Bob Armstrong
01-23-2013, 01:45 PM
Posted on the Facebook chess discussion page of the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ), " CCC - Chess Posts of Interest " ( http://www.facebook.com/groups/cooperativechesscoalition/ ):
CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform
Q: Some say that the local chess club is the natural place where demand for chess reform should, and must, first arise. Others say chess clubs are only for “ playing chess “, not for “ chess politics “. How does CCC see the role of the local chess club?
A: Chess clubs provide a place for members to play, kibitz and socialize – basically, to have fun. As such, they have great potential for being places to determine the opinions of ordinary chess players generally.
But there is a problem. CCC agrees that many clubs see “ playing “ as their only purpose. Why? Because they are usually governed “ presidentially ( read dictatorially ) “, and members are conditioned to only see themselves as consumers of a service, not as owners of the club. In the presidential system, the president makes all decisions; the executive committee may or may not ever meet, and may or may not be even consulted – they have no real power. Members are not canvassed for their opinions on club administrative decisions or given any meaningful input ( maybe once a year at the Annual General Meeting ). In this climate, members will not be interested at all in chess politics at a club level, nor any higher level.
So if chess clubs are to become starting places for reform, they must:
1. become collegially managed - the executive must be the deciders of issues, and by majority vote where unanimity is not achievable, with the President having only an equal vote. The club may wish him, as Chair of the Committee, also to have a second tie-breaking vote.
2. the culture of the club must become more “ cooperative “ – members become joint owners of the club, and are encouraged to become active decision-makers in major administrative club decisions.
It is only by active involvement in local club “ politics and administration “ that members will develop an interest in, and pro-active attitude towards, higher level chess politics and administration. Should this be accomplished, then chess clubs may in future join forces to bring a reform agenda to their national federations, for both national and FIDE reforms.
Q: Is it realistic to expect either of these changes at the local club level?
Bob Armstrong, CCC Member ( Canada )
CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform
Q: Some say that the local chess club is the natural place where demand for chess reform should, and must, first arise. Others say chess clubs are only for “ playing chess “, not for “ chess politics “. How does CCC see the role of the local chess club?
A: Chess clubs provide a place for members to play, kibitz and socialize – basically, to have fun. As such, they have great potential for being places to determine the opinions of ordinary chess players generally.
But there is a problem. CCC agrees that many clubs see “ playing “ as their only purpose. Why? Because they are usually governed “ presidentially ( read dictatorially ) “, and members are conditioned to only see themselves as consumers of a service, not as owners of the club. In the presidential system, the president makes all decisions; the executive committee may or may not ever meet, and may or may not be even consulted – they have no real power. Members are not canvassed for their opinions on club administrative decisions or given any meaningful input ( maybe once a year at the Annual General Meeting ). In this climate, members will not be interested at all in chess politics at a club level, nor any higher level.
So if chess clubs are to become starting places for reform, they must:
1. become collegially managed - the executive must be the deciders of issues, and by majority vote where unanimity is not achievable, with the President having only an equal vote. The club may wish him, as Chair of the Committee, also to have a second tie-breaking vote.
2. the culture of the club must become more “ cooperative “ – members become joint owners of the club, and are encouraged to become active decision-makers in major administrative club decisions.
It is only by active involvement in local club “ politics and administration “ that members will develop an interest in, and pro-active attitude towards, higher level chess politics and administration. Should this be accomplished, then chess clubs may in future join forces to bring a reform agenda to their national federations, for both national and FIDE reforms.
Q: Is it realistic to expect either of these changes at the local club level?
Bob Armstrong, CCC Member ( Canada )