It would not seem that they must, as indicated by the comments “this should be handled on the state level”. What exactly can the USCF do in a case like this? Rather than breaking up a fight, perhaps addressing the root of the matter?
When two groups claim rights to the State title, the USCF says group A has the rights to award the title, group B cannot. But what happens when group B is a better group in popularity and finances, etc. Sure group A has the USCF recognition, but is there a process by which group B can win the approval of the USCF over group A?
I think it is important to have change so that the natural course of competition continually improves circumstances for the players.
Given the recent Oklahoma situation, apparently not. Bill Goichberg worked out a compromise that involved both organizations’ state champions being recognized, but neither side has, as yet, recognized the other side’s state champion. Note that the tournaments are generally held far enough apart so that there is no conflict between the two, and a few players have played in both. The official state chapter affiliate was supposed to put the state championship this year out for bid, and the “group B” above was supposed to bid, but as far as I know, neither ever happened.
USCF can ensure that elections for state affiliates follow a standard, open, predescribed path. Theoretically, there could be a template for state association constitutions and bylaws, with allowances by state. But a minimum is that USCF could require a minimum of certain types of voting (who can vote, how often, etc.) in order for a group to be able to be the state affiliate.
Group B can never win approval over Group A. And it shouldn’t. It can, however, get its candidates elected to the affiliate.
I doubt there is a ‘one size fits all’ model for state chapter governance, such as how the states choose their officers, including who can vote.
Some states choose their officers at an annual event, others do it by mail. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, and both can be abused.
Supposedly there was one election in New Jersey when people were signing up all sorts of members, reportedly including cats and dogs, in order to get ballots. I recall one year when Southern California was allowing people present at the US Open (in Portland Oregon) who were state chapter members to get a ballot and vote while at the tournament. (I think that people had to be members as of some earlier date, though.)
Last year the Delegates ‘suggested’ that state chapters limit voting rights to those who are 16 or older, partially in response to what happened in Oklahoma, I think. That suggestion has led to other concerns, such as how the state chapter determines which members are 16 or older. (The ‘obvious’ suggestion, that they ASK MEMBERS FOR THEIR BIRTHDATE, appears to be unacceptable to at least one state chapter, I don’t know why.)
There can also be cases where the state considers itself to be group A and the USCF’s state affiliate to be group B.
The IL High School Association is one example. That body awards the state government’s official HS chess team championship with no consideration for the USCF or the ICA (IL Chess Assn). Because the IHSA is the recognized body for awards HS team titles in a broad range of activities including football, chess, wrestling, debate, etc. an attempt by the ICA for a non-IHSA HS team title would be seen as ridiculous.
The ICA handles this by recognizing that the IHSA team champion is the official ICA team champion. The ICA does award an individual champion on its own as that is not a title awarded by the IHSA. The ICA also runs the Denker qualifier.
There can also be cases where the group B has much more influence with the players than group A (the USCF’s state affiliate).
The IESA (for the elementary schools) does not award chess titles and that allowed a non-governmental group to form (eventually becoming CoChess) and run those tournaments. Those were finally officially recognized by the ICA starting with the third such championship tournament (in either 1984 or 1985) after the first and second pre-CoChess tournaments outdrew the ICA’s tournament by more than four to one and included stronger players. The ICA and CoChess have a number of people who are now officers in both groups, so there is a significant amount of cooperation between the two groups and the championship tournament bid often includes donations to both groups.
The Illinois situation is exactly why the Delegates should not try to micromanage this issue. They should let the state chapters continue do what they think is best with regards to the issuance of state titles, in effect granting them plenipotentiary powers in that regard. (By that I mean the USCF will recognize those state titles the state chapter tells it to recognize and ONLY those titles.)
Maybe not so much ridiculous as wasteful, since there was an alternative tournament at one time. ICA could have its own separate event, but it makes more sense for it to award it’s title to the IHSA school.
No one is saying that the state affiliate can’t coordinate with other groups. But in the end, the USCF recognized title needs to be theirs to award.
And there is nothing wrong with cooperation. But in the end, the USCF needs to defend its property, and the state affiliate is the logical entity to do that for state titles.
The Illinois situation is exactly why the delegates SHOULD clarify this issue. Does it currently say anywhere that state associations have the right to confer USCF recognition of state titles? It should, but I don’t know of this being anywhere.
