One Member One Vote
TOMDORSCH
Steve Doyle-
Mike Nolan raises the possibility of direct voting for national officers
in the USCF. I will support any proposal for democratization of the
present system, because for at least four presidential administrations it
has served us poorly -- with a track record like that, change is
mandated.
Will you publicly state your position on this issue? If we all agree in
advance on expanding the franchise, our work in Chicago for the Blue
Ribbon Committee will be much more productive.
You said no expenses for the Chess Trust. What is the policy for the Blue
Ribbon Commission? We were allocated $2K in 8/95 that has not been used,
but I understand that Schultz has forbidden its use. Where do you stand
on reimbursement for the BRC members?
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
USCF Treasurer
ESDOYLE
I like the idea opening up the voting process. Not sure how to proceed.
The idea of making each state open up and include every USCF member in its
process is appealing to me. They then choose their representatives. I
think that is more workable.
As for the expenses---if its my dime I choose Miami. Not all members of
the BR group are in a position to pay their expenses. I'll pay them if
USCF wont.
Has Schultz issued a directive on this? Frankly, its outside his scope
since this is a Delegate committee---with a budget approved by them
Paul Rubin
In article <19970108053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Recmate <rec...@aol.com> wrote:
>A PROPOSAL FOR ELECTION OF THE POLICY BOARD BY THE MEMBERS
>
>Don Schultz and I have recently been discussing the "one member one vote"
>idea, which has been proposed at USCF meetings for many years with little
>success. We feel the time has come for the Policy Board to endorse this
>approach, and to urge its adoption by the Delegates at the annual meeting
>this August in Orlando.
Incredible, and bravo!!!! I will start saving up the $40 to
rejoin the USCF this August, if the motion passes. Hopefully
won't have to pay that much more than once--just need to put in
some candidates in the following election who will do something
about lowering the dues!
Recmate
A PROPOSAL FOR ELECTION OF THE POLICY BOARD BY THE MEMBERS
Don Schultz and I have recently been discussing the "one member one vote"
idea, which has been proposed at USCF meetings for many years with little
success. We feel the time has come for the Policy Board to endorse this
approach, and to urge its adoption by the Delegates at the annual meeting
this August in Orlando.
Recent Policy Boards have been severely fractured, with too much time
spent on charges and controversies and too little on chess promotion. We
think our system of governance is partly at fault, and that a drastic
increase in the voting franchise is likely to produce more member
involvement in USCF affairs and better candidates. Also, mass voting
makes more sense now than it did years ago because of the dramatic growth
of the Internet, allowing low cost debate accessible to many. And if
elections are held every two years as proposed by the special "Blue Ribbon
Committee" on governance, they will be less costly than if annually.
We propose that the Policy Board endorse the following proposal in
principle and refer it to the Bylaws Committee and the "Blue Ribbon
Committee," inviting both groups to report back to the Board for its May
meeting with any suggested changes, and requesting the Bylaws Committee to
draft new bylaws consistent with this proposal.
1) All life, sustaining, adult and senior USCF members are eligible to
vote directly for the Policy Board.
2) To obtain a place on the ballot, a candidate must submit a petition
with signatures of 150 life, sustaining, adult or senior USCF members by
March 15 of the election year.
3) Each candidate is entitled to a free statement of up to 200 words in
the June issue of CHESS LIFE.
4) For the July CHESS LIFE only, each candidate is allowed to purchase up
to one half page of advertising to promote his or her candidacy, to be
charged at the affiliate rate.
5) Ballots are inserted in the August CHESS LIFE for life, sustaining,
adult and senior members, to ge mailed to an independent agency for
counting. Voters must provide their own postage.
6) This proposal goes into effect with the 1998 election, which will be
for one Policy Board member at large to serve a three year term.
Bill Goichberg
USCF Vice President
Elliott Winslow
Jerry wrote:
> [deleted text]
> > 1) All life, sustaining, adult and senior USCF members are eligible to
> > vote directly for the Policy Board.
> > Bill Goichberg
> > USCF Vice President
> I agree with this proposal, but how would it effect the Voting Members and Delegates.
> Would they be eliminated? ...
Good simple question.
> ... Would they still collectively have more poser than the
> Policy Board which would be elected by the members?
I think the correct language is "Would there still collectively be more
posers on
the Policy Board who would be elected by the members?"
> Jerry
=e
r...@mbay.net
In article <19970108053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, rec...@aol.com (Recmate) says:
>
>A PROPOSAL FOR ELECTION OF THE POLICY BOARD BY THE MEMBERS
>
>Don Schultz and I have recently been discussing the "one member one vote"
>idea, which has been proposed at USCF meetings for many years with little
>success. We feel the time has come for the Policy Board to endorse this
>approach, and to urge its adoption by the Delegates at the annual meeting
>this August in Orlando.
>
>USCF Vice President
Brilliant move!! I will once again be proud to hold super quality
chess tournaments under the USCF flag. I am excited!!
Yours Truly,
Randall Swanson
President
PINFORK MANGAEMENT, INC.
Jerry
[deleted text]
>
> 1) All life, sustaining, adult and senior USCF members are eligible to
> vote directly for the Policy Board.
>
> with signatures of 150 life, sustaining, adult or senior USCF members by
> March 15 of the election year.
>
> 3) Each candidate is entitled to a free statement of up to 200 words in
> the June issue of CHESS LIFE.
>
> 4) For the July CHESS LIFE only, each candidate is allowed to purchase up
> to one half page of advertising to promote his or her candidacy, to be
> charged at the affiliate rate.
>
> 5) Ballots are inserted in the August CHESS LIFE for life, sustaining,
> adult and senior members, to ge mailed to an independent agency for
> counting. Voters must provide their own postage.
>
> 6) This proposal goes into effect with the 1998 election, which will be
> for one Policy Board member at large to serve a three year term.
>
> USCF Vice President
I agree with this proposal, but how would it effect the Voting Members and Delegates.
Would they be eliminated? Would they still collectively have more poser than the
Policy Board which would be elected by the members?
