6d. Officer + Committee Reports - NFP Act Transition Committee

[Gordon Ritchie]

Paul
These are all good points and can be taken into account in the preparation of the draft legal text to be brought back to the Governors for review and approval. I anticipate that even at that point there will be a number of adjustments to be made.
There is, however, one fundamental issue. The CFC is a very small organization, with a membership of around 1,000 give or take and an annual budget under $250,000. As our current governance has evolved, virtually all decisions to do with the CFC are discussed (often several times) and decided by a governing board of more than 50 Governors plus another 10 or so "executive" members or better than one for every 20 members. It is very generous of these individuals to give so much of their time to this process with all the other demands on them. It has proven, however, to be rather unwieldy and top-heavy as well as prone to gridlock. No doubt some governors like it that way and will want to keep the system as unchanged as possible when we transition to NFP status. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The committee took the view that there is room for improvement. It would not be unreasonable for the affairs of such a small organization to be overseen by a 9-member board of directors, meeting at least quarterly, with the day-to-day operations managed by a small executive. As you know, this is the preferred structure for much larger organizations in the public and private sectors.
Normally, such a board would be elected annually by the shareholders or, in this case, the membership at large.
In recognition of the role the governors have played in the past, however, it was suggested as a compromise that they would continue to play a role as representatives of the broader membership, electing the directors annually, and being required to approve major fundamental changes, e.g. constitution, major financial transactions (above a certain amount), etc.
This is hardly revolutionary but it is a modest proposal intended to permit the CFC to function more efficiently and accountably than at present.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

This is hardly revolutionary but it is a modest proposal intended to permit the CFC to function more efficiently and accountably than at present.

I think that offered proposals are good. The current status is really bad. Seems that system is falling apart as requires so many Governors, so many governors' meetings. imho, ChessnMath gave a very good lesson to the CFC how a championship could be organized. Could the current CFC business model repeat this?

[Lyle Craver]

Having been both CFC Secretary and CFC Treasurer I can attest that the two roles are radically different with little overlap between the two. At the end of my term as Treasurer I strongly stated my view that I did not think a person unable to visit the office 2 or 3 times a year as needed could effectively do the job particularly when there were issues where I did not feel that I as Treasurer was receiving information from the Office in a timely manner. It is my personal opinion that much of the loss we suffered that year could have been mitigated had the Office that year been more responsive to the Board.

I find it highly ironic that Halldor Pallson was vilified by some as "dictatorial" given this proposal would give the President far more authority than he was ever accused of wanting to wield.

I do not think it appropriate for major constitutional changes of this nature to be approved outside an AGM though there is plenty that can be done to move this forward in the meantime. This decision is in my mind larger than any taken in the days of Mr. Prentice and the only decision made in recent years of similar size being the decision to sell the Office.

There is an ongoing debate in both the Executive and the Governors about the appropriate role of the two - we have gone back and forth and are currently in a period where extensive Governor input is the rule of the day - my own view being it's gone farther than it should. This proposal would swing the pendulum at least as hard the other way.

At this point I am undecided between abstention and a negative vote but will be taking the full time available.

[Fred McKim]

Having been both CFC Secretary and CFC Treasurer I can attest that the two roles are radically different with little overlap between the two. At the end of my term as Treasurer I strongly stated my view that I did not think a person unable to visit the office 2 or 3 times a year as needed could effectively do the job particularly when there were issues where I did not feel that I as Treasurer was receiving information from the Office in a timely manner. It is my personal opinion that much of the loss we suffered that year could have been mitigated had the Office that year been more responsive to the Board.

I find it highly ironic that Halldor Pallson was vilified by some as "dictatorial" given this proposal would give the President far more authority than he was ever accused of wanting to wield.

I do not think it appropriate for major constitutional changes of this nature to be approved outside an AGM though there is plenty that can be done to move this forward in the meantime. This decision is in my mind larger than any taken in the days of Mr. Prentice and the only decision made in recent years of similar size being the decision to sell the Office.

There is an ongoing debate in both the Executive and the Governors about the appropriate role of the two - we have gone back and forth and are currently in a period where extensive Governor input is the rule of the day - my own view being it's gone farther than it should. This proposal would swing the pendulum at least as hard the other way.

At this point I am undecided between abstention and a negative vote but will be taking the full time available.

I think the role of Treasurer has changed a lot since then, Lyle. Excellent reports come from the accounting system. Most of my Executive work is related on other matters. I think a VP-Operations could easily replace an official Treasurer.