In terms of WHICH titles, it makes sense to have a list of standard state titles that we are willing to confer and would like to see conferred.
That doesn’t micromanage anything. It simply clarifies that the state associations actually have the rights, AND THE ONLY RIGHTS to do what they have been doing on behalf of USCF.
Because it would tend to stifle innovation and local initiative. “We don’t have to think about what’s best for our state, our masters have already told us.” I’m not claiming passing such a mandate would mean the end of the world, but it’s a bad precedent and a slippery slope.
What the Bylaws actually say on the subject is:
That seems both inclusive and flexible enough to allow each state to go its own way.
No, it doesn’t since it doesn’t clarify that state associations have rights to confer state championships on behalf of USCF. If another USCF entity decided to run a state championship, we would be hard-pressed to resolve an issue.
Stifle creativity? You’re right, it does. Come to think of it, all of these crazy rules about how the chess pieces move stife creativity too, Let’s do away with those while we are at it.
It’s not a mandate, nor a slippery slope. Guys, state associations need to have a clear definition of their rights and responsibilities. Much of this went away with OMOV. Making it clear that they have the right to run state championships which include at least X(list) is in no way micromanaging.
Frankly, I’m amazed that anyone is (trying to) seriously argue against this. How can we even begin to argue against this clarity?
How often have we had this “state fight” in USCF? Missouri. Oklahoma. Nevada. Missouri again. It goes on and on. Just clarify the issues with a few good rules and move on.
What is it about this organization that everyone plays a game with a massive amount of rules, but WWWWWHHHHHOOOOOAAAAA – come up with a few minor social or electoral rules and we can’t DO THAT, it might be unfair, or it might stifle creativity.
There’s nothing wrong with passing a motion that State Chapters have the exclusive right to award state championship titles, except that it’s pointless and redundant. That’s obvious, and has been USCF policy for decades. What I object to is making a list of “official” titles that states can/should award. That’s something that should be decided at the local level, and issuing a mandate from above is a lousy idea. “Standards” have a tendency to turn into a least common denominator.
My guess is the Board passed such a motion (granting the right to confer state titles to state chapters) many years ago. DACI #11 refers to a document passed in 1980-81. I recall this document being discussed by Helen Warren at the States Workshop at the US Open in Boston in 1988, but I didn’t see a copy of it in my files.
If I had to guess, it’s probably got a lot of out-of-date stuff in it (which was also what Helen was addressing), but I’ll see if I can have the office track down a copy.
I don’t object to restating that specific right, better yet would be finding a copy of that 1980-81 motion and updating it. I would object to another attempt to list the titles the USCF recognizes as unnecessary interference with states that won’t actually DO anything. Would having such a list change what state titles the ICA confers? I doubt it.
That the states can define and tell the USCF what titles it awards is good. Let the state association create the title list in a text box on the web page and number them or upload them as they do ratings reports. The “state” then does the work of setting up the list. A simple “if-then-else” check will disallow the same title in the same year, and only an authorized state member can upload the list.
If some state wants to create a state championship title, that should be their privilege, otherwise it isn’t a RIGHT at all, is it?
If they choose to be silly about it, the state championship titles in that state could become meaningless, so I doubt it will happen. (I apparently have a bit more faith in our state chapters than you do.)
Daniel Lucas has approved placing ‘A State Championship Event’ banners on TLAs in Chess Life and CL4K. These will be handled like the event banners that say “An American Classic!” or “A Heritage Event!”.
Daniel says they may be able to get these into the magazine as soon as the September issue.
I’ll be working with Joan to get the tracking system for these in place so that the state chapter is contacted about events coded as state championship events but not being run by the state chapter.
I doubt that it would either. But it would settle some debate about whether ICA has the sole right to confer it.
Mike, I have a follow-up question about all in force resolutions – but decided to start a new thread in Issues called All In Force Resolutions at viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7517&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
I had Judy send me a scan of the referenced motion from 1980-01, which I have posted in the ‘About USCF → Governance → Reports’ directory as ‘statechapters.pdf’.
It includes the following:
It would appear to me that the sole right of state chapters to confer USCF recognized state titles within their state has been well defined by the Delegates since at least 1974.