Tweet
Tonight 7 Governors brought 7 CFC Restructuring motions to the Governors for a " straw vote ", on behalf of the Grassroots Campaign. Submitted with the motions was the following " Backgrounder ":
“ Backgrounder “ to 7 CFC Restructuring Motions for Straw Vote June 24, 2008
Prepared by Bob Armstrong, CFC Life Member, Coordinator of Grassroots Campaign
Hi to All Outgoing CFC Governors:
Introduction
On June 15, a grassroots group, coordinated by me, proposed a CFC restructuring package called the CFC Presidential Campaign Plan of Action ( Revision 4B ). At that date, it had been endorsed by 15 CFC members and former members ( now up to 19 – see list of endorsers at bottom of this backgrounder ). It was published in the Scarborough Community of Toronto Chess News & Views, of June 15. It was also posted on June 15 on both ChessTalk websites and the Ottawa Chess Club message board for public perusal and comment. As of June 22, there had been over 1600 views of this initial version of the platform, and a over 70 replies were generated. We indicated that we intended to bring the platform before the Governors for a straw vote. But given the results of the process the last time a complete package of restructuring was presented to the Governors, we have decided that it is best to canvas the views of the Governors on the restructuring issues, independently of each other – that way a Governor who may object to one individual item, could still vote for all 6 other items, and not have to vote down the whole package, leaving us with no indication of what s/he might have accepted.
Since then our items # 5 and # 7 underwent some minor revision, while keeping the substance of the original platform.
The 7 Motions & Commentary
So we set out below 7 individual motions, each representing one item of our revised platform. And we are proposing a non-binding “ straw vote “ on these motions. This way, the outgoing Governors can give the incoming Governors some guidance as to their views on each of the restructuring issues, without binding their hands.
Here are the 7 motions ( 7 Governors are involved in bringing these motions ), along with a short commentary on each to flesh them out a bit to help with debate among the Governors on the motions:
Motion # 1 – Moved – Barry Thorvardson; Seconded – Cesary Posylek : Item 1 set out below is acceptable.
“ 1. Core Roles: CFC will continue its role re FIDE, international and national events, a national rating system, and a website with membership info, ratings, membership sales, tournament announcements, chess club lists, and news submitted by members (highlights of recent tournament, etc.). Maintenance of these functions will be the responsibility of the Executive Director.”
Commentary: We did not try to put into the platform everything the CFC is doing now, or will continue to do. We wanted a clean minimalist platform, that fundamentally dealt with restructuring issues. Therefore, for example, there is nothing about CFC promoting chess here. Promoting chess, which includes renewing memberships and growing the membership, is a main goal of the CFC, and our platform does not affect that ( I can advise we had something in the platform in an earlier version, but in trying to trim it down, and reduce the targets, we deleted it - but this doesn't mean we don't still fully support it as a main goal of the CFC ). For the purposes of this motion, it is assumed the ED functions, website and rating system will stay in-house ( though outsourcing the website or rating system is not necessarily excluded ).
Motion # 2 – Moved – Michael Barron; Seconded – Barry Thorvardson: Item 2 set out below is acceptable.
“ 2. CFC Revenue: CFC revenues to come from memberships, rating fees, investments and donations. With the reduced scope of operation, costs for the organization should be less, and it may be possible to reduce annual membership fees and/or rating fees. “
Commentary : We feel that reducing the annual membership in particular should be a priority, if financially feasible after restructuring, since the magazine will no longer be a membership benefit. But we could not definitely promise it until we see our surplus after restructuring. We have also left open the possibility of lowering the rating fee. But some have also suggested that a modest raising of the rating fee might allow a further reduction in the annual membership fee, and this is still possible under this motion.
Motion # 3 – Moved – Barry Thorvardson; Seconded – Chris Mallon: Item 3 set out below is acceptable.
“ 3. CFC Membership: CFC to eliminate tournament memberships – if you want to play in a CFC tournament, you must purchase an annual membership. To encourage individuals to become members, first time CFC members will be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year. “
Commentary: We must support our organization by membership and annual membership fee, if we want it to exist. CFC must have sustainable revenue. Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships. We wanted to make clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases seem warranted. Organizers have told us that the annual CFC membership is a hindrance to getting first time tournament players to sign up for tournaments, so our 40% reduction for first-time CFC’ers attempts to ameliorate this difficulty.
