Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Please do not re-elect the USCF Incumbents
3 views
Skip to first unread message
samsloan
Jan 7, 2013, 2:48:41 PM1/7/13
to
MstrHyde wrote:
dwl1945 wrote:I fully intended not to renew my USCF
membership. However, now that you are running for EB I have changed my
mind. I oppose your candidacy and will gladly give generous support to
your opponents. Be prepared to be scrutinized to the nth degree. BRING
IT ON!
Randy Bauer has already solidified member support for remaining in
the USCF, seems to make him an obvious choice for the election!
I disagree. The USCF has been going downhill during the entire time
Bauer has been on the board. Time to throw the bums out and bring in
new (old) management.
None of the incumbents deserve to be re-elected.
Sincerely,
Sam Sloan
dwl1945 wrote:I fully intended not to renew my USCF
membership. However, now that you are running for EB I have changed my
mind. I oppose your candidacy and will gladly give generous support to
your opponents. Be prepared to be scrutinized to the nth degree. BRING
IT ON!
Randy Bauer has already solidified member support for remaining in
the USCF, seems to make him an obvious choice for the election!
I disagree. The USCF has been going downhill during the entire time
Bauer has been on the board. Time to throw the bums out and bring in
new (old) management.
None of the incumbents deserve to be re-elected.
Sincerely,
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Jan 9, 2013, 9:39:21 AM1/9/13
to
There is only one guy in this list who has not been on the board
previously.
I intend to bullet-vote for that guy.
The USCF is in such bad condition that everybody else should share the
blame for this.
There used to be a rule that members of the board were not allowed to
run for re-election.
They should bring back that rule.
Sam Sloan
previously.
I intend to bullet-vote for that guy.
The USCF is in such bad condition that everybody else should share the
blame for this.
There used to be a rule that members of the board were not allowed to
run for re-election.
They should bring back that rule.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Jan 11, 2013, 9:50:50 AM1/11/13
to
[quote="Grayson"][quote="samsloan"]There is only one guy in this list
They should bring back that rule.[/quote]
"only one guy"--true.
"bullet vote for that guy"--he'll be grateful.
"such bad condition"--I think we need a lot of work to be functioning
well. The organization has made substantial strides in the past four
years.
"not allowed to run for re-election"-- two comments: First, we are
facing a large election with four seats to be decided. Only six
members stepped forward for these [i]volunteer[/i] positions
(thanks). Five of those six members have done it before. There's not
an overabundance of folks wanting the job. It's true that others might
step forward if there was a one-and-done rule, but, and second, the
loss of experience seems like a big downside to me.[/quote]
Just a few elections ago there were 17 people running for the board.
I realize you are a newbe so you do not know about this.
They tightened up the rules mainly to stop me from running by
increasing the number of signatures required, requiring a number of
delegate signatures, and greatly increasing the filing fee from $30 to
$250.
What this has done is stop many other would-be volunteers from running
for the board.
It is not that they do not want to run for the board. It is that you,
the incumbents, do not want to lose control.
Sam Sloan
"only one guy"--true.
"bullet vote for that guy"--he'll be grateful.
"such bad condition"--I think we need a lot of work to be functioning
well. The organization has made substantial strides in the past four
years.
"not allowed to run for re-election"-- two comments: First, we are
facing a large election with four seats to be decided. Only six
members stepped forward for these [i]volunteer[/i] positions
(thanks). Five of those six members have done it before. There's not
an overabundance of folks wanting the job. It's true that others might
step forward if there was a one-and-done rule, but, and second, the
loss of experience seems like a big downside to me.[/quote]
Just a few elections ago there were 17 people running for the board.
I realize you are a newbe so you do not know about this.
They tightened up the rules mainly to stop me from running by
increasing the number of signatures required, requiring a number of
delegate signatures, and greatly increasing the filing fee from $30 to
$250.
What this has done is stop many other would-be volunteers from running
for the board.
