Is $49/45 still needed when USCF outsources B&E, etc.?
Dan Heisman
as the Main Line CC offers) is still needed by USCF after they outsource B&E and make the other intended
changes. In any case, sometimes perception is stronger than reality, so slightly lowering the adult dues to
something like $45/43 (the $2 kept so as to assuage the affiliates) might send a positive message. In fact,
a "renew at least 1 year before expiration and get a $40/$38" might be a good incentive.
I also liked the old idea of raising the junior age to 22 or 23 so as to minimize the impact of the large
number of lost scholastic members when they go to college. With the current makeup of the membership,
retaining scholastic members as they get older has to be a very high priority for long-term financial
health.
Regards,
Dan Heisman
www.danheisman.com
Tim Hanke
Dan,
The proposal from the Finance Committee is to lower adult dues and raise
scholastic dues.
Tim Hanke
Angelo DePalma
give them more years of junior eligibility? If the common wisdom about
juniors is true -- they stay on until they're 17 (costing us $$) and then
quit for 10 years -- why not just wait until they're 27?
By the way, I'm the guy who sacrificed a Q on move 7 at Liberty Bell last
year, in the U2200 section, and resigned 2 moves later.
Angelo
"Dan Heisman" <danhe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F8F0ACA...@comcast.net...
Mike Nolan
>The proposal from the Finance Committee is to lower adult dues and raise
>scholastic dues.
Only the Delegates can raise dues.
--
Mike Nolan
Dan Heisman
Thanks for the reply.
> Dan, if we're losing $$ on juniors why would we want them at all, much less
> give them more years of junior eligibility? If the common wisdom about
> juniors is true -- they stay on until they're 17 (costing us $$) and then
> quit for 10 years -- why not just wait until they're 27?
Hmm. I never said anything about what those dues should be. I did not advocate keeping them the same - I
only mentioned what we could do with adult dues. I only said that we should do whatever we can, including
raising the junior dues age - to try to retain college players. If it should be at a higher rate in order to
at least break even on their membership (I have no idea if this is true), then fine. I don't think we want
them to quit for ten years if at all possible. I did not; I was captain for Penn State's Chess Team and won
the Philadelphia Invitational Championship in my early 20's.
>
> By the way, I'm the guy who sacrificed a Q on move 7 at Liberty Bell last
> year, in the U2200 section, and resigned 2 moves later.
Well, I was there, but did I see that? It is certainly possible. Were you playing someone I know? I may
recall the game, but I am not sure. Will you be at the National Chess Congress?
Best wishes,
Dan H
Dan Heisman
Yes, as you know I am a PA Delegate. Just curious; does the USCF By-Laws allow for a (quorum) vote of
Delegates on special issues (like in times of USCF emergency/crisis) without being at the annual meeting at
the US Open? Maybe I should ask the Parliamentarian. :)
Dan H
Dan Heisman
Thanks. Makes sense to me, especially in the current situation, but I don't have the financial breakdowns in
front of me.
- Dan H
Mike Nolan
It would take a special meeting of the Delegates. 1/3 of the Delegates
must be present in person at such a meeting, which would be around 54
Delegates, depending upon the number of DAL's that are currently on
the roster.
The Board could probably temporarily lower dues using its 'promotional
membership' authority, though that might be considered an abuse of
the privilege by some Delegates.
--
Mike Nolan
Kenneth Sloan
Does the ByLaw giving the EB power to create "promotional memberships'
stipulate that the dues for these "promotional memberships" be *lower*
than the dues set by the Delegates?
> --
> Mike Nolan
--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/
Bruce Draney
I thought that in LA the Delegates gave the Board FULL authority to do
whatever was necessary to deal with the USCF financial crisis. Is it
now your view Mike that this was not what was decided?
When I inquired about this in late August I was told by several people
on posts here to RGCP that the Delegates had transferred authority to
the Board to raise dues if they felt it was necessary. Was this
incorrect?
Best Regards,
Bruce
Kenneth Sloan
> ...
> I thought that in LA the Delegates gave the Board FULL authority to do
> whatever was necessary to deal with the USCF financial crisis. Is it
> now your view Mike that this was not what was decided?
don't know about Mike - but it's certainly not what *I* think was
decided.
Of course, I have an advantage over you, Bruce - I was there.
>
> When I inquired about this in late August I was told by several people
> on posts here to RGCP that the Delegates had transferred authority to
> the Board to raise dues if they felt it was necessary. Was this
> incorrect?
Yes.
Hal Terrie
DM03-12 – NDM 03-39 – (Al Lawrence, NY, Mike Nolan, NE): The USCF EB
is assigned responsibility and granted all necessary authority for
modifying or eliminating services to meet budgeting mandates,
expiration to be effective at the beginning of the 2004 USCF
Delegates’ Meeting. PASSED AS AMENDED
This is the motion in question. Whether this means the EB can
do anything they want with dues is unclear. You could make a case
either way.
-- Hal Terrie
Mike Nolan
>Does the ByLaw giving the EB power to create "promotional memberships'
>stipulate that the dues for these "promotional memberships" be *lower*
>than the dues set by the Delegates?
No, it places no restrictions on what a promotional membership is, other
than it requires annual extension of the authorization to offer them.
But who on earth would buy, say, a $25 promotional scholastic membership
when the Bylaws still permit selling $13 or $19 memberships?
--
Mike Nolan
Mike Nolan
> I thought that in LA the Delegates gave the Board FULL authority to do
>whatever was necessary to deal with the USCF financial crisis. Is it
>now your view Mike that this was not what was decided?
Here is the exact wording of DM 03-12, taken from the minutes of the
2003 Delegates Meeting as posted on the website:
The USCF EB is assigned responsibility and granted all necessary
authority for modifying or eliminating services to meet budgeting
mandates, expiration to be effective at the beginning of the 2004
Delegates Meeting.
Note that this motion specifically does NOT mention increasing dues,
therefore the Board has no such authority at this time, temporary or
otherwise.
> When I inquired about this in late August I was told by several people
>on posts here to RGCP that the Delegates had transferred authority to
>the Board to raise dues if they felt it was necessary. Was this
>incorrect?
