Don Schultz the Best
BobChess
candidate for the Executive Board, was attacked and criticized by a guy named
Richard Peterson.
If I were running for office, I would want Peterson to be against me !!!!. . I
can't think of anyone whose opposition would make a greater a contribution to
any campaign.
We all recall that he was sued by USCF for his twenty five thousand dollar debt
to USCF, and we cannot forget his SECOND Bankruptcy that defeated the claim.
Look at Don's record of service. Note the people who SUPPORT Don Schultz, and
look at his many contributions to chess and to USCF. Draw your own conclusions.
Please be sure to vote !.
Very best regards,
Bob Smith
USCF Past President
ASCACHESS
>Date: 7/4/2003 5:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030704200018...@mb-m23.aol.com>
>
>My recent endorsement of Don Schultz as the most outstanding and qualified
>candidate for the Executive Board, was attacked and criticized by a guy
>named
>Richard Peterson.
>
>If I were running for office, I would want Peterson to be against me !!!!. .
>I
>can't think of anyone whose opposition would make a greater a contribution to
>any campaign.
>
>We all recall that he was sued by USCF for his twenty five thousand dollar
>debt
>to USCF, and we cannot forget his SECOND Bankruptcy that defeated the claim.
>
Bob wanted Peterson to oppose him. I did and he had to resign the USCF
Presidency in disgrace. One major cause was the number of lies where the proof
was Smith's own signature.
Bob can no longer claim insanity as his defense.
He knows all that he wrote is a lie.
Bob Smith, an attorney and member of the bar, hid the evidence which confirms
that no such claimed debt ever existed.
In USCF's name and as USCF President, he signed a settlement agreement which he
had no intention of honoring. This caused the bankruptcy.
Bear in mind, Smith himself hid the evidence, made a settlement deal which he
signed in my pressence, and then did not live up to the settlement agreement.
In other words, Bob Smith is lying right down the line.
Bob, why didn't you produce the John L White report that you commissioned as
USCF President when it was subpoenaed?
Why can't you answer?
Is it because you are the second biggest liar to ever have held the office of
USCF President? Isn't that why you had to resign in disgrace after just one
year of office?
Before I forgave you because I believed there was something badly mentally
wrong with you. It looks as if I was too kind.
Richard Peterson
Mike Nolan
it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates?
--
Mike Nolan
BobChess
candidacy of Don Schultz. Don's record and achievements stand for themselves.
Peterson owed $25,000 to USCF and managed to beat it with his SECOND
bankruptcy.
Peterson accuses me of having mental instability. Now let's look at the record.
Peterson may not be mentally changelled,. but we all know from postings on RGCF
and anyone who has reviewed the court records in Phoenix, that Peterson was
unable to recall the name of his third wife. Maybe it was his fourth wife, but
whatever.
Without further comment, I apologize for this digression. Peterson is
certainly not a candidate in this or any other race. He is certainly not to be
taken seriously.
We need strong leadership. John McCrary and his Board have fulfilled their
promises and now need strong support for the future..
DON SCHULTZ IS THE MAN FOR THE JOB.
Very best to all members,
Bob Smith
USCF Secretary
Past President
Beatchess
I agree with this statement! It's also inappropriate that the Co-chair of the
Election Committee, Bill Goichberg is endorsing and campaigning for some of the
candidates.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, I would like to request an
evaluation of the procedures and regulations in connection with the USCF
Executive Board's election, specially in regard of the ethical responsibilities
and obligations of the people directly involve in handling the technical
aspects of the election.
Yours for Chess,
WIM Beatriz Marinello
KidDon
>>bobc...@aol.com (BobChess)
>>Date: 7/4/2003 5:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20030704200018...@mb-m23.aol.com>
>>
>>My recent endorsement of Don Schultz as the most
>> outstanding and qualified
>>candidate for the Executive Board, was attacked and
>> criticized by a guy
>>named
>>Richard Peterson.
Rp:
I have no first hand knowledge of any of the facts or defenses of the
USCF's claim against you, or your claims against it. It just strikes me
that with the minimal legal budget the USCF must have had, if your case
was as strong as you claim it is, you could/should have litigated and
won rather than liquidating/avoiding your debt in bankruptcy.
KidDon
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.chess.politics
ASCACHESS
>USCF's claim against you, or your claims against it. It just strikes me
>that with the minimal legal budget the USCF must have had, if your case
>was as strong as you claim it is, you could/should have litigated and
>won rather than liquidating/avoiding your debt in bankruptcy.
>
>KidDon
>
The evidence withheld by Bob Smith did not appear until the summer of 2000.
But I do have to agree with your first point, you do know nothing.
Further, by approaching the USCF and through the USCF Secretary obtaining an
"extraordinary ballot" where both you and the USCF Secretary are announced
supporters of Don Schultz, let me be the first to accuse the two of you of
cheating in this election.
Richard Peterson
Don Schultz
Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
In the great tradition of the USCF Secretaries - Rachel Lieberman, Randy Hough,
Marshall Rohland, Leroy Dubeck, Bob Karch etc. , I cannot think of any that
didn't at one time or another support candidates.
