trashing the CFC rating system in favour of the FIDE rating system, but the horror and shock has somewhat diminished. :p

With the lowering of the FIDE rating floor, I am wondering if perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of a long term evolution towards a one global rating system for all. :confused: Maybe, maybe not!

FIDE still has a long way to go to convince me. I've played several FIDE rated events, and I don't even have a FIDE rating!

In the meantime, we offer both and let the members decide. :)