Is it possible for a process to be developed that would allow a change to the officially USCF recognized state affilliate? If there were i think the competition would bring about better chess and more involvement. As it stands when divisions arise in states, there is no clear way to settle it, other than continuos bickering, because the USCF has no clear codified way to resolve issues which are often based on a desire by individuals to change the way the state affiliate is handling the chess affairs of the state and a desire to necessitate change in that affiliate. I’d suggest an application process naming board members, with information such as tournaments directed, and planned, as well as other factors. Currently if an affiliate is not the best qaulified to promote the chess in a state, but can bring a bus load of kids, or cronies to keep them in power it’s just too bad so sad. The USCF should step in to do what benefits the states chess the most, by having a competitive bidding procedure for the state affilliate.
1.Promise to put on x amount of tournaments.
2.Have a qaulified board
3.Guarantees to put on X amount of tournaments - multiple locations and membership gainers
4.Experienced directors and board members.
5.other good ideas accepted
The process is simple. Elect those that are inclusive to the state affiliate. It will take less than 100 chessplayers.
If you think we have cronyism at the national level, this sounds like a horrible idea. We really don’t need to extend the tentacles to the states. xplor is right.
I would also note that the desired number of tournaments for a state association to run is a matter of perspective. There is no correct answer.
Exclusion is morally unacceptable. Every USCF chess player should feel welcome in every state.
Rodney King
Sounds like you guys are a part of the cronyism, and don’t want to get kicked out to me
It’s the grins and giggles that keeps me posting here. I don’t see the crony ism, only folks trying to do the right thing. Sometimes they don’t share the same vision and do things they latter regret.
We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools. MLK
Realistically, why does it matter?
If there are 2 or 3 groups that think that they can run events in the state better than someone else, then start running events. You will have more chess in the state, and in the long run, it will be better for everyone.
Having said that, there are 2 things that goes in to it: The first is, don’t step on the other group’s toes and schedule all of your events the same weekend to force chess players to ‘choose’ which side they are on. The second is, does it really matter who sanctions the ‘official’ state champion? Don’t hold a competing ‘championship’. Now, if you can do both of those things, and just organize quality events, in the LONG run you will either get invited to merge with the other group or the other group will die out. (Or a 3rd possibility is that they raise their quality of chess to match you in the effort to keep their supporters; however, if you are REALLY just interested in the quality of chess in your state, that should make you happy. If you are REALLY just interested in getting Joe and Ralph out of the state affiliation leadership because you’ve hated Joe since 3rd grade and Ralph stole your wife, then your hands aren’t clean either.)
Define “die out”. As I asked in a related thread, what happens when the officers of the old state affilliate simply walk away?
-
The simple answer is that you should run a slate of new officers and get elected. If you can’t get a majority of the players to vote for you – well, it’s their organization.
-
I’ll concede the possibility that the “old” officers could modify the Bylaws in such a way as to make this impossible. Mind you, I don’t know of any current examples of this. Merely “difficult” doesn’t count. Getting elected is supposed to be difficult. That brings us to:
-
There have been a few examples in the past of a dispute over which is the “legitimate” state chapter. The solution is to get a ruling from the Delegates. This is covered in VIII (1): “Credentials of affiliates applying for designation as State Chapters submitted before June 1 shall be presented by the Executive Board to the Board of Delegates with recommendations, if any, one month before the next Annual Meeting.”
If the officers ‘walk away’, then getting elected to replace them should be relatively easy, providing there’s at least someone around to run an election.
However, as long as the affiliate previously designated as the state chapter appears to be functioning, I think the USCF (in this case the Delegates) are going to support the continuance of that affiliate as the state chapter.
From both personal experience and long time observation, being the state president tends to burn people out.