ASCACHESS
Mike,
While I agree with you, (Bob Smith is once again stepping all over the ethics
rules as he did in the Goichberg/Dorsch matter) you still have not answered the
questions regarding your consulting contract with the office which would
preclude you from being the parliamentarian for the same reasons you cite for
the demented Mr. Smith.
This would be a good time to come forward.
Otherwise, you are not the one to be making the complaint.
Richard Peterson
ASCACHESS
>Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
>
>In the great tradition of the USCF Secretaries - Rachel Lieberman, Randy
>Hough,
>Marshall Rohland, Leroy Dubeck, Bob Karch etc. , I cannot think of any that
>didn't at one time or another support candidates.
>
Don Schultz falls into another ethical chasm.
This USCF Secretary (Bob Smith), who has never been able to get the minutes out
in any reasonable form or time period, is granting additional late ballots to
your supporters without the benefit of a written rule supporting this cheating.
In addition, the USCF Secretary is supporting the candidacy of Don Schultz.
Does it take a genius to connect the dots?
Richard Peterson
BobChess
$25,000.00 from his tournament in Phoenix. He chose Bankrutcy instead. y
parrots Doris Barry, his political ally, who resigned from the Executive Board.
My work as Secretary? He simply parrots the sour grapes of Doris Barry, former
Secretary.
Is this politics? I wish I could say that Peterson's diatribes are just
politics, but they are merely an insight into what he really is.
He just caught his hand in the cookie jar.
Bob Smith
Mike Nolan
>>Bob, as the Secretary you are in charge of the election. Don't you see
>>it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates?
>>--
>Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
And that makes it proper? I believe that the Secretary has a duty to
remain impartial, and endorsing a candidate might give the appearance
of favoring that candidate should an issue arise upon which the Secretary
has to rule. In point of fact, the Secretary has already ruled on several
points in this year's election, and at least one of those rulings could be
seen as favoring some of the candidates.
--
Mike Nolan
Wickdeer3
I heartily endorse Mike Nolan's position here.
Past practices of USCF officers have not always been examples to follow in
avoiding the appearance of partiality or impropriety.
If nothing else, the OMOV changes should prompt us to look at the
organization's past practices with an eye to improvement.
Wick Deer
Wick Deer
Wickdeer3
A review of the Google postings of the period would show that this
interpretation of the facts is subject to question. Frankly, neither the posts
of Mr. Peterson or Mr. Smith are very informative, as they are two busy chewing
on each other like Rotweillers with the munchies.
A more objective brief summary of the facts would be as follows:
1. Richard Peterson is awarded a bid to conduct the 1999 National Elementary
in Pheonix.
2. Peterson is later awarded the bid for the 2000 National Elementary in
Dallas.
3. A dispute arises between Peterson and USCF about the accounting for the
National Elementary. Frankly, neither side has documented the transaction in a
remotely businesslike way. The parties don't even agree what the contract
says, and the contract is silent on several points which are later in dispute.
USCF claims Peterson owes over $25,000, despite the fact that USCF, not
Peterson, collected the vast majority of the entry fees.
4. USCF sues Peterson
5. USCF board revokes the bid for the 2000 National Elementary.
6. Despite the revocation, Peterson signs a contract with a hotel for the 2000
tournament in Dallas.
7. USCF sets up a simultaneous event at a different Dallas Hotel.
8. Smith and Peterson (and their lawyers) reach an oral agreement to settle
the case against Peterson. Terms of the oral agreement include holding the
National Elementary at Peterson's hotel, thus eliminating Peterson's obligation
to the hotel.
9. The oral agreement falls through.
10. Peterson declares bankruptcy. His stated reason for the bankruptcy is to
cancel the hotel contract (a claim that is one of the few statements made by
either side about this entire affair that makes any sense logically.)
This is a simplified summary of a very complicated affair. I have tried to be
concise and accurate to the best of my memory. I think an objective observer
with a sense of humor could find hours of entertainment in researching the
Google records for the various details.
Paging Dr. Blair, paging Dr. Blair....
Wick Deer
Wick Deer
Wickdeer3
>Rp:
>
>I have no first hand knowledge of any of the facts or defenses of the
>USCF's claim against you, or your claims against it. It just strikes me
>that with the minimal legal budget the USCF must have had, if your case
>was as strong as you claim it is, you could/should have litigated and
>won rather than liquidating/avoiding your debt in bankruptcy.
>
>KidDon
>
Don:
Please see my summary of events posted elsewhere in this thread. The
bankruptcy may well have had a lot more to do with cancelling an executory
contract than with this litigation.
Also, USCF was in better fianancial shape at the time (or at least they were
claiming to be in better financial shape.)
If you are interested contact me for a lawyer to lawyer chat on some of the
details. Suffice it to say that no one concerned would have made their lawyers
very happy with the way this affair was handled.
Wick Deer
ASCACHESS
>2000
>tournament in Dallas.
>
The contract for the hotel in Dallas was signed a full year before USCF
cancelled the contract.
>8. Smith and Peterson (and their lawyers) reach an oral agreement to settle
>the case against Peterson. Terms of the oral agreement include holding the
>National Elementary at Peterson's hotel, thus eliminating Peterson's
>obligation
>to the hotel.
