The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

[Bob Armstrong]

There has been criticism of the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) from inside the CFC executive, stating that we are a nameless and secretive organization, a " political party ", and have no right to exist in the chess world.

We'd like to set the record straight.

The members and supporters of the CCC are not nameless, and are happy to make themselves known:

“ Members ” ( 14 )

Bob Armstrong
Ken Kurkowski
Pino Verde
Erwin Casareno
David Broughton
Jerry Kitich
Greg Beal
Josh Guo
Hassan Pishdad
Michael Perez
Haqi al Ganabi
Sam Sharpe
Anna Jin
Will Rutherdale

“ Supporters “ ( interested; will give feedback; have decided not to formally join at this time ) ( 9 )

Steve Karpik
Alex Ferreira
Fred McKim
Michael Beatty
Chris Field
Tony Ficzere
Victor Itkin
Hazel Smith
Vlad Drkulec

There are some governors among our members/supporters.

CCC is not a " political party ". It does not run candidates for any CFC positions. It is a moderate reform group. It takes positions democratically, and has a regular newsletter for members/supporters. Members feel their positions have more weight when supported by a number of members/past members of CFC, even if the group is small. Supporters, though not formally endorsing positions, are generally supportive.

We invite the public to review our position papers, and welcome new members/supporters ( cooperativechesscoalition@gmail.com ). We have a Facebook page where we make chess posts of general interest.

The criticism from inside the executive is unwarranted, disappointing, misguided, inaccurate and may indicate a resistance to needed reform.

Bob Armstrong, CCC Coordinator

[Roger Patterson]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

The criticism from inside the executive is unwarranted, disappointing, misguided, innaccurate and may indicate a resistance to needed reform.

Bob Armstrong, CCC Coordinator

so is it your policy to demonize anybody who disagrees with you / your group as "bad people"?

Surely it is enough to respond to criticism by calmly countering points of debate without questioning the motivation or competence of those who disagree with you.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

Hi Roger:

It was a complete mischaracterization of the group, and I did answer it in very great detail:

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...15607#poststop

And we are concerned about the motivation behind it.

Bob, CCC Coordinator

( later addition )

[Roger Patterson]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

Hi Roger:

It was a complete mischaracterization of the group, and I did answer it in very great detail:

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...15607#poststop

Bob, CCC Coordinator

And you are responding by also impugning the motives of the person criticizing you.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

Bob and Lyle, I have a question!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0

[Jean Hébert]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

The criticism from inside the executive is unwarranted, disappointing, misguided, inaccurate and may indicate a resistance to needed reform.

Surely you did expect to meet resistance to reforms (change), didn't you ? It should not be a surprise. Even moderate reforms usually meet with resistance, personal attacks and the likes. It goes with the territory.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

There has been criticism of the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) from inside the CFC executive, stating that we are a nameless and secretive organization, a " political party ", and have no right to exist in the chess world.

The criticism from inside the executive is unwarranted, disappointing, misguided, inaccurate and may indicate a resistance to needed reform.

Bob Armstrong, CCC Coordinator

What is shocking to hear, is that you are actually surprised by their actions. :D

[Fred McKim]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

There has been criticism of the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) from inside the CFC executive, stating that we are a nameless and secretive organization, a " political party ", and have no right to exist in the chess world.

I think to clarify this, Bob - it should be stated that as far as I know there has never been any criticism of the Coalition from the CFC Executive, and you are simply taking the comment of one Executive member to possibly misrepresent the entire group.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) - Source of the Attack

Hi Fred:

I have tried to avoid this implication by saying that the criticism is coming from " inside the Executive "( the CFC Secretary ), not " from " the executive, and I posted the link to Lyle Craver's post that is in contention.

However, I agree wholeheartedly that this criticism is the opinion of only one member of the executive - the executive as a group have never, to my knowledge, taken any position re our organization's right to exist, and some in the executive ( you for example, as a " supporter " ) have been supportive of our efforts.

I do apologize to the executive if I have unwittingly, in my concern and response, led people to a wrong view of the " executive position " on this.

Bob A, CCC Coordinator

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )

Surely you did expect to meet resistance to reforms (change), didn't you ? It should not be a surprise. Even moderate reforms usually meet with resistance, personal attacks and the likes. It goes with the territory.

It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. - Nicolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) - Source of the Attack

You want to triple the workload of the secretary for no good reason and you are shocked that the secretary is upset about it? Really?

[Bob Armstrong]

CCC - Motion 2012-M & -L - Minimal Increase of Secty. Workload

Hi Chris:

" triple " workload is a figure that is a figment of your imagination!

I have said already that the increased workload would be minimal under both Motion 2012-L and 2012-M.

And I personally undertook to draft reply letters to members who have had matters dealt with by the CFC at their petition, for the Secretary, to lessen his workload under Motion 2012-L. I don't expect to be busy.

As well I have volunteered to record motion endorsement e-mails re Member Motions under Motion 2012-L, for the Secretary - how many times per year do you expect this to occur, Chris. Nearly 100% of the time, governors do assist members with complaints. This Members' Motion is for a very rare situation, that will seldom occur, but must be in place nevertheless. I don't expect to be busy.