Apparently so. I can guarantee you that I have never indicated on RGCP
or elsewhere that the Board has any such authority, and I reminded the Board
of this several times during the week that I was the Interim COO,
--
Mike Nolan
Bruce Draney
Interesting. I went back and found that it was Hal Terrie who had
posted about it, but did not and could not remember the exact wording of
the motion which was proposed by Al Lawrence.
So in effect, it sounds to me like USCF is a dead duck. Any Board
proposals to raise children's dues will certainly be considered illegal,
since clearly raising children's dues would not be a promotional
membership in any sense of the word. While the Board could lower adult
dues temporarily and call it a promotional membership, this is about as
likely to happen as the sun cooling to a cold hard cinder by next week.
One other interesting thing, is that firing of Peter Kurzdorfer,
appears to have been illegal under the bylaws, since only the Delegates
may fire the editor of Chess Life and this motion does not grant the
Board authority to fire the Chess Life Editor either. It only gives
them the right to eliminate services for the purpose of dealing with the
financial crisis. I would certainly call it a stretch to suggest that
firing the editor of Chess Life is an elimination of services issue.
Others mileage may vary. I'm not trying to say that Peter shouldn't
have been let go. I'm only suggesting that the Delegates had this
authority and by the motion quoted here by Terrie and Nolan, they did
not relinquish it to the Board.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Mike Nolan
> One other interesting thing, is that firing of Peter Kurzdorfer,
>appears to have been illegal under the bylaws, since only the Delegates
>may fire the editor of Chess Life and this motion does not grant the
>Board authority to fire the Chess Life Editor either.
That is not correct.
Article VII of the Bylaws specifically give the Executive Board the
authority appoint (ie, to hire or fire) the Executive Director and
the Publications Director and to approve the hiring of a CFO.
Delegate Action of Continuing Interest #16 states that the EB is hired
by the Executive Board.
As far as I can recall, the Delegates have NEVER reserved to themselves
the authority to fire the editor or any other employee. The decision
to replace the last several editors was made in all cases by the Board,
though perhaps at the behest of the ED at that time.
--
Mike Nolan
AlforChess
>therefore the Board has no such authority at this time, temporary or
>otherwise.
I bow to your bottomless knowledge of bylaws matters. But, in plain English,
what does "all" mean?
Do we need Clinton here? :-}
Regards, al
AlforChess
Do I correctly recall that there was a brief discussion of "our" motion RE dues
and the response was that promotional memberships already offer the EB the
authority to adjust dues temporarily?
REgards, al
AlforChess
I wrote and offered the motion, although that fact offers limited, if any,
authority for interpretation.
Be that as it may, I intended it to mean that if changing dues, for example,
was necessary to meeting budget, the Board had the authority.
The whole point was to hold our elected leaders' feet to the fire. We've heard
for too many years that the bad results were unavoidable because of this or
that unchangeable problem.
Besides, I have to say that this is plain English. I see it as a sweeping
authorization to do what is necessary.
Regards, al
Mike Nolan
>Do I correctly recall that there was a brief discussion of "our" motion RE dues
>and the response was that promotional memberships already offer the EB the
>authority to adjust dues temporarily?
In the context of temporarily LOWER dues, yes. Higher 'promotional' dues
make no sense, except perhaps as a 'premium membership'. I don't think
the USCF has had much success at the latter.
I was asked (away from the mike) whether I thought raising dues should
be among the options the Board was given. I did not think that was
appropriate, for far too long the ONLY way that we have tried to balance
the budget was to raise dues, it was (and remains) time to bring out the axe
to the expenses side.
This also came up during the ad hoc Budget Committee meeting on Friday
evening, as I recall. I said pretty much the same thing there, which
was why the changes to the budget recommended by that committee were all
on the expenses side of the ledger, not on the revenue side.
Besides, the mechanics of a dues increase almost always works against it
being a practical short-term measure. It takes several months to get the
notifications in place, and a 'temporary' increase might well result in
more expenditure for reprinting membership forms that it might generate
in revenue. At this point, I would see a dues increase in any specific
membership category as being no better than revenue neutral for the
current fiscal year.
My analyis also suggested that from a P&L perspective the only dues category
that needed any significant adjustment beyond the dues increases passed
in Cherry Hill was the Youth membership. (I assume for the purposes
of this discussion that the Special membership is off-limits.)
I believe all of the other categories, including BOTH scholastic options,
are revenue-positive at the current rates.
You and I agree on the negative strategic implications of the no-magazine
Scholastic Membership option, and so far I have been unimpressed with the
content of the 'scholastic' issues of Chess Life. If the Board could find
a way to revive (an improved) School Mates I think that would be a good
move. If they could do it on newsprint, about 8 pages long, it might
even be cheaper to produce and print than sending out copies of Chess Life.
--
Mike Nolan
CJB
> I would certainly call it a stretch to suggest that
>firing the editor of Chess Life is an elimination of services issue.
Defense exhibit A: the November Chess Life
CJ the Brick
AlforChess
kicker Bruce Trainee's 75% maximum effort rule.
Regards, al
Bruce Draney
I must have been thinking the ED could not fire the Chess Life Editor.
Thanks for the correction Mike.
It now appears that Al Lawrence believed the motion that was passed
authorized a change in dues without Delegate approval.
Apparently the Finance Committee must believe that the Board has this
right under this provision. Otherwise, why would they bother to
propose a change in dues?
In addition the Board recently voted to study the question of changing
the dues, which implies at least to me that they believe they must
have the authority to change them if they wish to. Otherwise, what
would be the point of even bringing up a motion to do so?
We have seen frequently in the past that Delegate motions often take
on a meaning and life of their own, separate from what was intended by
those who wrote them.
Best Regards,
Bruce
"If you've got any bright ideas. Now's the time." Dr. McCoy from
Star Trek VI, the Undiscovered Country."
Fifiela
a way to revive (an improved) School Mates I think that would be a good
move.<<<
There is a generational issue here. Most of USCF membership is either over 40
or under 20. Those of us over belong to a "magazine" generation and CL is an
important membership benefit. Those of us under 20 belong to the "internet"
generation and a magazine is of no interest to them. To try to improve the
quality of a SM replacement for the under 20s is a waste of time and money. The
kids don't care about a magazine; They will never read it anyway. They will go
to a website to read about chess.
