The real question is not which membership options should be presented to a
potential member.

It is which ones should exist to enhance the health of the USCF, rather than
other parties.

---

That certainly is an opinion. Though a rather deliberated emphasis that what
benefits chess players and what USCF be different subjects. I wonder why
this is? Outside of the Soviet Union this does not seem to be the way that
the rest of the world behaved.

Essentially USCF needs to resolve many issues about its own role in chess,
and its partnering arrangements with 'other parties' very many of which are
contentious and elected relationships not even to any clear benefit to USCF,
but to personalities within it.

The new board must needs revision several core functions USCF performs, and
also, as in any enterprise, make priority lists of what is more or less
important. Key will be its role as a governance organisation, which it must
enhance or abandon. Another key issue must be its stated role as non-profit
which is exactly opposite to the sentences above.

I think the new board will take a hard look at this second factor, since
maintaining an independent 'health' from the real needs of the chess
community seems to be the cause of its decline: losing money in 9 of the
past 11 years, losing $2.5 million of market share in the past 8 years, and
losing almost 15% of its membership, 10,000 lost in 03/04 alone.

If USCF is to be a true governance organisation, it cannot act like a
monopoly party to compete with and repress other parties. That is not
governance - that is to insist that, for example, the Republican President
only represents republicans, and not the oath taken to represent the
people's interests.

True, that oath was not taken in the Soviet Union where centrist economy and
government versus people was the failed game. Advocates for such a system
might suggest actual models where it has not failed.

Phil Innes
Vermont