EXPLANATION

[LeoMinor]

Сегодня получил письмо господина J.C.R.Bus . Между прочим было и :

In the attachment you find the complete discussion within the FMJD Board and also the remark that Vladimir and I cooperate again. The explanation is published on the Internet site of the FMJD and it is not confidential at all. Please publish it on your site.

Конечно , я сразу публикую приложение ( attachment ) на английском языке , но не могу выполнить просьбу господина Bus и сделать перевод на русский , так как английский не мой "родной" ( а один из второй десятки иностранных языков ). Просьба чтобы перевод на русский сделал Саша или кто другой. Заранее благодарю ! А теперь EXPLANATION :

Explanation of the decisions by the CD concerning the CPI

1. Introduction

Mr. Matus has sent the following proposals to the CD shortly before the CD meeting in Salou started:
- A letter containing a list of candidates for membership of the CPI FMJD, with a long explication of the candidacy of Mr. Kaciuska.
- The announcement of the PWCP III
- The announcement of the PWCE II
- Changes of the Statutes of the CPI
- A few more details

The main decisions by the CD in Salou 31-05-2009, concerning the CPI are:
- The FMJD World championships (PWCP III and PWCE II) have to be postponed.
- All further proposals of Mr. Matus, the current Vice-President of the CPI, have to be reconsidered in a broad context. This means that these proposals are not accepted at the moment.
- Mr. Bus, the former Treasurer and retiring CPI President, was asked to try to find solutions together with Mr. Matus. These solutions should be presented as common proposals to the CD.

This document contains an explanation of what has been discussed in the CD concerning the CPI, far more extensive than what will be in the CD minutes.
After the meeting Mr. Bus contacted Mr. Matus immediately and the PWCP III was chosen as the first point of discussion. One day before the holidays of Mr. Matus, consensus could be reached about that the themes of the PWCP III will be changed and that the jury will be extended or somewhat changed.
This will be prepared by Mr. Bus who will not participate at the PWCP III and it will be decided together with Mr. Matus when he returns from holidays.

2. The preparation of the discussions in the CD

The normal procedure is that the CPI keeps at least one of the CD members sufficiently involved when preparing a FMJD World Championship or other important decisions /documents. Finally the CPI gives a number of proposals to the CD with the agreement of at least one CD member. The relevant documents are distributed in time, anyway not later than 14 days before the meeting, and placed on the agenda of the CD meeting.
If there are any questions the EVP or the General Secretary may ask the CPI President to clarify them before the CD meeting starts.

When the CD agrees with the organization of a FMJD World Championship for draughts composers, the announcement will be published on the FMJD internet site first, anyway not later than on other Internet sites.

What actually happened with the preparation of the Salou meeting is that the CD members did not get the relevant documents in time. There was even so little time left that most of the CD members did not even get the documents and the letter before the start of the CD meeting, because the General Secretary was not able to read them in time.
From a formal point of view this is a reason not to discuss and accept these proposals at all.

However, the CD found the CPI and in particular what happened, too important and decided to discuss the situation.
Because of the complexity of the situation the EVP, Mr. Otten, had to discuss what happened and the CPI situation at lunch, etc., mainly with the General Secretary, Mr. Teer and the retiring CPI President Mr. Bus. The EVP also had contact outside the CD, concerning draughts composition.

The three most important conclusions were that Mr. Matus:
- Did not inform and contact the retiring CPI President sufficiently about a number of things and /or did not react on his remarks. Mr. Matus did not inform any other CD member either.
- A few days before the meeting it came out that the announcement of the PWCP III was already published in Russian, weeks before on a number of Internet sites and that an English version of the announcement was sent to Internet sites in Europe. The retiring CPI President was not informed of all this and did not fully agree with the draft English text.
- By coincidence the retiring CPI President heard during the yearly KvD meeting that the announcement was also sent to the chief editor of DP, which was an unpleasant surprise.
- Mr. Matus asked for approval of his proposals to the CD, including the PWCP III, on May 29 while the PWCP III has been started already on the 15th of May, with only a Russian version published of the announcement and Instruction for the jury.

Because of all that the CD did not have any other choice than not accepting the proposal of Mr. Matus concerning the PWCP III and the PWCE II.

3. The announcement of the PWCP III

Concerning the previous FMJD World Championship, the PWCP II some people asked the question if it is correct that a CPI member, like Mr. Matus, is participating and prepares the themes.
As CPI President I answered that it is not forbidden, but that the EVP should keep an eye on it with an independent opinion in the case of conflicts when there is no “jury d´appel”.
I also explained that I was the originator of the Category D and that I did not participate, I was member of the jury. Moreover, the other categories were not too specific.

In the first PWCP we learned that unclear definitions have lead to protests against elimination, in particular the difference between the word combination (phase) and end game (phase), because also an end game can contain one or even more than one combination.

In other contests we learned that it is good to know for the participants who gave the remarks on each of the individual participating compositions. This is in particular interesting in the case of the so called absurd resemblances.

All these learning effects are not included in the announcement of the PWCP III.

Mr. Matus said that the preparation of the announcement of the themes have been agreed upon with a number of problemists.
Mr. Matus did not answer the question posed by the retiring CPI President who these composers are.