KidDon
> is assigned responsibility and granted all necessary authority for
> modifying or eliminating services to meet budgeting mandates,
> expiration to be effective at the beginning of the 2004 USCF
>
> This is the motion in question. Whether this means the EB can
> do anything they want with dues is unclear. You could make a case
> either way.
>
> -- Hal Terrie
(snip)
______________________________________
If that is the motion, it is not unclear at all. It only speaks of
services, and says nothing about dues.
KidDon
KidDon
> no...@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) writes:
>
> > "Tim Hanke" <timoth...@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> > >The proposal from the Finance Committee is to lower adult dues and raise
> > >scholastic dues.
> >
> > Only the Delegates can raise dues.
>
> Does the ByLaw giving the EB power to create "promotional memberships'
> stipulate that the dues for these "promotional memberships" be *lower*
> than the dues set by the Delegates?
>
>
> > --
> > Mike Nolan
By basic rules of contractual/statutory/Bylaw construction, yes,
"promotional memberships" must be set lower than the dues set by the
Delegates, and must be presented as a temporary/promotional
alternative, not replacing those set by the Delegates.
KidDon
KidDon
> Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net> writes:
>
> > ...
> > I thought that in LA the Delegates gave the Board FULL authority to do
> > whatever was necessary to deal with the USCF financial crisis. Is it
> > now your view Mike that this was not what was decided?
>
> don't know about Mike - but it's certainly not what *I* think was
> decided.
>
> Of course, I have an advantage over you, Bruce - I was there.
>
>
> >
> > When I inquired about this in late August I was told by several people
> > on posts here to RGCP that the Delegates had transferred authority to
> > the Board to raise dues if they felt it was necessary. Was this
> > incorrect?
>
> Yes.
What was decided is not what one or more delegates remember was
decided, but what is reflected in the official minutes of motions made
and passed -- currently available on the USChess website for all to
read. I do not see a motion that passed giving the Board the
authority to raise dues. It has no such power. The dues are set by
the Bylaws, and the Bylaws have a specific provision for change:
"Section 2. Amendment. These Bylaws may be amended by a majority vote
of the Delegates present at an Annual or a Special Delegates' meeting
except that any proposal not specifically included in the Delegates'
advance agenda shall require a 2/3 majority vote to pass."
There is absulutely no authority in the Bylaws for the Board to raise
dues. They cannot be raised until the annual meeting. Lower cost,
temporary, "promotional memberships", however, may be offered as an
ALTERNATIVE to the memberships specified in the Bylaws -- not as a
replacement.
KidDon
Tim Hanke
> Here is the exact wording of DM 03-12, taken from the minutes of the
> 2003 Delegates Meeting as posted on the website:
>
> The USCF EB is assigned responsibility and granted all necessary
> authority for modifying or eliminating services to meet budgeting
> mandates, expiration to be effective at the beginning of the 2004
> Delegates Meeting.
>
> Note that this motion specifically does NOT mention increasing dues,
> therefore the Board has no such authority at this time, temporary or
> otherwise.
With all due respect, I don't feel constrained by this *opinion*, especially
since the author of the motion does not agree with it, either.
Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance
Kenneth Sloan
Motion A: the EB (under the authority granted by the Delegates) hereby
discontinues the service of providing Scholastic and Youth Memberships.
Motion B: the EB (under the authority granted by the ByLaws) establishes
a Promotional Membership available to persons under 21 years of age.
This promotional membership entitles the member to 6 publications per
year and is priced at $25/year.
N.B., I'm not saying this is a *good* idea (for all the reasons given
elsewhere). - But...it does not appear to violate the *letter* of the
law.
Mike Nolan
>With all due respect, I don't feel constrained by this *opinion*, especially
>since the author of the motion does not agree with it, either.
Tim, if you won't respect the opinion of someone who has in the past 15
years served as the chair of the Scholastic, Bylaws, and Finance Committees,
been the USCF's Parliamentarian for over a decade, and whom you were willing
to hire as the USCF's Chief Operating Officer, just whose opinion would
you respect?
--
Mike Nolan
James B. Shearer
> Authority should match responsibility. This is especially true in a crisis.
>
> I wrote and offered the motion, although that fact offers limited, if any,
> authority for interpretation.
>
> Be that as it may, I intended it to mean that if changing dues, for example,
> was necessary to meeting budget, the Board had the authority.
>
> The whole point was to hold our elected leaders' feet to the fire. We've heard
> for too many years that the bad results were unavoidable because of this or
> that unchangeable problem.
>
> Besides, I have to say that this is plain English. I see it as a sweeping
> authorization to do what is necessary.
>
> Regards, al
If you wanted to give the EB the power to raise dues you should
have said so in your motion. In my view the motion clearly does not
give the EB power to raise dues. I don't think there is anything
ambiguous about it.
James B. Shearer
AlforChess
than enough to override/change bylaws.
I have no horse in this race, really.
But my intention was to give the EB the authority to avoid a further financial
loss and thus justifiably hold them responsible.
All the best, al
Fifiela
of the Delegates present at an Annual or a Special Delegates' meeting
except that any proposal not specifically included in the Delegates'
advance agenda shall require a 2/3 majority vote to pass."
There is absulutely no authority in the Bylaws for the Board to raise
dues. They cannot be raised until the annual meeting.>>>
I guess technically dues could be raised at a "Special Delegates' meeting"
(whatever that is....)
John Fernandez
little information to realistically manage the company well?
John Fernandez
Tim Hanke
The author of the motion would seem to be more of an expert than you on this
particular topic.
Tim Hanke
StanB
"James B. Shearer" <j...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:793eba26.03101...@posting.google.com...
> If you wanted to give the EB the power to raise dues you should
> have said so in your motion. In my view the motion clearly does not
> give the EB power to raise dues. I don't think there is anything
> ambiguous about it.
Fortunately, your view don't mean squat.
StanB
Mike Nolan
>The author of the motion would seem to be more of an expert than you on this
>particular topic.
Please note that I was the co-sponsor of the motion, therefore I do
claim some knowledge and expertise as to its intent.
Al's whole point was that there are many places in the Bylaws where
SPECIFIC services are mandated, such as X copies of a magazine. Without
that motion, you would have had far fewer options available to you for
cutting expenses.
And I seem to recall that I advised you in Los Angeles that the motion
gave you carte blanche to cut services and thus expenses but not to
raise dues. The Board is empowered to take extraordinary measures,
not extralegal ones.
--
Mike Nolan
Louis Blair
> this motion specifically does NOT mention
> increasing dues, therefore the Board has no
> such authority at this time, temporary or
> otherwise
Tim Hanke wrote (2003-10-17 09:37:31 PST):
> With all due respect, I don't feel constrained
> by this *opinion*, especially since the author
> of the motion does not agree with it, either.
_
"I wrote and offered the motion, although
THAT FACT OFFERS LIMITED, IF ANY, AUTHORITY
FOR INTERPRETATION." - Al Lawrence (2003-10-17
06:36:39 PST) (Emphasis added.)
It seems to me that there is good reason for
the last nine words in the Al Lawrence quote.
After all, there is the question of what was
in the minds of the others who voted for the
motion.
Tim Hanke
>
> >The author of the motion would seem to be more of an expert than you on
this
> >particular topic.
>
> Please note that I was the co-sponsor of the motion, therefore I do
> claim some knowledge and expertise as to its intent.
Claim whatever you want. When we are discussing Al's motion, I would contend
that Al is the leading expert on the topic, not you.
> Al's whole point was that there are many places in the Bylaws where
> SPECIFIC services are mandated, such as X copies of a magazine. Without
> that motion, you would have had far fewer options available to you for
> cutting expenses.
No, that was not Al's "whole point." Al has already posted that he does not
agree with your interpretation of his motion. Who are we to believe, when we
discuss the meaning of Al's motion? Al or you?
> And I seem to recall that I advised you in Los Angeles that the motion
> gave you carte blanche to cut services and thus expenses but not to
> raise dues. The Board is empowered to take extraordinary measures,
> not extralegal ones.
Your statement begs the question (i.e., assumes the point under discussion).
Please do not attribute to me the opinion that the EB can take "extralegal"
steps. Stick to expressing your own opinion, please.
Tim Hanke
Mike Nolan
I wrote:
>> And I seem to recall that I advised you in Los Angeles that the motion
>> gave you carte blanche to cut services and thus expenses but not to
>> raise dues. The Board is empowered to take extraordinary measures,
>> not extralegal ones.
You wrote:
>Your statement begs the question (i.e., assumes the point under discussion).
>Please do not attribute to me the opinion that the EB can take "extralegal"
>steps. Stick to expressing your own opinion, please.
Please explain to me where in my paragraph I attributed any opinion to
you whatsoever.
I take full credit for expressing the opinion that raising dues would be beyond
the Board's legal authority.
--
Mike Nolan
James B. Shearer
Nonsense. It does not matter what the author was trying to do
when the plain language of the motion passed clearly does not give the
EB the power to raise dues.
James B. Shearer
Bruce Draney
Hypothetical, just to cause stroke amongst scholastic equipment
vendors, coaches, parents and scholastic delegates.
Board decides the organization can only survive by voting to increase
dues. It votes 5-1 or 4-2 to raise scholastic dues, claiming the
Lawrence motion gave it the implied authority to do whatever was
necessary to stave off financial ruin.
Next August, it's time for the Delegates to extract their pound of
flesh. Do they have enough votes to censure the Board for raising dues
"illegally"?
What would the response be of scholastics if their dues were raised by
the Board? I'm betting we would have the chess equivalent of the Civil
War. But I doubt the Delegates would have the guts to do anything to
punish the Board, unless they didn't believe there was a financial
crisis.
For those who believed that the Board would not willingly defy the
Delegates and dare them to do anything to them in retalliation, need I
point out that in many cases Boards have simply ignored Delegate motions
and nothing has been done to them for their arrogance. This past year,
the McCrary Board completely ignored a Board mandate requiring the PPHBF
funds be repaid before the end of the fiscal year. Instead ED Niro,
issued some bogus gobblety gook statement about how the funds being
returned would hurt USCF financially. That's nice, but the motion said
they HAD to be repaid. They weren't.
Years ago, Larry Cohen I believe got a motion passed requiring online
submission of tournament results by one year. That was about 4 years
ago and guess what, we still aren't doing it, and the Delegates never
did diddly squat.
What it amounts to is the Delegates are about the most spineless,
milksop group of people in the world. They show up for a couple of
days, hob nob with each other, eat cocktail weenies at the President's
reception, pass a bunch of crap that is either poorly thought out,
unenforceable or both, and then retire to the pub to pat one another on
the back and report home on how positive and cooperative everyone was in
raising the dues of adults. In the last 5 years, I don't know of a
single case where the Delegates have ever held the Board's feet to the
fire on anything they did, no matter how boneheaded or flagrant, and
whether or not they violated Delegate mandates out the ying yang passed
in previous years.
Most of the time at Delegates' meetings, motions are withdrawn or
tabled, because the Board placates the motion maker or apologizes and
crosses its heart it will never do such a thing again without getting
approval.
I am of the general opinion that the Delegates deserve a Board that
laughs at them behind their back, the USCF gets exactly what it deserves
is crappy governance and leadership. (Present company excepted of
course).
USCF's new motto:
"Children's dues will be raised, substantially, when the sun cools to a
cold dark cinder."
Best Regards,
Bruce
CJB
>the plain language of the motion passed clearly does not give the
>EB the power to raise dues.
As Kenneth Sloan posted earlier, there is an easy way around this. The passed
motion allows services to be cut back by the EB. Ok, so the EB eliminates
scholastic memberships. The EB has the power of promotional memberships. Ok,
they give anyone under the age of 18 a promotional year membership for $20.
CJ the Brick
Bruce Draney
Ah, I see you are a believer in the theory of the sun cooling to a cold
hard cinder soon.
Best Regards,
Bruce
KidDon
True, an oversight on my part; but the reality is (I believe) that
getting an appropriate quorum at such a Special Delegates' meeting
would be quite difficult.
KidDon
KidDon
There is absolutely no opinion about it. The fact is that the written
motion says nothing about raising dues; and the Bylaws have specific
provisions as to how they can be modified. Since dues are set forth
in the Bylaws, they can only be changed at the Annual Meeting or at a
properly noticed and attended Special Meeting.
KidDon
KidDon
"modifying or eliminating services to meet budgeting mandates"
only becomes relevant, if at all, if there is an ambiguity. There is
no such ambiguity here that can lead to the interpretation now being
sought.
KidDon
_____________________________
alfor...@aol.com (AlforChess) wrote in message news:<20031017093124...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
> Authority should match responsibility. This is especially true in a crisis.
>
> I wrote and offered the motion, although that fact offers limited, if any,
> authority for interpretation.
>
> Be that as it may, I intended it to mean that if changing dues, for example,
> was necessary to meeting budget, the Board had the authority.
>
> The whole point was to hold our elected leaders' feet to the fire. We've heard
> for too many years that the bad results were unavoidable because of this or
> that unchangeable problem.
>
> Besides, I have to say that this is plain English. I see it as a sweeping
> authorization to do what is necessary.
>
> Regards, al
>
> >DM03-12 – NDM 03-39 – (Al Lawrence, NY, Mike Nolan, NE): The USCF EB
> >is assigned responsibility and granted all necessary authority for
> >modifying or eliminating services to meet budgeting mandates,
> >expiration to be effective at the beginning of the 2004 USCF
> >Delegates’ Meeting. PASSED AS AMENDED
> >
> > This is the motion in question. Whether this means the EB can
> >do anything they want with dues is unclear. You could make a case
> >either way.
> >
> > -- Hal Terrie
> >
> >>Mike Nolan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dan Heisman <danhe...@comcast.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>> >Yes, as you know I am a PA Delegate. Just curious; does the USCF By-Laws
> allow for a (quorum) vote of
> >>> >Delegates on special issues (like in times of USCF emergency/crisis)
> without being at the annual meeting at
> >>> >the US Open? Maybe I should ask the Parliamentarian. :)
> >>>
> >>> It would take a special meeting of the Delegates. 1/3 of the Delegates
> >>> must be present in person at such a meeting, which would be around 54
> >>> Delegates, depending upon the number of DAL's that are currently on
> >>> the roster.
> >>>
> >>> The Board could probably temporarily lower dues using its 'promotional
> >>> membership' authority, though that might be considered an abuse of
> >>> the privilege by some Delegates.
> >>> --
> >>> Mike Nolan
> >>
> >> I thought that in LA the Delegates gave the Board FULL authority to do
> >>whatever was necessary to deal with the USCF financial crisis. Is it
> >>now your view Mike that this was not what was decided?
> >>
> >> When I inquired about this in late August I was told by several people
> >>on posts here to RGCP that the Delegates had transferred authority to
> >>the Board to raise dues if they felt it was necessary. Was this
> >>incorrect?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Bruce
> >
> >
KidDon
> >Note that this motion specifically does NOT mention increasing dues,
> >therefore the Board has no such authority at this time, temporary or
> >otherwise.
>
> what does "all" mean?
>
> Do we need Clinton here? :-}
>
> Regards, al
_________________________
In plain English, the phrase "all necessary authority for modifying or
eliminating services to meet budgeting mandates" cannot possibly be
reasonably interpreted to mean "all necessary authority for raising
dues." I cannot believe anyone is actually making this argument with
a straight face. You might as well throw the Bylaws out the window.
KidDon
KidDon
The intent of the author of the motion may or may not match the intent
of those who voted for the motion, and in either case is wholly
irrelevant given the fact that the language of the motion itself
cannot by any stretch be reasonably interpreted to mean anything other
than what it says -- and it says nothing about authority to ignore the
Bylaws and raise dues prior to the Annual Meeting, other than through
a Special Meeting of the Delegates. The Board has only the power
granted to it by the Bylaws, and nothing more.
KidDon
KidDon
> no...@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) wrote in message news:<bmn8p9$7tt$1...@gw.tssi.com>.
>
> I must have been thinking the ED could not fire the Chess Life Editor.
> Thanks for the correction Mike.
>
> It now appears that Al Lawrence believed the motion that was passed
> authorized a change in dues without Delegate approval.
>
> Apparently the Finance Committee must believe that the Board has this
> right under this provision. Otherwise, why would they bother to
> propose a change in dues?
>
> In addition the Board recently voted to study the question of changing
> the dues, which implies at least to me that they believe they must
> have the authority to change them if they wish to. Otherwise, what
> would be the point of even bringing up a motion to do so?
>
> We have seen frequently in the past that Delegate motions often take
> on a meaning and life of their own, separate from what was intended by
> those who wrote them.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
> "If you've got any bright ideas. Now's the time." Dr. McCoy from
> Star Trek VI, the Undiscovered Country."
_______________________
The Delegate Motion did not amend the Bylaws, and even if it had, it
did not grant the power now being usurped.
KidDon
John Fernandez
>getting an appropriate quorum at such a Special Delegates' meeting
>would be quite difficult.
>
>KidDon
It could probably be done at a National Scholastic.
John Fernandez
StanB
"KidDon" <tampac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9fa25c25.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > The author of the motion would seem to be more of an expert than you on
this
> > particular topic.
> >
> > Tim Hanke
> _________________________
> The intent of the author of the motion may or may not match the intent
> of those who voted for the motion, and in either case is wholly
> irrelevant given the fact that the language of the motion itself
> cannot by any stretch be reasonably interpreted to mean anything other
> than what it says -- and it says nothing about authority to ignore the
> Bylaws and raise dues prior to the Annual Meeting, other than through
> a Special Meeting of the Delegates. The Board has only the power
> granted to it by the Bylaws, and nothing more.
Parol evidence?
StanB
Tim Hanke
> You might as well throw the Bylaws out the window.
KidDon,
Not a bad idea. It's your idea, not mine, but I have no problem giving
credit where credit is due.
Tim Hanke
Spam Scone
Stan,
Here are my scenarios for what may happen:
1) Dues are adjusted by the Board. Bachler makes 500 posts on the
subject. Some Scholastic Chess Industry non-chessplayer, such as
KidDon, sues the USCF Board to stop the dues adjustments. USCF settles
out of court with KidDon, and as part of the settlement kiddie dues
are set at a lower figure than before.
2) Dues are adjusted by the Board. Bachler makes 500 posts on the
subject. Some Scholastic Chess Industry non-chessplayer, such as
KidDon, sues the USCF Board to stop the dues adjustments. USCF files
for Chapter 11 to protect itself from KidDon. As part of the
restructuring dues are set at sensible levels for all memberships.
