Decisions taken in GA Zwartsluis 2003

Rik Devroe (GS)

Decisions taken in GA Zwartsluis 2003

Post by Rik Devroe (GS) » Mon Jun 02, 2003 22:41

Saturday 17 May 2003

Accreditation and voting rights:
All federations present, with the exception of Cameroon and Grenada, received voting rights on the basis of the presently available financial data and guarantees (for the details, see Appendix); the Assembly agrees. There is no demand for a vote on the voting rights.

New federations: India, Dominican Republic, India, Australia, Wales
Restarted Federation: Germany
Agreement and applause for all, but Wales is discussed.
Wales: not a nation-state in the regular sense, but a country inside the United Kingdom. More important, there is a massive sport jurisprudence that Wales, England and Scotland have separate sport affiliations in the majority of sports.
The General Assembly accepted Wales without a demand for a vote.

Voting members at Assembly:
Belarus, Russia, Netherlands, Israel, Brazil, Germany, Mongolia, Poland, RDF (Russia 64), FID (Russia 100), Senegal, USA, Ukraine, Wales, England, France, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belgium, Australia, Italy.
Non voting: Grenada, Cameroon.

Second Russian Federation: The Federation for International Draughts in Russia unites all the best 100 sq. players in Russia. It has been accepted on a provisory basis by the Section 100 as a member in October 2002. After long discussion the following is accepted:
- the sentence in the statutes allowing per section one federation per country is accepted, but a sentence has to be added in which this possibility is restricted to those countries with a historical basis for the existing plural federations.
- The FID is accepted with the proviso it has to reunite with the Russian Draughts Federation before 1 January 2004.
- Voting on the combined proposition: 9 for, 7 against, 4 abstentions.
The FID then settles its debts with the treasurer.

The existence of two Russian federations necessitates the change in voting system foreseen on the agenda. So the discussion on the new voting system is, with the consent of the Assembly, put higher on the agenda.
The new voting system is accepted unanimously: each country 6 votes, to be divided over eventual multiple federations.
The voting system is put into use immediately.

The following persons are elected with unanimous acclamation:
- Treasurer: Jaap Bus
- General Secretary: Rik Devroe (ratification of Section 100 decision)
- Director of Tournaments youth: Henri Macaux
- Director of Tournaments seniors: Eleonora Bubbi
- Computer draughts coordinator: Jaap Bus

For the presidency two candidates: M. Walter van Beek, M. Ivan Chovkoplias.
Voting is needed. Election results: Mr. Van Beek 22, Mr. Chovkoplias 18.
End of Saturday session.

Sunday 18-5-2003
A motion with 11 signatures, is forwarded demanding the elections to be declared illegal. After long discussion president van Beek, viewing the gap between the parties, offers to resign in two months, have an (Extraordinary) General Assembly to handle remaining matters and choose a new president, an election for which he will not be candidate. As some delegates do not accept this offer, a vote is called for. Mr Pavlicki conducts the meeting; the list of voting federations is drawn up, which is the same as Saturday, but for the absence of Estonia. Discussion erupts again on the status of Wales. The Assembly accepts Wales, but one member of the counting team (Wiersma) tears up the ballots.
Assembly officially closed by president.

After the Assembly:

In the evening a group of delegates meet, and claim to reopen the General Assembly. They elect their own Board.

[img]images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif[/img] FMJD position:
This meeting cannot be considered a legal and lawful General Assembly (for reasons see letter)
Conclusion: the decisions and elections taken by the General Assembly on Saturday 2003 are legal and valid.
A new (Extraordinary) General Assembly will be convened during the summer.

Senegal: debts: old debts 850,=
fees participants WC: 2 x 180: 360
2 x subscription: 2 x 160: 320: 320 = total 680
paid 680
remaining debt 850,=
Official, written promise by Senegalese minister of sport to pay shortly.

England 2002 GAISF member 45
2003 full member paid 45,= paid before meeting 115: debt 0

Wales Cheque sent 2 December 2002, debt 0

Belarus promise to pay shortly: debt 390,=


Post by Guest » Mon Jun 02, 2003 23:06

David Levy wrote elsewhere on this forum (Sat May 24, 2003 11:31 Post subject: Crisis in FMJD):

I was present at the FMJD General Assembly meeting on May 17th. I was the delegate for England and held the proxy for Wales. I was therefore able to witness what happened up tho the end of the election for President.


The voting procedure was seen by everyone in the room. The votes were written in secret and then counted in the open, in full view of everyone. Each country had two votes because the new system allowed each of the Russian federations one vote each. When the votes were counted Mr van Beek had 22 votes (i.e. 11 countries) while Mr Shovkoplyas had only 18 votes (i.e. 9 countries). Therefore Mr van Beek was the winner of the election and remained as FMJD President.

That is exactly what happened. Afterwards, when I had already left the meeting to return to England, the supporters of Mr Shovkoplyas thought they saw an opportunity to take advantage of the fact that two of Mr van Beek's votes had left the meeting (I had announced publicly that England supported Mr van Beek and it was logical for anyone to assume that Wales did so as well).


So, on Sunday not only Estonia, but also England and Wales were absent!


Post by Guest » Mon Jun 02, 2003 23:38

Saturday: 20 countries
Two of them are splitted (UK and Russia)

"Voting is needed. Election results: Mr. Van Beek 22, Mr. Chovkoplias 18.
End of Saturday session."

That means:
Mr. Van Beek: 11 countries (If both UK-parts voted for him)
Mr. Chovkoplias: 9 countries (If both Russian parts voted for him)

Sunday: 18 countries (Estonia and UK (both of them) left)
One of them is splitted (Russia)

"A motion with 11 signatures, is forwarded demanding the elections to be declared illegal."

So, that motion was backed by the MAJORITY!

Belarussian DF
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 16:41

Post by Belarussian DF » Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:57

Our federation has received the late letter from the FMJD office dated May, 29, 2003.
First of all we pay your attention to the main mistake in it - mister van Beek is former president of the FMJD.
All explanation of Mr. van Beek are as always designed for insufficiently informed people.
You don't need more than one look at the table of payment of contributions given to participants of the Assembly and to the appropriate points of FMJD Charter and to the financial conditions as it becomes more than clear, that a number of the countries supported Mister van Beek should not be allowed to vote. It is not necessary to be the lawyer to see it. And concerning insinuations of van Beek about passed Assembly we have to note the following

1. Mister van Beek couldn't close the General Assembly because in the beginning of the second day on demand of 11 countries (majority) he was discharged of conducting Assembly due to falsifications and infringements of the Charter he did in the first day of work.
2. It was loudly enough declared, that the work of Assembly proceeds. There were no need for personal invitations. Belarussian federation also didn't; receive personal invitation.
3. The fact that some countries have not remained means nothing. The work of Assembly is not stopping if some federation leave meeting. Some federations left in first day and GA simply vent on.
4. The second day of work of Assembly was burdened with hours of speaking of the representative of Senegal with obvious intention to not allow voting. When voting was held, representatives of the accounting commission have found out the superfluous mandate.
The President of the KNDB Mr. van den Hoek was the one who has thrown the bulletin for Wales to the ballot box.
Even if Wales would have voting right there is a question how could England in the first day and Holland in the second vote for this invisible federation. It is possible to see only in a circus.
Of course accounting commission suggested to repeat voting since the number of bulletins did not correspond to the number of federations.
After explaining it in order to protect secret of ballots Harm Wiersma has torn bulletins.

Manic appeals of Mr. van Beek to have the next extraordinary Assembly under his management shows his total misunderstanding or a conscious deceit.
No doubt, that the activity of Mr. van Beek from the point of view of the Charter and the financial legislation will be controlled by new management of the FMJD. It also makes sure, that Mr. van Beek is ready and to go on a way of disorder draughts sport for preservation of his authority, involving for this purpose virtual federations and applying any illegal means.

Irina Pashkevich
President of Belarussian Draughts Federation


Decisions taken in GA Zwartsluis 2003

Post by Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 04:42

Dear Irina,

Thank you for your very interesting letter.
The chairman of the dutch federation has put a letter in dutch on Damweb. It is written on Damweb that it was sent to other federations several weeks ago, so you must know what the contents are. Do you have any reaction?

Bert Zwart

pieter hildering
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 16:51

crisis what crisis

Post by pieter hildering » Tue Jun 10, 2003 22:09

just for the record
quote; onlu those national member federations who have fulfilled their
financial obligations and are correctly represented at the GA may vote;
votes per correspondance or per delegation are not permitted.
Official invitation for GA of Moscow dated 2001-01-16 says; You can not
mandate officials of another federation to represent you.unquote
Both make clear that voting on saturday was illigal and that the protest on
sunday fully correct.Therefore England and holland were not allowed to
vote for wales.
It means that letter of chairman kndb is incorrect, and has to be adjusted.

Bert Bervoets

Post by Bert Bervoets » Sat Jun 14, 2003 01:08

Just for the record too:

Ad II. XVIII of the Statutes
Article XIV Voting rights.
Only those national member federations who have fulfilled their financial obligations and are correctly represented at the General Assembly may vote. Votes per delegation are possible in that one Federation present can be mandated by one absent federation to vote on behalf and in delegation of that absent federation. This mandate has to be in writing, by letter or by fax. Each member federation, whatever its importance, through its proper representative, has one vote. The General Secretary organises the voting, counts the votes, ascertains the results, which are publicly announced by the President.

David Levy

Financial Obligations

Post by David Levy » Sat Jun 14, 2003 14:24

A lot has been made of the phrase "fulfilled their financial obligations", but the phrase itself is not precise. The meaning depends upon exactly what one means by "fulfilled" which again is not strictly defined. For example, "fulfilled" could be taken to mean "paid everything they owe" or it could be taken to mean "paid everything they owe or promised to pay it by a date acceptable to the President", or it could be taken to mean countless other things.

It is difficult to be too legalistic when the laws themselves are not defined precisely enough. Perhaps the FMJD statutes need to be made clearer in this respect.

David Levy

Posts: 2105
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 16:43
Real name: Alexander Presman
Location: the Netherlands

Re: Financial Obligations

Post by A.Presman » Sat Jun 14, 2003 15:53

David Levy wrote:A lot has been made of the phrase "fulfilled their financial obligations", but the phrase itself is not precise. The meaning depends upon exactly what one means by "fulfilled" which again is not strictly defined. For example, "fulfilled" could be taken to mean "paid everything they owe" or it could be taken to mean "paid everything they owe or promised to pay it by a date acceptable to the President", or it could be taken to mean countless other things.
David Levy
Just interesting to know when does the organisation of the MSO in London accept a player to stay in hotel and play ( irrespectively how it is mentioned in documents ) when he "paid" or when he "promised to pay". [img]images/smilies/icon_confused.gif[/img]
David Levy wrote: It is difficult to be too legalistic when the laws themselves are not defined precisely enough. Perhaps the FMJD statutes need to be made clearer in this respect.
And not only in this. Still we have what we have. And obligation to follow Statutes has to be fulfilled. Are you agree? Or we have to define first strictly what "fulfilled" means?

David Levy

Mr Presman's posting

Post by David Levy » Sat Jun 14, 2003 17:43

Thank you for asking about the Mind Sports Olympiad. The MSO has moved to Manchester. This year it is from August 16th-25th. Everyone is welcome. Visit for full details of the schedule etc.

We always accept players so long as they pay before the start of the tournament. Normally a big proportion do not pay until they arrive at the tournament hall. As for hotels, if a player guarntees to pay we accept that guarantee.

In FIDE it was always normal during my days as a delegate (up to 1992) that federations who were behind with their payments were trusted to catch up if they gave assurances about it.

David Levy

Posts: 2105
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 16:43
Real name: Alexander Presman
Location: the Netherlands

Post by A.Presman » Sat Jun 14, 2003 18:46

Mr. Levy, thank for your reaction.

I recognise that your experience and knowledge in draughts world is still quite limited.
Therefore Belarus or Senegal for you may seem (organizationally) not that far from each other.
The President and the Treasurer of the FMJD would not be so credent though.

Just for you to know - after 5 years of non paying contribution the debt of Senegal was in 2001 eliminated as hopeless.
(Do they do it so in FIDE as well?)
The 2 following years Senegal didn't pay again.
Don't you find that any further oral promises of this federation should not deserve the blind trust? By coincidence Senegal belongs to the "camp" of van Beek.
And from the other hand there is the Belarussian draughts federation which pays many years long all yearly contributions, actively participates in different competitions and pays therefore a lot of enrollment fees. This organizationally one of the best national federations (but also known as oppositional to Mr. van Beek) asked the FMJD Treasurer 6 weeks before the Congress to send the invoice. And only due to 3 weeks delay of sending of invoices by the FMJD - money didn't arrive in time. The President of Belarussian federation even took with her signed by the Sport ministry transfer order and expected to hear excuses from the Treasurer. But in vain.

Don't you think that handling this two cases equally makes no impression of decency and looks much more like very low profiled political game?

18 May I asked Treasurer Mr. J.Bus in the pause of the meeting :
"Mr. Bus if you have a trust that Senegal is going to hold their promise let's do as follow. I pay right now from my pocket cash for Belarus. You will return me money when it will arrive to the FMJD account. But you personally do the same from your pocket with the debt of Senegal!"
He disappeared immediately.

pieter hildering
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 16:51


Post by pieter hildering » Sat Jun 14, 2003 22:30

it is very simple guys:
if you do not pay on time then you can not discuss or vote. I do not
care about personal interest of some in this respect. So part of the
failure is that FMJD can not accept non payment or a promise as being
enough. As they have accepted this it means they are failing in this also.
The fmjd can not function if some countries believe that there is another
way. Further one should not attend the GA if one does not take care of
his responsabilities.

David Levy

Financial obligations

Post by David Levy » Sun Jun 15, 2003 20:03

Of course there should be a uniform policy regarding financial obligations, and that policy should be clear to everyone.

I suggest that a committee be set up to examine the statutes and to make clear any aspects that are not already completely clear. This includes exactly what is meant by "fulfilled" with respect to financial obligations.

In my opinion such a committee could learn quite a lot from studying the statutes of FIDE, just to see how complete they are. I think it is because FIDE has a longer history than the FMJD that the FIDE statutes are more complete. This is not a negative reflection on the FMJD, just a matter of "wisdom" acquired from a longer experience.

David Levy


Post by Alkand » Mon Jun 16, 2003 19:29

My private opinion about the situation in draughts. Firstly I tell that I am far from writing out a medicine to the patient. So from thr reply " what to do? ". It is a complicated problem. It is much easier to criticise lacks, therefore I’ll do it. And the recipe for the future? It is simple. For the beginning - to do not repeat mistakes of the past. In the mean time I can be completely wrong in… all questions. But I just can not resist the temptation to express myself.

In my opinion, the Assembly and a voting procedure became only an occasion for wide discussion of the problems long accumulated inside of the FMJD. Let's just imagine, that representatives of England and Wales would arrive on GA, and Africans would pay their debts. No doubt, that in this case Mister van Beek would be safely re-elected on the post as is happened already many times and would operate FMJD ten years more.

That’s why I fear that talks about crisis in FMJD are not dictated by serious intentions to correct a situation, by is the struggle for power of the new "groups of comrades".

One of the facts which have caused this fear is the application for possible state financing FMJD from Ukraine. It looks like the same attempt of purchase of managing post in which van Beek is accused. So the "principles" inherit , executors vary only. Look yourself are there the perspectives…

There is one more stimulus for the heads of draughts federations (namely they apply for the majority of posts in FMJD). Especially of the countries of the former USSR (perhaps except Baltics). It is the rare opportunity to travel all over the world for the state account that (normally) should be at own expense. It is so desirable to keep such a opportunity!

And some not honest heads manage also "to earn" on poor draughts. "Technology" of earnings is old - use of double bookkeeping or overestimate of the sum of charges. Is it not where Peter Hilderink cautiously hints to?

Unfortunately, for some of them the tour life became the basic purpose of existence. Not having learnt for tens years even English (!!!) they are included into presidiums, managements and arbiters boards. Are we talking about draughts? What level of negotiations with sponsors can be! And in which language?

Absence of abilities to build own business, absence of elementary skills of management, unability to find the compromise of such a people is not only useless, but also harmful to draughts. There is an impression, that they only suit to gamble with ballots! In difficult time draughts community not only sprays out the poor resources, practically supporting such a people, but also, that it is more important, wastes time.

What is the conclusion? It is obvious to me that in the head of draughts world should stand people, ready TO GIVE AWAY a piece of the experience, time, means and … health for the blessing of draughts. People which have achieved success (it is not necessary in draughts) in their life.They have what to bring in draughts. And they do not look in our poor sport, as on a source of the existence or additional enrichment or entertainment.

And, if to speak about presidency- this person should, in addition to all organizing talents, freely communicate in English. It is a candidate minimum.

Let sound it banal, but without joining of all draughts forces on a way of popularization of our game - any progress is no to achieve. It seems that this is one of the most important directions.
Alas, the world wants show, and we can not ignore this tendency. And what steps we undertake?

Is it so difficult for top players during informal tournaments after the game to arrange press conference with the short analysis of games for fans? In the first day will come 2 persons, then 5 … It is sure, by the end of tournament tens will gather. It is necessary to begin only.

Wil we?


Post by Guest » Thu Jun 19, 2003 00:08

words who read like a book. fully agree that the chairman has to be a man
of the world. it took me some time to figger out who was behind the name
alkand. but anyway i know.
i fully agree and believe that we should not replace one for the other if we
do not have an idea of the skills behind the man. it is not the governement
of any country who should keep the fmjd alive. this will not guarentee an
existance far as the players conserned i see we have the same opinion.
as my friend haitze is always telling me ; when you are enough ritch you
can be hounest.