But the last couple of issues have seen repeated request for volunteers to fill the roles of
- Olympiad Appeal Coordinator
- Ergas Training Squad Coordinator
Having seen all the ads for these positions repeated over the last 6 weeks I'm guessing the ACF hasn't been flooded with applicants. And I find this hardly surprising.
The ACF has a poor record in engaging the chess playing community in Australia, and under the current ACF President Gary Wastell it isn't going to get any better. This isn't because of the sort of person Gary is (I'll leave those judgments up to those who know him better) but because of the administrative structures the ACF operate under, structures that Gary has mainly been responsible for, over the last 30 years.
To Gary, and some other intransigent State Association officials (CAQ and CAWA in the past, NSWCA in the present), the idea of individual membership of the ACF is an anathema, although for different reasons. In the case of the CAQ and CAWA it was fear of domination by the "socialists down south/east" that drove them to oppose constitutional reform. In Gary's case (based on the numerous conversations I've had with him over the years) he feels that the player->club->association->federation model is the best structure for Australian Chess.
Now I realise that I'm never going to convince him to change his view on this (any more than I can convince Queenslanders that daylight savings doesn't fade their curtains), but hopefully others on the ACF can see the connection between lack of volunteers and lack of real members.
As I said to Denis Jessop early this year when discussing the ACF's difficulties in attracting bidders for various events, and volunteers for various positions.
"Gary has got the ACF he wanted. But he also gets the consequences as well"
1 comment:
Hi Shaun
The reason why I am not sticking around is that I have already stuck around for more than long enough. I took over as temporary editor when Paul Broekhuyse resigned last year. I kept on going when we re-arranged the production so that Srephen Cannings took over the layout etc. All ACF non-elected office-bearer positions fall vacant at the first Council meeting after 30 June - this year on 23 July. Before that meeting I told the Council I was not prepared to continue. Despite many ads nobody else has volunteered. The reason why I don't want to continue was stated at the end of the last newsletter:
"We usually finish with a few appropriate words. This time they are a little different as this is my last newsletter. At the moment I'm not sure when the next one will be. I am a bit sad to give it up but I am not, by profession or nature, a journalist, and I feel that I can serve the ACF better in other directions more suited to my qualifications. In any case, the chess community should not have to rely on guys over 70 (!) I have enjoyed my stints as editor and send my best wishes to all our readers for the future. Good Luck!"
At present I am having a monumental task trying to get a minor by-law amendment accepted. Such is the ACF. But that's my real interest and it's a sad thing for chess if no one is prepared to take over an important job from someone who really doesn't want to do it and is not really qualified to do it (and is an old bugger to boot).
As you say there are a lot of things that could be done to improve the ACF and I have a few ideas but I found that, along all my interests that go well beyond chess, I just didn't have time to spend on the newsletter and on the other ACF matters that interest me more and, in the long run are more important.
I might mention that, if the ACF is to justify an individual membership scheme, it will need to make a lot of changes to go with it. Many people view the ACF as a body that runs Australian chess and believe it has power (quite apart from the will) to control the whole show. But that is just not how things are now set up. About 95% or more of all Australian chess activity is run by the States. The ACF is mainly involved in National ratings and foreign affairs but can and should do more in the national development of elite chess players (a la AIS) among other things. Curiously there seems a reluctance to move to reform State bodies perhaps because those who run them are too close to home and it's more comfortable for people to criticise those they don't know.
Denis Jessop
Post a Comment