3) The dues adjustment does not take place, but the Delegates are
persuaded to grant dues setting power to the Board at the next coven.
Bachler makes 500 posts on the subject.
Spam Scone
> "Tim Hanke" <timoth...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >The proposal from the Finance Committee is to lower adult dues and raise
> >scholastic dues.
>
> Only the Delegates can raise dues.
Mike, which card do you wish to be on in the deck of 52 USCF Old Guard
playing cards?
sandirhodes
"Spam Scone" wrote in message ...
>Bachler makes 500 posts on the subject.
>Bachler makes 500 posts on the subject.
>Bachler makes 500 posts on the subject.
Now Neil, you know he only makes half a dozen to a dozen posts on any one
subject. By such time the subject has morphed. Just reread what he writes.
You obviously don't get the point.
Spam Scone
> "Spam Scone" wrote in message ...
> >Bachler makes 500 posts on the subject.
> >Bachler makes 500 posts on the subject.
> >Bachler makes 500 posts on the subject.
>
> Now Neil, you know he only makes half a dozen to a dozen posts on any one
> subject. By such time the subject has morphed.
Yes, and even he doesn't know what the subject is by then.
Mike Nolan
But since the National Scholastics aren't until April/May, would that
accomplish much? I'm not sure how many Delegates attend the K-12
championships in December, my guess would be fewer than attend the National
HS or National Elementary.
The Amateur Team East is another possibility. And if Don Schultz and
the rest of the Gang of 4 decide to stay in their rooms rather than
show up for a meeting, that'd would seem to complete the circle.
--
Mike Nolan
KidDon
USATE would attract delegats from the East, but probably not enough
from the rest of the country to manufacture a quorum. Plus, if the
main purpose is to raise scholastic dues, a number of delegates with
strong scholastic ties may choose to stay away in order to avoid a
quorum -- (pure speculation here - but it has happened before).
KidDon
John Fernandez
John Fernandez
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Bruce Draney mentioned that the Executive Board is or ought to be
laughing at the spineless, witless, feckless, hopeless Delegates.
For the record, in a time long past, USCF employees routinely laughed at
the Delegates. I use the word "routinely" advisedly, for the laughter occurred
at an annual dinner immediately following the annual Delegates' meeting.
Employees would gather together, compare notes, quote some of the more
delicious bits and vote to give the annual "Moron at the Mike Award" or MAMAs
as they are known.
One year, the battle came down to a Southern gentleman and a certain
lady. The Southern gentleman had delivered himself of some hilarious howlers
in numerous speeches; the lady had provided listeners with one supreme effort
of extended idiocy. Opinions among the, ah, voting members were divided: Does
an accumulation of verbal folly outweigh a single presentation of blather of
astonishing specific gravity?
We couldn't decide.
Such are the dilemmas presented by the Delegates.
At least two posters on rgcp have garnered MAMAs.
Alas, we have not seen John Fernandez at work during a Delegates
meeting, but one may imagine. One may imagine.
John Fernandez
>meeting, but one may imagine. One may imagine.
I don't go to Delegate's meetings. I prefer to actually get stuff done. I
dressed up like a sheep once, Halloween in 3rd grade. That was enough for me.
John Fernandez
Mike Nolan
>Is it Delegates or ADs? If both count, then there certainly will be a quorum.
There has to be a quorum, which is defined as having at least 1/3 of the
total number of Delegates present in person.
There are 125 elected Delegates (for whom Alternate Delegates can
substitute and State Chapters may appoint additional Alternate Delegates
at any time), plus the 6 members of the Executive Board and the
Delegates-at-large.
Depending upon exactly how many DAL's there are (I don't have the current
list), the total number of Delegates needed to attain quorum is around 54.
--
Mike Nolan
KidDon
Now how many times will we see this exchange quoted by S. Sloan
completely missing the sarcasm?
KidDon
KidDon
> Authority should match responsibility. This is especially true in a crisis.
>
> I wrote and offered the motion, although that fact offers limited, if any,
> authority for interpretation.
>
> Be that as it may, I intended it to mean that if changing dues, for example,
> was necessary to meeting budget, the Board had the authority.
>
> The whole point was to hold our elected leaders' feet to the fire. We've heard
> for too many years that the bad results were unavoidable because of this or
> that unchangeable problem.
>
> Besides, I have to say that this is plain English. I see it as a sweeping
> authorization to do what is necessary.
>
> Regards, al
Is this "sweeping authorization to do what is necessary" ... "to
meeting budget"* broad enough to give the Board power to suspend
services to Life Members, or do you admit that it has some limits?
KidDon
*fn - not the language of the actual motion, by the way.
KD
Kenneth Sloan
I don't see any sarcasm. In my opinions, both parties in this
discussion are presenting their actual views on the subject.
--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/
KidDon
> tampac...@aol.com (KidDon) writes:
>
> > "Tim Hanke" <timoth...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Aabkb.585378$cF.254788@rwcrnsc53>...
> > > "KidDon" <tampac...@aol.com> wrote ...
> > > > You might as well throw the Bylaws out the window.
> > >
> > > KidDon,
> > >
> > > Not a bad idea. It's your idea, not mine, but I have no problem giving
> > > credit where credit is due.
> > >
> > > Tim Hanke
> > _________________________________
> > Now how many times will we see this exchange quoted by S. Sloan
> > completely missing the sarcasm?
> >
> > KidDon
>
> I don't see any sarcasm. In my opinions, both parties in this
> discussion are presenting their actual views on the subject.
Then let me be clear: It is not my actual view that the Bylaws should
be thrown out of the window. It is my view that with regard to
provisions of the Bylaws that are clear and unambiguous (such as the
amount to be charged for dues), they are to be followed without resort
to parole evidence; and that raising dues absent a Regular or properly
noticed Special Meeting, would be ultra vires.
KidDon
AlforChess
>dressed up like a sheep once, Halloween in 3rd grade. That was enough for me.
>
>John Fernandez
Some of us still do. Don't be insensitive.
Regards, al
AlforChess
>meeting budget"* broad enough to give the Board power to suspend
>services to Life Members, or do you admit that it has some limits?
>
>KidDon
I certainly see your point, KD, but to answer your question, I'd say the ED has
the call. They can cut whatever to stop the bleedling so that we can save the
patient's life.
Regards, al
AlforChess
this event is.