[Michael Barron]

Paul
These are all good points and can be taken into account in the preparation of the draft legal text to be brought back to the Governors for review and approval. I anticipate that even at that point there will be a number of adjustments to be made.
There is, however, one fundamental issue. The CFC is a very small organization, with a membership of around 1,000 give or take and an annual budget under $250,000. As our current governance has evolved, virtually all decisions to do with the CFC are discussed (often several times) and decided by a governing board of more than 50 Governors plus another 10 or so "executive" members or better than one for every 20 members. It is very generous of these individuals to give so much of their time to this process with all the other demands on them. It has proven, however, to be rather unwieldy and top-heavy as well as prone to gridlock. No doubt some governors like it that way and will want to keep the system as unchanged as possible when we transition to NFP status. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The committee took the view that there is room for improvement. It would not be unreasonable for the affairs of such a small organization to be overseen by a 9-member board of directors, meeting at least quarterly, with the day-to-day operations managed by a small executive. As you know, this is the preferred structure for much larger organizations in the public and private sectors.
Normally, such a board would be elected annually by the shareholders or, in this case, the membership at large.
In recognition of the role the governors have played in the past, however, it was suggested as a compromise that they would continue to play a role as representatives of the broader membership, electing the directors annually, and being required to approve major fundamental changes, e.g. constitution, major financial transactions (above a certain amount), etc.
This is hardly revolutionary but it is a modest proposal intended to permit the CFC to function more efficiently and accountably than at present.

Gordon,
One fundamental issue is that some decision-makers sometimes forget why the CFC exists as organization.
It exists not for the profit, not for the notorious "bottom line", not for newsletter editor nor office administrator nor any other paid staff.
The CFC exists for chess players who pay various fees, and all decision-makers should be responsible before these chess players.

The latest example: CYCC 2013.
Ottawa organizers didn't present any formal bid, but the Governors awarded them the right to organize the event - without any gridlock.
Unfortunately, organizers decided to change the traditional format of the event - replace 7th round with side events - without any consultation with Governors nor with potential participants.
All players and parents who approached me with this issue expressed concerns about such decision - they all prefer 7th round instead of side events.
Still it's impossible to get an answer to a simple question:
Who made this decision and why?

And you call it "to function more efficiently and accountably"?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

It is my recollection, that when the 2013 CYCC bid was submitted, some governors questioned the 6-round format ( it was in the bid I think, no? ). The organizers said they wouldn't change it, when asked to by some governors. So it was either the bid, or nothing ( there was no other CYCC bid ).

Is my recollection wrong on this ( I haven't gone to check the meeting text )?

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Bob, the bid was discussed at http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...and-discussion
Only dates were presented. (3 days)
A bidder only told they would look at expressed concerns.

[Félix Dumont]

The latest example: CYCC 2013.
Ottawa organizers didn't present any formal bid, but the Governors awarded them the right to organize the event - without any gridlock.
Unfortunately, organizers decided to change the traditional format of the event - replace 7th round with side events - without any consultation with Governors nor with potential participants.
All players and parents who approached me with this issue expressed concerns about such decision - they all prefer 7th round instead of side events.

You are right. I also received many complaints from parents. If I had known more about the tournament (such as the fact that the CYCC will be used to finance the CO, while the kids while have to pay thousands of dollars to go to the WYCC), I would never have voted in favour of it. But the solution to this might be to request all the details about a tournament when there's a bid.

Also, it is true that the original bid was on 3 days. But we thought they had changed it to 7 rounds after they announced that they will hold the tournament on 4 days. However, the last day is only for tie-breaks (?!).

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

Thanks.

The bid:
Proposed dates CYCC July 10-12 2013
Canadian Open July13-21 2013

- there were only 3 days presented in the bid, that is only 6 rounds. That was clear to all the governors.
- Hal Bond asked if they could start a day earlier on July 9, though he did not clearly say he wanted this to add a 7th round. Les Bunning, lead organizer, said they'd look at that. They gave no indication in the bid that they had any CYCC plans for Saturday, July 13, the day the Canadian Open starts in the evening.
- but now the CYCC website shows as the dates: (July 10-13, 2013. Ottawa - includes the Saturday). The July 9 idea was rejected. But Les has now made clear that the AM of Saturday is for tie-breaks, and general fun activities for the CYCC participants, especially those staying for the Can. Open, later in the day.

So parents have been asking why not use Sat. AM for the 7th round? Les has basically answered as I understood him:

1. 6 rounds is sufficient to determine at least first place;
2. the fun Sat. AM activities are an important part of their program.

I think also at this point, there is no clear idea, if a 7th round took place Sat. AM, what would be done to break ties.

I have advised the parents that the hands of the CFC are now tied, because we accepted the bid as proposed, with the possibility of some extension of the time. CFC cannot force a 7th round on the organizers. So the issue is clearly up to Les - and it is at least theoretically available to him to add a 7th round, if he fels that is an alternate viable plan.

I suggested the CYCC parents who want to do something, can pretty much only contact Les directly, or perhaps start a petition to give to him, to let him know the extent of support for a 7th round.

So have I now got this right, since I am being asked to explain it to CYCC parents, as a CFC Governor who was at the bid meeting.

Bob A

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I understood that they were planning 6 rounds and I also understood that there were concerns expressed at the time of the bid that this was a departure from the normal practice.