Jerry
Recmate
To Jerry and Elliot:
Under the Direct Election by Members proposal, the Voting Members would be
eliminated, but the Delegates would remain.
Reforming the way the Delegates are selected is worthy of consideration,
but it may be hard to get the proposal passed as it is; perhaps we should
not try to bite off too much at once.
Sincerely,
Bill Goichberg
Michael Nolan
Jerry <xj...@interport.net> writes:
>I agree with this proposal, but how would it effect the Voting Members
> and Delegates. Would they be eliminated? Would they still collectively
> have more poser than the Policy Board which would be elected by the
> members?
Those are issues not directly addressed by the Goichberg/(Schultz) proposal,
which Bill asked to be studied by both the Bylaws Committee and the Blue
Ribbon Committee.
That's why the USCF has a Bylaws Committee, of which I am a member, to deal
with technical matters such as merging a proposal like this into the rest
of the USCF structure. The Blue Ribbon Committee should deal with the
substantive issues, in consultation with Bylaws to help make sure that
the final proposal covers all bases.
I assume that the Voting Membership as currently constituted would effectively
cease to exist, since there would be a new block of members with voting
rights. (This would affect several sections of the Bylaws.)
This also raises the issue of what effort it should require to initiate a
recall election, since such a process would be significantly more expensive
with 30,000 voting members than with 450. How to adequately educate that many
voters on the issues behind the recall is another interesting question.
I think the BRC and Bylaws are both planning on studying this issue this
year. I know in the case of Bylaws it was mentioned last year as something
we need to address, and I'm pretty sure I've had a casual conversation
with Steve Doyle (on BRC) in which I raised the recall issue with him as well.
I would prefer to see the Delegates continue to exist as a body, for several
reasons.
1. It is unreasonable if not impossible to try to conduct a mass meeting
of voting members to enact the budget, amend the bylaws, etc. I am
reminded of a meeting of the Nebraska State Chess Association, in which
all members have voting privileges, including juniors. The meeting was
held at the State Scholastic Championship, and because nearly half of
the members present were high school players or younger, they nearly
succeeded in voting to abolish the Nebraska Invitational Championship.
It was something they had no interest in and weren't immediately
affected by, so they almost killed it off.
I would worry that a similarly non-representative mass meeting of the
USCF Voting Membership with an open agenda might attempt similarly
unwise actions, ones not in the best interest of the USCF or chess,
even if it didn't involve them personally.
2. The Delegates are the check and balance to the Policy Board, since the
Board is subordinate to them. I have no problem whatsoever with a larger
group electing the PB, directly or indirectly, as long as there is
some moderately small group (one small enough to meet once a year but with
enough carryover membership to make sure that things don't have to be
built from scratch each year) to serve as a reality check, something
that several if not most PB's have needed. The 75 to 100 Delegates
usually present represent a lot of collective ideas and knowledge about
the USCF, not always pulling in the same direction. Unlike the PB, where
all it takes is two or three extra votes to enact something, it takes a
fairly solid argument (and often a lengthy one) to sway the Delegates.
I can think of a number of ideas that were well on their way to passage
when some Delegate got up and raised an issue that nobody else had
considered adequately, after which the idea was either modified radically
or killed off entirely. The late George Cunningham was excellent at
this, his down-home Maine mannerism, humor, and wisdom is sorely missed.
I can think of a few motions that arose late in a meeting, after a
large number of Delegates had left, that passed by a slim and contentious
margin, only to be reversed or revised the following year when cooler
heads prevailed. (I'm omitting any particulars here to save some
bandwidth and to keep this from turning into my memoirs of Delegates
Meetings past.)
--
Mike Nolan, USCF Parliamentarian and Bylaws Committee Member
Tim Mirabile
no...@inetnebr.com (Michael Nolan) wrote:
>This also raises the issue of what effort it should require to initiate a
>recall election, since such a process would be significantly more expensive
>with 30,000 voting members than with 450. How to adequately educate that many
>voters on the issues behind the recall is another interesting question.
How about a voter registration, so that not all 30,000 members are automatically
voting members. This way, members who are not at all interested in politics do
not need to receive ballots and other materials.
--
Tim Mirabile <t...@mail.htp.com> - http://www.webcom.com/timm/
Visit my homepage for information on USCF & FIDE rated chess on Long Island.
TimM on the Free Internet Chess Server - telnet://fics.onenet.net:5000/
ICD/Your Move Chess & Games - http://www.icdchess.com/
The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine, and vice versa.
JimEade
Randall Swanson wrote:
>>Brilliant move!! I will once again be proud to hold super quality
chess tournaments under the USCF flag. I am excited!!>>
It was a brilliant move, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. Since
Bill signed on to this as well as Mr. Schultz, it is possible that there
will be an honest attempt made to get this to pass. Otherwise, I would
urge caution in accepting what SEEMS to be instead of what is. Let's see
this turned from an idea into an action and see it passed before we start
handing out cigars.
It is just barely possible that Mr. Schultz will change his mind, once
again. His opinions *evolve* rapidly depending upon which way the wind is
blowing. There is much work to be done before I begin to get excited
about the slim possibility that this might pass.
Also, what is the provision for the recall of officers under the proposed
system?
James Eade
Hypermodern Press
Jerry
Tim Mirabile wrote:
>
> no...@inetnebr.com (Michael Nolan) wrote:
>
> >This also raises the issue of what effort it should require to initiate a
> >recall election, since such a process would be significantly more expensive
> >with 30,000 voting members than with 450. How to adequately educate that many
> >voters on the issues behind the recall is another interesting question.
>
> How about a voter registration, so that not all 30,000 members are automatically
> voting members. This way, members who are not at all interested in politics do
> not need to receive ballots and other materials.
I am really opposed to any system which would restrict the rights of adult members
to vote. Those members who do not choose to vote would not have to.
Jerry
Jerry
Elliott Winslow wrote:
>
> Jerry wrote:
> > [deleted text]
> > > 1) All life, sustaining, adult and senior USCF members are eligible to
> > > vote directly for the Policy Board.
>
> > > USCF Vice President
>
>
> Good simple question.
