Canadian Chess, Eh

CFC Quarterly Meeting Thoughts

Rate this Entry
4 Comments
by
Christopher Mallon
, 10-21-2014 at 01:14 PM (146744 Views)
So the CFC's quarterly meeting is going on now. This is the first time in 10+ years I've not been involved in a meeting, which is a bit strange!

Anyway some thoughts.

First of all, the decline in participation seems to be continuing. Perhaps it's partly due to there not being extremely controversial items up for discussion, but 2 1/2 days into the meeting there are only 16 voting members signed in. That's out of a total of 62 current voting members (there are a few vacant positions as well) for a participation rate of 25.8%. I've never personally understood why people wanted to be Governors (and now Voting Members) if they aren't going to participate and vote?!

On to the motions for discussion.

7A Rating Adjustments - I don't think this is really needed, at least not as worded. A better idea might be to resurrect the old rating inactivity rules which haven't been enforced as long as I've been playing CFC events.
7B FQE Ratings - While I like the intent of this motion - I think - it's very vaguely worded. The way it's intended I believe is that someone who has an FQE rating but not a CFC rating can apply to have the rating transferred over as an initial rating, and also in case of a large change in their FQE rating. However the way it's worded it applies to the entire section 436 which means that the CFC could be asked to rate an entire FQE event of potentially 300 players for a tiny fee of $25. They should split 436 into two pieces and make it clear that this motion only applies to the first half.

And now the policy discussions!

8A Youth Committee - No discussion here, most likely on the agenda at Michael Barron's request. The youth committee was a great idea however in practice it was hijacked/railroaded by certain individuals with their own agendas.
8B National Tournaments Committee - Basically no discussion here either other than a request for info that hasn't been answered. Is this committee active? The CFC does have a Tournament Coordinator but nothing to see here... It was only 10 years ago we'd get 4-5 bids each year for the Canadian Open, now we don't even have hints of cities that might be interested much less an actual bid.
8C Handbook Committee - Again, nothing...
8D Olympiad Qualification - Finally some discussion! 17 whole posts after 2 1/2 days! 40 games over two years CFC/FQE/USCF/FIDE seems like a decent suggestion. I don't think there's a magic number exactly, but encouraging activity is a good thing!

Reports time! Oh wait.... once again, we have a meeting virtually devoid of reports. There is a brief but succinct report from the Rating Auditor, and there is a partial financial report with no attached comments from the treasurer.

In my opinion, part of the job description of the Executive and Officers should be preparing at least a brief report for the meeting and having it submitted for posting before the meeting starts.

Overall the meeting is moribund. 34 total replies to the threads, 17 of which were about Olympiad qualifications, while major issues like the lack of a Canadian Open and Canadian Closed for next year are ignored almost completely.

For what it's worth, I think the CFC should cut back a bit on the newsletter (which many don't read at all) and put some money into its events, OCA style. It's amazing the difference that a $1000 contribution towards the event from the CFC could make for an organizer considering the risk of running a Canadian Open. Do the same for the Closed. Surely they could find some compromises in the newsletter budget to free up $2000 a year?
Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
CFC

Comments

  1. John Coleman's Avatar
    I've been on the periphery of organised chess for a very long time... I organised my first tournament in 1961. There has always been a shortage of volunteers, but it seems much worse now. I suspect the prevalence of information and competition and "company" online means there is simply less need for co-operation. if the local club died, I would barely notice; if Chessbase died, it would make a big difference.

    I tend to take a fairly tough line with volunteers... I give pretty precise instructions (often, more work than doing things myself), and ... people pretty much do what I want them to. Of course, I'm careful not to push too hard. I don't think I've ever had a case like the CFC has with its VMs (governors), where people apparently agree to be a VM, and then do nothing at all. Nothing.

    Part of the problem is that the CFC doesn't have instructions/guidelines for VMs. It's hard to complain to Joe Governor that he isn't doing his job when he never agreed to do anything in the first place.

    Unfortunately, even the Executive and Officers aren't very enthusiastic. The quarterly meeting has no report from the Junior Coordinator, for example, no report from the Women's Coordinator, and only a brief incomplete report from the Treasurer, who apparently does not have the notes to the financial statements.

    Yes, I realise that VMs are "elected" (arm-twisted) by the provinces, and this causes a structural problem in that the CFC can't instruct or put pressure on a governor directly. However, the fact that people have to be pressured into becoming a VM highlights the lack of enthusiasm for the CFC.

    It was this structural problem, and the huge horde of inactive governors, that led many people (about 8 years ago, I think) to wonder if the CFC was un-fixable. With the new NFP act and the energetic leadership of Vlad Drkulec, it might be possible to save the CFC in something approximating its current form.

    But I am not optimistic.
  2. Christopher Mallon's Avatar
    Interesting thoughts John.

    The trouble about 8 years ago was events were not getting rated which was the most basic service the CFC offered. Actually what made it worse was that IIRC certain people's events WERE getting rated but not anyone else's. Ontario also lost two major organizers in Mark Dutton and Tony Ficzere.

