PDA

View Full Version : Oceania Chess Confederation (OCC)



Brian_Jones
06-09-2011, 08:50 AM
The recent history of Oceania chess is now available at www.oceaniachess.com

Brian_Jones
12-09-2011, 01:47 PM
I will attend the FIDE Commission meetings and FIDE Executive Board meeting in Krakow in October this year as President of FIDE Zone 3.6 (Oceania) and President of the Oceania Chess Confederation (OCC).

I will be attending at my own expense and I will also be representing the New Zealand Chess Federation.

Please email your Federation with formal views on any items on the Krakow agenda. I can then take the Federations' views into account when casting my votes.

In July this year I was defeated in my application to become the Australian Chess Federation Permenent Delegate to FIDE. This position was awarded to Dr Kevin Bonham after a secret ballot(s).

Kevin Bonham will I understand be travelling to Krakow with funding provided by the Australian Chess Federation, which to date has not yet committed to joining the OCC.

peter_parr
12-09-2011, 03:00 PM
Anex 11 of the 82nd FIDE Congress in Krakow next month is an Application of Oceania Chess Confederation to join FIDE as an affiliated International Organisation in accordance with section 2 of the FIDE handbook.
The application is from Brian Jones the Oceania President. OCC requests the right to award FIDE titles, requests subsidies from FIDE and a large range of other matters affecting the Oceania Zone.

Section 2 of the FIDE handbook is clear. Members of FIDE are national chess federations. Oceania has six FIDE Member countries. No application should be lodged with FIDE without the approval of the FIDE member countries.

The Australian Chess Federation had not been asked to consider the proposal and nor does it agree with the proposal (in fact quite the opposite) in my discussion last Friday with ACF. Was the New Zealand Chess Federation asked to consider the proposals?

The ACF recently appointed a Vice-President as the ACF delegate to FIDE replacing our long standing retiring delegate. Mr Jones had been enthusiastic but not elected to act as Australian FIDE delegate.

The correct procedure for any application for Mr Jones is to consult and discuss his proposals with the FIDE member countries federations before any application is made to FIDE. Any application that bypasses the ACF and NZCF is simply incorrect.

I believe strongly as do my colleagues that as no discussions of the application of OCC to join FIDE has taken place that ACF and NZCF should ask FIDE to defer consideration of any application until the 2012 FIDE Congress.

Personally I have always thought the Oceania sub-zone should never have been created (based on the number of players rated in the world top 2000) and Australia should return to the Asian Zone. Four of the six Oceania FIDE Countries have no players ranked in the world top 24,000 players and no-one even close to 2100. Australia and NZ combined have only 4 players (all titled) ranked in the top 2000 active players in the world - hardly a world zone. Four of the six countries are ranked below country no 125 with NZ at 78 and Australia 57 (with 90 titled players already!) Mr Jones has often expressed the view that there should be more and more titled players in Oceania and now requests the right to award FIDE titles. The ACF and NZCF must act on the subject of annex 11 and advise FIDE of their position before the 15 Oct FIDE Congress meeting.

The ACF should also advise FIDE that the Australian Chess Federation has not joined the Oceania Chess Confederation so the OCC has very little significance.

Brian_Jones
12-09-2011, 03:59 PM
************************************************** ************************************************** ************************

FIDE has placed Australia in Zone 3.6 (Oceania) within Asia.

New Zealand, PNG, Fiji, Palau and Solomon Islands are all happy to be current members of FIDE Zone 3.6. They formed OCC (with encouragement from FIDE) so that they could work together on a number of development projects and no longer be solely reliant on the Zone President alone.

If Australia does not want to work with the other members of the Oceania Zone it can apply to join/form another Zone (and/or stay out of OCC).

But why would Australia do this? Why would Australia decide to stay out of the OCC and not contribute to the development of chess in the Oceania region?

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

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2011, 05:37 PM
The application by Brian Jones to FIDE that Peter Parr refers to was tabled at the most recent ACF Council meeting of 31 July having been sent by Brian to the ACF some time earlier. No decision to either support or oppose it has been taken at this stage and no explicit request from Brian that we support it has been tabled. Nevertheless he did advise us of it.

A distinction needs to be drawn between the FIDE Oceania Zone and the OCC. Australia is within the former by virtue of FIDE classification but has not yet committed to joining the latter (or been declared a member of it by FIDE).

The ACF resolved at the July 31 meeting to advise FIDE that it has not yet decided to join the OCC. However the matter of whether or not to join the OCC is currently being considered by the ACF Executive for a recommendation to the ACF Council.

I can't speak for the ACF in terms of stating a single reason for caution about joining the OCC thus far, but I will say that most of the concerns I am aware of have been not with the concept of regional development but with how it will be executed, including with the procedural foundations of the body.

I may comment further on other contents of the above posts later so nothing should be inferred from my non-response to any comment.

Denis_Jessop
12-09-2011, 08:37 PM
************************************************** ************************************************** ************************

FIDE has placed Australia in Zone 3.6 (Oceania) within Asia.

New Zealand, PNG, Fiji, Palau and Solomon Islands are all happy to be current members of FIDE Zone 3.6. They formed OCC (with encouragement from FIDE) so that they could work together on a number of development projects and no longer be solely reliant on the Zone President alone.

If Australia does not want to work with the other members of the Oceania Zone it can apply to join/form another Zone (and/or stay out of OCC).

But why would Australia do this? Why would Australia decide to stay out of the OCC and not contribute to the development of chess in the Oceania region?

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

Australia's being a member of OCC would make sense if the Oceania Zone made sense. But it doesn't. The Zone comprises Australia as the overwhelmingly dominant power, New Zealand who would like to be, Fiji which isn't and a whole lot of island States whose interest in chess is minimal and likely to remain so. The idea of converting Melanesians to chess is likely to have little better chance, if any, than converting them to Christianity as undertaken by missionaries of various Christian sects in the 19th Century contrary to their custom.

As for the OCC it is said to have been formed though when, where and how is by no means clear. A rather bizarre meeting was held in New Zealand in January, clearly on the assumption that the body already existed. That meeting purported to adopt "Statutes" of the OCC. But the meeting was not a meeting of a kind provided for in the Statutes and, after adopting them, acted in contravention of them in several respects. Now I know that Brian doesn't give a damn about rules and regulations but adopting some and then breaking them is going a bit too far. :) As for the "Statutes", they are so deficient that they are almost worse than useless. For example, as an hors d'oeuvre they refer to certain office bearers but contain no provisions for their appointment.

Probably the ACF should join the OCC just to get it operating on a proper basis, if for no other reason. But if the OCC is not accepted by FIDE, it's a deader duck than it is at present.

DJ

MichaelBaron
13-09-2011, 12:19 AM
But if the OCC is not accepted by FIDE, it's a deader duck than it is at present.

DJ
So shall we assume that OCC is simply a brain-child of BJ but has nothing to do with Fide/ACF?
What happens then if I form my own Oceania Association? can I? I got a friend living in Png and another one in Fiji...we can get something going :)

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2011, 12:45 AM
So shall we assume that OCC is simply a brain-child of BJ but has nothing to do with Fide/ACF?

No; my understanding is that there is high-level FIDE support for the OCC concept and it is not something Brian just suddenly came up with of his own accord.

Brian_Jones
13-09-2011, 10:33 AM
Australia's being a member of OCC would make sense if the Oceania Zone made sense. But it doesn't. The Zone comprises Australia as the overwhelmingly dominant power, New Zealand who would like to be, Fiji which isn't and a whole lot of island States whose interest in chess is minimal and likely to remain so. The idea of converting Melanesians to chess is likely to have little better chance, if any, than converting them to Christianity as undertaken by missionaries of various Christian sects in the 19th Century contrary to their custom.

This comment by an ACF Vice-President is ill-informed and seems plain racist to me.

I am reminded of the story told in a Chessbase article by Casto Abundo about former FIDE President Campomanes. Campo was promoting chess throughout Asia and wanted new Zones for the Far east and Oceania. British delegate Harry Golombek made a snide remark "We might as well have penguins and polar bears playing chess." Campo was insulted and stood up in the FIDE General Assembly and promised that a Philippine team would one day beat England. It subsequently did in the last round of an Olympiad thus relegating England to the B Group!


......Now I know that Brian doesn't give a damn about rules and regulations....DJ

I have a great deal of respect for rules and regulations of non-profit organisations generally.

But there is too much unnecessary regulation in Australian chess and I prefer the Statutes of the Asian Chess Federation and others where the emphasis is on chess and not on petty, restrictive by-laws.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Denis_Jessop
13-09-2011, 12:58 PM
This comment by an ACF Vice-President is ill-informed and seems plain racist to me.

I am reminded of the story told in a Chessbase article by Casto Abundo about former FIDE President Campomanes. Campo was promoting chess throughout Asia and wanted new Zones for the Far east and Oceania. British delegate Harry Golombek made a snide remark "We might as well have penguins and polar bears playing chess." Campo was insulted and stood up in the FIDE General Assembly and promised that a Philippine team would one day beat England. It subsequently did in the last round of an Olympiad thus relegating England to the B Group!





I have a great deal of respect for rules and regulations of non-profit organisations generally.

But there is too much unnecessary regulation in Australian chess and I prefer the Statutes of the Asian Chess Federation and others where the emphasis is on chess and not on petty, restrictive by-laws.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

No Brian, my remark was not racist at all. It was based on the effects of missionaries in the South Pacific trying to convert indigenous peoples to Christianity and to abandon their customs. This is a matter of some contention not only for anthropologists but also for the governments of those countries. The proselitysing of chess among peoples for whom it has no interest is remarkably similar. I note also in this regard that PNG chess seems to be the province mainly of white men some of them non-resident.

As for the "Statutes", I am surprised, though perhaps unrealistically, that you should defend them. The one example I gave of their sloppiness and thus uselessness should have been enough to put you on guard but there is a lot more. The are, in short, appallingly drafted, not in a technical, but in a substantive sense.

Moreover, I am not yet satisfied that the body has even been properly formed or of the legality of the New Zealand meeting. Curiously, its minutes show apologies from a number of people who would seem to have had no right to attend.

DJ

ChessGuru
13-09-2011, 09:30 PM
Probably the ACF should join the OCC just to get it operating on a proper basis, if for no other reason. But if the OCC is not accepted by FIDE, it's a deader duck than it is at present.

On a "proper" basis...like the way the ACF operates. :doh:

Brian, don't you know -- official chess organisations are for having meetings and shuffling papers... how dare you suggest that they actually DO something. It's in the statutes ... "to foster and control chess". Nowhere does it say to DO anything.

And chess is for CHESS players... civilized people. PROPER people. Not for humdrum, uncivilized, barbarians who don't know how to play chess!

Denis_Jessop
13-09-2011, 10:31 PM
On a "proper" basis...like the way the ACF operates. :doh:

Brian, don't you know -- official chess organisations are for having meetings and shuffling papers... how dare you suggest that they actually DO something. It's in the statutes ... "to foster and control chess". Nowhere does it say to DO anything.

And chess is for CHESS players... civilized people. PROPER people. Not for humdrum, uncivilized, barbarians who don't know how to play chess!

David - you are just being silly; neither funny nor even cynical - just a goat.

DJ

Brian_Jones
14-09-2011, 08:34 AM
No Brian, my remark was not racist at all. It was based on the effects of missionaries in the South Pacific trying to convert indigenous peoples to Christianity and to abandon their customs. This is a matter of some contention not only for anthropologists but also for the governments of those countries. The proselitysing of chess among peoples for whom it has no interest is remarkably similar. I note also in this regard that PNG chess seems to be the province mainly of white men some of them non-resident.

Yes, it certainly was racist (and your new remarks now include a few big words that require an english dictionary).

Did you know that there are almost as many chess players in the Solomon Islands as there are in Canberra.

Also, the Polynesians and Micronesians play chess also!



Moreover, I am not yet satisfied that the body has even been properly formed or of the legality of the New Zealand meeting. Curiously, its minutes show apologies from a number of people who would seem to have had no right to attend. DJ

Everyone has the right to attend OCC meetings (and can apologise for non-attendence). But only six people can vote.

Our aim is to organise events and develop chess generally. Meetings are secondary! ;)

Denis_Jessop
14-09-2011, 12:19 PM
Yes, it certainly was racist (and your new remarks now include a few big words that require an english dictionary).

Did you know that there are almost as many chess players in the Solomon Islands as there are in Canberra.

Also, the Polynesians and Micronesians play chess also!




Everyone has the right to attend OCC meetings (and can apologise for non-attendence). But only six people can vote.



Our aim is to organise events and develop chess generally. Meetings are secondary! ;)

Thanks for your observations, Brian.

I particularly like your comparison between Canberra and the Solomon Islands given that there are a very small number of active players in Canberra - the lowest in years and fewer than 50 years ago.

