Another Convoluted Concoction by the NCCA?! Though USCF Requires it, NCCA Officers Dismiss Need for Clearinghouse? If unnecessarily replacing the Gran Prix with an extremely complicated formula which can hardy be calculated by anyone weren't enough, now we have "NC vs SC?" Since it was only conceived a few weeks ago, some NCCA members may not be aware of a tournament which was, only days ago, covertly placed on the list of "Upcoming Events." The tournament in question is a referred to by the NCCA as the "North Carolina Vs. South Carolina Match" but by the SCCA as "Border Battle 2009!?" (Well, which one is it?) That's only where the confusion begins. It is my understanding that SC chess entrepreneur David Grimaud communicated to the NCCA the idea of proceeding with a match between the champions of NC and SC (as was done last year). Somewhere along the line "someone" came up with the grand idea that there should be a side tournament whereby a certain number of players from each state and from each class would compete against each other! But, they weren't exactly sure of how the candidate players were to be chosen, nor how many, nor who would pay for the event, nor on what date it should take place? In their zeal, they just wanted to do it... I want to thank my friend David Grimaud for encouraging  competition between our sister states. However, I hope I'm not being too critical when I suggest that if he wanted to organize a tournament, then maybe he should use his own hotel and Directors from a city in South Carolina, establish the guidelines, give us invitations, and then we would consider participating. It seems hasty and irresponsible that the NCCA so readily agreed to what could possibly become an important annual event, without any discussion with the members, whatsoever?? I personally like the idea of having this tournament. However, wouldn't it stand to reason that if the Champions of each state are to be paired against each other, the Champions of the other 6 Classes of each state should be paired against each other as well!!! That way, the tournament printout from each state will precisely indicate which player is next in line in case someone doesn't wish to participate. The fact that VP Newsom is personally choosing players, by using nebulous, personally decided upon criteria, could cause many disputes and complaints of possible bias and favoritism? Furthermore, it is not stated how much money the State Champions will receive. Seems to me that the promoter of this event would have provided free entry as well as a legitimate prize fund, since North Carolina seems to be doing all the work. According to the math, the winning team of the other classes will each receive $41.66 for a grand profit minus EF of $16.66! Whoppy do!!? (One can now better understand why people from Asheville might miss this event). The idea of arbitrarily choosing players is exclusive and patently unfair and will surely cause problems. Champions of each section from NC versus Champions of each section from SC does make sense! (They may not have been smart enough to figure that out, but they possibly still have time to change it!) Less than two weeks ago, I received a phone call from NCCA "whipping boy" Tom Hales of Asheboro (the person doing most of the work for the NCCA) who courteously advised me about this tournament and indicated that the officers of the NCCA had decided to have it take place on the weekend of April 18. And, "would I be so kind as to change the date of the CCC's upcoming Quark XI" which had already been posted for that date for many weeks? When I cited the rules of the "old" NCCA Clearinghouse, ie. "...first come, first served for available dates otherwise no closer than 100 miles separating events," Mr. Hales indicated that, regardless of my protest, "the NCCA officers had already decided to go ahead with that date, anyway!?" That kind of administrative bullying we don't need.   I reminded Mr. Hales of the necessity of having a clearinghouse. According to the USCF, it is one of the most important responsibilities that a State Affiliation has! It is counter productive to allow organizers to conduct conflicting events on the same day in the same city, or within a certain range. Those rules and regulations should be incorporated into our constitution and by-laws and spelled out precisely so as to avoid confusion and prevent outright favoritism and manipulation. According to rumor, (since all communications within the NCCA are now "Top Secret" and outsiders [or enemies] are forbidden from participating in meetings or observing E-mails), the NCCA Officers recently discussed the idea of reinstating the "Clearinghouse" but rendered it a "non-issue" and voted it down?? By now, "if he were dead, Singletary would be rolling in his grave!!" For almost 20 years, among many other responsibilities, NCCA Administrative icon Robert Singletary served as the Chairman of the NC Clearinghouse. He constantly kept a watchful eye on the entire slate of "upcoming events" and always protected tournaments which had previously been scheduled. Robert, where are you when we need you?!! (By the way, I'm pretty sure that Robert is still alive and well somewhere. Hello, old friend...speak to us!). With no oversight and a vast number of tournaments available to North Carolina players, a trend toward more tournaments but poorer turnouts has prevailed. This latest debacle is another indication of how skewed the priorities of our current administrators are. To be sure, they have failed miserably in their responsibility to communicate important issues to the members.  NCCA Officers: Do your job and reinstate our "Clearinghouse." And then, abide by the rules yourselves. I have changed the date of Quark XI to April 25. I remain extremely concerned about the state of affairs of our organization. NM Leland Fuerstman