And, as to your "stay away" scenario, I would say that has NEVER happened
before. When do you think it has
Regards, al
AlforChess
Regards, al
StanB
"Parrthenon" <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031020010810...@mb-m11.news.cs.com...
> Alas, we have not seen John Fernandez at work during a Delegates
> meeting, but one may imagine. One may imagine.
Who do you think cleans the latrines?
StanB
Bruce Draney
Isn't that S. Sloan, doing geneological research?
Best Regards,
Bruce
Mike Nolan
>I certainly see your point, KD, but to answer your question, I'd say the ED has
>the call. They can cut whatever to stop the bleedling so that we can save the
>patient's life.
I think the argument over whether or not the Board has the authority is
missing the point, which is whether or not any dues increase is a good
idea.
I'm still looking at the data, but if the increase to $40 represented
crossing a pain threshhold, as that dues increase coincided with the start
of the ongoing eight year decline in adult USCF membership, then the
increase to $49 has probably made a bad situation even worse.
Here's some sample preliminary data, which I emphasize could change as
I refine the analysis. (The main problem is I don't get DIRECT records of
dues transactions, so I have to infer them by looking at changes in
the expiration dates of member records. Also, in the last few years
as much as 10% of the adult dues transactions appear to have been for
multiple years. So it is entirely possible for the number of memberships
sold in a month to decline while the total membership in that category
increases, depending upon how many memberships expired in that month.)
With all those caveats, here is a PRELIMINARY estimate of the number of
Regular Adult ($40/49) memberships sold in September:
1999: 1866
2000: 1693
2001: 1626
2002: 1834
2003: 1372
The scholastic membership also seems to have been impacted, though not quite
as dramatically. Not only have 42% of the new memberships sold this
calendar year been at the $13 no-magazine rate versus the $19 with-magazine
rate, but it appears that the total number of scholastic memberships has
declined in the past 9 months.
So far in calendar 2003, scholastic membership sales appear to have
exceeded the corresponding number from the previous year in only two
months: March and May.
However, and here's where I think Ben Finegold's posts are too simplistic,
it difficult for me to believe that rolling back the dues increases would
bring a torrent of new or prodigal members through our doors and into
our tournaments, though it might at least improve the trendlines.
Even if he's RIGHT that the dues are too high, to reduce them MUST be
coupled with additional payroll/service reductions to compensate for
the likely decline in overall revenue, at least initially.
And of course as you pointed out as part of the Finance Committee last
year, Al, a decrease to a gross payroll of around $1.2 million, which is
probably about where it got cut to in August, was overdue. Had it been
done a year ago, when you were calling for a reduction (though I think
you had an even lower target in mind), we would likely be some $350,000
better off than we are today. And $350,000 equals the gross revenue
from over 7000 adult members at today's rates.
--
Mike Nolan
Bruce Draney
Of course this assumes a static decline that ceases. In fact the
decline has not only continued straight line, it has now actually
accelerated even after adjusting for all of the prisoners and adult
economy members.
This also does not reflect the permanent and serious damage being done
locally as smaller chess clubs dry up, as USCF members get scarcer and
scarcer and as directors and organizers get frustrated by attendance
declines and throw in the towel.
If an organizer happens to also be a scholastic as well as an adult
tournament organizer, the organization receives a double whammy.
This past administration was totally convinced that rebuilding B&E as as
the top priority would solve USCF's problems. Obviously they were
totally wrong.
My recollection was that since mid 1995, that USCF had been losing
1,200 adults per year net. Martinak's figures which factored out the
prisoners and the economy members showed the decline had accelerated by
a rate of about 60% over and above the previous 7 year's declines. It
appears at least to me that USCF is entering untenable ground, where
dues revenues will be unable to support even a downsized USCF that no
longer operates a B&E business.
Of course, there will be no dues increase because dues increases have
to be announced prior to January 1 of the following calendar year, or
there is mass confusion over what organizers charge people to join. Not
only that, USCF must print up new forms with the correct prices on them
or risk further confusion and problems.
Even if Hanke and Beatriz WANTED to raise dues, there would be no vote
until the next Board meeting. Even if they voted to increase dues, this
would be so controversial that I doubt it would go unchallenged as
scholastic people would be demanding an emergency delegates' meeting to
vote on the matter. That wouldn't be doable until February at the USATE
unless they tried to do it at the K-12's. Imagine the interesting
fireworks of a rogue Delegates' meeting at K-12's. They might even
rewrite the entire bylaws to turn USCF into a scholastic organization if
they could get a quorum of scholastic delegates to turn out and get them
alarmed enough.
I could see it all now. The new Executive Director of the USCF is
Rich Jackson. He was hired by the Delegates who met in emergency
session at the national K-12's in response to a plot by the Evil Hanke
gang, to raise scholastic dues without delegate approval.
Best Regards,
Bruce
StanB
"Mike Nolan" <no...@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:bn1p2o$tks$1...@gw.tssi.com...
> And of course as you pointed out as part of the Finance Committee last
> year, Al, a decrease to a gross payroll of around $1.2 million, which is
> probably about where it got cut to in August, was overdue. Had it been
> done a year ago, when you were calling for a reduction (though I think
> you had an even lower target in mind), we would likely be some $350,000
> better off than we are today.
No, Al was calling for an increase. One full time and one part-time employee
at the HOF. That we pay for. Like we can afford it and Shane can't. And the
royalties from our clock sales, one buck a piece for each one sold, when
does Al send that. It has been many a year since we got a check.
StanB
KidDon
in reality. Those who actually know me would know that despite a
fairly long career of representing other people in litigation (quite
successfully, I might add), I have never myself been a party to any
lawsuit -- and would not myself sue the USCF in this case. I would
however, be seriously disappointed in, a Board that would act ultra
vires, usurping power the Bylaws clearly reserve to the delegates.
KidDon
p.s. Bachler making 500 posts on the subject has some basis in
reality, but I think it would be closer to 1000.
KD
___________________________
alfor...@aol.com (AlforChess) wrote in message news:<20031020165931...@mb-m25.aol.com>...
KidDon
> "StanB" <stan...@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message news:<SoadnctXs5r...@comcast.com>...
> > "KidDon" <tampac...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:9fa25c25.03101...@posting.google.com...