As for the meeting, there is nothing anywhere that deals with attendance. Indeed there is nothing to identify what kind of meeting it was. Moreover that is a very minor point compared with the major ones you have not yet addressed and more major ones that I have not yet mentioned.

Finally, your racism is allegation is plain nonsense, as well as offensive, and merely reflects your ignorance of the topic.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2011, 10:47 PM
Everyone has the right to attend OCC meetings (and can apologise for non-attendence). But only six people can vote.

Hmmm. I believe you're including delegates from Aus, NZ, Fiji, PNG, Palau and Solomon Islands, unless someone has joined you haven't mentioned.

If so then the assumption above is based on:

* the meeting of a body that had never actually voted to create itself
* the use of restricted voting rights to pass a motion supposed to create them
* and the false assumption (as of this instance) that one of the above is even a member

What on earth would be done in the present situation if there was a close motion that later led to a serious dispute where people used the above technical arguments to dispute whether something that had been passed was even valid I have no idea, but the mere possibility explains why getting the procedure right can matter.

At least if the OCC is accepted by FIDE then there may be recourse to FIDE to sort out any intractable constitutional problems but at the moment there is nothing.

Tony Dowden
15-09-2011, 07:35 PM
The idea of converting Melanesians to chess is likely to have little better chance, if any, than converting them to Christianity as undertaken by missionaries of various Christian sects in the 19th Century contrary to their custom.

In this case chess has a rosy future in Oceania - say 200-300 GMs within the next 10 years or so?

Tony Dowden
20-09-2011, 06:51 PM
In this case chess has a rosy future in Oceania - say 200-300 GMs within the next 10 years or so?

Surely you exaggerate?

Tony Dowden
20-09-2011, 06:52 PM
Surely you exaggerate?

Yes and no. Just a little hyperbole with dash of irony ...

Tony Dowden
20-09-2011, 06:53 PM
Yes and no. Just a little hyperbole with dash of irony ...

... anyone who has been to a church in the South Pacific will understand ;)

Adamski
20-09-2011, 10:15 PM
Tony they do say that talking to yourself is the first sign of madness. But I don't believe it for a moment (as I do it myself).

And, yes, I know what you are saying and agree!

Vlad
21-09-2011, 08:21 PM
In this case chess has a rosy future in Oceania - say 200-300 GMs within the next 10 years or so?

In Russia they estimated that it costs about 1 mln dollarov to get somebody to the grandmaster level. Does it mean that the future Oceania will be rich or poor?:lol:

Santa
26-11-2011, 04:40 AM
In Russia they estimated that it costs about 1 mln dollarov to get somebody to the grandmaster level. Does it mean that the future Oceania will be rich or poor?:lol:

Yes. or No.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2012, 08:43 PM
[This post was moved and is a reply to Keong Ang's post here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=330530&postcount=78) which in turn is a reply to Denis Jessop's post here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=330517&postcount=74).]


By default all federations within the Oceania sub-zone are already members of the OCC. The only difference is whether a federation is a full member or a delinquent member.

This is completely untrue (and needlessly insulting to boot).

The situation is that the OCC declares Australia to be a member but Australia does not accept that as we have never agreed to join. Furthermore, in my view, we will not join until the OCC adopts a consensual membership procedure.

Australia is a member of the Oceania zone but that is not the same thing as being a member of the OCC.

FIDE have accepted the OCC's request for affiliation under the heading:


organizations which represent the interests of regions, e.g. continents, or other groupings consisting of FIDE affiliated chess federations.

But an organization claiming to represent the interests of a set of persons or groups does not automatically have the right to compel all those it represents to be members. It is similar to the situation of Australian trade unions which claim to represent the interests of all workers in their sector, yet in many sectors most workers don't actually join any union.


Now a question that is of interest to players in events that fall under the OCC umbrella is the status of players from [non-member] federations. Are they eligible for the titles and/or prizes on offer?
If FIDE makes OCC events eligible for titles (eg. IM, FM, WIM, WFM), and only players from member federations can play in them, would FIDE regulations on the treatment of players from [non-member] federations apply?

An interesting question but if the OCC really is going to be dishing out titles that are softer than butter then perhaps Australia's national chess interests would be best served anyway by steering clear of such events.


A member federation usually becomes delinquent by not paying membership fees.

We have never been members in the first place.

Keong Ang
22-02-2012, 06:30 PM
I will move the OCC discussion very soon as was tangential to begin with and is now totally off-topic.
Apologies for going off topic.

This is completely untrue (and needlessly insulting to boot).
I did observe the OCC AGM at Queenstown.
Lots of amendments that were requested by AUS were put through. Much concern was raised over the labeling of federations as "delinquent" and I'm not sure what was done (or could have been done) about it other than the fact that nobody wanted such an insulting label to be attached to any federation.

As for membership, I've always understood that a confederation is a looser grouping when compared to federation. Anyway, I'd better end here before contributing to further thread drift.

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2012, 08:01 PM
Apologies for going off topic.

Not needed, the OCC was a tangential issue in this thread and I have no problem with moving such discussions as they drift further from the original subject.


Lots of amendments that were requested by AUS were put through.

Pleased to hear it (and this is the first I have heard of it). I should clarify that the ACF did not formally endorse any requested changes. Rather, a draft that some ACF Executive members have been working on was sent in the expectation that if the changes in that draft were adopted (or the most important ones anyway) then it would appear far more likely the ACF would join.

Were any amendments we requested not put through? I ask because we haven't heard anything as yet (presumably the Minutes are still in preparation) and no ACF Exec member was able to represent us at the meeting.


Much concern was raised over the labeling of federations as "delinquent" and I'm not sure what was done (or could have been done) about it other than the fact that nobody wanted such an insulting label to be attached to any federation.

Concerning as it may be I'm not sure that actually has anything to do with the ACF as concerns the OCC.

Denis_Jessop
22-02-2012, 08:43 PM
I might add that it should not be thought by anyone that Australia's not joining the OCC is the view merely of the ACF Executive or some of it. The matter has been raised a various ACF meetings, both Council and National Conference. Though the lack of detail, nonsensical documents and less than helpful responses from the OCC is one aspect, there are others and I have not heard any ACF person speak in support of our joining, at least if things remain as they were when we last had any news of the OCC. That was before the Queenstown meeting. If the OCC doesn't let us know what happened at Queenstown, we must assume that it has lost interest in our possible future involvement or that someone has spat the dummy.

DJ

Tony Dowden
26-02-2012, 01:44 PM
Tony they do say that talking to yourself is the first sign of madnes ... yes, I know what you are saying and agree!

:lol: I didn't feel confident I'd get a quick reply so I decided I'd better have a go at both sides of the conversation.

antichrist
26-02-2012, 07:34 PM
:lol: I didn't feel confident I'd get a quick reply so I decided I'd better have a go at both sides of the conversation.

It's okay to do this as long as you are not triumphant

Keong Ang
27-02-2012, 02:40 PM
Pleased to hear it (and this is the first I have heard of it). I should clarify that the ACF did not formally endorse any requested changes. Rather, a draft that some ACF Executive members have been working on was sent in the expectation that if the changes in that draft were adopted (or the most important ones anyway) then it would appear far more likely the ACF would join.
I was just an observer at the meeting. I think whatever changes were discussed were understood to be not the official ACF position/proposal, but were "suggestions" that could make it more acceptable for the ACF to join.

Were any amendments we requested not put through? I ask because we haven't heard anything as yet (presumably the Minutes are still in preparation) and no ACF Exec member was able to represent us at the meeting.
Phil Viner (?) was at the meeting, and from my observation, he seemed to behave like he was under strict instructions to only observe in a private capacity. :hmm:

I was really there privately and was just being nosy. Just thought it was useful for me to attend since I was going to be the NZCF secretary.

I don't know when the OCC secretary would have the minutes ready. I do wonder whether it is legitimate for minutes to be distributed to parties that are not OCC members. Guess this was where the discussion as to which federations are members and which are not are important.

Concerning as it may be I'm not sure that actually has anything to do with the ACF as concerns the OCC.
I can say that as an observer I was wondering why the people at the meeting seem to be performing diplomatic acrobatics in determining whether a federation is a member or not.
Some discussion about AUS being a founding member, and yet not a member due to not having joined! For the non-aussie based people in the room, it seems like an issue simply because the OCC president is AUS. Logically, only people from federations that are members of OCC can be running OCC. Shouldn't it be the ACF's wish to join or not anyway?

I don't know about the officials, but I do wonder what the OCC is actually for. There is the feeling that the OCC's present purpose seems to be to just function as some kind of international body to implement the Oceania Zone president's projects due to him not being able to get home (AUS) federation support. There is also the feeling that the OCC is to further develop chess in Oceania so that the Oceania Zone can graduate into a full continental zone instead of continuing as an Asian sub-zone. When there is an Oceania continental zone, the OCC would most probably evolve to become the Oceania Chess Federation to function as the umbrella federation of all national federations in Oceania.

At present, this lack of clarity is where some level of frustration by OCC federations can be felt. The feeling is that where the OCC members are hesitant about certain events, the event is pushed through under Oceania Zone president's authority. But then, it could still be called an OCC event. (!?) :hmm: :rolleyes:
Which hat is the OCC president wearing? Is he functioning as OCC president or Oceania zone president? Is the OCC just a body advising the zone president that can be ignored? Or is it a body that the zone president must follow?

At the end of the day, my outside observer point of view is, what is the OCC all about?????
In practice it seems to function as just another body for money from FIDE to be sent to. We of course, keep in mind that the money originally came from national federations.

By the way, AUS is not the only national federation whose OCC membership was in question... but by then I wasn't paying attention to this mind numbingly boring issue anymore.

Keong Ang
27-02-2012, 02:43 PM
I might add that it should not be thought by anyone that Australia's not joining the OCC is the view merely of the ACF Executive or some of it. The matter has been raised a various ACF meetings, both Council and National Conference. Though the lack of detail, nonsensical documents and less than helpful responses from the OCC is one aspect, there are others and I have not heard any ACF person speak in support of our joining, at least if things remain as they were when we last had any news of the OCC. That was before the Queenstown meeting. If the OCC doesn't let us know what happened at Queenstown, we must assume that it has lost interest in our possible future involvement or that someone has spat the dummy.

DJ
It is not just the ACF that has reservations! :whistle:

For all we know, the minutes from OCC Queenstown won't be written until shortly before the next OCC AGM. It could wait for that long...

Denis_Jessop
27-02-2012, 04:00 PM
It is not just the ACF that has reservations! :whistle:

For all we know, the minutes from OCC Queenstown won't be written until shortly before the next OCC AGM. It could wait for that long...

This is news to me. But your statement about uncertainty about membership of other federations is not. One of the points I made in my paper for the ACF was that the OCC Statutes said that any national federation in the Oceania Zone is considered to be a member of the OCC. But that was all that was said about membership. Such a provision is not adequate to make a federation a member, so, unless federations have taken some other step to join, they aren't members. It's hard to see how they could do that as there is no procedure in the Statutes for applying for membership.

As regards Phil Viner, his attendance was only in a private capacity as far as I am aware. The ACF had resolved that an Executive member should attend as an observer only but it turned out that none of the Executive was available.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
02-03-2012, 02:57 PM
I do wonder whether it is legitimate for minutes to be distributed to parties that are not OCC members.

That is for the OCC to decide but it is obviously not illegal for them to send the minutes to us should they choose to do so! Of course, they could choose not to tell us what went on but that would hardly encourage us to join in any hurry. It would also be rather funny given that the current OCC President has for years complained of the ACF being supposedly a "secret society"; now where is the OCC's hurry to disclose what went on at its meetings?


I can say that as an observer I was wondering why the people at the meeting seem to be performing diplomatic acrobatics in determining whether a federation is a member or not.
Some discussion about AUS being a founding member, and yet not a member due to not having joined!

This is all a consequence of the OCC never having been properly founded. What should have happened is that at the first meeting of the OCC a motion should have been passed in which empowered representatives from those wishing to found the OCC all resolved that they would do so. But this did not happen. There was no proper foundation and hence there are no true founding members. It might be argued that NZ, Fiji and PNG are tacitly founding members in retrospect, in some informal sense, since they were there at the start and appear to accept that they are members, of an organisation which is accepted as existing by FIDE.


For the non-aussie based people in the room, it seems like an issue simply because the OCC president is AUS.

Now that is a dimension of it I had not considered before. :lol:


There is also the feeling that the OCC is to further develop chess in Oceania so that the Oceania Zone can graduate into a full continental zone instead of continuing as an Asian sub-zone.

Regional development is a worthy goal but I think Oceania should worry about being strong enough to be even a legitimate subzone first!

Thanks for the comments, they were interesting.

Brian_Jones
04-03-2012, 08:33 AM
Please would the admins review this thread and place in an appropriate section. Not "Australian Chess History". Maybe a new general section for Oceania Chess with potential for sub-threads?

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2012, 11:49 AM
Please would the admins review this thread and place in an appropriate section. Not "Australian Chess History". Maybe a new general section for Oceania Chess with potential for sub-threads?

This is under consideration. [EDIT: done, on a trial basis]

Brian_Jones
05-03-2012, 08:18 AM
Various reports presented at the OCC Annual meeting in Queenstown New Zealand in January 2012 can be found at

http://www.oceaniachess.com/?a=history

Minutes will be added shortly.

Kevin Bonham
05-03-2012, 09:26 PM
Apologies for going off topic.

I did observe the OCC AGM at Queenstown.
Lots of amendments that were requested by AUS were put through.

Not according to the Minutes. The Minutes (http://www.oceaniachess.com/media/main_oceania_minutes_2012.pdf) note only four amendments, none of which satisfies the main concerns held by the ACF exec, and the first of which directly contradicts them.

Doesn't look like the OCC really wants us to join it any time soon based on that. Apparently if we go without paying long enough we can get our membership temporarily suspended even though our membership does not exist in the first place.

antichrist
05-03-2012, 10:09 PM
Brian, is it possible for the Oceania islands to time their big tourneys in succession in a logical geographical order so one island hop in one direction and not in circles.? I know it is expecting miracles. It should benefit all their tourneys with more OS players and title chances and prize money.

Brian_Jones
06-03-2012, 08:01 AM
Brian, is it possible for the Oceania islands to time their big tourneys in succession in a logical geographical order so one island hop in one direction and not in circles.? I know it is expecting miracles. It should benefit all their tourneys with more OS players and title chances and prize money.

No.

Brian_Jones
06-03-2012, 08:06 AM
Not according to the Minutes. The Minutes (http://www.oceaniachess.com/media/main_oceania_minutes_2012.pdf) note only four amendments, none of which satisfies the main concerns held by the ACF exec, and the first of which directly contradicts them.

Doesn't look like the OCC really wants us to join it any time soon based on that. Apparently if we go without paying long enough we can get our membership temporarily suspended even though our membership does not exist in the first place.

The OCC has received no formal requests from the ACF and, in any case, does not accept the ACF concerns we have seen in documents sent to me informally by Kevin Bonham and Denis Jessop.

So life goes on without support from ACF. ;)

antichrist
06-03-2012, 12:32 PM
No.

well they are not after too many customers are they - how will get top players to attend if only for one comp. They could pool their resources to subsidise a few top players from Philippines for example would be terrific.

Or ethnic Indians in Oceania would sponsor a GM from India if combined resources.

Otherwise they will only get the Jones family.

Denis_Jessop
06-03-2012, 01:12 PM
The OCC has received no formal requests from the ACF and, in any case, does not accept the ACF concerns we have seen in documents sent to me informally by Kevin Bonham and Denis Jessop.

So life goes on without support from ACF. ;)


Brian If you don't accept those concerns you are plain stupid and need to get advice from a good source. The way you are behaving over this matter is such that your pig headedness has alienated people who might otherwise have supported you.

I see also that the accounts presented to the AGM were not audited as required by the Statutes and that that was not noted in the minutes. Do you even have an auditor? If you have I'd be surprised if he or she were willing to certify that those accounts present a true and fair view of the financial affairs of the OCC.

On another tack, who is supplying the equipment for all these Oceania events? I note that ACE, your business, gave equipment to New Caledonia for its tournament last year. What has happened to your once loudly proclaimed opposition to conflicts of interest? That action clearly seems to be a case of your using your position as Oceania President to the benefit of your business by promoting your business to the New Caledonians by way of gifts. That may be in the best FIDE tradition of Kirsan's vote buying but isn't legally justifiable or morally honourable.

DJ

antichrist
06-03-2012, 03:07 PM
Brian..................

On another tack, who is supplying the equipment for all these Oceania events? I note that ACE, your business, gave equipment to New Caledonia for its tournament last year. What has happened to your once loudly proclaimed opposition to conflicts of interest? That action clearly seems to be a case of your using your position as Oceania President to the benefit of your business by promoting your business to the New Caledonians by way of gifts. That may be in the best FIDE tradition of Kirsan's vote buying but isn't legally justifiable or morally honourable.

DJ

That is a bit over the top isn't it Denis. To draw an analogy, because almost every politician accepts free trips to Israel via the Israel Friendship Society are you suggesting there is a conflict of interest? Both sides of parliament don't seem to think so.

Aussie parliamentarians with all their perks don't need free trips, but Oceania chess clubs starting off could well appreciate free equipment. Indeed, that was one of my problems in kicking Sydney CBD club was the hassle of getting equipment all the time. The same with the SEC, NSWCA took about 25 mins debating the issue to loan me equipment.

IF they do purchase from Brian ACE and prices are reasonable I have nothing against. At least he is putting the hard yards in getting the thing set up.

If only he would co-ordinate their big tourneys so one could do one tour of the whole area - but then again KB stated he was not good at fine detail.

Denis_Jessop
06-03-2012, 03:31 PM
That is a bit over the top isn't it Denis. To draw an analogy, because almost every politician accepts free trips to Israel via the Israel Friendship Society are you suggesting there is a conflict of interest? Both sides of parliament don't seem to think so.

Aussie parliamentarians with all their perks don't need free trips, but Oceania chess clubs starting off could well appreciate free equipment. Indeed, that was one of my problems in kicking Sydney CBD club was the hassle of getting equipment all the time. The same with the SEC, NSWCA took about 25 mins debating the issue to loan me equipment.

IF they do purchase from Brian ACE and prices are reasonable I have nothing against. At least he is putting the hard yards in getting the thing set up.

If only he would co-ordinate their big tourneys so one could do one tour of the whole area - but then again KB stated he was not good at fine detail.

AC you have completely missed the point. Moreover your analogy is a false analogy. Never argue by analogy unless you know what you are talking about.

DJ

antichrist
06-03-2012, 03:42 PM
AC you have completely missed the point. Moreover your analogy is a false analogy. Never argue by analogy unless you know what you are talking about.

DJ

FIDE have declared that Australia is part of Oceania but ACF wants to huff and puff and to dominate everythng instead of being a team player, the position that New Zealand has adopted.

Only this week Bob Carr announced he is going to NZ first to learn how to operate with Oceania countries in an appropriate manner - before he is even sworn in I believe. Another beaut analogy.

ACF may or may not like how Brian and rest of Oceania things are going but they have no choice but to be involved and constructive.

Denis_Jessop
06-03-2012, 03:46 PM
FIDE have declared that Australia is part of Oceania but ACF wants to huff and puff and to dominate everythng instead of being a team player, the position that New Zealand has adopted.

Only this week Bob Carr announced he is going to NZ first to learn how to operate with Oceania countries in an appropriate manner - before he is even sworn in I believe. Another beaut analogy.

ACF may or may not like how Brian and rest of Oceania things are going but they have no choice but to be involved and constructive.

You are doing much irrelevant huffing and puffing yourself to hide your total lack of understanding of the issues.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
06-03-2012, 03:51 PM
A slight correction to my post #41. The Minutes show that Bob Gibbons was appointed Auditor. But that is for the future.

The minutes also incorrectly say that the ACF has not paid its dues for 2011. The ACF owes nothing for 2011 as it was not a member in 2011. It is not a member in 2012 either.

DJ

antichrist
06-03-2012, 04:07 PM
A slight correction to my post #41. The Minutes show that Bob Gibbons was appointed Auditor. But that is for the future.

The minutes also incorrectly say that the ACF has not paid its dues for 2011. The ACF owes nothing for 2011 as it was not a member in 2011. It is not a member in 2012 either.

DJ

if big brother FIDE tells ACF that Austalia is a member will you keep the purse locked? NSWCA certainly jumped last time that FIDE was brought into the picture.

heligan
06-03-2012, 04:09 PM
My understanding (having talked to more than one of the participants) is that the meeting in Queenstown was very conciliatory towards Australia - as Keong has already said. I wonder, if the Minutes as published are a final approved version or just a draft? There is certainly no wish on the part of the kiwis to alienate the ozzies...

antichrist
06-03-2012, 04:12 PM
My understanding (having talked to more than one of the participants) is that the meeting in Queenstown was very conciliatory towards Australia - as Keong has already said. I wonder, if the Minutes as published are a final approved version or just a draft? There is certainly no wish on the part of the kiwis to alienate the ozzies...

Aus may have no choice to participate even with Brian as president, with long term view of replacing him when opportunity opens. Also do same with constitution.

Denis_Jessop
06-03-2012, 07:44 PM
My understanding (having talked to more than one of the participants) is that the meeting in Queenstown was very conciliatory towards Australia - as Keong has already said. I wonder, if the Minutes as published are a final approved version or just a draft? There is certainly no wish on the part of the kiwis to alienate the ozzies...

Certainly what Keong has told us is much more informative than what is to be found in the Minutes and also gives a different picture as you say. What Brian is now saying to us is quite the opposite - perhaps he speaks with forked tongue.

I am not suggesting any antagonism on NZ's part nor is there any on my part towards NZ..

As for AC's latest effort, there is no suggestion of replacing Brian. It's just that he seems to be quite out of his depth when trying to be involved in chess administration rather than event organisation at which he is very good, I believe.

As a result the constitutional basics of the OCC are a considerable mess and its ability to function properly is questionable at best. He would benefit from advice from someone who knows the basics. I've given him some (from a long history of organisational administration and administrative law) but he has rejected it. Keong's statement that it was said that the constitutional changes were suggested to meet some of the ACF's concerns is interesting because in fact the changes make the position worse, not better. You can't dragoon a body into another one without its consent. That applies to all the federations of Oceania. Moreover, it's a silly way to go about things just from a commonsense point of view.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
06-03-2012, 08:04 PM
FIDE have declared that Australia is part of Oceania

FIDE have declared that Australia is part of the Oceania Zone.

FIDE have not declared that Australia is part of the OCC.

The two are different.


but ACF wants to huff and puff and to dominate everythng instead of being a team player

We are more than happy to be team players when there are satisfactory rules by which the game is to be played.

At the moment what there is is a constitutional trainwreck waiting to happen and at least we can say we had the sense to stay off the track. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
06-03-2012, 08:12 PM
There is certainly no wish on the part of the kiwis to alienate the ozzies...

We appreciate that and I also received a message praising our draft from a representative from another Oceania nation.

It seems that the only people who want to alienate the Ozzies from the OCC are the Ozzies already on it.

Brian_Jones
07-03-2012, 10:07 AM
......We are more than happy to be team players when there are satisfactory rules by which the game is to be played. At the moment what there is is a constitutional trainwreck waiting to happen and at least we can say we had the sense to stay off the track. :lol:

As the President of FIDE Zone 3.6 (Oceania), it was my decision to operate through a formal organisation - the Oceania Chess Confederation (OCC) - with a bank account, statutes, ethical guidelines and regulations.

New Zealand, Fiji, Guam, Palau, PNG and Solomon Islands are OCC members and have been represented at meetings which adopted the statutes and made other decisions.

Australia has stayed aloof. It has not yet agreed to membership, has not sent anybody official to OCC meetings and has not yet submitted any formal proposals to change statutes or regulations.

Whilst some ACF officials might say they are team players, they have made very little effort in the past eighteen months to do so in practical terms.

On the one hand, OCC has adopted statutes and is willing to change them if the majority of members agree.

On the other hand, ACF does not want to join OCC or propose any changes formally.

So we have an impasse?

The OCC President is in office until October 2014 when a new Zone President will be elected in Tromso. The ACF President and Executive are in office until the AGM (probably at Norths Sydney) in January 2013.

Maybe we have to wait until one or the other stands down? Unless somebody has the skills to solve the chess puzzle before then? ;)

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2012, 10:33 AM
Australia has stayed aloof. It has not yet agreed to membership, has not sent anybody official to OCC meetings

Actually we sent an official representative to the so-called inaugural meetings of the OCC but he was explicitly not empowered to commit us to membership.


and has not yet submitted any formal proposals to change statutes or regulations.

It seems now that there is no point in the ACF officially doing so since you state that the OCC does not accept the concerns put to it by Denis and me. That is, assuming that statement by you is correct. If that statement is correct then the fact that the proposal was an informal one from ACF Exec members rather than a formalised ACF position is immaterial since the OCC is clearly not willing to change its statutes in a way that will encourage the ACF to take an interest and join.

As for the proposals we sent, were they discussed or even tabled at the meeting at all? Was any motion moved concerning them? Was any proposal to adopt any of them defeated? If there was discussion, why is it not minuted that this occurred? If there was not discussion, how do we know the OCC doesn't accept the concerns?

