The Marshall Spectator

The Marshall Spectator

Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bryan Quick's avatar
Bryan Quick
Apr 16

IF THE BOARD IS SERIOUS ABOUT SELLING 23 W 10

By way of introduction, for those who don't know me, I was the executive director of the Club from 2015 to 2021. During my tenure I worked intimately with the Board of Governors on many major initiatives. To name a few: the introduction of online tournament registration and pairings; the resumption of regular round-robin norm tournaments; two building renovations (including the conversion of a closet into a bathroom); and a major overhaul of the Club’s operating policies and procedures. I also launched and first edited The Spectator. I left the Club to become a lawyer.

I'm writing today in response to the Board’s March 30th letter. To be clear, I am not writing to take a position on whether or not the Board ought to sell 23 W 10 and purchase a new home for the Club. Rather, I write to urge that any such process be conducted with the necessary transparency, oversight, and strictures to prevent conflicts of interest.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that selling 23 W 10 would be the most consequential decision the Board has ever made—ever. And it cannot be a decision made on flimsy pretenses, in darkness, or without the input of Club members. If the Board is serious about selling the building, the following are non-negotiable preconditions.

(1) Full Transparency

The Board’s March 30th letter provides two stated reasons for potentially selling 23 W 10: (1) the Club is “at capacity”; and (2) the cost of maintaining the building is “substantial and continues to rise.” These may very well be legitimate reasons for moving. However, the members are entitled to definitive evidence illustrating how these two issues have become so unwieldy as to necessitate selling. The Members must know the extent of the Club’s “substantial” financial burdens and specific details of its capacity problem (How many players are turned away? How often? etc.).

The Members also have a right to know how the proposed new space will solve these problems with finality. The Board wrote that a new location would “enhance the chess experience” for members. But an “enhanced” chess experience is not responsive to the two stated reasons above: it’s a separate justification for moving. While some members may find a modern and more spacious venue to be an improvement, others may not. They may prefer the mystique of the Great Hall and the Club’s prime location between Washington and Union Squares.

It's not enough for the Board to point to vague “crossroads” and the theoretical benefits of moving to justify making this irreversible decision. The Club’s specific challenges need to be articulated with concrete data. A complete explanation of why other remedial measures will be insufficient to meet these challenges needs to be provided.

(2) Independent Oversight

Should the purchase and sale process move forward, it’s paramount that the Board ensure that the process is conducted with thorough diligence, accountability, and the transparency outlined above. The Board must commit to retaining a professional third-party trustee before any further steps are taken. There is far, far too much at stake in the sale of a West Village townhouse for the process to be overseen by anything less than objective professionals without skin in the game.

An independent trustee is vital at every step of the process. I was not surprised to hear (although anecdotally) that interested persons have caught wind of the March 30 letter and made overtures to the Board regarding their real estate connections. No member or Board member, however well intentioned, should gain a financial benefit from the sale of 23 W 10 or the purchase of a new property. Moreover, the proceeds of the sale would be a sum of money that demands careful and demonstrable oversight.

(3) Member Input

The members are, in fact, the owners of the Club. The Board exists as an expression of their will and the Board’s first, second, and third obligations are to be stewards of the Club for the members. It would be unconscionable for the Board to move forward with any purchase and sale without first hearing from the members.

Any proposed purchase and sale should require two referendums. First, a referendum at the next Annual Meeting asking members if the Board should explore selling 23 W 10 and purchasing a new home. The Board should only move forward if this referendum receives majority support. Then, if satisfactory purchase and sale bids are received, a second referendum should be held asking whether members assent to the specific terms in place. The purchase and sale should only proceed if that referendum is successful.

In the alternative—and at minimum—the Board should not take further steps towards a purchase and sale until after the next Annual Meeting. I don't imagine that any current Board member can claim to have been elected with a mandate to sell or not sell 23 W 10. This extremely important issue needs to be decided at the ballot box, so members can vote for candidates based on their stated views on this issue.

2025 and Beyond

I visited the Club earlier this month for the first time since 2022. The physical changes to the space—the new playing area downstairs, furniture in the backyard, and technological upgrades—were a real joy to see. I left with confidence that the Club is headed in the right direction. Let’s keep it that way.

Bryan Quick

Former MCC Executive Director

Expand full comment
Reply
Share

No posts

© 2025 The Marshall Chess Club
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture