If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The CFC is debating as to whether or not they should pay serious money to have their books reviewed by a professional accountant. Note that I typed reviewed, as accountants almost always produce a report which says "these financials make sense based on the info which was provided by the company." In otherwords...they take no responsibility at all! In my opinion it is far more important that a non-profit which does not receive substantial funds from the government, has good internal controls. An accountant who really does not know your business is virtually useless! He or she have no idea where to look for real fraud in most cases. Unless you are doing a true audit and not simply a review....and even then :( My (unsolicidated) advice to the CFC...save your money and do some simple checking to make sure things make sense. Bank account balances at the end of the year...payables...receivables...nothing complicated. With people like Gerry Litchfield at the helm...everything was fine...he is a class act! Michael is now at the helm and I have confidence in him too. However regardless of what we think...internal controls are essential...I also thought the OCA had a great person in charge a number of years back...and I was wrong :).
The CFC is debating as to whether or not they should pay serious money to have their books reviewed by a professional accountant. Note that I typed reviewed, as accountants almost always produce a report which says "these financials make sense based on the info which was provided by the company." In otherwords...they take no responsibility at all! In my opinion it is far more important that a non-profit which does not receive substantial funds from the government, has good internal controls. An accountant who really does not know your business is virtually useless! He or she have no idea where to look for real fraud in most cases. Unless you are doing a true audit and not simply a review....and even then :( My advice to the CFC...save your money and do some simple checking to make sure things make sense. Bank account balances at the end of the year...payables...receivables...nothing complicated. With people like Gerry Litchfield at the helm...everything was fine...he is a class act! Michael is now at the helm and I have confidence in him too. However regardless of what we think...internal controls are essential...I also thought the OCA had a great person in charge a number of years back...and I was wrong :).
Larry
A little closer observation from provincial associations wouldn't hurt either. For years, the CFC was not passing on the provincial portion of tournament memberships and was not responsive to complaints about that. I think that particular problem has been addressed but I wouldn't know as BC moved to a membership system that took it out of their hands. The current AGM has various Ontario guys just finding out for the first time that the CFC doesn't collect provincial membership fees from CFC life members. I'm not sure where those guys have been all this time but that was one of the reasons for BC moving to it's current membership structure.
Lesson? You shouldn't trust the system and/or CFC and/or "good guys" to look after your interests. Or in the immortal words "Trust but verify". Does that need an auditor? - Probably not - as Larry says, a non chess guy would hardly pick up on something like that but you do need some active independent investigation.
addendum: BC does in fact monitor carefully the receipts owing for it's provincial dues. Tournament activity is monitored, the amount owing is reviewed, and balanced off against what is actually paid by the CFC. (all done by the BCCF Treasurer Paul Leblanc and previously at least reviewed by the President - me.)
addendum: BC does in fact monitor carefully the receipts owing for it's provincial dues. Tournament activity is monitored, the amount owing is reviewed, and balanced off against what is actually paid by the CFC. (all done by the BCCF Treasurer Paul Leblanc and previously at least reviewed by the President - me.)
I think both of you are very competent and I would have no problem accepting the results of your review. At the CMA we deal with lots of cash. It would be easy for someone to walk away with significant dollars....money an auditor would probably never see :(. Before I leave this world (yes we are not eterenal :) I want to make sure sure that the checks and balances are in place at the CMA and that the future executives know what to look for. I am slowly (hey there is no reason to speed up the process LOL) putting these procedures in place...and I hope we will use our funds in an intelligent fashion and for the right reasons!
BTW, Over the decades, I have seen many non-profit organizations robbed of their funds...and nothing ever happened to the criminals.
Are we talking about auditing the CFC alone or the CFC and the Foundation?
I think it should be audited.
The Foundation has received significant dollars over recent years. Paul Leblanc (in my opinion) has been able to maximize returns at the foundation (I wish I could have done as well in my personal finances LOL) .
Personally, I think if you have questions...ask them here...Paul will tell you the details...and we can go from there.
Bringing in an auditor at this stage...sounds like overkill in my books.
Today, we have good people in the right places at the CFC, in my humble opinion. Let's ask them the right questions to confirm that all is well. If the answers do not meet our expectations we can go further.
The CFC is debating as to whether or not they should pay serious money to have their books reviewed by a professional accountant. Note that I typed reviewed, as accountants almost always produce a report which says "these financials make sense based on the info which was provided by the company." In otherwords...they take no responsibility at all! In my opinion it is far more important that a non-profit which does not receive substantial funds from the government, has good internal controls. An accountant who really does not know your business is virtually useless! He or she have no idea where to look for real fraud in most cases. Unless you are doing a true audit and not simply a review....and even then :( My (unsolicidated) advice to the CFC...save your money and do some simple checking to make sure things make sense. Bank account balances at the end of the year...payables...receivables...nothing complicated. With people like Gerry Litchfield at the helm...everything was fine...he is a class act! Michael is now at the helm and I have confidence in him too. However regardless of what we think...internal controls are essential...I also thought the OCA had a great person in charge a number of years back...and I was wrong :).
Larry
Before making a statement like that, I suggest you sit down with an accountant and learn about the various levels of reviews/audits. However, that's entirely up to you. By a true audit I take it that you mean that every audit should be a forensic audit and recreate step by step every single transaction made during the year. Do you have any idea how much time this would involve? That's a rather uniformed naive opinion for a successful business person such as yourself. I take it that you are of the opinion that management should be Pontius Pilot and wash their hands and make the accountants die for all of management's sins. The CFC does not have a complicated business model. And yes time would be spent by any licenced accountant in determining what that business model is, where the risks lie and testing the internal controls. I'm well aware of your dislike of banks, accountants and in fact any professionals at all. Your probably the kind of fellow that would represent himself in court and then complain about your representation.