>
> > Policy Board which would be elected by the members?
>
> posers on
>
> > Jerry
>
> =e
*LOL* that will teach me to go without sleep! I am asking whether under OMOV, whether
the PB, which would be elected by the members would be outranked by the Delegates
who might still be appointed by the political hacks.
Jerry
Michael Nolan
Jerry <xj...@interport.net> writes:
>*LOL* that will teach me to go without sleep! I am asking whether under
> OMOV, whether the PB, which would be elected by the members would be
> outranked by the Delegates who might still be appointed by the
> political hacks.
As I posted the other day, I believe there are legitimate reasons for
the continuance of the Board of Delegates as a body to which the Policy Board
is subordinate. Even a membership-elected Policy Board needs some checks
and balances to it, and a recall election isn't sufficient in my opinion.
Perhaps we should be looking at different ways to choose the Delegates
instead of casting veiled aspersions upon them.
I will grant that there are probably some states where Delegate status is a
political plum, but based on 11 years experience at Delegates Meetings,
I think the Delegates do a credible job on balance. And even in states with
a history of USCF political activity, such as Illinois, New York, and the
Californias, the slate of Delegates is remarkably well-balanced and
composed of people with differing points of view. If these Delegates
are the product of machine politics, the machine is doing a good job of
finding people who care about chess.
A typical Delegates meeting is a bit topheavy with above average chess
players (ie, experts and masters), tournament directors, and organizers,
but these are also the people who by dint of talent, perseverence, and long
hours of work have demonstrated a committment to chess and the USCF.
--
Mike Nolan
Recmate
Under the election proposal Don Schultz and I support, ALL Policy Board
elections would be done through member voting beginning in 1998.
This cannot be done in 1997, as the proposal must first be passed by the
Delegates this August, and the 1997 Board Election will be held before the
Delegates meet.
Why only one Board post in 1998? Because only one seat expires that year.
However, in 1999, five more seats expire and all would be filled by
direct election by the membership.
Bill Goichberg
Michael Nolan
rec...@aol.com (Recmate AKA Bill Goichberg) writes:
>Why only one Board post in 1998? Because only one seat expires that year.
> However, in 1999, five more seats expire and all would be filled by
>direct election by the membership.
An idea worth considering is staggering the terms of the PB more, for example
electing the President, Vice-President, and Treasurer one year, the Secretary
and a member-at-large the next, and the two remaining members-at-large the
third year. (Other combinations are possible, but in general it would be
a 3-2-2 staggering rather than the current 5-1-1.)
This has two advantages, it gives more continuity on the board in general,
but with more of an ability to change the board at every election cycle.
In fact, the preliminary BRC report proposed something like that, by
having biennial elections with three 'Executive Committee' members elected
in one election year and four in the other, with terms being four years in
duration. I think they proposed that sitting members not be permitted
to run for reelection, so it would be 4 years on and then out for at least 2.
Under the current system, the Secretary and Treasurer may serve for two
consecutive terms, other officers may not run for reelection to the same
office but may run for a different office, although an individual may not
serve on the PB for more than nine consecutive years. (My personal preference
would be for a simpler rule here, why should the Secretary and Treasurer be
treated differently? I think with a 3-2-2 staggering, it would be reasonable
to consider having PB members unable to run for re-election to the Board,
period.)
Another structural change in the BRC report was that the Executive Committee
would elect its own officers. (eg, the EC would elect the President, Vice-
President, Treasurer, and Secretary, not the USCF membership). This would
help ensure that the President has a working majority of the EC, at least
enough to get elected. I don't know what would happen if three incompatible
factions were represented, I guess we'd have to have a coalition or minority
'government', like many European countries.
This system is not unlike how many corporate boards are structured, the
stockholders elect the board members, they elect their own officers.
(In a corporation, the officers don't even necessarily have to be members
of the board, and in fact I believe the BRC suggested that could be the
case with the Treasurer and Secretary, they could be full-time USCF staffers.)
There are both positive and negative aspects to the ideas I have discussed
here, of course, and I would welcome comments.
--
Mike Nolan
WPraeder
The debate concerning representation and participation
of the membership has been raging for many years. What follows, for your
information, is a summary of an electronic debate from 1993 on the
election of the USCF Policy Board.
Summary of the USCF One Member One Vote Debate
QUESTION: Should Full Adult USCF Members be able to Vote for
Officers of the Policy Board?
CON-It is ironic that this issue is being promoted by an extremist fringe
group that is out for its own power and has no interest in real democracy
and honesty in the USCF. I have NEVER heard any player outside of
the above-named group complain about lack of representation in USCF
decision-making.
RESPONSE-This is a fallacious argument. It is simply argumentum ad
hominem. This has nothing to do with the issue and can be ignored.
This seems to be a common tactic in this debate.
CON-The Delegates are, in fact, responsible and accountable to the
players they represent.
RESPONSE-This is true, however, since many of the Delegates are
appointed they, in practice, are only responsible and accountable to those
who appointed them. Also, only a very small number of USCF members
belong to State Chapters. The Delegates, if elected, are not responsible
and accountable to the USCF membership of the State, but only to a
small number of Chapter members who may not even be USCF members.
CON-I think the issue you bring up is a smokescreen which, if
successful, would create a less knowledgeable electorate that would be
more easily controlled and misled.
RESPONSE-By analogy, the countries which have small electorates we
usually consider to be totalitarian. Conventional wisdom assumes that a
large electorate is harder to control, and we usually refer to these
countries as democratic. In the U.S. we like to choose our leaders by
forms of popular vote (be it direct or indirect). Remember, some
of the most well known tyrants were put into power with a "delegate"
system, not by popular vote.
CON-In almost every state anyone who wants to vote can do so by
volunteering. I realize that it happens at some time and in some places
that someone is excluded because they are not "in" with the powers that
be. That is unfortunate, but almost always a very temporary situation.
Any USCF member may participate in the selection of Delegates and
Voting Members, through his State Affiliate. Virtually any member may
be a representative voter in his own state simply for the asking.
RESPONSE-This is not correct and a tactic to try to evade the issue.
Many states still appoint their voting members, have their officers
automatically become voting members, or do not even have
membership organizations. I know many people who want to vote and
cannot. This is because more than 360 (or 720 for that matter) want to
vote. Many have "volunteered" to vote and believe me it is not always a
very temporary situation. Becoming a Delegate is even more tightly
controlled. Many also object to needing to pay to join a separate
organization and often traveling to a far away location for a chance to
become a USCF voting member. Anyway such enfranchisement is often
used as simply a perk for state association leadership and their
associates.
CON-The "solution" of spending far more money that USCF has to
afford on a national election in which 50,000 ballots must be mailed out
to try to solve a very random and infrequent problem seems like a very
poor use of our funds. It would vastly increase the cost of elections.
The costs of running a USCF policy board campaign would skyrocket, since
there would be 20,000 to 60,000 people to contact rather than just a few
hundred.
RESPONSE-This is the most common "red herring" of this debate
and does not explain why even simple and inexpensive attempts at
reform are rejected. This argument is used to explain why state
associations do not conduct mail ballot elections and makes little sense
at the national level. Overall election costs would probably go down with
elections only every three years and candidates saving thousands on
campaign expenses. Running national elections will cost more only in
terms of USCF expenditures. But this should be considered a necessary
investment to keep the membership (which they say they serve) informed
and involved. This involvement will be repaid by membership growth
and participation. Whether the USCF can afford this is simply a matter
of priorities. For many any reform is too expensive. Threats of dues
increases because of this one reform are simply scare tactics. The USCF
currently can afford to spend over $86,000 (1993) of your dues to
subsidize
tournaments which many say should be self supporting. I'm not sure I see
the
difference. The cost to support elections as proposed only represents two
tenths of one percent of the USCF annual expenses.
CON-Most folks, frankly, couldn't care less. Most members would
dislike being mailed ballots. Members do not care about the identity of
their President or their Delegate. Members would receive campaign
literature, a use of his membership dollar that disgusts him. Members
are apathetic.
RESPONSE-If this is the case, you shouldn't have any problems
conducting a survey to verify these facts, should you?
CON-It would give a disproportionate advantage to those with money or
name recognition (surely Garry Kasparov's misadventures with the GMA
have dispelled the illusion that titled players make good leaders).
RESPONSE-The current system has these problems. What evidence do
you have that the changes being proposed will make this worse? In fact
a system in which everyone had the same chance to present their case in
an election supplement should provide more opportunity to those that
have little money.
CON-This is not to say that I am defending the current USCF
organizational structure or the Policy Board. Both have serious flaws --
but I am not convinced that direct election would be any improvement.
Those who year after year propose this as a "solution" for a problem
which I do not believe exist offer no evidence that spending more time
and money on elections would solve any problem and make the USCF
better for its members.
RESPONSE-This is a fallacious argument. It is simply argumentum
ignorantiam. To use the same logic, there is also no evidence that direct
election would not be an improvement.
CON-It is possible for any voting member to get to know the candidates
for the policy board personally, because there are not too many voting
members, and the candidates are real people, chess organizers like those
who vote for them. Voting members would no longer all have the
opportunity to thoroughly know the candidates and understand the
issues. The people who are really interested in promoting chess would
lose some of the voice they currently have, because their votes would
now be diluted by thousands of people who will dutifully send in their
ballots without any real knowledge of the issues or candidates.
RESPONSE-It is true that a small group does better at handling complex
issues only if they remain accountable to the general membership. It is
also true that a larger group does better at selecting representative
leaders because they are less influenced by personal relationships or
special interests. The fact that chess organizers vote for other chess
organizers is the very type of tight nit and closed system that is
considered problematic. Would you want self appointed oil company
executives selecting your leaders to set energy and environmental policy
for you? There is, however, no reason whatsoever why a larger
electorate has to be ill-informed. If members are ill-informed it is
mostly because news and debate have been suppressed. In an open system
only those people who are interested actually vote. The important thing
is
that they have the choice whether to exercise their franchise or not.
CON-The value of a clandestine mailing of smear propaganda goes way
up, since the voters would be less well informed.
RESPONSE-Actually smear tactics are easier to use and have a greater
impact on a smaller group which are easy to reach. Open (and public)
systems tend to expose these tactics. Closed systems make these tactics
harder to discover and correct. What evidence do you have to the
contrary?
CON-Advertising dollars would likely be lost, too. The politicization of
Chess Life is an inevitable result of a major expansion of voting rights.
RESPONSE-Why doesn't this occur in other organizations? Where is
your evidence? I am not persuaded that a page or so now and then in
Chess Life of news about PCA, FIDE or other controversial matters
would unduly disturb the membership. Note this has occurred in the last
year with little impact on the magazine. But once again , for the record,
any electioneering would take place in a SEPARATE SUPPLEMENT,
and would not intrude on Chess Life as others continually suggest.
CON-Voting rights in the USCF seem to be controlled by those with the
time, energy, and money to be involved in state affiliate politics. I
think it is the only workable arrangement.
RESPONSE-This is the real argument. This is your best and most honest
argument. Most other arguments are smoke. The USCF is a national
corporation and is not the same as state affiliate. You are entitled
to your preference, but other systems are just if not more workable.
In fact, most other non-profit membership organizations engage their
full membership at the national level and the rest engage their full
membership at the chapter level. Since it's clear that you do not want
a system which represents the views of the membership or allows greater
participation why not just say so?
CON-The USCF is, after all, officially a non-profit federation of the
many affiliated state organizations. To extend voting rights to all
individual members would, at the very least, fundamentally change the
structure and direction of US Chess. It would make it entirely centrally
controlled, and effectively remove all voice from the state organizations.
This would be something like the federal government outlawing state
governments, or letting them stay but removing their right to govern.
Even more, it would be like the federal government outlawing congress.
Article II, section 1 specifies that the President shall be chosen by an
Electoral College: "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
entitled..."
RESPONSE-The USCF was originally a federation of only about six or
eight chess associations or chess clubs. Only later did it expand to
include representation that was truly national. Today most USCF
members join the USCF directly, paying dues to and receiving services
from the national organization without any involvement with their state
association, of whose existence most members are at best but dimly aware.
The USCF by its current practice and bylaws is clearly a non-profit
national membership corporation (not a private business or government).
Governance, participation, and communication are important in such
organizations.
The Board of Delegates is the USCF equivalent of congress.
(Note: no one has ever suggested that the Board of Delegates go away.)
Today as citizens we select the members of congress at the state level.
Our governor or state legislature does not appoint or select these
individuals. This has not resulted in the outlawing of state governments.
As citizens we also vote for the leaders of our executive branch in a
national election. The Electoral College provides a reflection of popular
vote. The congress does not elect the President of the United States.
The fact that we vote for our chief executives has not resulted in the
outlawing of congress. If USCF governance or voting was even structured
similar to current American practices it would be a big improvement.
CON-Campaigns will become vague and non-substantive. The real
issues will be lost.
RESPONSE-Campaigns are generally that way now. Currently many voters
vote for personalities and not on how candidates will (or plan to) handle
specific issues. Perhaps with a broader audience who have less personal
friendships with the candidates, issues will have to be addressed more
often.
Randy Pals
Michael Nolan wrote:
> As I posted the other day, I believe there are legitimate reasons for
> the continuance of the Board of Delegates as a body to which the Policy
> Board is subordinate. Even a membership-elected Policy Board needs
> some checks and balances to it, and a recall election isn't
> sufficient in my opinion.
Agreed! I have been a semi-vocal proponent of OMOV for a long time, but
it is only a necessary condition for good USCF governance, not by any
means a sufficient one. There must be a body to which the PB is
accountable, and that body must have the authority to "impeach".
> Perhaps we should be looking at different ways to choose the Delegates
> instead of casting veiled aspersions upon them.
Also agreed, Mike. Maybe the USCF members in a given state or region also
ought to be able to vote for the Delegates from that state or region.
Sorta like Congress.
--
Randy Pals | May you have everything you desire.
rjp...@netnitco.net |
pa...@ipact.com | (Ancient Chinese curse)
Tim Mirabile
Jerry <xj...@interport.net> wrote:
>to vote. Those members who do not choose to vote would not have to.
>
>Jerry
I'm not trying to restrict voting in any way, just to save the expense of
mailing voting materials to those who have no interest in voting.
Michael Nolan
Randy Pals <rjp...@netnitco.net> writes:
> Agreed! I have been a semi-vocal proponent of OMOV for a long time, but
> it is only a necessary condition for good USCF governance, not by any
> means a sufficient one. There must be a body to which the PB is
> accountable, and that body must have the authority to "impeach".
I dunno about 'impeach', since that would seem to imply kicking someone
off the PB, and I think that power should be reserved to the same group
that elects the PB in the first place, whatever that is. (And my guess
is that by Illinois law, it MUST be the same group.)
> Also agreed, Mike. Maybe the USCF members in a given state or region also
> ought to be able to vote for the Delegates from that state or region.
> Sorta like Congress.
By state would be OK, I'd hate to see it by region, I don't believe the
folks in Illinois have much knowledge about who in Nebraska should be
on the Delegates, and I doubt they'd want Nebraskans having any say
about who their Delegates are, either. Actually, I think the regional
structure is no longer useful within USCF, and I'd prefer to see it
abolished. (Replace them by giving every state another Delegate, I think
every state deserves two Delegates, if only because there are few states
in which there aren't at least two points of view on some issue.)
Maybe the State Assocation should choose some of the Delegates from that
state (at least 1, and possibly up to 1/3 of the total), and the USCF
members in that state should choose the rest?
--
Mike Nolan
Michael Nolan
t...@mail.htp.com (Tim Mirabile) writes:
>I'm not trying to restrict voting in any way, just to save the expense of
>mailing voting materials to those who have no interest in voting.
One proposal that has been mentioned is to include the ballot in the
copies of Chess Life that are mailed to eligible members. (This would
exclude newsstand copies, ones sent to affiliates, etc.) I think there
are other organizations who do it this way.
--
Mike Nolan
Don C. Aldrich
Hey, Mike, some really good thoughts there. Yes, I really like the
idea of mass voting for the PB, and then some larger representative
fora like delegates. The problem comes in how to parcel out the
delegates. You run smack into the problem the founding fathers had in
setting up congress--states vs population.
Assuming you want to keep it around 100, one thought might be each
state gets one delegate, plus one more for each 1,000 USCF members [or
some other number to make it work out right]. This would states like
Cal, Ill, NY the large numbers they probably deserve, yet they would
not be able to control things without help from the rest of the
country delegates.
Just a thought....
==Dondo
The lawyer Bob Dole hung up on after falling from the podium
Jerry
[deleted text]
>
> Maybe the State Assocation should choose some of the Delegates from that
> state (at least 1, and possibly up to 1/3 of the total), and the USCF
> members in that state should choose the rest?
> --
> Mike Nolan
Why should the State Association appoint ANYONE? Doen't this go against the
whole idea of OMOV? -- Jerry
Michael Nolan
Jerry <xj...@interport.net> writes:
>> Maybe the State Assocation should choose some of the Delegates from that
>> state (at least 1, and possibly up to 1/3 of the total), and the USCF
>> members in that state should choose the rest?
>Why should the State Association appoint ANYONE? Doen't this go against the
>whole idea of OMOV? -- Jerry
The USCF is still a federation of states, it seems reasonable to me for
the state associations to continue to choose some of the Delegates from
their state. I'm not adamant on this point, but this would seem to me to
offer a check and balance similar to the two houses of the US Congress.
The Delegates needs to be a body with considerable knowledge and expertise
on USCF matters, beyond that of the 'average' USCF member, and I see this
as one way to help ensure that knowledgeable people who might not have
sufficient name recognition throughout their state to win a popular vote
as Delegate continue to bring their expertise to the annual meeting.
Another possibility would be for the State President (or designee) to
be a Delegate, I think anyone who takes on the position of State President
has earned the right to be a Delegate if he or she wants to take the time
and spend the money to travel to the meeting. (Unlike the PB, the Delegates
don't receive any travel or expense money to attend meetings.)
Another admittedly minor detail is how to order the list of alternates,
since in a typical meeting 1/4 or more of the Delegates are unable to
attend. I think it is important for each state to have at least one
Delegate present at the meeting, and there are good reasons why a Delegate
(regardless of how chosen) may be unable to make the meeting.
--
Mike Nolan
Randy Pals
Michael Nolan wrote:
>
> Randy Pals <rjp...@netnitco.net> writes:
>
> > Agreed! I have been a semi-vocal proponent of OMOV for a long time, but
> > it is only a necessary condition for good USCF governance, not by any
> > means a sufficient one. There must be a body to which the PB is
> > accountable, and that body must have the authority to "impeach".
>
> I dunno about 'impeach', since that would seem to imply kicking someone
> off the PB, and I think that power should be reserved to the same group
> that elects the PB in the first place, whatever that is. (And my guess
> is that by Illinois law, it MUST be the same group.)
I must admit that I'm at a disadvantage here because I know precious little
about laws governing organizations. My concern is that if someone on the
PB badly misbehaves, then there needs to be a way to remove them from
that position. A recall election is very cumbersome. Nixon probably would
have survived his entire 2nd term in office if a recall election would
have been required to remove him, rather than the impeachment by Congress
which was imminent.
> Maybe the State Assocation should choose some of the Delegates from that
> state (at least 1, and possibly up to 1/3 of the total), and the USCF
> members in that state should choose the rest?
I suppose I would rather see the USCF members choose them all, but I
could probably be persuaded the other way by a good argument. At any
rate, this is a fine point in the major overhaul that we both seem to
agree is essential.
Randy Pals
WPraeder wrote:
>
> The debate concerning representation and participation
> of the membership has been raging for many years. What follows, for your
>
> information, is a summary of an electronic debate from 1993 on the
> election of the USCF Policy Board.
Thanks for posting this, Wayne (it is Wayne, right?). There is only one
thing I would add on the pro side of OMOV. Many on the con side have used
the argument that the general membership is apathetic about who governs
the USCF. The same can be said (although possibly not to the same
degree) about how general U.S. voting public feels about those who govern
country. Regardless, it (democracy) remains the best practical system
of government known, so much so that virtually all of us would question
the sanity of someone who proposed that we replace the current system of
electing government officials with something akin to the archaic delegate
system used by the USCF.
Michael Nolan
Randy Pals <rjp...@netnitco.net> writes:
>I must admit that I'm at a disadvantage here because I know precious little
>about laws governing organizations. My concern is that if someone on the
>PB badly misbehaves, then there needs to be a way to remove them from
>that position. A recall election is very cumbersome. Nixon probably would
>have survived his entire 2nd term in office if a recall election would
>have been required to remove him, rather than the impeachment by Congress
>which was imminent.
Actually, I think a recall election would have been quite decisive, the
public turned against Nixon long before the Congress did. (Nixon is said
to have remarked that he knew he was lost when Walter Cronkite turned against
him.)
Suppose that we take this argument to extremes, and let the PB expel one
of its members. I think there may have been several PB members kicked
off in recent years, possibly even including the past President. And if
the Membership then chose to re-elect the expelled member (as New Yorkers
did with congressman Adam Clayton Powell when the House expelled him), would
that lead to a better PB?
Having the Delegates expel a PB member would be better than giving the PB
that power, but they meet only once a year, and it would be too expensive
to have a Special Meeting for that purpose. And aside from the increased
cost, holdng a recall election by mail might just as well involve all of
the electorate, not just the Delegates.
>At any rate, this is a fine point in the major overhaul that we both seem to
>agree is essential.
Ah, but isn't it nice having a POSITIVE debate without any namecalling
on r.g.c.p. while the PB is busy interviewing ED candidates this weekend?
--
Mike Nolan
Sloan
In my opinion the proof that OMOV is the best system is in the
election of Don Schultz as President and the results this has brought.
Under OMOV, Don Schultz never would have been elected to anything, not
because I would have defeated him, but because he would never have
dared to run.
Under OMOV, perhaps 20 people would have run for President. Among
those, in such an election, Don Schultz would have finished dead last,
just as Fan Adams finished dead last in a race against 20 candidates
in New York State.
The reason for this is that there is no person in chess in any of the
154 FIDE member nations of the world with a worse reputation than Don
Schultz, This fact is well known. However, he was able to get elected
president anyway, because only a closed group of 413 voters had the
right to vote and he was able to go and shake the hand of each of them
personally and impress them with what a great guy he is.
Democracy always works best.
Sam Sloan
Michael Nolan
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>If 20 people manage to get the necessary 150 signatures each,
>participatory democracy in the USCF will have succeeded beyond our
>wildest dreams. It means >5% of all members will have been interested
>enough to sign someone's petition. Of course members should be
>allowed to sign at most one petition per office....
Well, now we're down to discussing the details that the most fervent
OMOV supporters have never gotten around to proposing. Great!
(Up front I should say that I consider all of the problems raised by
those details solvable, some only after serious study and discussion.
But some OMOV folks have said 'JUST DO IT NOW', I guess assuming that the
details would take care of themselves.)
Here are some issues I've thought about so far, along with some
possible solutions to them:
Limiting members to signing just one petition could be an administrative
nightmare. For that matter, what would keep someone from using a Rating
Supplement and picking 150 random USCF names (or perhaps non-obvious ones)
and forging the signatures? Would it be necessary for the USCF office to
verify some percentage of signatures to ensure that this hasn't happened?
(Requiring some information not in the Supplement, such as mailing address,
might suffice.)
There are only around 100 USCF members in Wyoming, I've had some personal
correspondence with another participant in this thread in which the
suggestion was made that a limit of 150 signatures might be seen as a
move by the 'big states' to keep candidates from small states off the
ballot.
My initial response was that I come from a relatively small state myself,
but I don't think I'd have too much trouble drumming up 150 signatures, I
could always go to a couple of big tournaments in nearby states if I
had to. This might work for me, I'm relatively well known in the region,
I'm not sure it would work for others, although anyone really serious about
running for USCF national office should be willing to find a way around
this problem.
The current requirement is 10 signatures from the voting membership of
around 450 people. This has not been much of an impediment to people
wanting to run, in fact it might be too little of one. (There have been
several 'fringe' candidates on the ballots in the past few years, some
might even say that a few former or present PB members belong in this group.)
This leads to the issue of 'qualification' standards to run for USCF office.
I've belonged to several organiztions with 'democratic' voting, most had
some kind of nominations or screening committee that served intentionally
or otherwise to keep obviously unqualified people off the ballot.
I don't know that I would be comfortable with this solution for USCF, though,
because I don't know what factors would be important. Chess strength
probably doesn't equate well with political or managerial skills. TD or
organizer experience isn't that transferrable to the management of a $7
million business, and as another thread in this group shows being a
big-time TD or organizer tends to lead to the possibility of a conflict
of interest.
(to be continued)
--
Mike Nolan
Michael Nolan
sl...@ishipress.com (Sloan) writes:
>Under OMOV, perhaps 20 people would have run for President.
Although I continue to be an advocate of USCF election reform, I think
the prospect of 20 people running for USCF President is one of the better
arguments AGAINST OMOV. How would a rational electorate choose from among
20 candidates, many of whom would be just names, faces, and platform
statements? It'd be like, like, electing the President of the United States,
and frankly we haven't done very well in that department for a long time.
[IMHO the last 'stateman' to hold the office was Truman, and he wasn't
even elected to it in the first place.]
--
Mike Nolan
Paul Rubin
In article <5bh0he$k...@falcon.inetnebr.com>,
Michael Nolan <no...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>sl...@ishipress.com (Sloan) writes:
>
>>Under OMOV, perhaps 20 people would have run for President.
>
>Although I continue to be an advocate of USCF election reform, I think
>the prospect of 20 people running for USCF President is one of the better
>arguments AGAINST OMOV. How would a rational electorate choose from among
>20 candidates, many of whom would be just names, faces, and platform
>statements? It'd be like, like, electing the President of the United States,
>and frankly we haven't done very well in that department for a long time.
If 20 people manage to get the necessary 150 signatures each,
Jerry
Michael Nolan wrote:
>
> >Why should the State Association appoint ANYONE? Doen't this go against the
> >whole idea of OMOV? -- Jerry
>
> The USCF is still a federation of states, it seems reasonable to me for
> the state associations to continue to choose some of the Delegates from
> their state. I'm not adamant on this point, but this would seem to me to
> offer a check and balance similar to the two houses of the US Congress.
It is anti-democratic. You are simply on the other side of the arguement from me.
> The Delegates needs to be a body with considerable knowledge and expertise
> on USCF matters, beyond that of the 'average' USCF member, and I see this
> as one way to help ensure that knowledgeable people who might not have
> sufficient name recognition throughout their state to win a popular vote
> as Delegate continue to bring their expertise to the annual meeting.
Maybe if we had some real reform, some very good people would be willing to run.
The members know who is doing what! I believe that at the time of the Goichberg-
Barry election, Goichberg was opposed to OMOV. This is ironic, because I think
with OMOV, Goichberg would have had better chances against Barry.
> Another possibility would be for the State President (or designee) to
> be a Delegate, I think anyone who takes on the position of State President
> has earned the right to be a Delegate if he or she wants to take the time
> and spend the money to travel to the meeting. (Unlike the PB, the Delegates
> don't receive any travel or expense money to attend meetings.)
Being a Delegate is not something that someone earns. It is a duty rather than
an honor or a source of power. It is the members who have earned something by
virtue of paying their dues: They have earned the right to have a voice in the
USCF equal with other members who pay equal dues. Yes, there are those in the
chess community are worthy of honor, but the purpose of a Delegate is to represent
the members, not to be honored.
> Another admittedly minor detail is how to order the list of alternates,
> since in a typical meeting 1/4 or more of the Delegates are unable to
> attend. I think it is important for each state to have at least one
> Delegate present at the meeting, and there are good reasons why a Delegate
> (regardless of how chosen) may be unable to make the meeting.
> --
Why not just rank them according to how many votes they get? Is that such a
foreign concept?
> Mike Nolan
Jerry
Michael Nolan
Jerry <xj...@interport.net> writes:
>Being a Delegate is not something that someone earns. It is a duty rather than
>an honor or a source of power. It is the members who have earned something by
>virtue of paying their dues: They have earned the right to have a voice in the
>USCF equal with other members who pay equal dues. Yes, there are those in the
>chess community are worthy of honor, but the purpose of a Delegate is to
> represent the members, not to be honored.
You're twisting my logic. I didn't say that a state president deserves the
HONOR of being a Delegate, I said that a state president has demonstrated
the sense of duty, shown the committment, and has the requisite knowledge to
make him or her a good choice as a Delegate, and deserves the RIGHT to serve
as one if interested.
In case you hadn't figured it out, I'm in favor of expanded democracy within
USCF (although not necessarily the label 'OMOV', since it has been tied,
rightly or wrongly, to certain factional elements), and I have been since
1987.
>Why not just rank them according to how many votes they get? Is that such a
>foreign concept?
Not at all, it's a good first step, but it may not be sufficient. We're
talking here about choosing the alternates for Delegates if the Delegates
are elected by popular vote within their state. Depending on how many
candidates choose to run for Delegate (and I don't see this as an
overwhelming number), the list of alternates might be exhausted in some
states.
Then we get to the issue of alternates making the trip. The 1997 Delegates
meeting is in Florida. Suppose the Delegate from Wyoming is unable to
attend at the last minute. Would a 2nd place finisher be willing to
schedule vacation time, arrange for travel in advance, etc. just in case
that happens? And what about the 3rd place finisher, assuming there even
is one?