The agreement was not oral it was in writing and if you check the dejas, you
can find a verbatim copy. A copy was distributed to all the delegates at St
Paul.
>9. The oral agreement falls through.
Smith does not act on the written agreement.
When the delegate packets come out, I discover that Mr. John L White has done a
management study at the request of Mr. Smith which is presented to Smith in
September of 1999. This study is subject to subpoena, but Smith withholds it.
The White report states in no uncertain terms that no one in the office has
done any tournament accounting and that no one seemed to care.
Since the basis for the lawsuit was supposed to be a debt, Smith's withholding
the White report was a deliberate fraud on the part of the USCF President.
Richard Peterson
Jane Adams
I don't know you at all. If you think that this election (or any othe USCF
election) is on the up and up, you have another think coming. Watch the
ballot box security procedures, who has the key, and any othe custodial
issues you can think of.
USCF is famous for this sort of necrophilia.
Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams
"Beatchess" <beat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030704212309...@mb-m22.aol.com...
Jane Adams
"Don Schultz" <ches...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
>
That's exactly like saying, what criminals don't commit crimes?
Jane
Don Schultz
>That's exactly like saying, what criminals don't commit crimes?
>
My reply: Throughout the USA election supervisors are political and endorse
candidates. Now there may be good arguments against them doing this, BUT that
is the way it is and has been both in USA national elections and in the USCF.
To jump all over Bob for following this tradition is not at all like asking
what criminals don't commit crimes let alone exactly like it.
ASCACHESS
>candidates. Now there may be good arguments against them doing this, BUT that
>is the way it is and has been both in USA national elections and in the USCF.
>To jump all over Bob for following this tradition is not at all like asking
>what criminals don't commit crimes let alone exactly like it.
>
Another absurdity from Chessdon.
USCF Secretary Smith is issuing ballots to people who support Don Schultz when
there is no written basis for this preferential treatment.
A reasonable person would doubt that these rules would have been ignored if the
person asking was one of your opponents.
Kiddon makes a big point of telling us that he requested his ballot before July
1. Of course, he said this one July 3 when no one else would qualify under
this supposed rule.
Richard Peterson
WPraeder
>
>Past practices of USCF officers have not always been examples to follow in
>avoiding the appearance of partiality or impropriety.
>
>If nothing else, the OMOV changes should prompt us to look at the
>organization's past practices with an eye to improvement.
>
>Wick Deer
>
Wick,
Dons improper appeal to practice is clearly not sufficient to justify or excuse
the conduct being criticized.
It is time to change the lack of results, poor business practice, wretched
accountability, and weak ethics that have plagued the USCF leadership for the
last two decades.
Those who argue for more of the same demonstrate most strongly the need for
term limits.
A vision for what we want the organization to be, and a road map of how we want
to get from here to there, is absolutely essential if we are to be a good
steward of our organizations resources. Let's take the opportunity to learn
from past mistakes and continue working towards building a better USCF.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
StanB
> Regardless of the outcome of the election, I would like to request an
> evaluation of the procedures and regulations in connection with the USCF
> Executive Board's election, specially in regard of the ethical
responsibilities
> and obligations of the people directly involve in handling the technical
> aspects of the election.
You may be interested to know that an informal poll at the World Open has
you winning along with Schultz and Wagner.
StanB
StanB
"ASCACHESS" <asca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030704222056...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> But I do have to agree with your first point, you do know nothing.
Next time don't beat around bush.
StanB
Beatchess
Date: 7/5/2003 2:35 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20030705023504...@mb-m04.aol.com>
Don,
I agree that there may be good arguments to chance the historical and current
handle of the people directly involve with the election.
Mr. Bob Smith as a USCF Secretary had access to confidential information, such
as reviewing a copy of the ballot. I know for a fact that he shared this
information with you, one of the candidates, since you sent a e-mail suggesting
some revisions. This is a not acceptable, I respect loyalty and friendship,
but this is strictly business.
At the same time, Mr. Bill Goichberg, who is the co-chair of the Election
Committee had access to an electronic copy of the labels prepared specially for
the election, I do not this for a fact, but there was a rumor that he shared
with confidential information with other people. I called the office in
relation to this matter and the solution was to offer similar information to
all candidates. Mr. Mike Nolan sent a e-mail to all the candidates offering
this information.
On a positive side, I trust the other poeple envolve in handling the election,
specially Mr. Glen Peterson, who will be the Chief teller of this year's
election.
In conclusion, yes I agree with you about making some chances for future
elections.
Yours for Chess,
Beatriz Marinello
Liam Too
>
>>Paging Dr. Blair, paging Dr. Blair.... Wick Deer<<
Sorry but Dr. Blair is busy right now with the Hanke proceedings.
Lance Smith
Jane Adams
Beatriz,
It's not Glenn who is a potential problem, it is the chain of custody of the
ballots. That is where irregularities have cropped up on the past. Who has
custody of the received ballots before Glenn receives them for counting.
That is the weak link in the rusty chain.
Jane
Beatchess
"Beatriz,
It's not Glenn who is a potential problem, it is the chain of custody of the
ballots. That is where irregularities have cropped up on the past. Who has
custody of the received ballots before Glenn receives them for counting.
That is the weak link in the rusty chain.
Jane"
Jane:
I just received a e-mail from Glenn Peterson, in which he is telling me that
they do not know yet whether the auditors will bring the ballots to the USCF
office or if him (Glenn Peterson) and Bob Smith will be picking them up. I
will strongly recommend that the auditors bring the ballots to the USCF office,
and must be appropriately secure prior to counting.
Mike Nolan
>It's not Glenn who is a potential problem, it is the chain of custody of the
>ballots. That is where irregularities have cropped up on the past. Who has
>custody of the received ballots before Glenn receives them for counting.
>That is the weak link in the rusty chain.
The ballots will be in the custody of the USCF's auditing firm until
they are delivered to the USCF offices on July 16th.
--
Mike Nolan
Miriling
>On 5 July 2003 no...@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) replied in
>Message-id: <be7o4b$13a$1...@gw.tssi.com>
>
>The ballots will be in the custody of the USCF's auditing firm until
>they are delivered to the USCF offices on July 16th.
>--
>Mike Nolan
>
>
>How about the ballots received at the auditor's office before 5 p.m. on July
17?
George Mirijanian
>
>
>
ASCACHESS
>17?
>
>George Mirijanian
It is good to see a healthy skepticism emerging.
When they can't even get it straight when the ballots will be delivered, there
may be a problem.
Rp
Miriling
>on 5 July 2003 asca...@aol.com (ASCACHESS) replied in
>Message-id: <20030705215543...@mb-m27.aol.com>
>
>
>It is good to see a healthy skepticism emerging.
>When they can't even get it straight when the ballots will be delivered,
>there
>may be a problem.
>
>Rp
>
>
>Skepticism is justified. The procedures that are supposedly going to be
followed are open to question. "Ballots postmarked after July 7, 2003 . . .
will not be counted. Any ballots received without valid authentcation [sic]
information on them will be invalidated. The ballots will be verified by using
the information pre-printed on your ballot, separated by region then counted.
The secrecy of each ballot will be maintained, as ballots will be separated
from the names of the Voting Members before being counted."
I would be willing to wager that the accounting firm in Montgomery, N.Y. will
receive ballots before 5 p.m. on July 17 that were "postmarked after July 7"
and those ballots will be among those brought to New Windsor. Are the tellers
prepared to verify each ballot's postmark before the ballot is separated from
the voter's name. The postmark will not appear on the ballot, but on the return
address of the voter. With Goichberg and Hanken predicting about 3,000 members
voting in this OMOV election, do you know long it would take the tellers to
verify the postmark of every returned ballot. Remember, the accounting firm is
going to turn over every ballot received by it, regardless of the postmark.
Will the vote counters invalidate every ballot that does not bear a proper
postmark? The ballot count in New Windsor, I predict, is going to be a very
long and interesting affair.
>
>George Mirijanian
>
KidDon
I presume you mean the Dallas hotel contract.
KidDon
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.chess.politics
LeModernCaveman
accurately, why I haven't bothered to rejoin.
KidDon
I see you are employing a failed tactic of the desperate and fallen --
repeat a lie often enough and eventually someone will believe it. There
was no "late ballot" supplied.
KidDon
______________________________
The rules governing this election are in the USCF Bylaws. Can anyone
point to any specific provision in the Bylaws that would prevent Bob
Smith, as a Voting Member from exercising his rights to publically
endorse one or more candidates?
KidDon
Wrong again Rp. I first made the statement about the July 1 deadline a
couple of weeks ago when the Secretary made his ruling. I repeated some
of the information on July 3rd.
Mike Nolan
>>How about the ballots received at the auditor's office before 5 p.m. on July
>17?
Since the auditors are in the middle of the USCF audit, it is quite likely
that they will be coming to the USCF offices (a trip of less than 10 miles,
as I recall) both days.
--
Mike Nolan
Wickdeer3
>I presume you mean the Dallas hotel contract.
Correct.
Wick Deer
Wickdeer3
>The rules governing this election are in the USCF Bylaws. Can anyone
>point to any specific provision in the Bylaws that would prevent Bob
>Smith, as a Voting Member from exercising his rights to publically
>endorse one or more candidates?
Hi Don:
There is of course, no specific position.
OTOH, as an attorney, I am surprised that you don't see the potential danger of
a finder of fact having a relationship with a party appearing before it.
Even the appearance of partiality can be quite damaging to the process.
Wick Deer
ASCACHESS
>> to get the minutes out
>> in any reasonable form or time period, is granting
>> additional late ballots to
>> your supporters without the benefit of a written rule
>> supporting this cheating.
>> In addition, the USCF Secretary is supporting the
>> candidacy of Don Schultz.
>>
>> Does it take a genius to connect the dots?
>>
>> Richard Peterson
>_______________________________________
>I see you are employing a failed tactic of the desperate and fallen --
>repeat a lie often enough and eventually someone will believe it. There
>was no "late ballot" supplied.
>
>KidDon
>--
Did you receive a ballot?
If you did, it was late.
If you didn't, it is just one more evidence of the kind of competence to which
we have been subjected.
Fortunately, they don't even handle cheating well.
Richard Peterson
StanB
> I just received a e-mail from Glenn Peterson, in which he is telling me
that
> they do not know yet whether the auditors will bring the ballots to the
USCF
> office or if him (Glenn Peterson) and Bob Smith will be picking them up.
I
> will strongly recommend that the auditors bring the ballots to the USCF
office,
> and must be appropriately secure prior to counting.
If they do the count and certify the results, it matters naught who brings
the ballots later on.
StanB
George John
"LeModernCaveman" <lemoder...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030706013659...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> Thanks to ALL in this thread for reminding me of why I left the USCF, or
more
> accurately, why I haven't bothered to rejoin.
While I can think of many reasons for leaving the USCF, and for not
rejoining, I'm interesting in hearing more from you about why you left, why
you haven't rejoined, and what in this thread reminded you of these reasons.
George
StanB
> Thanks to ALL in this thread for reminding me of why I left the USCF, or
more
> accurately, why I haven't bothered to rejoin.
Do you know if anyone misses you?
StanB
StanB
"Wickdeer3" <wick...@cs.comKillSpam> wrote in message
news:20030706085444...@mb-m11.news.cs.com...
> There is of course, no specific position.
>
> OTOH, as an attorney, I am surprised that you don't see the potential
danger of
> a finder of fact having a relationship with a party appearing before it.
>
> Even the appearance of partiality can be quite damaging to the process.
Yea as far as an arm's length transaction goes, those guys all have short
arms.
StanB
Mike Nolan
>If they do the count and certify the results, it matters naught who brings
>the ballots later on.
The auditors will not be opening or counting the ballots, though they will
be certifying how many ballots were received so that we have a number to
check against.
--
Mike Nolan
Jane Adams
"StanB" <stan...@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
news:a9ecnbhyOKN...@comcast.com...
Stan is technically correct, as always. Unfortunately, there have been
instances where partisans had access to the mail box in both national and
local elections. Foul play probably resulted there and is the weak link in
the rusty chain I am talking about.
Technically correct, because once certified, nobody has any legitimate
complaints.
Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams
Jane Adams
"Mike Nolan" <no...@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:be7o4b$13a$1...@gw.tssi.com...
Who picks them up from the post office? Or, are they delivered directly to
the "auditing firm"? And, who is the auditing firm?
Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams
Jane Adams
"StanB" <stan...@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
Dare I say this? Who's doing the short arm inspection?
Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams
StanB
> >If they do the count and certify the results, it matters naught who
brings
> >the ballots later on.
>
> The auditors will not be opening or counting the ballots, though they will
> be certifying how many ballots were received so that we have a number to
> check against.
One wonders why.
StanB
StanB
"Jane Adams" <jad...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:Fo1Oa.120131$MJ5.69314@fed1read03...
> > Yea as far as an arm's length transaction goes,
> > those guys all have short arms.
>
> Dare I say this? Who's doing the short arm inspection?
Tom Klem.
StanB
Mike Nolan
>Who picks them up from the post office? Or, are they delivered directly to
>the "auditing firm"? And, who is the auditing firm?
The USCF's auditors is the accounting firm of Nugent & Haeuessler PC,
in Montgomery NY. The ballots were printed with the firm's name and
address on the envelope side of the ballot. Whether the firm is big enough
and gets enough mail to send a representative to their postal branch
every morning to pick up their mail is a question I don't have the answer
to, but even if that is the case it would still be an employee of the
auditing firm making the pickup.
BTW, having the auditors receive the ballots is a requirement under our
Bylaws, which specify that the ballots must be returned to an 'independent
agency' though the counting can be done either by an independent agency
or by the usual method of the Secretary (or designee) and by appointed
tellers.
That's probably one of the clearest statements in the Bylaws regarding
the requirements for conducting the election.
Even then, an early question that the Election Procedures Committee
discussed was what constitutes an 'independent agency'. Does a post
office box qualify? (We decided that it does not, as the Bylaws were
specifically amended to remove the post office box requirement.)
Here's an example of a very ambiguous statement:
Any member residing in the USA who is 16 years of age or older
at the time of the election, and whose membership is current
through the end of a month in which an election is held, is
a voting member.
This leaves somewhat up for grabs the exact date by which someone
needs to have turned 16. Is the 'time of the election' some day in June,
when the ballots were distributed, or some day in July, when they are
to be counted? Is June the month in which the election is being held,
or is it July? Does someone who joins in June get to vote?
This year the recommendation was that a voting member must have turned
16 by June 1st and that their membership must be current at the end
of June.
Standard practice has been that USCF members whose memberships expire on
5/31/03 would not be sent the July Chess Life in the main mailing, in
early June.
As a result, on 5/18/03 when the labels were generated those memberships
expiring on 5/31/03 that had not yet been renewed were NOT sent ballots.
Those who did renew by the end of May when the supplemental mailing list
was created were sent ballots at that time.