Brian_Jones
07-03-2012, 11:35 AM
As for the proposals we sent, were they discussed or even tabled at the meeting at all? Was any motion moved concerning them? Was any proposal to adopt any of them defeated? If there was discussion, why is it not minuted that this occurred? If there was not discussion, how do we know the OCC doesn't accept the concerns?

The email and attachment you sent were received by me in Queenstown (via Paul Spiller and the Millenium Hotel office) on the day preceding the OCC Meeting.


************************************************** ************************************************** **********************************
[email removed - published without sender's permission -KB]

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

Receipt of the email and attachment was noted at the OCC Meeting but was not able to be considered properly because it was submitted very late and with no official ACF standing.

I look forward to receiving a timely official response from the ACF in due course.

My comment about the relevance of ACF concerns was in reference to the OCC statutes now clearly stating the automatic membership procedures, that OCC Executive members are appointed by me (they are not elected!), are legally absolved by me (as the Official of FIDE) and that appeals against OCC decisions can be referred to FIDE.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________________

antichrist
07-03-2012, 11:43 AM
[removed-KB]

What does KB mean ""it does not make them members anyway""? Just like we are Australian by birth whether we apply for it or not.

Denis_Jessop
07-03-2012, 12:59 PM
Brian

As I see it you are doing next to nothing about attempting a sensible resolution of this matter. Trying now to take the line that everything must be official before you will do anything is merely an excuse for doing nothing. It is also a bit of a joke coming from one who is running such a ragbag organisation as the OCC.

Let me remind you of the unaudited annual accounts in contravention of the Statutes.

I remind you also that the so-called AGM of the OCC is no such thing as there is no provision in the OCC Constitution for an Annual General Meeting of the body. That, combined with Minutes that may not accurately reflect the proceedings, gives support to what I have already said in posts above.

As for your suggestions about who might step down, you may do so if you wish at any time.

But your observations about the ACF are somewhat awry. Even in the highly unlikely event of the whole Executive being replaced in 2013, it is still likely that the ACF would not support Australian membership of the OCC as there is no indication from anyone on the Council or, I think at the National Conference (unless you are there) that we should join as things stand at present.

I have done all that I can do to point out to you what the deficiencies in the OCC are. You have rejected my observations out-of-hand. If that is your attitude, to hell with you. There can be no resolution of this matter if you maintain an intransigent, uniformed and pig headed attitude. Some attempt to win friends rather than alienate potential supporters would reveal your human side, though I appreciate that subtlety and a sense of humour are not your strongest points. :)

DJ

Brian_Jones
07-03-2012, 01:16 PM
Denis, if you wish to continue making personal attacks against me, I suggest you send emails to brian@chessaustralia.com.au rather than continue to state your case on a public bulletin board where your flawed logic is there for all the world to see. :hand:

antichrist
07-03-2012, 03:38 PM
Denis, if you wish to continue making personal attacks against me, I suggest you send emails to brian@chessaustralia.com.au rather than continue to state your case on a public bulletin board where your flawed logic is there for all the world to see. :hand:

Brian, a lot of matters above raised by Denis are not personal but are related to how an organisation obtains it authority and under what rules and regulations it is administered. If the safeguards that Denis mentions are not there, it is wise to include them even if not required by FIDE or OCC. They are common sense and a tried and proven method of doing things properly when it comes to public monies and accountability.

There are many model constitutions around that could be adopted with very little trouble. You may carry out some such procedures but they must have the required authority. That way everything is above board, set in concrete and transparent - everyone can see at every state that everything is done properly.

I am sure that many bods are putting their hand up to assist, give a yell if not the case and they will come out of the woodwork.

You have ahd such wonderful success with SIO keep it up with OCC by crossing your Ts and dotting your Is

Denis_Jessop
07-03-2012, 03:45 PM
Denis, if you wish to continue making personal attacks against me, I suggest you send emails to brian@chessaustralia.com.au rather than continue to state your case on a public bulletin board where your flawed logic is there for all the world to see. :hand:

I have no intention of having anything to do with you while you maintain your current attitude. If you think my comments have been personal attacks, you are feigning a thin-skinned state that history suggests you don't have as well as failing to take account of the substance of what I say. As for flawed logic, I have yet to hear anything from you that substantiates that claim or, for that matter anything of substance from you addressing the issues raised by the ACF. If you could point out any flaws I'd be glad to consider them.

DJ

antichrist
07-03-2012, 08:25 PM
...................

My comment about the relevance of ACF concerns was in reference to the OCC statutes now clearly stating the automatic membership procedures, that OCC Executive members are appointed by me (they are not elected!), are legally absolved by me (as the Official of FIDE) and that appeals against OCC decisions can be referred to FIDE.
_________________________________

You sound exactly like the Pope

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2012, 08:33 PM
Receipt of the email and attachment was noted at the OCC Meeting but was not able to be considered properly because it was submitted very late and with no official ACF standing.

Firstly you said that the OCC does not accept our position and now you say that the OCC was not able to properly consider our position. These statements are verging on contradictory.

Either your first statement was false and the OCC has not decided it does not accept our view at all, or else your first statement was true, meaning that your failure to accept our view was based on a level of consideration that by your own admission is not proper.

Furthermore, you give two reasons for the submission not being considered properly, namely the time of submission and the lack of formal standing.

If the lack of formal standing is a conclusive objection to proper consideration of the document then the time of submission is irrelevant since you aren't going to consider it anyway.

If the lack of formal standing was not a conclusive objection then there was nothing to stop you initiating a process to consider it further following the meeting. Indeed you will note that my email said in part "I hope this draft will assist the OCC in considering how to proceed on the issue of its Statutes over time, especially assuming the OCC wishes the ACF to eventually join and become actively involved."

Especially given that a formal ACF position didn't eventuate at the time I was proposing, I wasn't expecting that our suggestions would be ratified immediately. But to formally press on with this silly charade about declaring us members when we are not is hardly a promising response.

The email you published of mine was published without my consent and I have therefore removed it pursuant to CC rules (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2494) which prevent the publication of emails not clearly in the public domain without permission. If you disagree with this action you may appeal it to another moderator. Failing that, I am happy for you to publish the email here [b]after asking for and receiving my permission and without undocumented alterations, however minor!

By the way, the email in question was in fact sent to seven OCC contacts including you at 1:44 am on 18 Jan, three days prior to the meeting.

ER
07-03-2012, 08:45 PM
A question for clarification purposes.
I understand that ACF has to abide by Australian law in terms of its constitutional (and/or other) function.
What is the situation in regards to similar functioning of an international body such as OCC?

Keong Ang
07-03-2012, 08:51 PM
A question for clarification purposes.
I understand that ACF has to abide by Australian law in terms of its constitutional (and/or other) function.
What is the situation in regards to similar functioning of an international body such as OCC?
From a non-lawyer's perspective, about the same as FIDE has to abide by Australian law... :hmm: :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2012, 08:53 PM
A question for clarification purposes.
I understand that ACF has to abide by Australian law in terms of its constitutional (and/or other) function.
What is the situation in regards to similar functioning of an international body such as OCC?

As far as I can tell the nearest thing to a law governing the OCC is that it is now accountable to FIDE (at least, if it wants to stay affiliated to FIDE) which is in turn currently governed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. That said FIDE is considering withdrawing from the CAS because of the costs damage inflicted in the Karpov 2010 lawsuits (which FIDE won but at huge cost) and another lawsuit about the number of FIDE vice-presidents.

Before the OCC was accepted by FIDE it was anyone's guess what law it was accountable to, if any.

Keong Ang
07-03-2012, 08:57 PM
You sound exactly like the Pope
NO!
That is not how the Pope sounds like.
Those are the sounds of a Bishop!!
:lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2012, 09:30 PM
What does KB mean ""it does not make them members anyway""? Just like we are Australian by birth whether we apply for it or not.

As we all know, analogies posted by antichrist are always useless and this one is no exception. The OCC is, according to FIDE, an organisation which represents the interests of a region. The best general political analogy would be a trade union. Thankfully in this country the membership of trade unions is now generally voluntary.

ER
07-03-2012, 09:32 PM
NO!
That is not how the Pope sounds like.
Those are the sounds of a Bishop!!
:lol: :lol:

a good or bad Bishop though? :doh: :owned: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2012, 09:48 PM
My comment about the relevance of ACF concerns was in reference to [..] that OCC Executive members are appointed by me (they are not elected!)

So supposing an officebearer was incompetent or corrupt but the President refused to sack them and FIDE wasn't interested, what could the PB do? Change the statutes to give it the right to sack the officebearer?

Can the statutes be changed by email vote? I can see no clear indication that they can't.

The changes we suggested to the procedure for electing officebearers were on the assumption that they would be elected. Appointing them instead does in its own way clarify matters relating to officebearers, but it raises new problems including a reduction in accountability to the PB.

Keong Ang
07-03-2012, 10:21 PM
Certainly what Keong has told us is much more informative than what is to be found in the Minutes and also gives a different picture as you say. What Brian is now saying to us is quite the opposite - perhaps he speaks with forked tongue.

I am not suggesting any antagonism on NZ's part nor is there any on my part towards NZ..

As for AC's latest effort, there is no suggestion of replacing Brian. It's just that he seems to be quite out of his depth when trying to be involved in chess administration rather than event organisation at which he is very good, I believe.
As a mere observer (who arrived late) I could not accurately differentiate between what was "official" and what was not. Now that the minutes have been published, we know how things officially stand.

As a result the constitutional basics of the OCC are a considerable mess and its ability to function properly is questionable at best. He would benefit from advice from someone who knows the basics. I've given him some (from a long history of organisational administration and administrative law) but he has rejected it. Keong's statement that it was said that the constitutional changes were suggested to meet some of the ACF's concerns is interesting because in fact the changes make the position worse, not better. You can't dragoon a body into another one without its consent. That applies to all the federations of Oceania. Moreover, it's a silly way to go about things just from a commonsense point of view.

DJ
The OCC constitution seems similar to that of a cut down version of the Asian Chess Federation constitution.
As far as membership goes, the AsianCF doesn't bother about whether a national federation consents to membership or not. The AsianCF also splits the federations into zones, of which Oceania (zone3.6) is one zone. It is not unprecedented to dragoon a body into another one without its consent. Seems to be the "normal" FIDE way. I keep getting the feeling that what we consider commonsense is not very common at all.

Admittedly, nobody at the meeting knows exactly what the ozzies wanted. There was nothing officially from the ACF to consider. Submissions from private individuals cannot be considered to be from the ACF. There was also nobody who could speak on behalf of the ACF. Observers have no "voice" beyond that of private individuals who are not members (got to be a zone3.6 federation to be a member). All this in the context of the length of time the ACF had to prepare.

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2012, 10:51 PM
Now that the minutes have been published, we know how things officially stand.

Actually that applies only once the minutes are confirmed by motion. Until then they are draft minutes.


Admittedly, nobody at the meeting knows exactly what the ozzies wanted. There was nothing officially from the ACF to consider. Submissions from private individuals cannot be considered to be from the ACF. There was also nobody who could speak on behalf of the ACF. Observers have no "voice" beyond that of private individuals who are not members (got to be a zone3.6 federation to be a member). All this in the context of the length of time the ACF had to prepare.

If Brian was really interested in getting the ACF to voluntarily join he'd realise that a position that is supported by both Denis and me and that was not objected to by any other Exec member (bearing in mind the Exec is six votes on a council of, on the best of days, thirteen) is extraordinarily likely to be approved and is a good basis for thinking about how to go about convincing the ACF to join.

We were initially looking at getting a list of proposed changes in order to ensure the ACF would join to Brian by the end of the year, giving a timeframe of just over two months from the Congress. The problem is that the OCC statutes and governance have been such a basket-case that the more you look in terms of problems the more you find, and redesigning the thing from the ground up to fix the problems is a complex drafting process that would take a long time.

While Denis had a draft containing numerous proposed changes as early as 9 Nov, only a few days after the discussion of the matter at an ACF Council meeting, it was never going to cover everything that might need exploring.

It's also important to note that on 27 Nov there were email discussions involving Denis, Brian and me, during which Brian was informed that a draft existed and Denis advised Brian of some issues on which his input might be necessary for further progress to be made. As of 22 Dec no further comment from Brian had been received.

I would have preferred that we got something to the OCC (i) officially and (ii) by the end of the year as originally intended (and as I still advised was our schedule in late November). Some matters can be slow to deal with by email when multiple people are involved. But we're not actually in any hurry on this anyway - it's the OCC that wants us to join, so anytime the OCC wants that to happen it has been given a fair idea of what sort of things the ACF officebearers with the strongest concerns about the matter want fixed.

Perhaps there would be value in a meeting between Brian and the ACF rather than expecting us to send exec members to a meeting of an organisation we don't actually belong to. But if the OCC is really determined to push ahead with declaring us to be members anyway then the whole thing is pointless.

Keong Ang
07-03-2012, 11:59 PM
So supposing an officebearer was incompetent or corrupt but the President refused to sack them and FIDE wasn't interested, what could the PB do? Change the statutes to give it the right to sack the officebearer?

Can the statutes be changed by email vote? I can see no clear indication that they can't.

The changes we suggested to the procedure for electing officebearers were on the assumption that they would be elected. Appointing them instead does in its own way clarify matters relating to officebearers, but it raises new problems including a reduction in accountability to the PB.
Maybe Denis could clarify this for me.
What kind of liability under Australian law would officebearers have in carrying out their OCC activities?
Are they personally liable?
My gut feeling is that it generally depends on where the OCC is domiciled and where the activities were carried out.

Regarding membership, I don't think those at the meeting were concerned about OCC membership being automatic to all Oceania zone federations. A realistic point of view since it is more a question of who were excluded and who were included. If a federation so desires to leave, it should simply be a matter of not paying the fees, that would lead to the federation's membership being excluded and membership rights being suspended.

What is the issue with the ACF anyway?
If OCC statutes are of concern, then the ACF obviously needs to send a delegate and get the other federations delegates to change things. You cannot accomplish much by complaining from outside.
If the ACF does not consider itself to be a member, communicating a simple "no thanks" should be sufficient to stop the OCC from bugging it.
At present it is hard for other Oceania federations to not perceive that the ACF is dysfunctional because it; (1) cannot decide if it is an OCC member, (2) cannot send a representative/delegate, (3) cannot decide what changes it wants.
Such a perception is hard to avoid when we consider the size and resources available to the ACF compared to the other federations. In the context of Queenstown, it is quite perplexing to be told that the ACF could not even appoint someone to be the official representative/delegate to act on it's behalf when there are so many ozzies in town.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2012, 12:53 AM
If a federation so desires to leave, it should simply be a matter of not paying the fees, that would lead to the federation's membership being excluded and membership rights being suspended.

That's not really an adequate solution. It takes too long to take effect, and even then the impression that is given is not that the federation deliberately left but that it was simply too slack to pay its dues.


What is the issue with the ACF anyway?
If OCC statutes are of concern, then the ACF obviously needs to send a delegate and get the other federations delegates to change things. You cannot accomplish much by complaining from outside.

Now, I took advice on this one from a locally successful political colleague (NB not my mother!) and her advice was absolutely the opposite - it was that joining an organisation you have issues with in the hope of changing it is futile, because the establishment within that organisation will always be able to take decisions within its existing structures that prevent you from achieving that change.

This is all especially an issue in a one nation, one vote structure. Australia makes up a very large proportion of chess activity in the region but the association representing the majority of active Oceania players would get no more say on the Policy Board than any very small Pacific federation that "joined". And with the latest statutes change in practice likely to increase the power of officeholders appointed directly by the President, and decrease the power of the Policy Board, the difference we could make is still further reduced.

The current situation is that the OCC, supposedly at least, wants the ACF involved. The ACF is willing to be involved but not without substantial statute change before we join. It's therefore not us who needs to work for anything. It is up to the OCC to make its structures satisfactory to us.


At present it is hard for other Oceania federations to not perceive that the ACF is dysfunctional because it; (1) cannot decide if it is an OCC member,

The view that there is indecision on this point stems solely from one ACF official at one stage mistakenly believing we had decided to join. Aside from that isolated incident we have been clear all along that we are not members and therefore any perception of the kind above is grossly unconnected to the facts.


(2) cannot send a representative/delegate,

Why should we always pay to send delegates to meetings of associations that we are not part of and that don't seem to be serious about encouraging us to join? We may do so sometime, but it shouldn't be assumed we will go out of our way to ensure we can attend.


Such a perception is hard to avoid when we consider the size and resources available to the ACF compared to the other federations. In the context of Queenstown, it is quite perplexing to be told that the ACF could not even appoint someone to be the official representative/delegate to act on it's behalf when there are so many ozzies in town.

Yeah right, pluck a random Australian off a Queenstown street corner, give them a quick refresher in Oceania chess politics and instruct them to sign away our rights. :lol:

At the ACF meeting in January it was mentioned that Brian wanted us to send an Executive member, to avoid the previous situation in which the only ACF person present was a non-Exec member with no power to approve anything and not in the Exec loop. We therefore approved a motion that if the ACF was to be represented at Queenstown it would be by an Executive member only (acting as a representative observer only). Between that meeting and the OCC meeting it transpired that there was no Exec member who was actually able to attend.

antichrist
08-03-2012, 12:56 AM
Maybe Denis could clarify this for me.
What kind of liability under Australian law would officebearers have in carrying out their OCC activities?
Are they personally liable?
My gut feeling is that it generally depends on where the OCC is domiciled and where the activities were carried out.

Regarding membership, I don't think those at the meeting were concerned about OCC membership being automatic to all Oceania zone federations. A realistic point of view since it is more a question of who were excluded and who were included. If a federation so desires to leave, it should simply be a matter of not paying the fees, that would lead to the federation's membership being excluded and membership rights being suspended.

What is the issue with the ACF anyway?
If OCC statutes are of concern, then the ACF obviously needs to send a delegate and get the other federations delegates to change things. You cannot accomplish much by complaining from outside.
If the ACF does not consider itself to be a member, communicating a simple "no thanks" should be sufficient to stop the OCC from bugging it.
At present it is hard for other Oceania federations to not perceive that the ACF is dysfunctional because it; (1) cannot decide if it is an OCC member, (2) cannot send a representative/delegate, (3) cannot decide what changes it wants.
Such a perception is hard to avoid when we consider the size and resources available to the ACF compared to the other federations. In the context of Queenstown, it is quite perplexing to be told that the ACF could not even appoint someone to be the official representative/delegate to act on it's behalf when there are so many ozzies in town.

Well Keong, maybe they were looking at the budget of ACF and considering how much a delegates trip would cost and whose turn it is.

Brian_Jones
08-03-2012, 08:27 AM
The OCC constitution seems similar to that of a cut down version of the Asian Chess Federation constitution. As far as membership goes, the AsianCF doesn't bother about whether a national federation consents to membership or not. The AsianCF also splits the federations into zones, of which Oceania (zone3.6) is one zone.

Exactly.

It is a matter of priorities. OCC has decided that its main priorities are the development and promotion of chess in Oceania. ACF's main priorities appear to be legal and constitutional correctness.

Remember this is not a Brian Jones v Denis Jessop/Kevin Bonham show. There are other people (not on this bulletin board) who have strong opinions.

MichaelBaron
08-03-2012, 09:56 AM
In the meantime, how is it possible to have an Oceanian Chess Federation without Australia being a memeber? Sounds like a UN without USA, Russia and China:) !

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2012, 10:29 AM
There are other people (not on this bulletin board) who have strong opinions.

Ah yes. One of those is on the other "bulletin board" where he unsuccessfully attempts to advance his cause by "leaking" ACF internal documents about the OCC that he should never have been sent in the first place and that in one case are explicitly marked as not to be published. Not only do his attempts to embarrass the ACF fail grotesquely because the material being leaked is generally harmless and those reading it over there are generally much too stupid or lazy to even understand it, but they do less than nothing to encourage the ACF to cooperate with the OCC in any way.

We don't have any concerns about the AsianCF based on experience and have chosen to pay membership fees to it when invoiced. In the OCC's case while there is a lot of in-principle support for the concept there are also a lot of concerns about the execution and the procedural shoddiness on display thus far indicates we are right to hold those. That is one of the reasons why we consider it reasonable that members should be able to enter at will and leave at will. Otherwise we are just a lone "big fish" on a (de-fanged anyway) Policy Board with little ability to ensure good governance in an organisation we would be stuck with being a member of and not even the ability to quit.

Why does the OCC have such a problem with the idea of voluntary membership? I would have thought a certain self-styled libertarian involved with the process would have been all for it! :eek:

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2012, 10:56 AM
In the meantime, how is it possible to have an Oceanian Chess Federation without Australia being a memeber?

Hasn't stopped them getting a budget line from FIDE so good luck to them! :lol:

Denis_Jessop
08-03-2012, 12:00 PM
Exactly.

It is a matter of priorities. OCC has decided that its main priorities are the development and promotion of chess in Oceania. ACF's main priorities appear to be legal and constitutional correctness.

Remember this is not a Brian Jones v Denis Jessop/Kevin Bonham show. There are other people (not on this bulletin board) who have strong opinions.

Clearly the ACF needs to be sure that the body it may join is properly established and functional and so that is its first priority. Were it an OCC member there is much that the ACF might wish to say about the way in which the OCC is purportedly developing and promoting chess in Oceania. For example, holding tournaments for the benefit of Australian mid-range players is not necessarily the best way to benefit Oceania.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
08-03-2012, 12:14 PM
Maybe Denis could clarify this for me.
What kind of liability under Australian law would officebearers have in carrying out their OCC activities?
Are they personally liable?
My gut feeling is that it generally depends on where the OCC is domiciled and where the activities were carried out.

This is one aspect of a matter that I raised about the status of the OCC. I am not an expert on either commercial law or private international law but I see issues in both areas that the OCC needs to be concerned about. It, and its members, also need to be concerned that the OCC is unincorporated so that should it incur substantial debts, there is no limit on the liability of the members.

I cannot see why an office bearer who acted unlawfully would not be personally liable.

DJ

antichrist
08-03-2012, 12:21 PM
This is one aspect of a matter that I raised about the status of the OCC. I am not an expert on either commercial law or private international law but I see issues in both areas that the OCC needs to be concerned about. It, and its members, also need to be concerned that the OCC is unincorporated so that should it incur substantial debts, there is no limit on the liability of the members.

I cannot see why an office bearer who acted unlawfully would not be personally liable.

DJ

esp so now coz NSW owners corporations volunteer office bearers are also personally responsible if they fail to do their job responsibly. Watch this space

peter_parr
08-03-2012, 12:23 PM
The minutes also incorrectly say that the ACF has not paid its dues for 2011. The ACF owes nothing for 2011 as it was not a member in 2011. It is not a member in 2012 either.
DJ

The Australian Chess Federation which has 74% of the total number of FIDE rated players in Oceania is not and never has been a member of the Oceania Chess Confederation.

There are seven countries listed by the Confederation as geographically in Oceania.

How is it possible to have a President of Oceania Chess Confederation as a person from a federation which is not and never has been a member of the Oceania Chess Confederation?

The Oceania Chess Confederation will be awarding Oceania titles in a Sydney,

Australia tournament in a few months time.

Will the titles be awarded by OCC only to players from countries that are affiliated to Oceania Chess Confederation?

The formation of Oceania Chess Confederation without the Australian Chess Federation is absurd in my opinion.

Denis_Jessop
08-03-2012, 12:28 PM
My comment about the relevance of ACF concerns was in reference to the OCC statutes now clearly stating the automatic membership procedures, that OCC Executive members are appointed by me (they are not elected!), are legally absolved by me (as the Official of FIDE) and that appeals against OCC decisions can be referred to FIDE.

This is a slightly misleading statement. There is nothing in the Statutes about the appointment, tenure etc of the Deputy President, Secretary or Treasurer. The President has no right to appoint them.

The Statutes do provide that the two additional EB members are appointed by the President though they were in fact appointed by the inaugural meeting. Stalinesque though that may be it was not a matter of concern identified in my paper.

DJ

MichaelBaron
08-03-2012, 03:59 PM
Hasn't stopped them getting a budget line from FIDE so good luck to them! :lol:

I assume that Brian's job is not a paid one :)

jammo
08-03-2012, 07:51 PM
Exactly.

It is a matter of priorities. OCC has decided that its main priorities are the development and promotion of chess in Oceania. ACF's main priorities appear to be legal and constitutional correctness.

Remember this is not a Brian Jones v Denis Jessop/Kevin Bonham show. There are other people (not on this bulletin board) who have strong opinions.

It is clear from the above, and this discussion in general, that Mr.Jones has little understanding of how to set up and run an organisation properly and, as such, is clearly ideally qualified to hold a high FIDE post.

I learnt many years ago that the best option was to avoid any dealings with Mr.Jones.

I note that the latest issue of his magazine has an advertisement for the OCC which states " Current FIDE member countries are: Australian, Fiji ...".
I'm inclined to believe Denis and Kevin that Australia is not a member. Probably "Australian" is not either.

Cheers,
Jammo

Brian_Jones
09-03-2012, 08:13 AM
Why does the OCC have such a problem with the idea of voluntary membership?

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!

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

antichrist
09-03-2012, 08:50 AM
Brian has turned the corner and now we are getting somewhere. He has thrown the ball back into ACF's court and they must now get off their backside and deliver the goods.

Brian if there is any way I can help out just yell.

Mohammed has gone to the Mountain


The Pope has left the Vatican

Denis_Jessop
09-03-2012, 11:44 AM
Brian has turned the corner and now we are getting somewhere. He has thrown the ball back into ACF's court and they must now get off their backside and deliver the goods.

Brian if there is any way I can help out just yell.

Mohammed has gone to the Mountain


The Pope has left the Vatican

Far from it. He has gratuitously abused the ACF Executive while inviting it to draft Statutes for the OCC. Had he told the ACF of his proposal to form the OCC and invited it to assist him in the task of drafting the Statutes, a task for which he clearly had and has no ability, he may have had a favourable response. By now, he may have gone too far for that. After all, why should the ACF salvage his shipwreck?

Moreover, on a second look at Brian's contention that he now can appoint the Office Bearers as a result of amendments made in January 2012, I can say he is plainly wrong. It's such an authoritarian concept that I'm surprised that he even countenances it. Perhaps he has been pressed into it.

DJ

Keong Ang
09-03-2012, 03:03 PM
This is one aspect of a matter that I raised about the status of the OCC. I am not an expert on either commercial law or private international law but I see issues in both areas that the OCC needs to be concerned about. It, and its members, also need to be concerned that the OCC is unincorporated so that should it incur substantial debts, there is no limit on the liability of the members.

I cannot see why an office bearer who acted unlawfully would not be personally liable.

DJ
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.

Keong Ang
09-03-2012, 03:10 PM
This is a slightly misleading statement. There is nothing in the Statutes about the appointment, tenure etc of the Deputy President, Secretary or Treasurer. The President has no right to appoint them.

The Statutes do provide that the two additional EB members are appointed by the President though they were in fact appointed by the inaugural meeting. Stalinesque though that may be it was not a matter of concern identified in my paper.

DJ
Actually the Statutes (6.3 & 10.1) does empower the President to appoint the entire EB... :hmm:

The Oceania Zone3.6 president, as determined by the AsianCF is automatically the president of OCC.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2012, 03:54 PM
Actually the Statutes (6.3 & 10.1) does empower the President to appoint the entire EB... :hmm:I think you will find Denis was referring to the 2011 version of the Statutes before they were changed in January 2012.

Keong Ang
09-03-2012, 04:08 PM
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!

************************************************** ************************************************** ****************
Brian, whatever you think about voluntary membership or changing statutes to suit, it all has still got to be approved by the members of the OCC.
Only members can vote on statute changes and you need two thirds of the votes cast for a statute to change.
The members being the national federations within zone3.6.

Proposals must come from member federations and be received by the OCC secretariat at least 2 weeks before the meeting.

As the current OCC president, you need to be aware that at the very least the other OCC member federations expect to be properly consulted on the merits of any proposals before being asked to vote on it. The expectation is that proposals come from fellow member federations in accordance to proper procedure as stated in the statutes. This is the exclusive power of the Policy Board of the OCC.

As the statutes in force stand, only member federations have the power to propose amendments to statutes. All proposals from other bodies or individuals or officers are disregarded due to being invalid. This includes any amendments proposed by the president!

Therefore, it is pointless to ask a non-member federations (let alone individuals) to draft statutes, unless you can get a member federation to make the proposal. Even then you need to get two thirds majority to amend the current statutes.

Keong Ang
09-03-2012, 04:19 PM
I think you will find Denis was referring to the 2011 version of the Statutes before they were changed in January 2012.
Thank you. You've just saved me a lot of puzzling.
Pity I didn't read your post before making my previous one....

Denis_Jessop
09-03-2012, 04:31 PM
Actually the Statutes (6.3 & 10.1) does empower the President to appoint the entire EB... :hmm:

The Oceania Zone3.6 president, as determined by the AsianCF is automatically the president of OCC.


I see now the provision in 6.3. But how did it get there? The Minutes of the meeting make no reference to the provision. It is hardly likely that such an important (and repugnant) amendment would have been overlooked by the minute taker. Amendment of the Statutes is an important matter requiring notice and a special majority. So what really happened?

It seems that something is truly rotten in the State of the OCC.

DJ

Keong Ang
09-03-2012, 09:54 PM
I see now the provision in 6.3. But how did it get there? The Minutes of the meeting make no reference to the provision. It is hardly likely that such an important (and repugnant) amendment would have been overlooked by the minute taker. Amendment of the Statutes is an important matter requiring notice and a special majority. So what really happened?

It seems that something is truly rotten in the State of the OCC.

DJ
I have the impression that the statutes were proposed by NZL on 1 January 2012 for the OCC Policy Board to ratify. Who actually drafted them I don't know, but NZCF is officially the federation that proposed all the statutes.
After four changes as listed in the minutes were made, the statutes were unanimously adopted by all member federations.

I think the fact that the entire EB would be appointed by the president was intentional. It is to prevent the formation of an OCC executive that is hostile to the president. This takes into account that the Oceania Zone president is automatically the president of OCC. Since the Oceania zone president's position is part of the Asian Continental zone president's ticket, this makes it necessary to ensure the OCC executive does not become dysfunctional after the Asian continental zone general assembly. The most practical means of accomplishing this is for the OCC president to appoint the entire EB.
This way the OCC president would have no grounds to complain about executive officers working against him. ;)

The statutes did have more than sufficient notice to all member federations. They were also adopted by the required two thirds majority vote. In fact, if AUS continues to deny their own membership, the statutes were adopted by all members.

I did observe that the kiwis were wondering why the ozzies (as in ACF) did not even want to participate. From what I observed, if the ACF delegate was present, ACF influence would be overwhelming. Effectively, the ACF, by virtue of size and resources would for all practical purposes have at least veto power (more likely the power to set and drive the agenda). A lot of kiwis were rather incredulous that the ozzies decided to score an own goal in the formation of the OCC.

The OCC statutes effectively hobbles the powers of the Oceania Zone president. The "nightmare scenario" non AUS Oceania zone federations have is that of a zone president that is very cohesive with the ACF. Such an alliance could be detrimental to the interests of the other federations. I think the other federations just couldn't believe their luck that the ACF would choose to not advance their interest in the OCC.

Denis_Jessop
09-03-2012, 11:03 PM
I have the impression that the statutes were proposed by NZL on 1 January 2012 for the OCC Policy Board to ratify. Who actually drafted them I don't know, but NZCF is officially the federation that proposed all the statutes.
After four changes as listed in the minutes were made, the statutes were unanimously adopted by all member federations.

I think the fact that the entire EB would be appointed by the president was intentional. It is to prevent the formation of an OCC executive that is hostile to the president. This takes into account that the Oceania Zone president is automatically the president of OCC. Since the Oceania zone president's position is part of the Asian Continental zone president's ticket, this makes it necessary to ensure the OCC executive does not become dysfunctional after the Asian continental zone general assembly. The most practical means of accomplishing this is for the OCC president to appoint the entire EB.
This way the OCC president would have no grounds to complain about executive officers working against him. ;)

The statutes did have more than sufficient notice to all member federations. They were also adopted by the required two thirds majority vote. In fact, if AUS continues to deny their own membership, the statutes were adopted by all members.

I did observe that the kiwis were wondering why the ozzies (as in ACF) did not even want to participate. From what I observed, if the ACF delegate was present, ACF influence would be overwhelming. Effectively, the ACF, by virtue of size and resources would for all practical purposes have at least veto power (more likely the power to set and drive the agenda). A lot of kiwis were rather incredulous that the ozzies decided to score an own goal in the formation of the OCC.

The OCC statutes effectively hobbles the powers of the Oceania Zone president. The "nightmare scenario" non AUS Oceania zone federations have is that of a zone president that is very cohesive with the ACF. Such an alliance could be detrimental to the interests of the other federations. I think the other federations just couldn't believe their luck that the ACF would choose to not advance their interest in the OCC.

A couple of brief comments.

First, clearly the appointment provision would have been intentional. Its reasons are probably as you say which makes the OCC EB merely the puppet of the President. There may also be other reasons but I won't go into them here. The provision is obnoxious in the extreme. But the point is that the minutes contain no reference to the amendment of cl. 6.3 so unless the minutes are messed up the provision was not properly adopted or, in fact, adopted at all. Thus it should not be in the Statutes.

Note that the general motion


4.3 The revised OCC Statutes dated 1 January 2012 (as amended 21/1/2012) were adopted. Proposed: by New Zealand. Seconded: by Fiji. Carried unanimously

is not effective for the purpose as it refers to the Statutes as amended on 21/1/2012 which does not include cl.6.3. If the revised 6.3 were included in the 1 January 2012 document referred to in the minute I do not believe that the general motion would have properly picked it up. Sadly, this seems to be just another example of the ramshackle way in which the OCC (not to mention FIDE generally) operates.

Incidentally, if the other federations are happier without the ACF being involved, that may provide the ideal solution but, if so, Brian will have to stop pretending that the ACF is a member.

The matter of the ACF's non-attendance has. I think been answered elsewhere. To restate it, the ACF Council resolved that an ACF Executive officer should attend as an observer only but, in the upshot none of the Executive was able to attend. I can't speak for anyone but myself. In my case I had no passport, not enough money and an injured knee that has hampered me for months much to my extreme annoyance so there was no way I could get there.

DJ

antichrist
09-03-2012, 11:43 PM
A couple of brief comments.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,The matter of the ACF's non-attendance has. I think been answered elsewhere. To restate it, the ACF Council resolved that an ACF Executive officer should attend as an observer only but, in the upshot none of the Executive was able to attend. I can't speak for anyone but myself. In my case I had no passport, not enough money and an injured knee that has hampered me for months much to my extreme annoyance so there was no way I could get there.

DJ

Now that subsidy that went elsewhere would have much better spent transporting ACF legal officer to NZ. Airfares weren't that much anyway and I am sure DJ could have been billited with chess fanatics over there and played all night anyway. Probably no more that $1000 with change for grog

MichaelBaron
09-03-2012, 11:44 PM
All these constitutional issues are ''facinating'' but I am far more curious about what's happening with the money that Fide is allocating for Oceania (if some money is indeed getting allocated). If its possible to get some money out of Fide or some money is coming our way already - I assume the money is/will be controlled not by a self-proclaimed confederation but by the member countries (Aus Included)

antichrist
09-03-2012, 11:48 PM
Quote:
[Originally Posted by antichrist]
Brian, is it possible for the Oceania islands to time their big tourneys in succession in a logical geographical order so one island hop in one direction and not in circles.? I know it is expecting miracles. It should benefit all their tourneys with more OS players and title chances and prize money.


No.


AC
Well it could have put on the agenda for consideration - that answer sounds like an unilateral pope answer

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2012, 11:51 AM
All these constitutional issues are ''facinating'' but I am far more curious about what's happening with the money that Fide is allocating for Oceania (if some money is indeed getting allocated).

Check the documents at http://www.oceaniachess.com/?a=history . You'll see that so far there's been a FIDE grant of $5000 US which was mostly spent on travel.

Keong Ang
10-03-2012, 01:48 PM
A couple of brief comments.

First, clearly the appointment provision would have been intentional. Its reasons are probably as you say which makes the OCC EB merely the puppet of the President. There may also be other reasons but I won't go into them here. The provision is obnoxious in the extreme. But the point is that the minutes contain no reference to the amendment of cl. 6.3 so unless the minutes are messed up the provision was not properly adopted or, in fact, adopted at all. Thus it should not be in the Statutes.

Note that the general motion



is not effective for the purpose as it refers to the Statutes as amended on 21/1/2012 which does not include cl.6.3. If the revised 6.3 were included in the 1 January 2012 document referred to in the minute I do not believe that the general motion would have properly picked it up. Sadly, this seems to be just another example of the ramshackle way in which the OCC (not to mention FIDE generally) operates.

Incidentally, if the other federations are happier without the ACF being involved, that may provide the ideal solution but, if so, Brian will have to stop pretending that the ACF is a member.
I don't know what could be the issue is with the general motion. Proposed statutes were presented on 1/1/2012 (i.e. every clause), they were all passed except for amendments made during the meeting (minuted as 21/1/2012).
I think the minutes quite accurately describe what occurred. NZL proposed the statutes, after some discussion, they were all accepted, except for the 4 changes. It is clear that the statutes adopted were the proposed statutes of 1/1/2012 with only 4 amendments made on 21/1/2012. All previous statutes have been wiped by the Policy Board. The only statutes in force now are the one proposed on 1/1/2012 and adopted after 4 changes were made on 21/1/2012.

My feeling is that the other federations were generally welcoming towards the prospect of the ACF being fully involved in the OCC. However with the ACF's absence, it was too good an opportunity to pass to ensure the ACF cannot dominate the OCC in the future.

