MACA Vision Discussion
Our last Board meeting exceeded my expectations! Yes, we certainly aired differing viewpoints, but this is the point of an open democratic process. The process is messy, but everyone participates. I thank you all for your patience as we discuss core MACA Vision, issues, and resolve conflicts!
What have we done so far?
i. Adult Tournaments
ii. Scholastic Tournaments
i. Chess Horizons
ii. Player Fund
iii. School Support
v. Newbie discount
vi. Free or subsidized USCF memberships
vii. Free or subsidized Club memberships
viii. Free or subsidized Maca memberships
ix. Free Issues of Chess Horizons
x. Free Lessons / Lectures to general public
xi. Instruction to Adults new to rated chess
xii. Radio promoting Chess
xiii. Newspapers promoting Chess
xiv. Local Cable Presence
At the heart of the discussion of the quadrant that “Uses $$” and is “Core Vision” is the long list of programs/activities/support that the Board would like to support, and can’t support all of them. Since these programs/activities/support all use $$, there is competition for $$. Indeed, only the top item, Chess Horizons, gets any appreciable $$.
We started the resource discussion by “running the numbers” of Chess Horizons, since that is the biggest consumer of $$. We first noted that we are obliged to publish an “organ” as part of our USCF State Affiliate responsibilities, but there is no contractual obligation for any particular format.
The CH numbers are:
CH Allocates $$
Member Dues income $6,000
Investment Dividends $1,300
Investment Interest $150
Projected Ad Revenue $2,500 as a safe number
Shortfall $4000 approximately
What this means is that after allocating all member dues and investment income, we have to use $4000 in profits from other programs to fund CH. This causes conflict, not just because of the resource allocations, but because we do not know what degrees of freedom we have to make the CH format more economical.
Of course all of the above assumes that it is indeed ok to use 100% of member dues and investment income for CH. This assumption is also being questioned. It was also noted that CH started out with heavy subsidy from generous benefactors, at a time when MACA had 2000 members. We now have 550 dues paying regular members (Adult and Scholastic). So we are running with only a quarter of the membership base, and no subsidy.
After discussion of the numbers, a MOTION passed to investigate what options, flexibility, and degrees of freedom we have with the format of CH. Most of the Board members are not in the printing business, so we need to review concrete examples of what we get for various levels of expenditure. The MOTION is: “Move that the publications coordinator investigate four alternative budget/production formats, namely 10 K per annum with a four and with a six issue run and 7.5K per annum with a four and six issue and report back at the next meeting.”
Passage of this MOTION means that we are investigating options. It is a good, democratic, and open process to investigate and get facts. We have not made any decisions to change the format. If we do ultimately decide to change the format, there are many additional considerations and questions as to timing, &etc. All of this is happening within the open process of Board meetings, MOTIONs, &etc.
In addition to the above, which is straightforward, we should keep in mind additional assertions, claims, beliefs, &etc that are held by various Board members. Only by trying to understand each other’s viewpoints can we ultimately embrace a single course of action, and put our full energy and endorsement into it. In no particular order we have: