|
LEADERSHIP
FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM Regarding
Governance and The United States Chess Federation "The
option before us then lay between an appointment by Electors chosen by the people - and an immediate appointment by
the people. He thought the former mode free
from many of the objections which had been urged against it, and greatly preferable to an appointment by the National
Legislature. ... This Mode however had
been rejected so recently and by so great a majority that it probably would not be proposed anew. The remaining
mode was an election by the people or rather
by the qualified part of them, at large: With all its imperfections he liked this best." [James Madison,
07/25/1787] BACKGROUND We
in the United States live in a relatively democratic society. As an adult citizen
your input is solicited concerning your leadership at the polls and is often
solicited in many membership forums such as your professional organization, your church, or your union. You
vote for your leaders individually and directly by their name. The
United States Chess Federation (USCF) is a national nonprofit membership corporation incorporated under State of
Illinois law. The Illinois General Not-For-Profit
Corporation Act of 1986 states that members of not for profit corporations
have asserted rights, as such, in the nature of derivative rights of shareholders of business
corporations. In this regard the main business of the
membership is the election of its leadership, just as full shareholders do in business corporations. Thus if a
nonprofit corporation establishes a membership
structure in its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws, then members of
the corporation will be granted fundamental rights to participate in the affairs
and future of the nonprofit corporation unless the Articles or Bylaws state otherwise. The USCF mission says it
is structured to ensure effective democratic
procedures in accord with its bylaws and the laws of the state of Illinois.
The USCF has chosen instead to set up a system in which a small group of
special electors are selected who are the only ones who can vote for officers who provide the leadership and
oversight to the USCF mission. The system
chosen emulates a parliamentary government model rather than a non-profit membership corporation model. We
are told the primary goal of the USCF
is to maximize participation in chess. THE
LEADERSHIP CRISIS For
decades the USCF has suffered under the governance of insiders. Regular adult
memberships have stagnated for nearly 20 years; membership increases have been
mainly in loss-making categories; constant financial crises and dues hikes occur against the background of a growing
U.S. economy. USCF membership as a percentage of the US population by age
structure continues to decline. A Harris poll indicates that over 25 million
Americans know how to play chess. Yet the USCF
struggled throughout the 1980s and 1990's at about 30,000 full adult members, no greater than at the height of
the Fischer boom in the 1970s. Losses have
been so steep that a treasurer studied the modalities for filing bankruptcy papers; the red ink often flows as
it did last year. Chess Life regularly labors under budget cuts. The USCF
never held a topnotch grandmaster tournament. The US Championship languishes in
isolated hotels and college campuses. Little effort is made to foster
chess as a national or international amateur sports competition. There are no
high-profile media events. We don't know exactly how our dues money is
allocated or spent to advance chess. Special
interests prevail. Our best talents often quit in disgust. Most importantly,
there is no clear-cut business plan, no strategic goals, and no accountability for meeting these nonexistent
goals. The focus is relentlessly small-time. Accountability
is currently missing from the Federation governance process. Accountability
of the Policy Board officers to the membership as well as accountability
of the Federation Executive Director and staff to the Policy Board,
all needs to be improved. Much more openness with the membership by its leaders is also necessary. In the best of
the current system one votes for a set
of electors which vote for the national officers who sit on the Policy Board.
In the new and improved USCF governance system one still votes for a set of electors, which vote for the
national officers who sit on the Policy Board. It
is most important that the national officers be more accountable to the membership. Having
a balanced Board is critical to its long-term success. Many of the problems
of the Board are in simplest terms a direct result of a lack of balance in its representation. Those with
state affiliate politics and tournament
directing/promoting experience are considered the best qualified to lead in the current system. A similar
group elects such leaders. Thus many perceive governance to be in the hands of a
small, unchanging number of people. Efforts
are made to control the succession of slates of allied officers by insiders and to have longer terms of
appointment. Note the growth and popularity
of chess is tied to chess as a sport and the growth and popularity of the Internet. It has to grow
exponentially. People get mad at the USCF because it has incompetent leadership or
poor customer service. Those are things that could change. If the USCF got
better leadership or better customer service, the old animosities would vanish
quickly. No system is in place to help
find and encourage the best talent in the Federation to serve amongst its leaders. New blood in the leadership ranks
and a diversity of ideas is desperately needed. Officers
currently are not chosen through an authentic democratic process. Campaigns
are conducted via private phone calls among the "old boy" network
and messages
are often tailored to what the person on the other end of the line wants to hear. The quality of these
campaigns is notoriously low, and the mudslinging is awful. It can be very expensive
to run a successful campaign. Many
successful businessmen take one look at the USCF political arena and decide they have better things to do with
their time and money. Hence the same faces year after year involved in USCF
leadership. Hence the radical under-performance
of our elected officials, who serve without pay and abuse the perks. The hallmark of democratic
campaigning is a common message that stands or falls in the public arena, not
private campaigning. The
USCF is not a trade association, union, or government. However, the USCF is currently run as if it were some sort of
national government. In fact its governance
system appears to be modeled after the parliamentary system used in Great
Britain. With this structure the focus thus has become on politics and not the USCF mission. Fragmentation,
infighting, and patronage are common results
rather than carrying out the USCF mission and the will of the membership. Those with state affiliate
politics and tournament directing/promoting
experience are considered the best qualified to lead in such a system. The USCF is not a
government but a non-profit [currently 501(c)(4)] membership corporation and needs to be run like such
a business. Previous
experience running non profit charitable organizations, for profit corporations,
or previous national officer/Board experience is much more important qualification to be successful in
this corporate model. The
size of the electorate for officers is now kept under one percent of the total membership. Some insiders would
like an even smaller electorate. Such a small electorate is easy to reach and
influence. It is felt that electors need the
opportunity to thoroughly know the candidates and understand the issues and thus keeping the group small is thought
to be a way to accomplish this. It is assumed that such a small group will be
well-informed and select good leaders. The
current system has yet to validate this assumption. Some believe with a larger
electorate the people who are really interested in advancing chess would lose some of the voice they currently
have. However, larger groups actually do better
at selecting representative leaders because personal relationships or special interests less influence them. The
fact that chess organizers/state officials
now nominate and vote for other chess organizers/state officials is the very type of tight nit and closed
system that is considered problematic. Very
few will argue that the problems [or features] as described above do not exist within the current governance
system. The issue is what to do about them. This
discussion has been going on for almost a decade. One thought is to give recent
governance changes regarding voting for delegates a few years to sort themselves
out, and then in the future USCF members can try to elect delegates who
would put reforms on the agenda and pass any further reforms over the next five to ten years. This may eventually
work but we think that the crisis in USCF
leadership may require more immediate attention. A
NEW DIRECTION Imagine
a USCF Policy Board consisting of such individuals as Andrew Grove, Prema Mathai-Davis,
J. Michael Cook, Laura Rossi, Garry Kasparov, Elizabeth Dole, and Elinor
Ferdon. Imagine all that talent channeled to guide
and advance chess in America. If you can visualize
this type of Policy Board then the next step
is to imagine what type of governance system would be necessary to attract, elect and support such talent on
behalf of chess. It certainly is not the current closed system, but would be
a more open and participatory system. One
Member One Vote (OMOV) is the idea that full members of an organization can vote for the national officers that
represent them. Under OMOV you vote for your leaders individually and directly
by their name. This is hardly a radical or new idea. In the recent USCF Chess
Life governance survey, the responding members indicated overwhelming support for
OMOV. Supporters of OMOV state that such
a system will provide better accountability of the USCF national officers to
the membership, more diversity amongst the officers and those running for office,
and greater participation and interest from the membership than with the current system. This is backed up
by real life impacts of OMOV in existing non-profit membership organizations. OMOV is
more than a theory and does work in practice. Many in the USCF
leadership claim they are in favor of OMOV
in principle but can never find a workable implementation. There are many real examples of OMOV used in
organizations. This simple fact keeps flying
in the face of those who claim OMOV is a crackpot scheme filled with fatal defects. THE
CASE AGAINST CHANGE The
opponents of OMOV state that many disastrous things will possibly occur under
OMOV such as elections costing too much to run for office, large groups of
voters being easier to fool and having their votes bought, or only rich people with name recognition being elected
to national office. Only possible problems are presented but with no solutions
other than not using OMOV. These ideas
actually come from extending the problems in the current system and just adding more people. These are all claims
with no supporting evidence. The opponents
have yet to provide examples from any other nonprofit membership corporations that uses OMOV where such problems
have occurred. Most of the fears in
our view are really that no longer can the insiders control who runs for office and they think the wrong people
will be elected, people not like them. The
type of Policy Board imagined above would probably be such an insider's worst nightmare. Over
the last decade the opponents of OMOV have rehearsed a bewildering and often contradictory array of arguments
against OMOV. The perennial arguments are
we would have OMOV already if the membership was really interested, that
it would cost too much and, in any case, would be difficult if not impossible to implement. Finally, we are told
we should wait five or ten years to
see how recent changes to the governance system work out before implementing OMOV,
yet these changes address none of the major problems associated with selecting national officers. Also the way
delegates are appointed at the USCF Annual
Meeting only helps work against any real change. Lesser
arguments used in the past are that OMOV would result either in little change
of officers due to lack of interest or too much change because of name recognition;
that it would result in too little in-depth debate of serious issues
or too heated and extensive debate; that it would lead to less democracy or
too much Athenian style democracy; that there is too much apathy or too much potential
interest; that a ticket favoring the dissolution of the USCF or, alternatively,
its too rapid expansion could get elected; that there should be no
poll in Chess Life because members naturally will support democracy, or because
not enough people would respond, or too many would respond, thereby costing too much to tabulate the ballots.
It was even suggested that under OMOV people
like Bill Goichberg might become USCF officers [he
has already been an officer several times under the current
system]. One of the more humorous objections
is that a national conspiracy by dozens or perhaps hundreds of fanatics could collect ballots from around
the country and flood ballot boxes. No
other non profit membership corporation that uses OMOV has these proposed array of problems that are claimed will
occur in the USCF. Why don't we learn from others experience? A
PRACTICAL EXAMPLE Rather
than endless debating over imaginary problems it was thought it might be good to look at an OMOV implementation
in another corporation. No other non-profit
membership organization we can find has a system where you vote for special voting members who vote for
officers. Actually, very few OMOV organizations
have any campaigning outside their standard channels, most use independent election firms, and none use voter
registration. This type of model has always been the one recommended.
Since it appears that some want extensive campaigning
but are concerned with the possible impact of such all out active campaigning
under OMOV, let's look at an organization that encourages such all out campaigning. There are several good
OMOV examples but we could only find one organization that has this type of
all out campaigning. Let us consider this a worst case example of what might
happen under OMOV. The
American Philatelic Society (APS) is a non-profit membership corporation [501(c)(3)] devoted to advancing stamp collecting. With
approximately 60,000 members,
700 Chapters, and 200 Affiliates, APS is the largest, nonprofit membership society in the world for stamp
collectors. It is supported entirely by membership dues, gifts and the sale
of its publications and services. Founded
in 1886, the APS is now in its second century of service to stamp collectors and postal historians. The Society
is governed by an eleven-member Board
of Directors elected biennially by the membership. Elections for these officers are conducted by mail-in ballot. Historically
the APS has been controlled by exhibitors (like USCF organizers) and
judges (like USCF TD's) who played musical chairs on the board, but under OMOV
has gotten more diverse as more and more members participate in the governance process. The recent presidential
election was one of the closest races in APS history. The hard-fought
campaign was the first to be waged extensively
over the Internet, where the candidates posted their position papers, and issues were argued by members.
The result was an election turnout of a 16.9 percent response from some
56,000 potential voters. It was a do-or-die contest for the presidential
aspirants. They waged their campaigns with
advertisements in the American Philatelist, the society's monthly journal (like
USCF Chess Life), and in Linn's Stamp News a weekly publication for the stamp hobbyist (like Inside Chess). In
1993, when all positions on the board were contested, it was the first year that
pre-printed ballot envelopes were inserted with the ballots in the American
Philatelist. The current election brought an infusion of new blood to the 11-member board as four new
directors-at-large were chosen. The new board also
will have more women than any previous APS board with four female officers. The winner for president said his
campaign raised and spent about $10,000
and his opponent published he spent $5,900 (these costs are not dissimilar to current USCF presidential campaigns).
The APS campaigning was mostly on issues and characterized as a
high-minded campaign. The
type of people running for office this last year included: an U.S. State Department
official; a philatelic publisher; a CBS radio producer; a faculty member
of the School of Pharmacy at SUNY in Buffalo; an attorney for the Indiana
General Assembly; a former civil rights worker; a TWA pilot; an University
of Georgia faculty member; a California businessman; and a Philadelphia
stamp dealer. It is important to note that other than the Presidency,
even in the APS it only costs a candidate a couple of hundred dollars to run for office. This cost is
also the norm to run for office under OMOV
where private campaigning is limited. It
is important to note that the leadership of the APS as a matter of practice will
formally solicit the input of the membership on important issues and will use the membership views in their
decision-making processes. A
STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION In
the September 1993 issue of Chess Life, the USCF President GM Maxim Dlugy wrote
"I now favor the adoption of a one-member-one-vote plan that would provide
you - the dues-paying members of our Federation - with a voice in our collective future. This proposal has been
repeatedly defeated at the annual delegates
meetings, and unless the general membership makes its views known, will continue to be defeated in the
foreseeable future." Unless determined otherwise
for good reasons, you have an asserted right to a system where all full adult USCF members directly vote
for national officers. We feel the Federation's
leadership needs to be directly answerable to the membership. Tweaking
an old proprietary model of indirect elections for officers won't make that
happen, what is needed is a well-established model for governance such as OMOV.
This is an important step in the right direction. The
general membership (both current and future) needs to make its views known, so send your opinion on this issue to
feedback_uscf@juno.com. Please also consider
voting with your pocketbook and not giving any of your hard-earned dollars
to the USCF until you get a voice in the selection of national officers. As GM Larry Evans has noted:
"No one has ever claimed that allowing the
full adult membership to directly vote for their Policy Board is a panacea for
all of the Federation's electoral problems, but why should the Federation be
different from most other comparable membership organizations that extend voting rights to dues-paying members in
good standing? How long will it continue
to squander its most precious resource and best salesmen - its own members?" Only you, as a dues-paying
member, should decide. "Draney
is right that OMOV is inevitable. All the haggling is over implementation dates." [Tom Dorsch, USCF Treasurer, 08/19/1997] **** APPENDIX Proposed
Areas of Revision to New USCF Bylaws Supporting One Member One Vote ---- Article
IV: Voting Members Section
1.Definition. Each Life, Sustaining, Regular, Senior, and Blind member is a Voting Member during the term of
his or her membership. Section
2. Responsibility. The Voting Members are responsible for electing the Delegates
who represent their state and the Policy Board. ---- Article
V. Board of Delegates Section
8. Delegates at Large. DELETED [as well as all other references] Section
9. Electors - The electors consist of the Voting Members. ---- Article
VI: Policy Board Section
1. Composition. The Policy Board shall consist of the President, Vice President,
Secretary, Treasurer, and three Members at Large elected by all Voting
Members. All Policy Board members are national officers of the Federation. Section
4. Nomination. Any adult USCF member shall be eligible for nomination to
any elected office upon submitting to the Secretary by April 1 of an election
year a valid petition containing the signatures of 25 or more Voting Members.