>
> Stan,
>
> Here are my scenarios for what may happen:
>
> 1) Dues are adjusted by the Board. Bachler makes 500 posts on the
> subject. Some Scholastic Chess Industry non-chessplayer, such as
(snip)
_____________________________
Depending on your criteria, I may not be much of a chessplayer, but I
did pay entry fees for and play in 15 rated OTB games this Summer,
more than many (if not most) rcgp posters; and am a current adult
regular member, which is more than many (if not most) rgcp posters can
say. Unfortunately, the 15 games (5 separate rated quads) were all
with the same organizer, and it does not appear that any of them have
been rated. Also, I'm not sure what you mean to imply by labeling me
a part of a "Scholastic Chess Industry" when I have spent thousands of
dollars on scholastic chess, but have never made a penny from chess.
It remains to be seen whether I will ever renew my membership should
the Board act ultra vires on the dues issue.
KidDon
Tim Hanke
> It remains to be seen whether I will ever renew my membership should
> the Board act ultra vires on the dues issue.
So if the Board lowers your dues to $39, you'll quit?
I've heard a lot of wacky things on this newsgroup, but this one is among
the wackiest.
Tim Hanke
KidDon
_______________________
At the risk of this turning into a Bachler-like thread, that is not
even close to what I said. Temporarily lowering adult regular dues to
$39 via a promotional membership would not be ultra vires. The Board
has that power under the Bylaws. My discussion has been about the
possibility of the Board raising scholastic dues other than through
appropriate procedures at a Regular or properly noticed Special
Meeting, a power that is not granted by the Bylaws. Clear?
KidDon
AlforChess
>calendar year been at the $13
If I had USCF-outrage left, I would say this is an outrage. An outrage based on
a misrepresentation.
The EB should restrict this $13 immediately.
I'd rather sell fewer bananas than sell them at a loss.
Regards, al
AlforChess
This, of course, is not correct.
Regards, al
Bruce Draney
"Looks like we've been had." Dr. McCoy, Star Trek VI, the Undiscovered
Country.
I'm sorry Al, but did you REALLY believe the scholastic lobby would not
push the cheap membership? Get real. That's all they've ever truly
cared about is cranking em in, selling em books and sets and cranking em
out.
Since children don't want a magazine and only want to play rated chess,
why would anyone expect when given a choice that children wouldn't opt
for the cheap non-mag membership?
So what were the Delegates doing when this matter wasn't raised in LA?
Eating cocktail weenies at the President's Reception? Or is it that the
Scholastics are so powerful that the only way to face them down is to
have the Board eliminate the membership without a vote of the
Delegates?
It sounds like USCF may be headed for the point where the Delegates now
refer authority to the Board in some vague resolution, because they lack
the guts to face down scholastics and take a principled stand.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Hal Terrie
> Since children don't want a magazine and only want to play rated chess,
>why would anyone expect when given a choice that children wouldn't opt
>for the cheap non-mag membership?
They haven't been given a choice. The coaches who sign them up
have been pushing the $13 membership, in many cases not even
mentioning the existence of the $19 membership with magazine.
>
> So what were the Delegates doing when this matter wasn't raised in LA?
It WAS raised in LA. See my account of what happened in the
"Some Membership Statistics" thread begun by Mike Nolan.
-- Hal Terrie
StanB
"AlforChess" <alfor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031023002358...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >No, Al was calling for an increase.
>
> This, of course, is not correct.
Utter bullshit. You wanted us to increase the payroll by one full-time and
one part-time position to be stationed at the HOF.
StanB
Mike Nolan
I would be more than happy to post the numerous messages Al Lawrence
wrote to the Finance Committee listserver last year urging Frank to
trim back staff. Al also posted to rgcp several times on the need to cut
staff and services.
The HOF staffing came as a bit of a shock to me, given Al's very vocal
stance on USCF's payroll being bloated.
--
Mike Nolan
Kenneth Sloan
> ...
> The HOF staffing came as a bit of a shock to me, given Al's very vocal
> stance on USCF's payroll being bloated.
> ...
Why does it surprise you that someone might be in favor of cutting YOUR
staff while at the same time be in favor of padding HIS staff?
StanB
> The HOF staffing came as a bit of a shock to me, given Al's very vocal
> stance on USCF's payroll being bloated.
Imagine that. He talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.
StanB
AlforChess
>one part-time position to be stationed at the HOF.
>
>StanB
>
Simply not true.
I recommended that payroll be cut to a mil or less. This is on record and was
the topic of the conversation.
I did not hire anyone for the USCF, of course. That's not my job.
And at the time, a few days ago, that you wrote that 1.5 were on the payroll at
the Museum, that was not true and it was well known.
Furthermore, you were in the room with The President and VP of Finance, as well
as Don Schultz months ago when I specifically addressed this question and did
not say what you writing here. (In fact I said quite the reverse.) The three
people I mention know this.
Al Lawrence
AlforChess
The USCF positions at the Museum were for most of the summer months. They have
long since been cut. USCF now maintains a part-time employee with a job
description assigned by USCF.
I think all of this was a good idea. The Museum is one of the very best
projects that chess has going for it. It has a sponsor that has put a million
bucks into the project.
Doesn't it make sense for USCF to assign some small part of its payroll to
supporting this?
BTW, I stood in front of the delegates and reported the positions in August. I
did this even though it wasn't my job or my responsibility.
I'll say it once more--I'll be happy to take the blame for those I hired when
it was my job, but not after 1996.
Two of these writers never change their minds nor rarely have positive things
to say, so this is my last on this unless someone new has something to say.
Al Lawrence
A1
"AlforChess" <alfor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031023002138...@mb-m07.aol.com...
A1
want to play (often they don't want a magazine) and who are you to stop
them? another Uncle Scrooge I thought Tiny Tim Hanke was Uncle Scrooge.
Isn't he?
A1
I can be contacted thru
http://uk.geocities.com/uscfrnf/
http://b.webring.com/hub?ring=uscfrankandfile1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chess_travel
http://groups.msn.com/chesstravel
uscf...@yahoogroups.com
usc...@yahoogroups.co.uk
USCFRNFUSChessFederati...@groups.msn.com
chess_...@yahoogroups.com
chess...@groups.msn.com
"Bruce Draney" <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:3F9762...@novia.net...