[ continued in Pt. II ]
“ Backgrounder “ to 7 CFC Restructuring Motions for Straw Vote June 24, 2008
Prepared by Bob Armstrong, CFC Life Member, Coordinator of Grassroots Campaign
Hi to All Outgoing CFC Governors:
Introduction
On June 15, a grassroots group, coordinated by me, proposed a CFC restructuring package called the CFC Presidential Campaign Plan of Action ( Revision 4B ). At that date, it had been endorsed by 15 CFC members and former members ( now up to 19 – see list of endorsers at bottom of this backgrounder ). It was published in the Scarborough Community of Toronto Chess News & Views, of June 15. It was also posted on June 15 on both ChessTalk websites and the Ottawa Chess Club message board for public perusal and comment. As of June 22, there had been over 1600 views of this initial version of the platform, and a over 70 replies were generated. We indicated that we intended to bring the platform before the Governors for a straw vote. But given the results of the process the last time a complete package of restructuring was presented to the Governors, we have decided that it is best to canvas the views of the Governors on the restructuring issues, independently of each other – that way a Governor who may object to one individual item, could still vote for all 6 other items, and not have to vote down the whole package, leaving us with no indication of what s/he might have accepted.
Since then our items # 5 and # 7 underwent some minor revision, while keeping the substance of the original platform.
The 7 Motions & Commentary
So we set out below 7 individual motions, each representing one item of our revised platform. And we are proposing a non-binding “ straw vote “ on these motions. This way, the outgoing Governors can give the incoming Governors some guidance as to their views on each of the restructuring issues, without binding their hands.
Here are the 7 motions ( 7 Governors are involved in bringing these motions ), along with a short commentary on each to flesh them out a bit to help with debate among the Governors on the motions:
Motion # 1 – Moved – Barry Thorvardson; Seconded – Cesary Posylek : Item 1 set out below is acceptable.
“ 1. Core Roles: CFC will continue its role re FIDE, international and national events, a national rating system, and a website with membership info, ratings, membership sales, tournament announcements, chess club lists, and news submitted by members (highlights of recent tournament, etc.). Maintenance of these functions will be the responsibility of the Executive Director.”
Commentary: We did not try to put into the platform everything the CFC is doing now, or will continue to do. We wanted a clean minimalist platform, that fundamentally dealt with restructuring issues. Therefore, for example, there is nothing about CFC promoting chess here. Promoting chess, which includes renewing memberships and growing the membership, is a main goal of the CFC, and our platform does not affect that ( I can advise we had something in the platform in an earlier version, but in trying to trim it down, and reduce the targets, we deleted it - but this doesn't mean we don't still fully support it as a main goal of the CFC ). For the purposes of this motion, it is assumed the ED functions, website and rating system will stay in-house ( though outsourcing the website or rating system is not necessarily excluded ).
Motion # 2 – Moved – Michael Barron; Seconded – Barry Thorvardson: Item 2 set out below is acceptable.
“ 2. CFC Revenue: CFC revenues to come from memberships, rating fees, investments and donations. With the reduced scope of operation, costs for the organization should be less, and it may be possible to reduce annual membership fees and/or rating fees. “
Commentary : We feel that reducing the annual membership in particular should be a priority, if financially feasible after restructuring, since the magazine will no longer be a membership benefit. But we could not definitely promise it until we see our surplus after restructuring. We have also left open the possibility of lowering the rating fee. But some have also suggested that a modest raising of the rating fee might allow a further reduction in the annual membership fee, and this is still possible under this motion.
Motion # 3 – Moved – Barry Thorvardson; Seconded – Chris Mallon: Item 3 set out below is acceptable.
“ 3. CFC Membership: CFC to eliminate tournament memberships – if you want to play in a CFC tournament, you must purchase an annual membership. To encourage individuals to become members, first time CFC members will be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year. “
Commentary: We must support our organization by membership and annual membership fee, if we want it to exist. CFC must have sustainable revenue. Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships. We wanted to make clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases seem warranted. Organizers have told us that the annual CFC membership is a hindrance to getting first time tournament players to sign up for tournaments, so our 40% reduction for first-time CFC’ers attempts to ameliorate this difficulty.
[ continued in Pt. II ]
Comment