Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Len Fettig
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike,
There is a rumor that the minimum age for Senior Events will be raised to 95 in 2025. I don't know how much that is in ‘dog years’ or Canadian Dollars.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partnership agreement is that the preemptor will have less than Qxx in an unbid major. The most I would expect from partner would be Jx in a major.
This is a 4-loser hand. I'm going to bid 4H directly - possibly playing opposite a void. No other contract makes sense to me.
If the opps. don't cash their black-suit aces, I might scramble home with 12 tricks. But 4 hearts making 5 seems like the par result.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,
Thanks for the link to your summary. I will again use your document to keep my Unit Board members updated on the major governance issues.
Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The meeting was only two hours long.
Here is the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-O2hBk-s1w
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great. So I was correct: 2M in gross revenue minus 2.9M in expenses equals a loss of $900K.

So if we lose money on our NABC's, can we make it up on volume?
Would running 5 NABC's generate a profit?
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, Yes the NABC's generate $2M in annual revenue. They also generate $2.9M (2018) and $2.3M (2017) in direct expenses. I'm a little fuzzy on the math. Is that a loss?
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff Lehman:
The new TF is officially named: The Transition Task Force

I thought it was necessary to know where we are going before mapping out the transition.

I'm going to be optimistic and believe that a few of the NO votes were by DD's who support the Restructuring outline and who would have voted YES if more of the details had been concluded.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In other news …

Thursday is Turkey Day in the U.S.

It is customary for the ACBL Board to join together for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner. This year, it will be held in two dining areas.

The members of Task Force #3 will be selected from the list of BoD members who voted No on the Restructuring Proposal.

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, publication of a dissenting opinion is not expected.

The wearing of black arm bands for the duration of the NABC is entirely optional.
Nov. 27
Len Fettig edited this comment Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The survey findings are interesting to read. Before people start repeating the extrapolated conclusions, we need to buy-in to the premise that 2,550 = 75 million.
The projected number of people who are bridge-candidates comes from multiplying the survey results of 2,550 responses to an estimated population group of 75 million.
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Bios of the DD's can be found on the ACBL website: https://www.acbl.org/about-acbl/administration/board-of-directors/district-director-profiles/
Nov. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I support the proposal and hope that it passes at the SF Board meeting.

This is an important first step. It creates a 13-member Board with duties that are appropriate.

There are a lot of details to work out, but a timeline is included that requires action.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We donate ours to the Veterans Hospital. We have a VA drop-off box at our local recycling center, so it is an easy process.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thread Summary

This thread has run out of momentum.

The three encampments are:

• Approve the Motion because it is the best that can be achieved with the current Board members.

• Certain issues are present in the Motion and should be fixed.

• Start over with a different group of people, using a logical process, defined objectives and staffed by appropriate talent.

1) So let’s assume approval of the Motion. We have to accept the known defects. We must believe that in some ways, the Board members are part of the problem.
We must hold the belief that after approving the Motion, the Board will follow through and resolve the (very substantial) missing details.
We accept that, at least initially, the size of the Board and the associated Meeting Expenses will increase.
We trust that as things progress, the Board will not alter the general terms of the Motion.


2) Let’s assume that the identified issues with the Motion get fixed. This seems the most unlikely of outcomes.

3) Let’s assume that the Board accepts the recommendation to hire a consulting firm to design a better Governance structure. That will cost money, take time and we need to believe that the Board would follow the plan developed by the consultants.

Is there any commonality to the various comments on this thread? Could it be a general feeling that the Board, either the entity or specific members, is a major obstruction?

— Build for Tomorrow —
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The timeline for reducing the number of voting Board members may be a little longer than what we might have preferred.

In 2020, there will be 25 Board members. In 2028, it is down to 13. In between, the number of Board members varies. Peak year is 2023 when it could hit 38 Board members.
The first year when the proposal assures less than 25 Board members is 2025.

Expenses related to Board meetings will also rise before declining.

All of the ‘heavy lifting’ related to how the ACBL will function is postponed. The solution appears to be ‘form a Task Force’. We have had two Task Forces in the past year.
I believe part of the problem is that there is no definition of success (list of goals and objectives).
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stu,
Re:… failed to garner enough votes …

I don't think there was a BoD vote on that Restructuring plan. If it wasn't going to a vote, then we don't get to know who supported or opposed the proposal.

Any guesses why many of the top-level players are commenting on BW about the current proposal?

Some are saying it is the Best Proposal. I think it is too vague to even be put on the Journal.

Any side bets on the SF outcome? My expectation is “Tabled”.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've provided these two documents to the ACBL Board:

ACBL Governance is a strategy overview.

http://www.lenfettig.com/ACBL%20Governance.pdf

The Four Proposals is a comparison of the most recent Restructuring Proposals.

http://www.lenfettig.com/The%20Four%20Proposals.pdf
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes Don, we already have an election rotation for the 25 District Directors. The DD's on Task Force #2, found reason to change the rotation.

I wonder why D9 was further singled out?

Hummm.
Nov. 11
Len Fettig edited this comment Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Update

The new web site for the Education Foundation is https://www.acbleducationalfoundation.org/index.php

Reviewing the financials (both the tax returns and the audited financial statements) I notice that the Grants (Program Expense) make up a rather small portion of the annual expenses.

For 2017, the Grants were 27.6% of expenses. For 2018, the number is either 44.8% or 33.2%; depending upon which data source is used.
The “Other Program Expense” category makes up 50-66% of the expenses. Included in this category are expenses for the Trustees to meet and review the Grant applications.

For 2018, the Grants were $112,710, Other Program Expenses were $176,389 and Total Expenses were $339,297. (source: audited financial statements)

Any expenses related to the new Executive Director will be included in 2019 expenses.

The advice that I'm giving to my Unit and District is to look for other Charities to support.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a few thoughts and questions about the proposed change. I certainly agree with the need for BoG members to communicate with their District and Unit Board members (which I personally do in my District).

Is there a known problem to be resolved?

How do we measure/assess what BoG members communicate to/with their District and Unit Board members?

If passed, how do we assess compliance?

With 5 BoG members per District, who do we hold accountable for noncompliance?

Does this issue need to be addressed at this time? Ref. to the ongoing efforts to Restructure ACBL Governance and the high likelihood that the BoG will be eliminated.

BTW, is the BoG meeting attendance requirement currently enforced?
Oct. 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top