It is not that they do not want to run for the board. It is that you,
the incumbents, do not want to lose control.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Jan 11, 2013, 9:57:06 AM1/11/13
to
[quote="nolan"]Sam, WHEN was there a rule that PB/EB members couldn't
run for re-election?
It wasn't in the early 80's, because Myron Lieberman served 3
consecutive terms (9 years in a row) on the Board before reaching the
term limits in effect at the time. Since then term lengths and term
limits have both varied but PB/EB members have been eligible to run
for at least a second consecutive term on the board.
However, I think that the USCF President was not allowed to run for re-
election when we had direct election of officers. Under the current
rules, with the EB electing its own officers, someone may serve as
USCF President for 4 years in a row.[/quote]
You must be having a senior moment.
The rule was always that Board Members could not be re-elected. The
sole exception was that the Secretary could be re-elected, mainly
because almost nobody wanted that job.
This resulted in Rachel Lieberman being re-elected Secretary several
times, usually unopposed, but nobody else was ever re-elected.
Sam Sloan
run for re-election?
It wasn't in the early 80's, because Myron Lieberman served 3
consecutive terms (9 years in a row) on the Board before reaching the
term limits in effect at the time. Since then term lengths and term
limits have both varied but PB/EB members have been eligible to run
for at least a second consecutive term on the board.
However, I think that the USCF President was not allowed to run for re-
election when we had direct election of officers. Under the current
rules, with the EB electing its own officers, someone may serve as
USCF President for 4 years in a row.[/quote]
You must be having a senior moment.
The rule was always that Board Members could not be re-elected. The
sole exception was that the Secretary could be re-elected, mainly
because almost nobody wanted that job.
This resulted in Rachel Lieberman being re-elected Secretary several
times, usually unopposed, but nobody else was ever re-elected.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Jan 11, 2013, 10:09:25 AM1/11/13
to
[quote="Randy Bauer"]Right on. Look at the current Board - most of
these individuals are serving their first or second term EVER on the
EB. Bill Goichberg is the exception, and he is term-limited.
Under OMOV, we have had lots of new EB members who never served prior
- look it up. Far from continuing 'the elites' OMOV has led to lots
of new blood - the Harings, Berrys, Nietmans, Atkins, Walters, Priests
and Bauers of the EB world. I am hopeful that we will add Chuck Unruh
to that list - one (maybe the only thing) on which Sam Sloan and I
agree.[/quote]
You are ignoring the fact that most of the people on the above list
were specifically recruited to run by the Big Man on the Top, the man
who really runs the organization.
Almost everybody now knows that it is pointless to run and a waste of
time and money to run without the support of the Big Man.
Sam Sloan
these individuals are serving their first or second term EVER on the
EB. Bill Goichberg is the exception, and he is term-limited.
Under OMOV, we have had lots of new EB members who never served prior
- look it up. Far from continuing 'the elites' OMOV has led to lots
of new blood - the Harings, Berrys, Nietmans, Atkins, Walters, Priests
and Bauers of the EB world. I am hopeful that we will add Chuck Unruh
to that list - one (maybe the only thing) on which Sam Sloan and I
agree.[/quote]
You are ignoring the fact that most of the people on the above list
were specifically recruited to run by the Big Man on the Top, the man
who really runs the organization.
Almost everybody now knows that it is pointless to run and a waste of
time and money to run without the support of the Big Man.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Jan 11, 2013, 10:55:19 AM1/11/13
to
[quote="Randy Bauer"][quote="samsloan"][quote="Grayson"]
[quote="samsloan"]There is only one guy in this list who has not been
As usual, Sam Sloan has it bass ackwards. The EB didn't enact the new
filing requirements, the Delegates did. In fact, it was part of a
long-discussed package of election revisions that a committee worked
on for several months. In fact, the filing requirements that were
first presented to the Delegates were even more stringent than what we
had now. I - even though I was at the time on the EB - and others
worked out a compromise that dialed back the requirements a bit.