Moreover the themes of the PWCP III have not been discussed with the retiring CPI President, who will not participate at the PWCP III and at least one of the categories is very specific, which might be in favour of Mr. Matus as participant or at least might give this impression to other participants.
On top of that the organizer, the contact and the jury members are all from Eastern Europe, which is not acceptable for the participants from the West.
The French jury member of the PWCP III as proposed by Mr. Matus withdrew shortly before the CD meeting. He was also the jury member of FFJD 2008 who violated the RI and refused to correct it. FFJD 2008 also refused to answer the participants that have sent documented protests. Because of this the French jury member would not have been acceptable as jury member of an FMJD WC anyway.

The CD decided that these are sufficient reasons for not accepting the announcement of the PWCP III and that the announcement of the WC should be postponed for a number of months.

This means that every aspect of the PWCP III, like the jury, the themes, the instruction for the jury and contact have to be reconsidered by Mr. Matus and Mr. Bus assigned by the CD to prepare a proposal that can be accepted by the CD (EVP). This will take several months, considering holidays and should be completed before the next GA in Brazil in October or November 2009.

4. The CPI

The proposal of Mr. Matus was discussed in the CD and a few letters received about specific candidates for membership of the CPI were studied as well.
In the GA of the FMJD all member countries have the same voting rights. It is impossible to have all the countries represented in the two committees of the FMJD, the Technical Committee (rules for the players-tournaments) and the CPI (rules for the composers-tournaments).
The members of the TC and the CPI are assigned on request because of their expertise and capability to act in a team. They are not representing a country, but a mix of people of different countries is welcome and will be the case in practice.
So the assignment of an expert on Zadachas-100 is correct, he does not represent a country.
Discussing and improving the existing rules is one of the main tasks of both the TC and the CPI. However, not applying the existing rules is in conflict with membership of the TC or the CPI.
Unfortunately this is the case with Mr. Sabater and the FFJD 2008. We suppose that he misunderstood the rules and it will be studied how to correct it. However, the conditions to be accepted as CPI member are not met at this moment.

A special case is Mr. Kaciuska. The CD received reactions pro and contra Mr. Kaciuska and the CD members have their own experience with him as well.
Mr. Matus included a letter supporting the candidacy of Mr. Kaciuska that did not convince the CD. The wording of the letter sounds very familiar with statements of Mr. Kaciuska himself that we saw earlier. Further arguments that Mr. Kaciuska organizes tournaments and does all the work for a yearly publication were already taken into account during the CD meeting in 2006 that agreed that he was fired as CPI member.
It is incorrect to say that Mr. Bus took the initiative to exclude Mr. Kaciuska. Also not correct is the remark that Mr. Hildering and Mr. Bus caused a split in the world of draughts composers. It was Mr. Hildering that warned Mr. Kacuiska several times that he should not violate the agreements made with him in Warsaw and that if Mr. Kaciuska changed his mind he should discuss it in the CPI and not on Internet as was explicitly agreed in Warsaw.
Finally Mr. Kaciuska was removed from the CPI by the unanimous decision of the CD, because it was clear that Mr. Kaciuska could not act as member of this team.
After that Mr. Kaciuska did his very best to cause a split in the small world of draughts composers. Later he took part in founding the Ligue des Nations, what the CD can only partly understand.
Another argument used by Mr. Matus in his letter to the CD was that he never agreed with the decision in 2006 that Mr. Kaciuska had to leave the CPI, but that Mr. Matus and Mr. Shulga never said so during all these years. The CD did not found this argument convincing either.

It is obvious that the CD could not accept the full proposal of Mr. Matus concerning the CD membership.
The CD does not exclude the possibility that Mr. Matus was strongly influenced by Mr. Kaciuska. One of the examples is the announcement of the PWCE II.
By assigning Mr.Shkludov as the championship coordinator another attempt of conflict is introduced.
It was Mr. Shkludov that caused so many troubles at the previous PWCE that the end game expert and jury member from Holland announced that it was impossible for him to work together with Mr. Shkludov as required.
At the moment that Mr. Kaciuska was still a member of the CPI. Mr. Kaciuska was requested to ask Mr. Shkludov in Russian on what article of the RIE his eliminations (or ridiculous low scores) were based. Mr. Kaciuska accepted an insufficient answer of Mr. Shkludov and contacted another jury member, without informing the jury member from Holland.
It is very difficult to see these facts in another way. It is possible that not everybody applies the same principles, but Mr. Matus should not have agreed with assigning Mr. Shkludov as championship coordinator without any communication with the former CPI President or the CD that fired Mr. Kaciuska.

The announcement of the PWCE II as presented cannot be accepted by the CD, but it can be adapted quicker than the PWCP III, because the themes are general.

5. Other issues

The CPI studied a proposal of Mr. Matus to change the Statutes of the CPI. A few words will be changed and discussed with Mr. Matus.

The CD confirmed the decision made by the CPI concerning the role of A. Tavernier, with regard to the composition of Mr. Kuyken. Mr. Tavernier did not answer the request of the CPI to explain his attitude, but a number of people having nothing to do with it were reacting in public, rather aggressively.
At last a few days before the CD, Mr. Tavernier answered the General Secretary. This answer is strictly speaking not sufficient, but the CD considers this case as closed.

Mr. Yushkevitch has sent a letter to the CD telling that “Mr. Bus lies”. The CD did not understand his protest.
The letter of Mr. Yushkevitch is about the GA that discussed the departure of Mr. Yushkevitch. The main thing for the FMJD is that nobody in the GA disagreed with that Mr. Yushkevitch was no longer CPI President.