And there is a good reason for both motions.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: CCC - Motion 2012-L : CFC Member Rights

For those interested, here is the CCC Motion 2012-L being filed imminently for the 2012 Winter Governors' On-line Meeting ( early January, 2012 ):

Motion 2012 – L – CFC Member Rights

Revision # 1 - 11/9/28

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim

( motion brought on behalf of the Cooperative Chess Coalition, a grassroots’ group of CFC members concerned with chess membership development and improving the operation of the CFC, and other chess organizations )

Moved – There shall be added to the CFC Handbook, Section 2, Bylaw # 1, as Para.14, the following:

MEMBER RIGHTS

14. ( 1 ) Any individual Member shall have a right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership, or any situation where any individual member is aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, by approaching a CFC governor for assistance in presenting his submission, motion, etc. to the CFC AGM, Quarterly Meeting, or otherwise. No governor is obliged to agree to act on behalf of such member.
( 2 ) Any such complaints, suggestions, etc. of any individual Member shall be dealt with by the Federation Secretary replying in writing to any governor acting on behalf of such member, with copy to such individual Member.
( 3 ) As set out elsewhere in the Handbook, CFC members have the right as there set out, to elect their CFC governors.

Commentary:

The prior section 14 on membership limitations was considered antiquated, anti-member, and no longer relevant as between the CFC and the Provincial Affiliates. It used to read:

CFC Bylaw # 1
LIMITATION OF RIGHTS

14. No individual Member shall have any right to be heard on any matter pertaining to the affairs of the Federation, or his individual membership. Should any individual member be aggrieved by any matter arising in the conduct of the affairs of the Federation, his remedy shall be to bring the matter before his provincial organization, and if there be no Provincial Organization in the Province in which he resides, he may bring the matter to the attention of a Governor representing such Province. Any complaints or suggestions of any individual Member shall be sufficiently dealt with by the Federation Secretary, if he shall reply to such individual Member quoting this By-law.

It was deleted at the July, 2011 AGM, the motion having been initiated by the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC )..
In place of a limitation of member rights, we are now substituting a positive statement of member rights. We do have a governor system, and they run the affairs of the CFC. But they are elected by and accountable to the CFC members. As such, the governors must make all reasonable efforts to assist members in their actions to influence the affairs of the CFC or to present grievances. This section merely puts into regulation, where it is protected, the existing practice in the CFC, of governors and executive informally assisting members with their issues brought to the governors. This may involve presenting briefs and submissions to governor meetings on behalf of members, or moving and seconding motions submitted by CFC members. However, governors are free to decide whether or not, in any individual instance, they will assist, and, if so, to what extent. This protects the CFC from frivolous member submissions. As well, they need not necessarily agree to the position of the member, in order to assist them to present their case.

Secondly, we also feel that a formal reply to members is important to confirm their issue has been formally dealt with by someone. Whomever has the authority to deal with the issue may correspond with the relevant governor, and member on an interim basis. But a formal reply should come directly from the Secretary to the governor involved, copy to the member. The person making the final decision shall confirm to the Secretary when the matter is finally dealt with and provide text for any final letter. This should not be that onerous on the Secretary, since there have been few member petitions over the years.

Lastly, in order to bring member rights into one section, the section also refers to the right to elect CFC governors, set out elsewhere in the Handbook.

Bob A, CCC Coordinator

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: CCC - Motion 2012-M - Members' Motions

For those interested, here is the CCC Motion 2012-M being filed imminently for the 2012 Winter Governors' On-line Meeting ( early January, 2012 ):

Motion 2012 – M –CFC Member Right re Motions

11/9/29

Moved – Bob Armstrong; Seconded – Fred McKim

( motion brought on behalf of the Cooperative Chess Coalition, a grassroots’ group of CFC members concerned with chess membership development and improving the operation of the CFC, and other chess organizations )

Moved – There shall be added to the CFC Handbook, Section 2, Bylaw # 1, as Para.14a, the following:

MEMBER RIGHTS

14a. Any individual member may bring a motion directly to the CFC governors, without governor assistance being required, if he has a member seconder, and endorsement of members totaling 5% of the total Adult and Life members. The total shall be based on the membership statistics issued May 1 by the CFC Secretary. Endorsing members must be 18 years of age or over, and there must be proof provided directly from the endorser to the CFC Secretary of each member’s endorsement of the motion.

Commentary:

Although working through governors is the preferred method of CFC member participation in the affairs of the CFC, the CFC members should have an absolute right to approach the CFC with a motion of their own accord, without having to plead for governor assistance, which may not be forthcoming, even if such situation indicates such motion may well be unsuccessful. So we have allowed a motion by a member, with a member seconder. The limitation is that the member bringing the motion must find some support among the membership, to the extent of 5 % of the total of the adult and life members. This is not felt to be onerous, and at the same time protects the CFC from a flood of frivolous member motions, which could grind CFC business to a halt. There will have to be direct proof to the CFC Secretary from each endorser of their support for the motion, to prevent fraudulent motions. This is modeled on shareholder rights in corporations.

This is a new significant member right, and allows members direct intervention, and the forcing of a governor vote on their concern, even where governors may initially be disposed against the motion. Governors will deal with issues of concern to a significant minority of CFC members, who consider their issue vital to the operation of the CFC

Bob A, CCC Coordinator

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: CCC - Motion 2012-M & -L - Minimal Increase of Secty. Workload

You can say all you like, your motion clearly indicates a huge pile of additional work for the Secretary. And as I said, it's for no good reason; if someone can't find two governors to support a motion, what chance does it have even if you (through a lot of effort by the CFC Secretary) get it put on the voting list for the Governors?