I have placed several motions on the advance agenda for Los Angeles to
clarify some of these issues, though I'm not sure if I have them in their
final form yet. I'm presently leaning towards defining either May 1st or
June 1st as the 'effective' date for all purposes for a regular election.
In other words, someone must be a USCF member on that date (May or June
1st, I haven't decided which of the two dates is better), they must be
at least 16 year old on that date and they must have a USA delivery
address for their membership on that date.
I would also use that date as the cutoff for non-magazine members requesting
a ballot, if we continue that practice, though I would rather see the
Bylaws changed either to only permit memberships that include Chess Life to
be voting memberships or to specify that we will mail a ballot to all
non-magazine voting members.
If we go to electronic voting I could see relaxing the mail request
date, as long as the electronic voting system can be checked to make
sure that someone requesting a mail ballot has not already voted and can
be set to disallow someone from voting electronically if they have
requested a mail ballot.
--
Mike Nolan
Mike Nolan
>> The auditors will not be opening or counting the ballots, though they will
>> be certifying how many ballots were received so that we have a number to
>> check against.
>One wonders why.
I don't know if Frank asked them how much they would have charged to
do the counting. I think that they offered to give us a certified count.
--
Mike Nolan
Jane Adams
If it is done as described above, then it should be ok. Any deviation, for
whatever reason, should immediately be viewed with skeptism.
Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams
KidDon
>>I have no first hand knowledge of any of the facts or defenses of the
>>USCF's claim against you, or your claims against it. It
>> just strikes me
>>that with the minimal legal budget the USCF must have had,
>> if your case
>>was as strong as you claim it is, you could/should have litigated and
>>won rather than liquidating/avoiding your debt in bankruptcy.
>>
>>KidDon
>>
> the summer of 2000.
>
> But I do have to agree with your first point, you do know nothing.
> Further, by approaching the USCF and through the USCF
> Secretary obtaining an
> "extraordinary ballot" where both you and the USCF
> Secretary are announced
> supporters of Don Schultz, let me be the first to accuse
> the two of you of
> cheating in this election.
>
> Richard Peterson
__________________________________
Actually what I said was that I had "no first hand knowledge." I didn't
say that I know nothing. In this particular case, the difference may be
relatively slight, but from posts like yours, I'm beginning to expect
you to twist peoples words and misquote them. It is hurting your
credibility on even old issues.
Second, as discussed "ad nauseum" elsewhere on rec.games.chess.politics,
there was no "extraordinary ballot." The ballot I received was
completetly ordinary and well within the Bylaws.
KidDon
>>> This USCF Secretary (Bob Smith), who has never been able
>>> to get the minutes out
>>> in any reasonable form or time period, is granting
>>> additional late ballots to
>>> your supporters without the benefit of a written rule
>>> supporting this cheating.
>>> In addition, the USCF Secretary is supporting the
>>> candidacy of Don Schultz.
>>>
>>> Does it take a genius to connect the dots?
>>>
>>> Richard Peterson
>>_______________________________________
>>I see you are employing a failed tactic of the desperate
>> and fallen --
>>repeat a lie often enough and eventually someone will
>> believe it. There
>>was no "late ballot" supplied.
>>
>>KidDon
I was denied a ballot as an Adult Economy member because the Secretary
aparantly did not agree with my arguments with regard to the language in
the Bylaws the provides a May 20 deadline by which Adult Economy members
"may" request a ballot. Therefore, I paid the fee to upgrade to "Adult
Regular" for which there is no May 20 deadline. As a newly upgraded
Adult Regular member, I did receive a ballot in plenty of time to cast
my vote on a timely basis. There is no hard deadline for such new and
upgraded members in the Bylaws. The May 20 deadline does not apply to
"Adult Regular." Therefore, there was not "late ballot" supplied.
KidDon
--
StanB
"KidDon" <kiddon.ne...@web2news.net> wrote in message
news:4868...@web2news.com...
> I was denied a ballot as an Adult Economy member because the Secretary
> aparantly did not agree with my arguments with regard to the language in
> the Bylaws the provides a May 20 deadline by which Adult Economy members
> "may" request a ballot. Therefore, I paid the fee to upgrade to "Adult
> Regular" for which there is no May 20 deadline.
The system works.
StanB
KidDon
I do see the danger and agree that the appearance of partiality or
impropriety "should" be avoided. The problem here is that there is no
specific provision in the Bylaws that it "must" be avoided in this
circumstance. So while Bob is doing something that many of us would not
do, it is not necessarily wrong -- at least with regard to the Bylaws.
Perhaps this is another thing for the Bylaws committee to consider.
ASCACHESS
>Regular" for which there is no May 20 deadline. As a newly upgraded
>Adult Regular member, I did receive a ballot in plenty of time to cast
>my vote on a timely basis. There is no hard deadline for such new and
>upgraded members in the Bylaws. The May 20 deadline does not apply to
>"Adult Regular." Therefore, there was not "late ballot" supplied.
>
>KidDon
>--
By your logic, anyone joining USCF in June should have still been able to get a
ballot, yet no one else got one (that we know of).
What an unusual way to corrupt the process.