No employee of the USCF is eligible to serve on the Policy Board. The Secretary
shall have advertised a call for nominations in the issue of Chess Life
published no later than January 20 of an election year and shall publish a list
of all duly submitted nominations in the issue published not later than June
20 of an election year. The Secretary will pass all valid petitions to the Nominating
Committee. Section
5. Election of Policy Board Members. Each year, in which an election is to
take place, ballots for a secret mail vote shall be inserted in the final issue of Chess Life, which is published
not later than June 15. The ballots shall be mailed to an independent agency
for counting. A plurality shall elect and the previous sitting President
shall break any ties. Elections shall be held every even numbered year as
necessary. Section
6. Election of Policy Board Officers. DELETED Section
7. Terms of Office. The terms of the Policy Board members shall commence
at their first meeting, which shall immediately follow the Annual Meeting,
and shall continue for four years except as provided in Section 11 of this article. No individual shall serve
more than eight years on the Policy Board. Section
10. Removal and Recall. Members of the Policy Board are subject to removal through recall by Petition for
Recall. Petition
for Recall. A petition for Recall bearing the signatures of
at least three percent of the electors may be filed with the USCF Secretary, except
that a Petition to Recall the USCF Secretary shall be filed with the USCF
President. Upon certification of the petition, notice of the recall shall be
provided to the Electors by mail and the Policy Board Member who is subject to
recall shall have no less than thirty days to communicate his/her views to the Electors. At the end of that period
a recall ballot shall be mailed to the Electors
providing for its return within 21 days. The ballots shall be mailed to an independent agency for counting.
The recall vote shall be approved by an absolute majority of those voting. Section
11. Campaigning. Free
Candidate Statements. In the issue of Chess Life published two months before
the issue containing the ballot, each Policy Board candidate is entitled to a free statement of up to 250 words
in support of his or her candidacy. In the
issue of Chess Life containing the ballot, each Policy Board candidate is entitled
to a free supplement statement of up to 2,500 words in support of his or her candidacy. Materials to be
determined may also be published on the organizations official web site. Candidate
Paid Advertising. In the issue of Chess Life containing the ballot, each
Policy Board candidate is entitled to purchase up to one page of advertising
to promote his or her candidacy, to be charged at the affiliate rate. No other paid or unpaid
advertising in USCF publications is permitted. Campaigning
Limitations. Campaigns should provide a common public message. To that
end public Internet debates among and individual postings by candidates and their supporters/opponents are
encouraged. [Add other private campaigning restrictions
here] Campaigning
Ethics. No person shall submit for publication or cause to be published
any printed paid advertisement promoting any person's candidacy in an USCF
election without that person's consent. No member may make or publish any false, misleading, libelous or slanderous
statements. No member may cause to be published
or distributed any advertisement relating to an USCF election that does
not include the name and USCF membership number of the sponsoring person or organization. If the sponsor is a
committee or organization, the name and address
of its chair or other principal representative must be included in the advertisement. No advertisement relating to an
USCF election (or any envelope or
wrapper therefor) shall include any name,
abbreviation, device or address that
will in any manner indicate or imply the USCF's endorsement of, or opposition to, any candidate. Any member
violating any of the preceding provisions
shall be subject to expulsion, suspension or other disciplinary action therefore by the Policy Board. ---- Article
VII: Other Officers, Appointees, and Committees Section
3. Committees Appointed by the Delegates. The Board of Delegates shall appoint
the following Standing Committees: 1)
Life Member Assets Management; 2) Bylaws; 3) Ethics; 4) Nominating. The
Board of Delegates shall designate a Chairman and Vice Chairman of each Standing
Committee, except that the Life Member Assets Management Committee and the Nominating Committee shall select
its own officers. No Nominating Committee member shall be a member of the Policy Board. The
Committee may select a replacement for any committee member who has resigned or died between meetings of the
Board of Delegates. A Standing Committee
may select a replacement for any committee member who has resigned or died between Annual Delegates' Meetings.
A vacancy in the Committee Chair shall be filled by the Vice-Chair.
Members of Committees appointed by the Delegates
take office on the first day of the month following their appointment. The Delegates may appoint other special
or standing committees as needed. |