Personally, I think having 6 well-qualified candidates for the 4 spots
on the EB is just fine and 17 is far too many.
Although I think Sam Sloan believes the USCF universe revolves around
him and every decision is somehow directed at him, it's just not the
case.[/quote]
Yes, and that committee too was controlled by the Big Man at the Top.
The changes he wanted would have made it impossible for anybody to run
who was not designated by him.
It is absolutely true however that the delegates cut it back a bit,
opening a small window of opportunity for those not controlled by the
Big Man to run.
Sam Sloan
[quote="samsloan"]There is only one guy in this list who has not been
They should bring back that rule.[/quote]
"only one guy"--true.
"bullet vote for that guy"--he'll be grateful.
"such bad condition"--I think we need a lot of work to be functioning
well. The organization has made substantial strides in the past four
years.
"not allowed to run for re-election"-- two comments: First, we are
facing a large election with four seats to be decided. Only six
members stepped forward for these [i]volunteer[/i] positions
(thanks). Five of those six members have done it before. There's not
an overabundance of folks wanting the job. It's true that others might
step forward if there was a one-and-done rule, but, and second, the
loss of experience seems like a big downside to me.[/quote]
Just a few elections ago there were 17 people running for the board.
I realize you are a newbe so you do not know about this.
They tightened up the rules mainly to stop me from running by
increasing the number of signatures required, requiring a number of
delegate signatures, and greatly increasing the filing fee from $30 to
$250.
What this has done is stop many other would-be volunteers from running
for the board.
It is not that they do not want to run for the board. It is that you,
the incumbents, do not want to lose control.[/quote]
"only one guy"--true.
"bullet vote for that guy"--he'll be grateful.
"such bad condition"--I think we need a lot of work to be functioning
well. The organization has made substantial strides in the past four
years.
"not allowed to run for re-election"-- two comments: First, we are
facing a large election with four seats to be decided. Only six
members stepped forward for these [i]volunteer[/i] positions
(thanks). Five of those six members have done it before. There's not
an overabundance of folks wanting the job. It's true that others might
step forward if there was a one-and-done rule, but, and second, the
loss of experience seems like a big downside to me.[/quote]
Just a few elections ago there were 17 people running for the board.
I realize you are a newbe so you do not know about this.
They tightened up the rules mainly to stop me from running by
increasing the number of signatures required, requiring a number of
delegate signatures, and greatly increasing the filing fee from $30 to
$250.
What this has done is stop many other would-be volunteers from running
for the board.
It is not that they do not want to run for the board. It is that you,
As usual, Sam Sloan has it bass ackwards. The EB didn't enact the new
filing requirements, the Delegates did. In fact, it was part of a
long-discussed package of election revisions that a committee worked
on for several months. In fact, the filing requirements that were
first presented to the Delegates were even more stringent than what we
had now. I - even though I was at the time on the EB - and others
worked out a compromise that dialed back the requirements a bit.
Personally, I think having 6 well-qualified candidates for the 4 spots
on the EB is just fine and 17 is far too many.
Although I think Sam Sloan believes the USCF universe revolves around
him and every decision is somehow directed at him, it's just not the
case.[/quote]
Yes, and that committee too was controlled by the Big Man at the Top.
The changes he wanted would have made it impossible for anybody to run
who was not designated by him.
It is absolutely true however that the delegates cut it back a bit,
opening a small window of opportunity for those not controlled by the
Big Man to run.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Jan 12, 2013, 12:15:35 AM1/12/13
to
Operations has a long history of borrowing money from the LMA and
never paying it back.
Apparently, for the first time ever in the history of the world,
Operations has made a partial re-payment on the money it owes the LMA.
Hurray! Cheers!
But that is not reason to assume that this trend will continue.
Sam Sloan
never paying it back.
Apparently, for the first time ever in the history of the world,
Operations has made a partial re-payment on the money it owes the LMA.
Hurray! Cheers!
But that is not reason to assume that this trend will continue.
Sam Sloan
0 new messages