The matter of the ACF's non-attendance has. I think been answered elsewhere. To restate it, the ACF Council resolved that an ACF Executive officer should attend as an observer only but, in the upshot none of the Executive was able to attend. I can't speak for anyone but myself. In my case I had no passport, not enough money and an injured knee that has hampered me for months much to my extreme annoyance so there was no way I could get there.

DJ
It is a pity that the ACF did not send a delegate. To send an observer is simply a waste of effort. To put it plainly (my unofficial view), the kiwis were put on the spot to represent ozzie interests without knowing what the ozzies really wanted. This is neither easy nor comfortable when there are ozzies in the meeting that have votes!

Keong Ang
10-03-2012, 02:05 PM
All these constitutional issues are ''facinating'' but I am far more curious about what's happening with the money that Fide is allocating for Oceania (if some money is indeed getting allocated). If its possible to get some money out of Fide or some money is coming our way already - I assume the money is/will be controlled not by a self-proclaimed confederation but by the member countries (Aus Included)
The OCC is receiving grant money out of FIDE, through the AsianCF.
From what I gather, the grants are being used to run OCC events around Oceania.
Most costs associated with running events in Oceania can be associated with travel. People and equipment need to be transported and accommodated.

From a kiwi point of view, it is much better to have the money our federation pays to FIDE come back to the OCC than to go direct to other federations within Oceania. At least this way, we get some benefit by having some money return to events in our own country rather than everything being moved to other Oceania countries. It is a pragmatic calculation of how much we pay FIDE versus how much we could get back via OCC versus nothing outside OCC.

Keong Ang
10-03-2012, 02:49 PM
Check the documents at http://www.oceaniachess.com/?a=history . You'll see that so far there's been a FIDE grant of $5000 US which was mostly spent on travel.
One thing that was put into the "too hard" basket by the delegates is what to do with member federations whose membership is temporarily suspended under 11.6.b
"The Treasurer shall bill all the affiliated federations for the annual membership fees. If any member is one year in arrears, their membership will be temporarily suspended."

Usually within the FIDE universe, this practically means players from suspended federations cannot win. A player from a federation that had membership suspended would be treated the same as a player from a non-member federation.

Right now we have a zone president that keeps the distinction between Oceania zone and OCC. Therefore all titles and prizes reserved for Oceania players can still be won by nonOCC players, as long as they are deemed to be from Oceania zone3.6 (currently done too freely).
This loose interpretation by the current zone president (Brian!) would eventually need to be tidied up. Since the OCC is now the controlling body that organises all Oceania zone events, shouldn't it be correctly interpreted that the "Oceania only" titles and prizes from these events should only be able to be won by players from OCC member federations with full membership rights?
To put it in plainly, the Oceania Champion must come from a federation that is a full OCC member.

From what I gather from informal talk after the meeting, it is easy to solve this "disqualified player" problem by making that zone3.6 federation a full OCC member. Just pay the membership fees. Fairly easy to do, just hand over the cash to the OCC treasurer (usually done during Doeberl cup). In practice, to avoid bank charges, most OCC federations just get somebody to hand over the cash to the OCC treasurer and that federation is fully paid up.
A player could obtain the rights of an Oceania player by simply paying up for their "delinquent federation" instead of the more difficult process of trying to obtain "special priviledges" that could be challenged.

Denis_Jessop
10-03-2012, 03:50 PM
I don't know what could be the issue is with the general motion. Proposed statutes were presented on 1/1/2012 (i.e. every clause), they were all passed except for amendments made during the meeting (minuted as 21/1/2012).
I think the minutes quite accurately describe what occurred. NZL proposed the statutes, after some discussion, they were all accepted, except for the 4 changes. It is clear that the statutes adopted were the proposed statutes of 1/1/2012 with only 4 amendments made on 21/1/2012. All previous statutes have been wiped by the Policy Board. The only statutes in force now are the one proposed on 1/1/2012 and adopted after 4 changes were made on 21/1/2012.

My feeling is that the other federations were generally welcoming towards the prospect of the ACF being fully involved in the OCC. However with the ACF's absence, it was too good an opportunity to pass to ensure the ACF cannot dominate the OCC in the future.

It is a pity that the ACF did not send a delegate. To send an observer is simply a waste of effort. To put it plainly (my unofficial view), the kiwis were put on the spot to represent ozzie interests without knowing what the ozzies really wanted. This is neither easy nor comfortable when there are ozzies in the meeting that have votes!

The ACF was, and is, not an OCC member so there was no question of sending a delegate.

As for the EB, let's assume that 6.3 is as now printed. The issue is whether such a provision is acceptable. Clearly it is not. It says little for an organisation if its President is so fearful of criticism that he has to appoint all his advisors. That sort of thing is the norm in totalitarian countries. The best similarity I can think of in the present case is Benito Mussolini. Henceforth you can refer to Brian Jones as Il Duce. If the motives of the other federations were as you say, it seems clear that they are not interested in ACF participation in the OCC and that may be the best way to leave it. Austraila's interests would seem best served by its membership of the Asian Federation.

DJ

Keong Ang
10-03-2012, 05:10 PM
The ACF was, and is, not an OCC member so there was no question of sending a delegate.
There are times that I think the kiwis wished there was an official ozzie delegate to keep the other ozzies in check. ;)

As for the EB, let's assume that 6.3 is as now printed. The issue is whether such a provision is acceptable. Clearly it is not. It says little for an organisation if its President is so fearful of criticism that he has to appoint all his advisors. That sort of thing is the norm in totalitarian countries. The best similarity I can think of in the present case is Benito Mussolini. Henceforth you can refer to Brian Jones as Il Duce. If the motives of the other federations were as you say, it seems clear that they are not interested in ACF participation in the OCC and that may be the best way to leave it. Austraila's interests would seem best served by its membership of the Asian Federation.

DJ
My impression is that the OCC now reflects the reality that it is the body that the zone president operates through. Wasn't it the Asian Federation (as well as FIDE) that wanted Oceania to have a body that operated for the whole oceania zone?
In practice the OCC just formalises what is already happening. Essentially the OCC does everything that the zone president had already been doing alone. The zone president already chooses who he wishes to work with. The OCC as a body in practise only has the powers the zone president gives it. I'm assuming the zone president is the person who has powers that spans the entire zone, national federations only have powers within their boundaries.

Isn't the Oceania zone president usually elected by the majority of the federations from the zone during the AsianCF general assembly anyway?
Effectively the OCC EB is the zone president's ticket. That is the same system that the AsianCF operates under. Due to the intent of making sure the OCC president and zone president is always the same person, the wording makes the election of the zone president the same as that of the OCC executive ticket.
Why do you consider this totalitarian? I always thought our countries are democracies and not totalitarian states. We elect our representatives, who then choose a leader, who then appoints his/her own cabinet(executive). What we have is an analogous system, each national federation (constituency) sends a delegate(representative) who chooses the zone president(prime minister) who then appoints the OCC EB(cabinet). Are we living in totalitarian countries?
The wording of 6.3 was made necessary by 6.1. We cannot alter the statutes of the AsianCF so cannot vote on a zone presidential ticket during the Asian general assembly. We just cannot allow a situation to develop where the elected zone president gets a hostile OCC EB that would make OCC dysfunctional.

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2012, 09:50 PM
This loose interpretation by the current zone president (Brian!) would eventually need to be tidied up.

Not a loose interpretation at all in my view.


Since the OCC is now the controlling body that organises all Oceania zone events,

Really? It was accepted by FIDE as an affiliated organisation to advance the interests of chess in the region. There was nothing in the FIDE decision (which was incredibly brief) to say that it was being accepted as a controlling organisation. If the Oceania Zone President chooses to organise all the events he would normally organise through it then that is his prerogative. But it doesn't follow automatically.

Now, if the OCC president really wanted to get nasty he could try to ban us from participating in Oceania events at all unless we joined the OCC. I can think of no end of similarly nasty responses we could employ if it ever came to that, so hopefully no-one is going to be so silly.


It says little for an organisation if its President is so fearful of criticism that he has to appoint all his advisors.

I doubt he fears criticism anywhere near as much as he fears working out an adequate electoral procedure.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the OCC Pres appointing officebearers provided there is a mechanism for the PB to easily sack any found to be incompetent, insufficiently active or corrupt.

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2012, 10:05 PM
Why do you consider this totalitarian? I always thought our countries are democracies and not totalitarian states. We elect our representatives, who then choose a leader, who then appoints his/her own cabinet(executive).

In Australia the leader indeed appoints their own cabinet but the cabinet is drawn from elected representatives, or at least in the case of Senate vacancies from representatives appointed by parties that received popular support. In the case of the OCC the officeholders do not need to be representatives. The EB can be anyone. A closer analogy is the US presidential system.

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2012, 10:09 PM
In Australia the leader indeed appoints their own cabinet but the cabinet is drawn from elected representatives, or at least in the case of Senate vacancies from representatives appointed by parties that received popular support. In the case of the OCC the officeholders do not need to be representatives. The EB can be anyone. A closer analogy is the US presidential system.Even then many Presidential appointments require US Senate confirmation.

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2012, 10:32 PM
Even then many Presidential appointments require US Senate confirmation.

Yes and also the President can be impeached.

Keong Ang
11-03-2012, 08:12 AM
Not a loose interpretation at all in my view.

Really? It was accepted by FIDE as an affiliated organisation to advance the interests of chess in the region. There was nothing in the FIDE decision (which was incredibly brief) to say that it was being accepted as a controlling organisation. If the Oceania Zone President chooses to organise all the events he would normally organise through it then that is his prerogative. But it doesn't follow automatically.
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!

Now, if the OCC president really wanted to get nasty he could try to ban us from participating in Oceania events at all unless we joined the OCC. I can think of no end of similarly nasty responses we could employ if it ever came to that, so hopefully no-one is going to be so silly.
I think the present problem is that he allows non Oceania players to fully participate in Oceania events (i.e. able to win the championship). Also there are championship regulations put into place that are not synced with FIDE.

The trouble could potentially come from situations where AUS players are allowed into OCC events, but then be denied IM/FM title due to the AUS not being a non-member federation. How would the ACF explain the situation to the players then?

I doubt he fears criticism anywhere near as much as he fears working out an adequate electoral procedure.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the OCC Pres appointing officebearers provided there is a mechanism for the PB to easily sack any found to be incompetent, insufficiently active or corrupt.
The only officebearer that the PB would really need to easily sack if found to be incompetent, insufficiently active or corrupt is the OCC president. That is impossible to accomplish within the OCC due to the person having to be the same as the Oceania zone president. Any competent, active or not corrupt president would sort out the other officebearers much more efficiently than the PB ever could. The formula is simple, get the correct person to be the zone president during the AsianCF general assembly.

Whatever we say or agree on here carries no weight. During the OCC meeting, observers like me may as well be invisible. You need to be a delegate of a member federation to have any influence. What I observe (IMHO) is that an ACF delegate would be very useful to counter the power of the zone president. Instead what we have is a situation where the most important federation in the zone has abstained from being involved in any decisions that could affect the entire zone in the future.

Denis_Jessop
11-03-2012, 12:41 PM
The argument that the delegates of other federations were happy with 6.3 because it prevented Australian dominance is fatally flawed. Were the ACF to be a member it would have only one vote and so be in no position to dominate any election for offices.

The comparison with the Asian Federation's ticket system is also fallacious. There a person standing for election as Asian President does so on a combined ticket presented at least 3 months before the election. Thus the President and the office bearers are elected together. Under 6.3 the office bearers are not elected but are unilateral appointments. This is a totalitarian, totally undemocratic, process.

Analogies with Cabinet appointments are of little merit. For example, in Australia a Cabinet Minister cannot hold office for more than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the house of representatives (Constitution s.64). Thus cabinet ministers are drawn from those elected by the people or in rare cases appointed by a State Parliament to fill a casual Senate vacancy (Constitution s.15). The US position depends on a strict view of the separation of powers but even there, as Bill has pointed out, executive appointments require Senate approval.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2012, 03:38 PM
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."

That's just a "motherhood statement" that could be interpreted to mean pretty much anything. In context it appears as a lead-in to a requirement to supply certain information annually.


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.

Doesn't necessarily follow. And indeed there is nothing to say that FIDE may accept only one such body in any area.


The trouble could potentially come from situations where AUS players are allowed into OCC events, but then be denied IM/FM title due to the AUS not being a non-member federation. How would the ACF explain the situation to the players then?

In terms of the titles the OCC proposes to award additional to the existing Zonal Championships, I think the ACF will actually be very concerned if such titles get off the ground and may well discourage its players from seeking them in the first place. The title system is compromised enough here as it is.


The only officebearer that the PB would really need to easily sack if found to be incompetent, insufficiently active or corrupt is the OCC president.

Perhaps, but as you note that isn't possible. Better therefore to be able to sack some officebearers than none at all.


What I observe (IMHO) is that an ACF delegate would be very useful to counter the power of the zone president. Instead what we have is a situation where the most important federation in the zone has abstained from being involved in any decisions that could affect the entire zone in the future.

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.

Keong Ang
12-03-2012, 09:28 AM
The argument that the delegates of other federations were happy with 6.3 because it prevented Australian dominance is fatally flawed. Were the ACF to be a member it would have only one vote and so be in no position to dominate any election for offices.

The comparison with the Asian Federation's ticket system is also fallacious. There a person standing for election as Asian President does so on a combined ticket presented at least 3 months before the election. Thus the President and the office bearers are elected together. Under 6.3 the office bearers are not elected but are unilateral appointments. This is a totalitarian, totally undemocratic, process.

Analogies with Cabinet appointments are of little merit. For example, in Australia a Cabinet Minister cannot hold office for more than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the house of representatives (Constitution s.64). Thus cabinet ministers are drawn from those elected by the people or in rare cases appointed by a State Parliament to fill a casual Senate vacancy (Constitution s.15). The US position depends on a strict view of the separation of powers but even there, as Bill has pointed out, executive appointments require Senate approval.

DJ
How does somebody become Oceania zone president anyway?

AsianCF and FIDE statutes state that normally it is the choice of the majority of the federations in the zone that is expressed during the general assembly. I have still not found where the qualification requirements for the position (eg. belonging to a federation within the zone etc.) are listed and doubt it even exists.

With AUS having only a single vote in FIDE and AsianCF, hasn't the Oceania zone president always been AUS?

Despite all the officiousness of the OCC, it is practically a body run by volunteers. As is typical of most volunteer run organisations, elections to executive positions are really "conscriptions". National federations are really run by volunteers (conscripts?) who send one of their number as a delegate to other organisations like OCC. Is it any surprise that the statutes reflect a totally hands off and let somebody else do the job preference? The delegates to the PB would rather leave all the work for the unfortunate fellow who is president. Why bother to elect officers to the EB? It is much more preferable to escape back to some remote region of Oceania and leave the president to conscript the EB from whoever he can snare.

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... :uhoh:

Keong Ang
12-03-2012, 11:23 AM
In terms of the titles the OCC proposes to award additional to the existing Zonal Championships, I think the ACF will actually be very concerned if such titles get off the ground and may well discourage its players from seeking them in the first place. The title system is compromised enough here as it is.
If they are FIDE titles like GM, IM, FM, there's nothing much any very concerned national federation can do.
What are the chances of success for a national federation like ACF in trying to discourage its players from seeking FIDE titles? If there was an Oceania youth age group championships where the under8 champion gets a FM title and under8 girl gets a WFM title, etc. etc., attempts to discourage players from competing would fail. A national federation cannot officially prevent its players from competing, eg. with a boycott, because it would be breaking FIDE regulations if it does so.

We can have negative opinions toward soft titles being given. However, if it is a FIDE title, what options would be available to us to do something about it? If a FIDE unrated 8 year old of around 1200 strength wins the FM title, every federation in the world must recognise it and duly enter that kid as a FM titled player with an automatic rating floor applicable for an unrated FM (2200??) whenever he enters a FIDE rated tournament.

Perhaps, but as you note that isn't possible. Better therefore to be able to sack some officebearers than none at all.
I think the general feeling was that the federation delegates do not even want to consider the possibility of sacking any officebearers. The idea being, you cannot incur liability if you do not have authority. The more important consideration is the need to appoint a replacement if an officebearer is sacked. Nobody on the PB wanted that responsibility and preferred to let the president fill the EB and essentially live with the consequences of any stuff ups his appointees make. The PB is not going to allow the president any opportunity to blame it for tying his hands. :lol:

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.
Doesn't AUS only have one vote at FIDE too?
We'd like to think our once vote carries the same weight as the Russian vote or the USA vote.
What you're suggesting is going to be controversial. What do you mean by "chess activity"? "Gross chess activity" or "per capita chess activity"?
Somebody could argue that a national federation that is effective and achieves nearly 100% chess activity in their nation's population should be more influential in the OCC than a federation that only gets less than 1% of their population to play chess. Why should a federation that "failed" on a per-capita basis get more voting power than a federation that "succeeded"?
If gross chess activity were the measure, then a precedent for the AsianCF could have been set where a vote each from India and China (zones on their own!) would constitute a majority!
You could continue on and debate over what constitutes "chess activity"? Number of kids learning how to play chess? Number of active players on the FIDE rating list? Number of people who are members of the federation?

What I observed is that what really happens at the OCC is that the statutes and voting status are rather irrelevant. Real power resides in whoever is willing to contribute resources into chess. Or rather, whose delegate is around to make sure resources are not being contributed. The OCC would be as effective as the president is. Right now it is mainly ozzie resources that the rest of Oceania freeloads on because the ozzie delegate wasn't present to prevent it. That's what I mean by AUS "veto" power. At the end of the day, the OCC is just another body that organises chess events and the reality is that nobody actually wants the burden of doing it.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2012, 06:58 PM
We can have negative opinions toward soft titles being given. However, if it is a FIDE title, what options would be available to us to do something about it?

I can think of a few but the first port of call I'd think would be a letter to FIDE asking that they again review title entitlements in our region.


I think the general feeling was that the federation delegates do not even want to consider the possibility of sacking any officebearers. The idea being, you cannot incur liability if you do not have authority.

Using your authority to remove your own authority doesn't work unless you make it irreversible. Even if the PB changes the statutes so that the EB is appointed by the President then the PB still has the right to change them back to give itself the right to appoint the EB itself or sack EB members itself. Thus, it is not correct to say the EB can't be responsible for persistent misconduct by officebearers (should that ever occur).


What you're suggesting is going to be controversial. What do you mean by "chess activity"? "Gross chess activity" or "per capita chess activity"?

The former.


Somebody could argue that a national federation that is effective and achieves nearly 100% chess activity in their nation's population should be more influential in the OCC than a federation that only gets less than 1% of their population to play chess.

I don't see why.


If gross chess activity were the measure, then a precedent for the AsianCF could have been set where a vote each from India and China (zones on their own!) would constitute a majority!

Hence my comment "Not necessarily proportional (otherwise the others would have no say)".


Right now it is mainly ozzie resources that the rest of Oceania freeloads on because the ozzie delegate wasn't present to prevent it.

What Ozzie resources are being freeloaded on? We're not paying them any money after all.


That's what I mean by AUS "veto" power.

Except there is no veto power, we would just be one vote. Maybe we should join on the condition that we are granted a real veto right comparable to the veto rights of five nations on the UN Security Council. :lol:

Denis_Jessop
12-03-2012, 07:55 PM
How does somebody become Oceania zone president anyway?

AsianCF and FIDE statutes state that normally it is the choice of the majority of the federations in the zone that is expressed during the general assembly. I have still not found where the qualification requirements for the position (eg. belonging to a federation within the zone etc.) are listed and doubt it even exists.

With AUS having only a single vote in FIDE and AsianCF, hasn't the Oceania zone president always been AUS?

Despite all the officiousness of the OCC, it is practically a body run by volunteers. As is typical of most volunteer run organisations, elections to executive positions are really "conscriptions". National federations are really run by volunteers (conscripts?) who send one of their number as a delegate to other organisations like OCC. Is it any surprise that the statutes reflect a totally hands off and let somebody else do the job preference? The delegates to the PB would rather leave all the work for the unfortunate fellow who is president. Why bother to elect officers to the EB? It is much more preferable to escape back to some remote region of Oceania and leave the president to conscript the EB from whoever he can snare.

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... :uhoh:

The Statutes of the Asian Chess Federation mention the election of Zonal Presidents though they do not appear to have any provisions about qualification for election nor do they say, as far as I can see how often Zonal Presidenial elections are to be held or what the Zonal President's tenure of office is. The election provision is:


8. THE ZONAL PRESIDENTS
8.1 When electing a Zonal President, the CA - apart from exceptional cases - shall agree in principle with the opinion expressed in the CA by the majority of the representatives of the members belonging to the zone, or, if the zone consists of one member only, take into consideration the opinion expressed by the representative of this member. He shall be responsible for the Zonal Championships and coordination of chess activities in his Zone.

That seems to be the only mention of Zone Presidents except that they are members of the Asian Chess Federation Executive Board. You'll note that cl 8 assumes that there will be elections - it does not provide for them. Moreover the list of non-delegable items to be considered by the annual Continental Assembly meeting does not include elections of Zonal Presidents though it does include elections for the Asian Chess Federation President and his ticket.

When it comes to detail the Asian Statutes are as bad as the OCC ones which isn't surprising as the OCC Statutes were cribbed from the Asian ones.

There have been only 3 Oceania Zone Presidents - Graeme Gardiner, Gary Bekker and Il Duce. All are from Australia. But I am not aware how they came to be elected.

DJ

Patrick Byrom
24-03-2012, 02:44 PM
As the ACF isn't a member of the Oceania CC, why do both the Grand Prix links on the ACF website link to the Oceania GP, and none to the ACF GP? :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2012, 03:11 PM
As the ACF isn't a member of the Oceania CC, why do both the Grand Prix links on the ACF website link to the Oceania GP, and none to the ACF GP? :hmm:Those links on the ACF webiste were pointing to the ACF GP but it would appear that Brian has changed the link at his website to point to the Oceania GP.

Santa
06-05-2012, 02:45 PM
As the President of FIDE Zone 3.6 (Oceania), it was my decision to operate through a formal organisation - the Oceania Chess Confederation (OCC) - with a bank account, statutes, ethical guidelines and regulations.

New Zealand, Fiji, Guam, Palau, PNG and Solomon Islands are OCC members and have been represented at meetings which adopted the statutes and made other decisions.

Australia has stayed aloof. It has not yet agreed to membership, has not sent anybody official to OCC meetings and has not yet submitted any formal proposals to change statutes or regulations.


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

If someone in OCC understands, or is prepared to work with the ACF to obtain that understanding, that someone can propose to the OCC executive or a General Meeting to make the necessary changes.

It might be that the OCC and ACF do not agree as to what changes are needed, but it seems to me that some questions mentioned here do need to be addresses.

Without reference to OCC, these are the basic requirements as I understand them for Australia.


The organisation must have a statement of objectives.
It must be incorporated under relevant law. I'm assuming as a not-for-profit like the ACF, but there are other options such as "OCC Limited."
It must have a constitution. [Amongst many things, the constitution describes

How the organisation is governed
Governing committee members, their roles, their eligibility for membership, how they are elected and their tenure.
How other offices are established and their holders are chosen
How the constitution may be altered.
How to call meetings, maybe 14 days written notice posted by registered mail
When to have meetings such as AGM and SGMs.
What business may be conducted at meetings.
Who may become members
and so on. The WA government has forms and samples, I'm sure other states and countries have similar information.



If the ACF feels its objectives are of no practical value - perhaps it thinks they are adequately met elsewhere, or sees problems with its constitution or even with some of the personnel (I'm thinking of Slipper and Thompson for the moment) then perhaps it should not join.

Santa
06-05-2012, 03:48 PM
Actually that applies only once the minutes are confirmed by motion. Until then they are draft minutes.

.

As James Hardie Ltd just discovered, minutes are important. (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3495111.htm)

The article may vanish, so here is part of it:


The year was 2001 when Meredith Hellicar and her fellow directors moved the James Hardie company offshore, leaving behind what they described as a "fully funded" compensation foundation that would provide "certainty" for victims of asbestos.

In fact, it was short $1.5 billion and soon faced a bankruptcy.




KERRY BREWSTER: The court rejected arguments by the directors that they had not approved the statement issued to the stock exchange. I


The decision to approve the statement was recorded in the minutes.

The directors asserted the minutes were wrong.

The minutes were attested as correct at the next meeting.

The High Court of Australia told them what my lawyer told me in the early 80s, when it's minuted and the minutes are confirmed, that is what happened.

Santa
06-05-2012, 04:03 PM
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
06-05-2012, 04:17 PM
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
06-05-2012, 05:20 PM
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
06-05-2012, 05:32 PM
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
06-05-2012, 05:38 PM
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... :uhoh:

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
06-05-2012, 05:49 PM
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
06-05-2012, 05:57 PM
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.

Brian_Jones
01-06-2013, 10:46 AM
Videos from the 2011 Oceania Zonal are now available at http://www.oceaniachess.com/?a=Videos

An inside view of the Oceania Zonal Tournament held in Rotorua New Zealand 25-31 January 2011.

Many thanks to Rick Loos (mandrickmovies) and sponsors New Zealand Chess Federation and Chess Enterprises New Zealand.

MichaelBaron
12-06-2014, 12:23 PM
Is the confederation still alive? :)

Brian_Jones
12-06-2014, 02:19 PM
Is the confederation still alive? :)

See www.oceaniachess.com