Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

[Bob Armstrong]

CFC PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN PLAN OF ACTION

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.

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.

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.

4. Chess Canada: CFC will terminate the magazine contract with TKS immediately (with the May 2008 issue being the last issue of the magazine).

5. Retail Business: Sell off the inventory of the retail business; it will be closed entirely. An alternative but small source of revenue, if requiring minimum labour, could be through a commission arrangement, such as the Amazon affiliate program ( http://affiliate-program.amazon.com/...oin/links.html ).

6. CFC Condominium Office: The current CFC office would be placed for sale. The office would then be run out of either a small rental space or a home office.

7. CFC Staffing: In light of the reduced business activities of the CFC office (no retail sales and no print magazine), the Executive Committee would undertake a review of the Executive Director and Assistant positions and would recommend appropriate staffing changes if required. The Executive will consider eliminating the part-time staff, and cutting back the Executive Director position to part-time.

Revision 4B, June 2, 2008

List of Endorsers ( as of June 15 )

Bob Armstrong – CFC Life Member/former chess club executive
Chris Mallon – past CFC President/ former OCA Director
Steve Karpik – CFC member/chess club executive
Rick Garel – CFC member/chess club executive
Caesar Posylek – CFC Governor/ chess club executive
Kerry Liles – incoming CFC Governor/ chess club executive
Jerry Kitich – CFC member/former chess club executive
Dave Broughton – former CFC Governor and Executive / former OCA Director/ former CFC member
Ken Kurkowski – CFC member
Frank Dixon – former CFC Governor/ tournament director/tournament organizer/ former chess club executive.
John Brown – CFC member/ tournament organizer/ chess club executive
Vlad Dobrich – tournament director/ tournament organizer/ chess club executive/ former CFC member
Doug Gillis – CFC Member
Tyler Longo – CFC Member
Jim Roe – CFC Member

This platform was developed by myself with assistance from Steve Karpik and Chris Mallon. It then went through a number of redrafts as we responded to community input. It is now in its final form.
This platform does not seek to cover all things CFC should be doing. Many things can be fine-tuned at a later date. It is a bare-bones platform that attempts to address the essential restructuring issues. We feel it is practical, financially responsible, doable, and will put CFC back in the black.
We recognize that everyone may not agree with every item in the platform. What we are asking is that people endorse the platform as a whole, despite some reservation, in order to get some package of reforms moving. You can always fight for your own personal view on a particular item when it eventually comes up for implementation.
There has been no attempt yet to try to recruit a presidential candidate to adopt this platform. We are running no candidates and have endorsed no candidates. It is, in a sense, a platform in search of a candidate. We feel that the PLATFORM is equally important to WHO may be running. We hope one of the candidates will adopt this platform, or someone who endorses it will come forward and run. At that time we will determine whether to support as well a particular candidate..

If you have any questions or comments on this platform, don’t hesitate to e-mail me ( bobarm@sympatico.ca ), or post here on either ChessTalk. We ask you to take a careful read of our prescription for restructuring CFC and seriously consider endorsing it, to show that it has broad community support. You can post here if you endorse it, or e-mail me privately. We will add you to our growing list of endorsers. Could you please as well advise if you have been involved with the chess establishment – CFC Executive, CFC Governor, Incoming CFC Governor, Provincial Executive or Governor, chess club executive, tournament organizer, etc., either past or present, and whether you are a current or former CFC member or are a non-member?

We hope, if this platform gets support, to bring it to the Governors as well for a “ straw “ vote, though not as a package, take it or leave it ( we saw the disaster that happened the last time this was tried ), but as 7 separate motions. This will show whether any of the items has majority support, though there may be division on others. We are looking for further Governors who would lend their support to this “ process “, whether or not they are endorsing the whole platform – let me know if we can count on you for the bringing of the motion.

Thanks for taking the time to review this letter and the platform, and for your interest in saving the CFC.

Bob

[Luke Peristy]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Very good, Bob.

