Oceania Chess Confederation (OCC)

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Brian_Jones

I don't think the OCC has any problem at all with voluntary membership or changing its statutes.

I hereby invite the ACF (or any of its officers) to:

(1) Draft statutes for a new Oceania Chess Confederation (2013) Inc.

(2) Obtain support and approval of the new statutes from at least three current member Federations of the Zone.

(3) Present the new statutes (as approved) to the OCC January 2013 meeting at Norths in Sydney.

Of course this involves more than just whinging on bulletin boards and complaining about my personal failings - it involves chess development work.

I am happy for someone from ACF to do this work. Remember it is the Oceania Federations that vote for Statutes.

I am just an unpaid volunteer doing a job that few chess players want to do because of the shit they receive from the ACF Executive and from retired chess players who are too sick, lame or lazy to do the job themselves!

************************************************** ************************************************** ****************

Would you like them to draft a few new rules for ACE while they're at it? So far as I can see, the ACF thinks OCC might be a good idea, and it might join, but it's not a matter of pressing urgency to the ACF.

Finding executive members and office-holders for any organisation can be a taxing task for almost any organisation, I'd not think flak from the ACF would be a great concern.

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Keong Ang

Thanks for this.
It is the unlimited liability bit that is of concern.

If the OCC were to be incorporated, where should it be incorporated? It is an international body, operating in different jurisdictions around Oceania. Incorporation would need to be done in a way that would provide limited liability to all members and officers in all jurisdictions the OCC operates in.

Brian can say all he likes about him being the one that would carry all final liability, but that would really depend on which jurisdiction's applicable law is used.

It would need to be incorporated in one country, I'd prefer AUS or NZ (principally because I understand Australia's system better than the others, and I expect NZ isn't too different), and possibly registered in some manner in others. I added "possibly" because it's probably able to delegate events such as competitions in the same sort of way the ACF and FIDE do.

Laws in Australia differ between states. As I understand it elected officers are required to act lawfully and in good faith. However, in WA

if members or office bearers of the association incurred liabilities or obligations on behalf of the association prior to incorporation, those liabilities and obligations can be exercised against the incorporated association.

, so if the Chess Club of Widgiemooltha Inc goes bankrupt, unless the elected officials have misbehaved, they are not financially liable and are not likely to go to gaol.

Note, Widgiemooltha exists, but as far as I know has no chessplayers. I did buy some petrol there once.

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Keong Ang

More like the Oceania zone president organises everything, the OCC is just a formality.

As you say, the OCC was accepted by FIDE to advance the interests of chess in the region. While incredibly brief, it obliges national federations in zone3.6 to cooperate with and support the OCC actively. FIDE Handbook Chapter 2, clause 2.4 "...obliged to support FIDE actively in its chess activities."
Since FIDE has acknowledged that OCC advances the interests of chess in the region through affiliation, the OCC has become the body that FIDE works with for zone wide activity.

Of course, you are correct in saying that the zonal president can choose to organise events through the OCC or unilaterally. The frustrating reality in practice is the zone president is still free to organise whatever he likes and treat the OCC like a formality. All he has to do is stage the event in a country that does not acknowledge the OCC. Just look at what's going to happen during June in Sydney!

If the entire executive is appointed by the Zone 3.6 president of the day, and holds office until the next presidential election or dismissed from office, why not just constitute the OCC as a committee of President.. It function very like the Australian or NZ ministries, it would be beholden to the President, and whatever influence the President or the US cabinet has would be exercised principally by the OCC (which might now be a committee and not confederation).

There would be no membership per se, and quite likely countries would be at least was willing to make a donation of $x as to pay a membership of 4x. At Geelong, the issue was not the money. A donation of $200 for a worthy, relevant, cause would hardly have rated a blink.

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

T
We wouldn't be important though. On the PB we would be just one vote out of many carrying no more power than any small Pacific nation that's accepted. That is another problem with the OCC. If one nation has three-quarters of a region's chess activity then it is democratic that that nation receives some extra voting power. Not necessarily proportional (otherwise the others would have no say) but one nation, one vote is a joke in this particular region.

You should recall that Tas has as many votes in the senate as Qld. Is that democratic?

There are many democratic voting systems, and I for one am happy that Tas and NSW have equal representation in the senate. Taswegians and Kiwis would know better than most the difficulties arising from a proportional representation system, but I'd not describe them as undemocratic.

The electoral system won't matter if OCC becomes dependent on Aussie Dollars, the others will become fearful of offending us lest we keep our dollars.

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Keong Ang

If I'm not mistaken this is a similar situation the ACF faces. I gather from this forum the typical complaints and rants about all the shortcomings of the ACF. Everybody complains, moans, gripes and rants about how things could be run better. You'd think that all incumbents would be rolled if only a general meeting came around. However when it is time for elections, nobody actually wants to do the thankless tasks we do! Where are the candidates? Instead, the same incumbents are re-conscripted to face another term of complaints, moans, gripes and rants...

Is NZ different?
Elections in Victoria have been hotly and noisily conducted as documented in these forums, but filling all elected offices is less common. I know of a chess club that conducted its affairs illegally for a year because it couldn't find a president. I had free membership of another club for a couple of years because the club paid my membership (including VCA fees I think) because I was a non-member at the AGM and nobody else wanted the job.

[Kevin Bonham]

Originally Posted by Santa

As a non-member, I would think the ACF has no standing, no right to propose changes to statutes or regulations.

That is a bit like saying that if someone is not a customer of a business they have no right to propose that that business change its product or pricing in a way that would make them more likely to purchase it. We have every right to point out to the OCC why it is not convincing us to join and what it should do to convince us to join. (Thus far we have not formally done so, but there is no sign yet that the OCC is receptive to the sorts of changes we are likely to require anyway. If anything, the changes made earlier this year move in the opposite direction.)

As for your list of objectives, it looks more like a list of what you think our objectives should be. Some of those are in the mix but others are not, either because they are already taken care of or we do not think they are problems.

One objective that you have not included is that the OCC cease attempting to declare nations to be members irrespective of their will in the matter. The ACF Council recently reaffirmed by motion that we are not members of the OCC (something also confirmed at the National Conference this year) and I do not think there will be progress until the OCC is willing to change its statutes so that members join of their own volition and can also resign their memberships at any point.

[Kevin Bonham]

Originally Posted by Santa

You should recall that Tas has as many votes in the senate as Qld. Is that democratic?

In my view it is outrageously, extremely undemocratic that Tasmania with less than a tenth of NSW's power has the same number of Senators. But it is a legacy of Federation in that the small states would not have joined without it and the big states were willing to accept it because of the benefits of federating.

The ACF is in the same position as those big states were except that we are not in such a rush to accept an undemocratic position until the OCC lifts its game.

Taswegians and Kiwis would know better than most the difficulties arising from a proportional representation system, but I'd not describe them as undemocratic.

And rightly not because PR respects one vote one value, as generally does the preferential system used in the single member parliaments. The Senate system does not respect one vote one value and is worse in this regard than the regional malapportionment formerly rampant in Queensland, SA and WA systems. The only reason more is not made of it is that Tasmania typically votes for much the same parties as everywhere else. If Tasmania started really exploiting the system by electing a Tasmania Bloc of Senators that based all its decisions on Tasmania's financial interests then there would be massive outrage with the system from other states - probably enough to force a referendum for changing it.

The electoral system won't matter if OCC becomes dependent on Aussie Dollars, the others will become fearful of offending us lest we keep our dollars.

The OCC is most dependent on FIDE Dollars. It doesn't need our $200 pittance.