Less than half of the Delegates play in the US Open, a lot of them fly in
on Wednesday or Thursday, attend at least some of the workshops that are
there to help educate them on the issues that will be debated in the meeting,
participate in the Delegates meeting, then leave on Sunday (in some cases
missing the final hour or so of the meeting, but that's a separate problem)
or on Monday.
In Nebraska, the Delegate and Voting Members are selected at the annual
Membership meeting, for which it is difficult to get a quorum of 10 despite the
fact that 30 or more adult NSCA members are usually participating in the
tournament at which it is held. (And when Nebraska conducted a mail ballot
to ratify its new bylaws last year, it took several months and multiple
mailings to get enough responses back for it to pass--chess politics just
isn't what the bulk of our members are interested in.)
Often our Delegate is chosen by first finding out who's willing to go to the
meeting or planning to play in that year's US Open anyway. For the past
several years, I've been one of the VM's or Alternates (after serving as
the Delegate for about six years), but I'm willing and financially able to
make the trip. I have served as the Parliamentarian for the past seven
Delegates Meetings, two of which I was not a Delegate at. (And I played in
just 4 of the past 10 US Opens.)
I don't know how many other states have people like me in reserve, not enough
I'd guess. If I wasn't on a couple of committees (Bylaws and Computers)
and committed to serving as Parliamentarian for as long as I'm wanted, I'm
not sure I'd make the trip every year, either. I'm still quite worried about
attendance at the Delegates meeting at the 1998 US Open in Hawaii, that's a
long way to fly.
--
Mike Nolan
chr...@polarnet.com
In article <phrE40...@netcom.com>,
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> If 20 people manage to get the necessary 150 signatures each,
> participatory democracy in the USCF will have succeeded beyond our
> wildest dreams. It means >5% of all members will have been interested
> enough to sign someone's petition. Of course members should be
> allowed to sign at most one petition per office....
How many USCF members, excluding youth members, are there right now? The
numbers
here imply ~60,000 ?
c
--
Chris Lott
chr...@polarnet.com
Eclectica! Magazine: http://www2.polarnet.com/~eclectica
Play chess!: Zazen on FICS/ICC
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jerry
Michael Nolan wrote:
>
>
> You're twisting my logic. I didn't say that a state president deserves the
> HONOR of being a Delegate, I said that a state president has demonstrated
> the sense of duty, shown the committment, and has the requisite knowledge to
> make him or her a good choice as a Delegate, and deserves the RIGHT to serve
> as one if interested.
Based on your previous post, we have a fundamental disagreement. I am in favor of
OMOV for ALL Delegates and Policy Board members. Firstly, your statement makes a
generalization about State Presidents which might not be true in all cases. Secondly,
there are others in many states who are as qualified or better qualified than the
state presidents. Why not have an election decide? Dont you think that most
State Presidents (though not all) would be elected as Delegates? What are you
concerned about?
>
> In case you hadn't figured it out, I'm in favor of expanded democracy within
> USCF (although not necessarily the label 'OMOV', since it has been tied,
> rightly or wrongly, to certain factional elements), and I have been since
> 1987.
I am in favor of total democracy within the USCF. You should not oppose a plan
just because you dont like some of the other people who support it.
> Not at all, it's a good first step, but it may not be sufficient. We're
> talking here about choosing the alternates for Delegates if the Delegates
> are elected by popular vote within their state. Depending on how many
> candidates choose to run for Delegate (and I don't see this as an
> overwhelming number), the list of alternates might be exhausted in some
> states.
> We should make the nomination process open enough so that many people from each
state can run. If people from a state are unwilling to run as Delegate, then the
state may well lose representation and rightfully so.
> Then we get to the issue of alternates making the trip. The 1997 Delegates
> meeting is in Florida. Suppose the Delegate from Wyoming is unable to
> attend at the last minute. Would a 2nd place finisher be willing to
> schedule vacation time, arrange for travel in advance, etc. just in case
> that happens? And what about the 3rd place finisher, assuming there even
> is one?
This has always been a problem. I dont understand how this is connected with OMOV.
>
> Less than half of the Delegates play in the US Open, a lot of them fly in
> on Wednesday or Thursday, attend at least some of the workshops that are
> there to help educate them on the issues that will be debated in the meeting,
> participate in the Delegates meeting, then leave on Sunday (in some cases
> missing the final hour or so of the meeting, but that's a separate problem)
> or on Monday.
>
> In Nebraska, the Delegate and Voting Members are selected at the annual
> Membership meeting, for which it is difficult to get a quorum of 10 despite the
> fact that 30 or more adult NSCA members are usually participating in the
> tournament at which it is held. (And when Nebraska conducted a mail ballot
> to ratify its new bylaws last year, it took several months and multiple
> mailings to get enough responses back for it to pass--chess politics just
> isn't what the bulk of our members are interested in.)
Yes. I dont think people should have to be in the same place at the same time in
order to participate in an election. I think that on major issues, mail ballots
or internet ballots (but not proxies) should be considered.
>
> Often our Delegate is chosen by first finding out who's willing to go to the
> meeting or planning to play in that year's US Open anyway. For the past
> several years, I've been one of the VM's or Alternates (after serving as
> the Delegate for about six years), but I'm willing and financially able to
> make the trip. I have served as the Parliamentarian for the past seven
> Delegates Meetings, two of which I was not a Delegate at. (And I played in
> just 4 of the past 10 US Opens.)
Yes. When people run for Delegate they should understand that it is necessary for
them to attend the Delegates meeting. Some states might not have enough people
who are willing to attend a far-away meeting. If I understand correctly, a
Delegate need not reside in the state where he or she is elected, and I think that
that policy should be continued.
> I don't know how many other states have people like me in reserve, not enough
> I'd guess. If I wasn't on a couple of committees (Bylaws and Computers)
> and committed to serving as Parliamentarian for as long as I'm wanted, I'm
> not sure I'd make the trip every year, either. I'm still quite worried about
> attendance at the Delegates meeting at the 1998 US Open in Hawaii, that's a
> long way to fly.
Agreed. On the other hand, its a nice place to vacation, so hopefully the meeting
will be well attended.
> --
> Mike Nolan
Jerry