USCF Politics: Who Should Select the Executive Board?

Below is a post I made today on the USCF Issues Forum. The post responds to various ideas of who should be on the Executive Board (EB) of the USCF and how they should be selected. A motion is being proposed for this summer that would change the composition of the board and potentially pre-select certain persons (such as perhaps the President of the Chess Journalists of America) to always be a member of the board. There are many other suggestions, including from one delegate or another that all or some portion of the board should be selected by the USCF's delegates rather than by the USCF's members. (As background, see the One Member, One Vote posts on this blog, or better, have a read on the USCF's Issues Forum.) Others are for having persons from private industry join the board. Some want the Dean of American Chess (Bisguier at present) and whomever is in that position to be automatically on the board. Some want 7 board members, others want 11, and there will be many other reasoned opinions of how many and who should be on the board. I'm not knocking any of these proposals, or the suggested people as EB members, and I don't really doubt that they would make good EB members. That's not the point....

The members of the USCF should select the USCF EB. It's not just that it's the members' Federation--it is--but it's that the best way to elect an EB that will serve the membership is to let the members select the EB. I, for one, want to vote for who will lead the USCF. I appreciate that there are many who don't want to vote, and that's their choice. I don't think I'm alone; however, because if the last election is any indication, there are several thousand members who wish to vote. If someone wants a particular person on the board, let them nominate that person, and let that person run for and win an election. The process requires the nominee to be introduced to the membership and allows the membership to hear why the nominee should be elected. Those are good things.

Finally, if anyone wants to change the way we select the EB, he or she should expressly state why we need change, and then explain how the proposed change to the selection process addresses the "why."

by Grayson on Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:09 pm #180034 [on the USCF Issues Forum]

If ten in the know persons were to identify the "factions" within the USCF and describe the tensions among them, the answers would be all over the map. Identify the problem(s) first...and accept that there will be some tensions between competing interests. I agree--to the extent anyone is saying it--that the persons elected to the board need to be able to work through these tensions for the good of chess.

The members elect the EB. While the delegates can change this, I'm not a fan of the change. Let those who have influence, and there are many who do, go out and educate and persuade the voters. The best ideas, and for that matter, people, should win. That's the proper role of influence.

There is likely a need for some structural change to the USCF's governance. It's not proper to suggest that change, however, without stating why the change is needed and how the change is going to respond to whatever that need might be. Put slightly differently, it is not correct to assume that the problems are fully understood and that any required change is obvious.

Note: I could have laced the above (and anything else I say or write) with "IMOs" and even "IMHOs," but I rather hope that all will understand that should be the case for everything written here.

One Member, One Vote: OMOV

A discussion has begun on the USCF Issues Forum suggesting that One Member, One Vote ("OMOV") is the problem underlying most if not all of the USCF's woes at present.  What OMOV means in the USCF is who will elect the seven members of the Executive Board.  The issue is important.  The change desired by some, and the system of election to which the opponents of OMOV suggest the USCF should return, is one in which the delegates (plus likely a few other influential members, such as past Presidents) would elect the Executive Board members.  The argument runs that only in this way will the Executive Board be responsive to the delegates and will the multi-million dollar USCF have proper oversight.  The opponents to OMOV point to a small voter turnout in the last election, for example, to show that the USCF membership is apathetic and only the delegates are properly informed to make the EB member choices.  (4,000 + members voted.)  Moreover, if the EB members know who's the boss, they'll act right.  I have a few points to make here:

1.  Some of the finest USCF members in the history of the Federation have been and are tireless delegates.
2.  A substantial number of delegates aren't involved in USCF governance.
3.  An active and competent Executive Board is critical to the USCF's success.
4.  There is a weak cause and effect connection between OMOV and any of the USCF's present problems.
5.  The USCF's future health will be directly related to the efforts made by all of its leaders and members.
6.  The overstated downside of delegate elections is that chess insiders will govern the USCF with their interests foremost in mind.
7.  The overstated downside of member elections is that the elections will turn into popularity contests resulting in bad choices. 
8.  The delegates have a constituency of local members to whom they owe a modicum of service. 
9.  The members should take an hour or two out of their year to listen to their delegates, tell their delegates what they think, inform themselves to their own satisfaction on the candidates, and vote for the Executive Board members with the interests of U.S. chess in mind. 
10.  An informed membership engaged briefly (by voting) will go further toward improving the USCF than any other single measure. Put simply, the USCF will benefit enormously by a modest increase in informed voter turnout. 
11.  The delegates are critical to informing the membership.
12.  The USCF needs some level of governance overhaul, but the answer is probably not to be found in taking the members' right to vote for the Executive Board.

This summer three candidates will appear on the ballot to fill two vacant seats on the Executive Board.  I wish there were more candidates.  I am one of the three, with Mike Nietman and Sam Sloan being the other two.  The five already on the Executive Board appear to me to be good, competent people.  Look for your ballot prior to June, I believe, and when you get it, if you haven't already, take a small amount of time to inform your choice and vote. 

I will post time to time here on this blog on this issue between now and the vote this summer.  If you'd like to know more, and I can appreciate that you may not, sign into the USCF Issues Forum on the USCF website.  You need only be a member.  Be prepared for a substantial amount of crap on the Forum, but if you cut to the chase, you'll find the debate laid out well from every perspective.