Motion 2011-Z - Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee

[Steve Karpik]

I'd like to put a little perspective into the debate here on what is now Motion 2011-L at the 2011 Spring Meeting.

A Junior membership ( national portion ) is $ 24. Under a unified annual membership, the motion would raise their annual fee to $ 34.

The motion is proposing a $ 10/yr whopping increase ( less than $1/mo. ) ! Are droves of juniors not going to renew because of this? My brother and sister-in-law spend $ 5000/year for their son's elite hockey. This is not going to break the bank, or lead to loss of juniors.

And CFC reaps no financial benefit as a result of passing the motion, because adults are getting a decrease in annual fee. The motion is revenue neutral from the CFC perspective - no decrease nor increase in annual membership revenue.

Bob

It's bad optics Bob. What message are you sending to parents and to kids? The CMA are licking their chops. We need to be encouraging young people to become involved in CFC chess. Increased fees do not equal encouragement.

What positive effect do you imagine will come out of your proposal?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Steve:

I will assume for the sake of argument that the administrative servicing cost for a junior CFC member is not more than for a CFC adult member ( not totally sure that is true, because of the need to monitor age category changes for youth re youth tournaments by age bracket, etc. ).

My proposal has each member paying their legitimate administrative servicing cost. Equal servicing cost = same annual membership fee.

Bob

[Steve Karpik]

Hi Steve:

I will assume for the sake of argument that the administrative servicing cost for a junior CFC member is not more than for a CFC adult member ( not totally sure that is true, because of the need to monitor age category changes for youth re youth tournaments by age bracket, etc. ).

My proposal has each member paying their legitimate administrative servicing cost. Equal servicing cost = same annual membership fee.

Bob

My question was more from a business perspective. Is this going to help increase the number of members? Will the CFC have more cash as a result of this initiative? A good business move should help the bottom line.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Steve:

I think equal treatment for equal service is a good advertisement business-wise.

Not to mention all those thousands of adults who have been holding back due to not wanting to subsidize the juniors - they would now be free to join. More $$.

Bob

[Aris Marghetis]

I understand that some (many?!) Governors are very strongly opposed to this motion.

However, please consider that for some people, almost any kind of discount structure based on something a person cannot change (i.e. age, gender), is just plain offensive!

This is not like a driver's licence where safety applies. One of the greatest things about chess is that it does not discriminate across age, gender, etc., but our membership discount structure does discriminate. To be clear here, I am not even concerned about whether we gain or lose certain kinds of members. It just feels wrong to discriminate!

Aris (Dr.Philosophy) Marghetis

[Steve Karpik]

Bob,

The difference between your perspective and my perspective on reduced CFC membership fees for youth comes down to the difference between equality and equity. You are arguing that members should be treated equally. I am arguing that members should be treated equitably. Treating people equally means that each person gets exactly the same thing. Treating people equitably recognizes that people are not all the same.

Most people recognize that it is important in our society to treat children equitably rather than equally relative to adults. We recognize that childhood is a formative period where the future citizens of our society are nurtured and encouraged. We generally give cheaper access to sports, cultural and recreational activities because of the benefits they bestow on a developing child. Swimming pools, museums, transit, movie theatres, amusement parks, restaurants, skating rinks, hockey teams -- and I could go on and on -- all recognize the important of treating children with equity rather than equality.

The CFC is a non-profit member-based service organization. We should treat children equitably. Most, if not all, chess players, see an advantage to children playing chess. It aids in their intellectual and social development, and encourages them to become productive, contributing members of our society. When looking at priority neighbourhoods in Toronto, for example, it was recognized by the City of Toronto that providing enhanced activities in these at-risk areas of our city was beneficial to all us even though it was an equitable and not equal allocation of resources. The social benefits of providing opportunities for children to develop into good citizens is beyond debate.

Steve

[Steve Karpik]

I don't think this is even worth arguing. People, I'm sure, already have their minds set on this one.

I've made it clear I am voting against this "revised" motion, and I only seconded it as a courtesy to Bob, as I had originally seconded an equivalent amendment, before the original motion was withdrawn.

Fred,

I understand you seconded Bob's motion in the spirit of collegiality. Fostering collegiality among the governors is a good thing. However, I'd like to suggest that your action neglected to take into consideration the reason why procedural rules require a seconder.

Governing bodies, like the CFC governors, have many more issues to deal with than time. In order to prevent a waste of time, procedural rules have been developed. The purpose of requiring a second is to prevent time being wasted by a governing body having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced. In my opinion, people should not agree to second a motion that they disagree with. A person who is making a motion should do their homework before the meeting and get at least someone on their side who supports the motion. Just getting someone to formally second a motion who doesn't believe in the motion itself subverts the purpose of seconding.

My preference would be for the CFC governors to spend their time debating significant issues and not wasting their time merely debating for the sake of debating. If there aren't any issues to resolve, I'm sure all the governors have better things to do in their lives than debate for the sake of debating.

Steve

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Steve:

You argue your side of the debate most eloquently.

In this case though, I don't see a $ 10/yr ( less than $ 1/month ) increase in their membership, as treating them " inequitably ". The merits of chess will draw juniors' parents and juniors to chess - the annual fee will not be a deterent.

You should be a CFC governor !! Any chance of you going to the GTCL AGM on Sat., April 30, and throwing your hat in the ring?? ( I know this is the last thing you'd do; even comes after putting pins in your eyes ! ). LOL

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Steve:

In Fred's defence, the course of this motion 2011-L needs to be considered.

This motion was originally introduced some time ago as Motion 2011-A, I think at the 2010 Fall Meeting. There have been disputes between the Chair and some governors over the procedural handling of the motion, re " postponements ". But postponed it was.

About a day before the meeting, the Chair ruled the Motion 2011-A, which I supported, and which I was strengthening by having filed an amending motion, out of order - it was off the agenda, killed. I was advised by the CFC Chair and the CFC Secretary, that if I wanted a motion, I'd have to file the new one right away. And the 2011 Spring Meeting was now upon us, and the agenda being finalized.

Fred had kindly consented to second my motion 2011-A1 amending Motion 2011-A, since he agreed as CFC Treasurer with my unified annual fee figure of $ 34, which was replacing the ill-considered $ 30 in the original motion.

Given the time available to me to find a seconder, and given that Fred had seconded my amending motion, I asked if he would help me out by seconding the motion to bring it to debate. I felt strongly that it needed to get onto the Spring Meeting agenda.

It is an issue that is worthy of debate. There is a raging debate now among the governors whether to go to a single membership fee, a higher single rating fee or a combination, as now. So it is a live issue among the governors.

As a courtesy to me, and to get my replacement motion on the agenda, Fred seconded it. I believe, despite being against the motion, he believes it is not " frivolous " as you claim, but worthy of debate, and has now been before the governors for decision for months. The motion is NOT " frivolous " just because you happen to strongly disagree with it.

Bob

[Steve Karpik]

Hi Steve:

The motion is NOT " frivolous " just because you happen to strongly disagree with it.

Bob

I never used the word frivolous. My post simply gives my perspective on what a seconder should consider.