If you had a bit of sense, which you usually do, you would comprehend that internal controls are difficult when staff are few. Would you like a return to the 1920s when no audits were performed at all?
I will point out that Bob Gillanders publically asked for volunteers on Chesstalk to do an audit related to the CFC. When I volunteered, and I have a double major degree in accounting and finance, he backed out on the basis I think that there would be too much work involved. This didn't surprise me as he tried to dissuade me from volunteering as much as possible. When he couldn't do so he just dismissed the whole thing and never contacted me again about it. Does this sound like a soundly run organization to you, not in need of any auditing assistance. I ran into the same issues when I was elected treasurer of a labour union. Oh, we don't need an audit. Oh really? So 5 year old receivables, records not backed up on the computer, negative account balances, money stuffed into chequing getting no interest in violation of your own by-laws, the employer contributing 12% instead of matching the 6% employee RSP contribution, your second major bill unpaid and unrecorded for almost a year - these are all fine?
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 25th June, 2013, 09:20 PM.
... That's a rather uniformed naive opinion for a successful business person such as yourself.
... I take it that you are of the opinion that management should be Pontius Pilot and wash their hands and make the accountants die for all of management's sins.
... I'm well aware of your dislike of banks, accountants and in fact any professionals at all. Your probably the kind of fellow that would represent himself in court and then complain about your representation.
... If you had a bit of sense, which you usually do, you would comprehend that internal controls are difficult when staff are few. Would you like a return to the 1920s when no audits were performed at all? ...
Notwithstanding your amusing typo (uniformed opinion), it seems that your friendly little note to Larry has put a damper on the discussion in this thread. I wonder if Larry might prefer a return to the 1420s where he could watch you be drawn, hung and quartered?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
There's not much to audit at the Foundation but anyone is welcome to look at the books.
We only write one cheque per year to the CFC and the only outside revenue we receive are 5 or 6 life memberships that arrive by cheque from the CFC.
No withdrawals are allowed without two signatures.
I send the statement from CIBC Investors' Edge to the 4 other trustees, the CFC Treasurer and the CFC E.D. quarterly.
The CFC posts my annual report on the website for all to see.
Before making a statement like that, I suggest you sit down with an accountant and learn about the various levels of reviews/audits. However, that's entirely up to you. By a true audit I take it that you mean that every audit should be a forensic audit and recreate step by step every single transaction made during the year. Do you have any idea how much time this would involve? That's a rather uniformed naive opinion for a successful business person such as yourself. I take it that you are of the opinion that management should be Pontius Pilot and wash their hands and make the accountants die for all of management's sins. The CFC does not have a complicated business model. And yes time would be spent by any licenced accountant in determining what that business model is, where the risks lie and testing the internal controls. I'm well aware of your dislike of banks, accountants and in fact any professionals at all. Your probably the kind of fellow that would represent himself in court and then complain about your representation.
If you had a bit of sense, which you usually do, you would comprehend that internal controls are difficult when staff are few. Would you like a return to the 1920s when no audits were performed at all?
I will point out that Bob Gillanders publically asked for volunteers on Chesstalk to do an audit related to the CFC. When I volunteered, and I have a double major degree in accounting and finance, he backed out on the basis I think that there would be too much work involved. This didn't surprise me as he tried to dissuade me from volunteering as much as possible. When he couldn't do so he just dismissed the whole thing and never contacted me again about it. Does this sound like a soundly run organization to you, not in need of any auditing assistance. I ran into the same issues when I was elected treasurer of a labour union. Oh, we don't need an audit. Oh really? So 5 year old receivables, records not backed up on the computer, negative account balances, money stuffed into chequing getting no interest in violation of your own by-laws, the employer contributing 12% instead of matching the 6% employee RSP contribution, your second major bill unpaid and unrecorded for almost a year - these are all fine?
Zeljko: I'm sure Vlad and I would be glad to hear from you via e-mail. Our addresses are on the CFC website.
Zeljko: I'm sure Vlad and I would be glad to hear from you via e-mail. Our addresses are on the CFC website.
About what exactly? What happened with Bob Gillanders is what happened. I'm not making it up nor did I dream it up. The only other criticism I've made about the CFC financial statements is that they made no mention of the rather serious and material event of the CFC losing it's charitable status. No mention whatsoever.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Wednesday, 26th June, 2013, 11:19 AM.
Notwithstanding your amusing typo (uniformed opinion), it seems that your friendly little note to Larry has put a damper on the discussion in this thread. I wonder if Larry might prefer a return to the 1420s where he could watch you be drawn, hung and quartered?
Interesting, you criticize me for typos and Paul Beckwith writes long wiinded diatribes about how I edit too much. At least Jordan's suggestions about improving my writing style, punctuation and so on are helpful. Me stifle conversation? I'm pretty easy to ignore. I'm sure if you really try you can do so.
Oh and watch your back; the next time you make a typo I'll be all over you. Cause you know, that's what we do here on Chesstalk, right? At least I spelled naive correctly.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Wednesday, 26th June, 2013, 11:17 AM.
About what exactly? What happened with Bob Gillanders is what happened. I'm not making it up nor did I dream it up. The only other criticism I've made about the CFC financial statements is that they made no mention of the rather serious and material event of the CFC losing it's charitable status. No mention whatsoever.
Well, I thought that maybe your offer of a volunteer review by a professional (yourself) was still on the table. Bob is no longer part of the CFC Executive, so we have no knowledge of any past dealings you may have had with him.
The charitable status thing is in the past, as well. So let's move forward. Certainly it was well advertized at the time it happened.
Tweet
Comment