I especially like the bits about shelving the magazine, selling off the retail supplies, and moving the CFC office to a smaller location. Reduced staffing would be the natural continuation to this gambit.

I wonder if there's a way to convince Larry to do some selling for the CFC a la the "other" motion...I'm not sure, Larry's a pretty business savvy person, so he'll likely avoid it.

Is it possible to reorganize the CFC governing body. I will not pretend to understand how the CFC governs itself, but it seems awfully cumbersome to me, which, given the actions that must soon be undertaken for the CFC to survive, is not exactly ideal. I think that the CFC really ought to streamline the decision making process. A benevolent dictatorship is what is required at present.

Then again, I'm just a young whippersnapper who thinks that the ends justify the means. ;)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Hi Luke:

Thanks for your support of the platform. Can I now add you to our list of endorsers?

As to the governing structure of CFC, many have suggested the status quo is cumbersome. But others have argued that it is democratic, and gives the provinces say in what happens at CFC through their provincial governors. I think that this is best dealt with once the CFC has been restructured and our finances are back in the black. Then the CFC could strike a committee to look into whether to recommend another governing structure. I think it is a good suggestion.

Bob

[Luke Peristy]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Hi Luke:

Thanks for your support of the platform. Can I now add you to our list of endorsers?

By all means.:)

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Is it possible to reorganize the CFC governing body. I will not pretend to understand how the CFC governs itself, but it seems awfully cumbersome to me, which, given the actions that must soon be undertaken for the CFC to survive, is not exactly ideal. I think that the CFC really ought to streamline the decision making process. A benevolent dictatorship is what is required at present.

The main problem is that any changes have to be voted on.. BY the Governors.

You could probably have someone offer to donate $250,000 to the Chess Foundation on the condition that, say, Life Governors are abolished. And some would still vote against it!

So what's a system worth having that might actually be approved? I'm not sure there IS one. You'd have to do it in baby steps maybe even with give-and-take.

What I don't get is why the same inactive Governors keep getting nominated over and over by their provinces?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

I notice there are no projections for membership numbers or an indication if the new system has an expectation of growing chess. There is no indication if a contract for Chess Canada is in place or if it's on a monthly basis and can be cancelled as is suggested.

This model seems to go back to the early 70's with an Executive Director.

I don't think you'll see the membership from the Metro Toronto area that there was back then. The infrastructure doesn't seem to be there. Back then there were several clubs which had a large capacity. I forget how large the posted capacity for the Scarborough club was but it was greater than 100 because we had at least that many members. Later they moved into quarters which held over 200 and someone from the club told me they had more than that many members.

There was the Toronto Cub. Another couple of clubs in Eastern Toronto as well.

You don't say what will be done with the money from the building. Will it be put into the foundation?

This doesn't set any kind of priorities for promoting chess. Only for processing incoming memberships.

There's nothing about advertising and promoting the game. No magazine takes away the ability to get out the message. I don't know how many people do more than have a quick look at on online magazine before they delete it. I don't even bother downloading them.

You can do active promotion where your executive director promotes the game and figures out ways to sell memberships OR you can go to a model where all that's done is processing what comes in. The second option costs less and takes less energy.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

A plan for promoting chess is simple: Frarey 08.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Not likely. If he is elected I predict a lot of players will give up on the CFC (those who have not already). I can guarantee one who will.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

And I predict he'd welcome them back when their haste was proved to be foolish.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

A plan for promoting chess is simple: Frarey 08.

Does he still run a message board? I've been banned there for years and have no idea what his latest ideas are.

It used to be expensive for me to promote correspondence chess and build the membership. Fortunately, I had an executive which allowed me to spend the money and go ahead with my ideas. More fortunately, most of the ideas and initiatives worked and the membership rose quite sharply and stayed high the years I was involved.

