I’m helping to organize a tournament with two FIDE rated sections, 73rd Oregon Open: September 2-4, Labor Day Weekend - Oregon Chess Federation. The Chief TD of the tournament contacted US Chess to have these two sections registered with FIDE about a month ago, following the procedure given on the US chess website, but hasn’t haven’t heard anything back and the tournament isn’t listed on FIDE’s website as being registered. Is there some different procedure we should be using now to get the tournament registered with FIDE?
The 73rd Oregon Open - 2000+ and U2000 sections have been registered with FIDE:
https://ratings.fide.com/tournament_details.phtml?event=334938
https://ratings.fide.com/tournament_details.phtml?event=334939
As the organizer, I would advise it would have been better e-mailing fide@uschess.org and/or brian.yang@uschess.org to ask for a follow up, instead of posting on the forums.
Please note - I have not followed the forums since August 2019 and will not be actively monitoring the forums.
1 Like
Thanks Brian for getting sections registered.
Brian’s point is well taken: the way to deal with the office is via phone or email, rather than expecting a response via the US Chess Issues forum.
The directory for US Chess staff can be found at: Departments by staff and duties | US Chess.org
Well, I’ve gotten no reply to several of my emails that I’ve sent to the office.
It’s always possible there’s a mechanical issue with your or their email, it is NOT a foolproof or guaranteed delivery service.
I’ve sent emails to staff that I never got a response to, too.
I know, because I recently checked, that the fide@uschess.org address is monitored by two staff members.
25 years ago organizations were prone to name someone as an ombudsman, someone whose job wasn’t to solve issues but to make sure those issues got to someone who could acknowledge them and, if possible, help solve them. That trend seems to have died out.
I find that surprising to hear as I have almost always received prompt replies whenever I email anyone in the office and never do I remember any email going unanswered.
I’ve also heard multiple complaints from posters on the Issues Forum that nobody from the office pays attention to their Issues Forum posts. The fact is that monitoring the Issues Forum is not the job of any member of the US Chess staff. They all have better things to do.
A much better response would have been something like “I’m sorry you haven’t always been getting a response when you’ve emailed the office. Let’s see how we can improve things since good customer service is one of our core values.”
It has not been proven that the office is at fault. It is entirely possible that no human at all is responsible for the lack of responses. Emails are sometimes lost in transmission or blocked by faceless computer algorithms. Even US Chess is not exempt from technical difficulties.
Next time we revise the core values, I will note that US Chess provides member services, not customer service. Members of a 501(c)(3) generally understand that the focus of the organization is on the mission, which does not mention ‘customers.’
There are well defined ways to reach US Chess member services staff, and this forum is not one of them - and I will not apologize for the organization for that.
I never said anything about reaching the office via the forums. I specifically said email in my post.
And then you posted your query on the Issues Forum. Wrong place for that, and that was my point.
Did you try giving the Office a call besides the email?
Except asking a question on the forum is what got my issue resolved!
You did not answer the question. The President’s point still stands. The purpose of this forum is to promote communication among Delegates and the membership. It does not exist as an alternate means of contacting the office, especially considering all the email addresses and phone numbers easily available on the US Chess website.
I never said anything about the forum being an alternate means of contacting the office.
I did not try calling the office. I will call the office in addition to emailing for all my inquires in the future, even though just emailing should be sufficient, which was my point.
Were the positions formerly held by Joan and Traci ever filled?
During the years that I was an employee I only worked with some staff members, though Joan, Judy and Traci were among them. I’ve had much more limited contact with the majority of the staff in my current capacity as an adviser on technological and ratings issues.
I don’t think either position was explicitly filled as such, though several people have been hired since they retired, and I think more openings exist or are planned. The Pandemic resulted in a major reorganization of the office, and so did the move to St. Louis.
Many of Traci’s duties were related to things like sending out membership cards, which is no longer being done.
I believe most of the duties Joan had with regards to things like coordinating TLAs, handling some correspondence chess matters like prizes, etc, have been assigned to staff members, though probably not all to the same one.
Staffing numbers, roles and responsibilities are entirely the responsibility of the Executive Director. Other than approving the budget (which the Delegates also must approve), the Executive Board does not get involved in staffing decisions. That is a long-winded way of saying I don’t know the answer to your question.
Staffing challenges are, across the board, a significant issue for organizations of all shapes and sizes. I know that Carol is working to fill some positions and is also seeking to get some more of the staff located in the St. Louis office, but it is a time consuming process rather than an event.