    However one problem we didn't have 8 years ago was the huge horde of inactive governors. The actual problem was the huge horde of almost inactive governors who would pop out of the woodwork to derail things they didn't like but otherwise not comment on things or provide helpful suggestions.

    Also the level of vitriol these days is astounding. Sure you used to get it in private, but some people these days think nothing of posting hateful comments in public just because they don't agree with your position. I've even noticed some in person! This is not a problem unique to the CFC, just see how partisanized our politics have become for example.

    What's the solution? That requires some more thought.
  3. Vladimir Drkulec's Avatar
    With regard to the youth committee there didn't seem to be that much interest among the voting members. Parents that I have talked to have been a bit wary of the idea.

    The National Tournaments Committee is the executive in effect.

    The Handbook Committee consists of Ken Craft and Paul Leblanc who has volunteered to update the section that deals with ratings. The important thing right now is to figure out where the handbook fits in in our NFP compliant CFC. It is not what it used to be. At the moment I think of it as a repository of our historic policies. It really needs to be rewritten from the beginning. Much of what it used to be important for is no longer relevant as it was replaced by our NFP compliant articles and bylaws and the provisions of the NFP Act.

    We may have to look at shortening the online meetings. Some people were not able to vote or participate because the online voting or the meeting coincided with a period of travel. We seem to have a core of about 24 to 30 governors who are somewhat involved at least to the point that they sign into the quarterly meetings. Maybe we are having too many meetings. I'm not sure. In the past we had an annual meeting which was in person and lasted for two days during the Canadian Open. These days we have four or five weeks of online meetings. More is not necessarily better.
  4. Kevin Pacey's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by John Coleman
    I've been on the periphery of organised chess for a very long time... I organised my first tournament in 1961. There has always been a shortage of volunteers, but it seems much worse now. I suspect the prevalence of information and competition and "company" online means there is simply less need for co-operation. if the local club died, I would barely notice; if Chessbase died, it would make a big difference.

    I tend to take a fairly tough line with volunteers... I give pretty precise instructions (often, more work than doing things myself), and ... people pretty much do what I want them to. Of course, I'm careful not to push too hard. I don't think I've ever had a case like the CFC has with its VMs (governors), where people apparently agree to be a VM, and then do nothing at all. Nothing.

    Part of the problem is that the CFC doesn't have instructions/guidelines for VMs. It's hard to complain to Joe Governor that he isn't doing his job when he never agreed to do anything in the first place.

    Unfortunately, even the Executive and Officers aren't very enthusiastic. The quarterly meeting has no report from the Junior Coordinator, for example, no report from the Women's Coordinator, and only a brief incomplete report from the Treasurer, who apparently does not have the notes to the financial statements.

    Yes, I realise that VMs are "elected" (arm-twisted) by the provinces, and this causes a structural problem in that the CFC can't instruct or put pressure on a governor directly. However, the fact that people have to be pressured into becoming a VM highlights the lack of enthusiasm for the CFC.

    It was this structural problem, and the huge horde of inactive governors, that led many people (about 8 years ago, I think) to wonder if the CFC was un-fixable. With the new NFP act and the energetic leadership of Vlad Drkulec, it might be possible to save the CFC in something approximating its current form.

    But I am not optimistic.
    VMs (formerly Governors) were and still are largely organizers of CFC rated tournaments, I've been told more than once by a past CFC president (Halldor Palsson). In his view, such organizers have already done their bit as far as 'real' work goes, and are thus fully entitled to be VMs (at least that's what I think his position is). It's true that newbie (or rusty) VMs could use some sort of an explanatory welcome package in their inboxes, as far as what is expected of them, and minimum procedural explanation, perhaps, too.

    I once proposed that VMs (formerly Governors) do at least one of five things in a term, minimum, in order to be allowed to be VMs the following year. These I put together with a view that VMs, like real life politicians, ideally should do constituency work or strive to make a difference. The idea never came to a vote, and any comments by Govs were not supportive, at least at the time. Here's a somewhat updated list of five such things (again, at least one must be accomplished during a given term if a VM is to be accepted as a VM again for the following year by the CFC, if her/his name is put forward), if anyone wishes to comment or even try to get them to a vote by the VMs themselves:

    1. Organize or direct at least one CFC rated event;
    2. Donate at least $100 to the CFC, the Chess Foundation or a Fund associated with the CFC (e.g. Pugi);
    3. Pay to be a CFC membership affiliate that sends the names of new or renewing CFC members to the CFC office;
    4. Advertise at least one chess club or CFC rated event in one or more newspapers (includes community papers);
    5. Attend 75% or more of the online CFC VMs meetings, belong to a CFC committee or be a CFC officer.

    I realize this may lead to a bit of a shortage of VMs some years, but is it a bad thing if the ones who don't really do much of anything are gone?