Richard Peterson
Wickdeer3
I think the word that Mike Nolan used, and with which I agreed, wasn't "wrong",
it was
"inappropriate."
While the distinction is somewhat subtle, I have no doubt that you will
appreciate it. I think Mike and I were both addressing what Mr. Smith should
do, rather than what he must do.
Wick Deer
KidDon
>>I paid the fee to upgrade to "Adult
>>Regular" for which there is no May 20 deadline. As a newly upgraded
>>Adult Regular member, I did receive a ballot in plenty of
>> time to cast
>>my vote on a timely basis. There is no hard deadline for
>> such new and
>>upgraded members in the Bylaws. The May 20 deadline does
>> not apply to
>>"Adult Regular." Therefore, there was not "late ballot" supplied.
>>
>>KidDon
My understanding of the Secretary's ruling from mid June is that anyone
joining as Adult Regular or upgrading to Adult Regular by the end of
June who requested a ballot would have received one. I do not know
whether or not anyone other than me requested one by the end of June.
KidDon
> KidDon wrote:
>
>>Wickdeer3 wrote:
>>> KidDon wrote:
>>>
>>>>The rules governing this election are in the USCF
>>>> Bylaws. Can anyone
>>>>point to any specific provision in the Bylaws that would
>>>> prevent Bob
>>>>Smith, as a Voting Member from exercising his rights to publically
>>>>endorse one or more candidates?
>>>
>>> Hi Don:
>>>
>>> There is of course, no specific position.
>>>
>>> OTOH, as an attorney, I am surprised that you don't see
>>> the potential danger of
>>> a finder of fact having a relationship with a party
>>____________________________
>>I do see the danger and agree that the appearance of partiality or
>>impropriety "should" be avoided. The problem here is that
>> there is no
>>specific provision in the Bylaws that it "must" be avoided in this
>>circumstance. So while Bob is doing something that many
>> of us would not
>>do, it is not necessarily wrong -- at least with regard to
>> the Bylaws.
>>Perhaps this is another thing for the Bylaws committee to consider.
>>
> I think the word that Mike Nolan used, and with which I
> agreed, wasn't "wrong",
> it was
> "inappropriate."
>
> While the distinction is somewhat subtle, I have no doubt
> that you will
> appreciate it. I think Mike and I were both addressing
> what Mr. Smith should
> do, rather than what he must do.
>
> Wick Deer
Understood.
ASCACHESS
>joining as Adult Regular or upgrading to Adult Regular by the end of
>June who requested a ballot would have received one. I do not know
>whether or not anyone other than me requested one by the end of June.
>
>KidDon
>--
And this ruling was communicated to whom?
Looks like it was a private ruling designed to add one more vote to the
endorsed candidate of Mr. Smith and yourself.
You failed to ask for the ballot in May, but since you are a Schultz voter, you
got a private exception which no one else could possibly have known to ask for
since it was not posted anywhere.
Richard Peterson
KidDon
>>My understanding of the Secretary's ruling from mid June
>> is that anyone
>>joining as Adult Regular or upgrading to Adult Regular by the end of
>>June who requested a ballot would have received one. I do not know
>>whether or not anyone other than me requested one by the end of June.
>>
>>KidDon
_______________________
It was communicated to me by Mike Nolan and reported by me immediately
on rec.games.chess.politics. I'm not sure there was a need for the
Secretary to publish the fact that the Bylaws had no deadline (May 20 or
otherwise) for an Adult Regular member to request a ballot in light of
the fact that the Bylaws are posted and anyone can see that for
themselves. The only real deadline was to have the returned ballot post
marked by July 7.
George John
"ASCACHESS" <asca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030707120532...@mb-m02.aol.com...
-snip-
> By your logic, anyone joining USCF in June should have still been able to
get a
> ballot, yet no one else got one (that we know of).
Although I'm not absolutely certain, my understanding is that all those on
the supplemental mailing list were sent ballots by first class mail.
George
ASCACHESS
>the supplemental mailing list were sent ballots by first class mail.
>
>George
How would one know that?
Is the supplemental list longer than just Don's supporters?
Rp
AZchess
Although I was apparently not good enough to make your short list,
Rachel was on your list.
You have accused her of publicly supporting candidates while she was
secretary, which is something that she very specifically avoided. She
was asked by many to write letters of support, which she declined. She
was also offered campaign contributions from supporters in the chess
community which she also refused.
She has avoided public letters or public statements of support of any
candidate in any election which was held under her jurisdiction.
There was one exception and that was that she did write letters on
behalf of her own candidacy for Secretary in 1996. She had (and still
has) serious concerns about the conflict of interest that is inherent
with the Secretary being a candidate for any position in an election
that he or she is running.
She almost did not run for re-election in 1996 for that reason. She
only decided to run because some of her outreach projects needed more
time. When she became a candidate she was very mindful of her
opponent's rights and went out of her way to not take advantage of
this unavoidable conflict of interest.
She has always considered it necessary for all candidates in an
election regardless of political position to be treated equally. She
always went out of her way to use procedures and make decisions that
would assure that her political opponents and allies were provided
objective and equal treatment.