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: a contrarian view regarding memberships

I would like to start off by acknowledging the superb list of endorsers to this plan. I don't pretend to know better, but I would like to express my opinion regarding memberships, as it is quite the opposite of what you are proposing. Please take it for what it's worth, and I'm not crazy about getting into a big long argument. I don't usually read the new board, and quite frankly, I'm not really feeling that contrarian views have much of chance in the CFC.

However, I believe that this needs to be considered, and I know that at least some highly respected CFC members agree with me. I leave it up to them if they would like to endorse.

In my humble opinion, one of the biggest problems facing organized chess in Canada, and especially for non-juniors, is the dropping official CFC membership. Not to over-simplify, but at least one of the reasons for this, again just my opinion, is the annual membership fee, which for new or many potentially returning people, does not seem worth it. It is important at this point to step back and not judge that statement based on how most readers of this forum feel about it. Most of you and myself are CFC members. The problem is the people who are declining to join us. Quite frankly, they don't see the value, especially provincially. Note that assertion is made from the viewpoint of an Organizer/TD on the Ontario/Quebec border. People in other provinces might cherish their provincial associations, but not here.

Therefore, I am philosophically opposed to eliminating tournament memberships. In fact, I would eliminate all paid memberships, and raise the rating fee. Over time that rating fee will benefit from economies at the CFC office. For example, can you imagine how much time would be saved if we didn't have paid memberships? There seems to be so much overhead chasing and collecting membership fees, I have to believe that much effort could be saved.

Think of it kind of like FIDE. They calculate ratings and provide you a membership number, but you as a player don't have to sign back up again in order to play in an event. They do charge over $2 per player as a rating fee, which is way more than Larry does. For the sake of argument, I wouldn't compare it to the CFC rating fee, which is grossly high compared to FIDE, Larry, USCF, etc. But heck, how does Larry charge such a low rating fee, and no membership fees, for his juniors? I know that anyone who wants to can subscribe to his magazine. Isn't that the way to do it, regardless whether the activity is playing in a tournament or reading a magazine, build a model where people pay for what they want?

Anyway, I don't want to kill too many electrons with this long post. But in closing, it is my humble concern that trying to prop up the existing failing membership model by eliminating tournament memberships, will only serve to feel almost as entrapment to some people. If you think I'm kidding, ask chess friends you have in Gatineau (Hull) why they won't drive 20 minutes across the river to play in well run clubs and tournaments on the Ottawa side.

Submitted with respect for your consideration. I apologize if this is offensive to anyone.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Hi Ari:

Thanks for your informative post. It has weight as coming from a very active organizer.

My concern has been that there has been no projection that rating fees will cover the costs of running the CFC and covering its core mandate. Also, for government funding and sponsors, you need to show some type of membership base usually. I'm not sure that giving them rating fee statistics would do it.

Note however that in Item 2 of the platform, we have suggested reducing annual membership fees once we are in the black and know what we can afford. And raising rating fees might help to lower the annual membership fee even more.

Bob

( also posted on the " old " board )

[Bruce Harper]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

I don't think it's offensive at all, although of course I support this approach.

I look at it this way:

Players benefit form local organizers.

Local organizers should benefit from provincial associations.

Provincial associations should benefit from the CFC.

Somehow we have ended up backwards - the CFC and its membership fees are an impediment to organized chess.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

It is a depressing platform in its content and tone: no wonder nobody as yet is willing to stand for election with it! But someone surely will since it only entails to cut down on the amount of work and rethinking that should be done.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Jean, I admire you and respect your opinion: please favour us with a summary of your ideas... Note that this proposal is only that; it is born from the frustration of seeing nothing accomplished within the current framework.

Of course, there are many possibilities, but so far none have been made to work. There are a lot of people who want to help but there is no plan in place to work along.

Worse, it seems that some decisions (the discontinuation of the printed magazine and the fallout that comes with that, the demise of the book and equipment business etc) are already made by the current state of the CFC. The current president tried to take the bull by the horns, but was told to back off by the Governors - who incidentally did not have a better plan (but would be willing to vote on some motions).

This is a mess and a mess requires cleaning first.