Needless to say she was very upset with your comment and asks that you
provide her with a specific instance where she publicly endorsed any
candidate.
While it is always possible that a third party wrote a letter and
implied that it came from her, she would like to know about its
existence for future reference.
Myron Lieberman
USCF Secretary 1978-1981
ches...@aol.com (Don Schultz) wrote in message news:<20030704222513...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> Mike Nolan said:
>
> >Bob, as the Secretary you are in charge of the election. Don't you see
> >it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates?
> >--
>
> Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
>
> In the great tradition of the USCF Secretaries - Rachel Lieberman, Randy Hough,
> Marshall Rohland, Leroy Dubeck, Bob Karch etc. , I cannot think of any that
> didn't at one time or another support candidates.
Wickdeer3
>Mike Nolan said:
>
>>Bob, as the Secretary you are in charge of the election. Don't you see
>>it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates?
>>--
>
>Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
>
>In the great tradition of the USCF Secretaries - Rachel Lieberman, Randy
>Hough,
>Marshall Rohland, Leroy Dubeck, Bob Karch etc. , I cannot think of any that
>didn't at one time or another support candidates.
>
Don:
Did these secretaries support candidates during elections that they were
supervising? (I know Mr. Lieberman, on behalf of his wife, has denied doing
so.)
Wick Deer
Chessdon
obviously wrong. No question about it, Rachel has integrity of the highest
order.
I didn't consider Rachel supporting herself but if she did, she wouldn't be the
first Secretary to have done that.
USCF Secretary Marshall Rohland supported himself when he ran for President in
1966. I was Marshall's opponent then and he trounced me. But, I never, even in
my mind, questioned his integrity. In fact he and I shared a hotel room at the
US Open where the election took place (in those days, delegates attending the
annual meeting were returned their mailed-in ballot and had a chance to change
their vote after the candidates were given the opportunity to make a brief
speech.
I don't see a Secretary (supervising an election) supporting herself/himself in
an election any worse or better than suporting another candidate. I also don't
see that it is wrong but agree that although it is perhaps not wrong it is
inappropriate (your word Wick) and better to end it.
My only point was that Bob was made out as a villain for doing something other
secretaries have done in the past. He is upset by the criticism of him on this
and has told me he likely will delegate his further responsibilities on this
year's election to Glenn Petersen which is a good idea.
Frankly, we ought to consider appointing Rachel as Assistant/Executive
Secretary (with a suitable stipend) to carry out the duties of running
elections, handling minutes and putting out meeting reports. She can do that
better than anyone I knew.
George John
> >Although I'm not absolutely certain, my understanding is that all those
on
> >the supplemental mailing list were sent ballots by first class mail.
> >
> >George
>
> How would one know that?
I guess one could ask someone in the office.
> Is the supplemental list longer than just Don's supporters?
My understanding is that it would have included those who renewed late and
were new members after whatever the standard cutoff date is for the printer.
George
ASCACHESS
>other
>secretaries have done in the past.
>Chessdon
Since we seem to be looking backwards to find what is proper, can we look
forward to other candidates for office (like the much maligned Bob Smith)
sitting as chair of the ethics committee against other candidates running
against them as in the 1999 election cycle.
Richard Peterson
Wickdeer3
>I don't see a Secretary (supervising an election) supporting herself/himself
>in
>an election any worse or better than suporting another candidate. I also
>don't
>see that it is wrong but agree that although it is perhaps not wrong it is
>inappropriate (your word Wick) and better to end it.
>
I don't believe that Bob Smith did anything that was morally "wrong." On the
other hand, what he did could result in serious complications if there was a
challenge to the election revolving around one of Mr. Smith's decisions. The
problems this would create aren't incurable or fatal to the process; however,
an ounce of prevention (i.e. refraining from endorsements) would be worth a
pound of cure.
>My only point was that Bob was made out as a villain for doing something
>other
>secretaries have done in the past. He is upset by the criticism of him on
>this
>and has told me he likely will delegate his further responsibilities on this
>year's election to Glenn Petersen which is a good idea.
>
I am sorry that Bob was upset by the criticism. I think a look at the postings
by myself, Mike Nolan, and Beatriz Marinello, avoided personalizing our
disagreement with Bob's actions without making any personal attacks or
villification.
Of course, it is difficult not to take criticism personally, especially in a
political atmosphere where personal attacks are more common than not.
In another thread, I saw that you mentioned that we needed to stop "slamming"
each other.
I would agree with that we need to stop personal attacks. At the same time, I
think it is undeniable that USCF's governance and political culture are not
healthy, and have not been healthy for some time. We need to analyze how we do
business, and, in doing so, some actions are going to need to be the subject of
constructive criticism.
I know in recent days that I have posted several times on what I view to be the
problems with your previous tenure as President. While I was critical, I
attempted to do so without making personal attacks on you.
Frankly, if progress is going to be made in stopping personal attacks, I think
it is incumbent upon responsible voices in USCF politics to criticize those who
engage in ad hominem attacks, EVEN IF THAT PERSON IS ON THEIR OWN "SIDE".
Until this happens, I have serious doubts that the tenor of the debate will
ever improve.
Wick Deer