History of the Blue Ribbon Committee
samsloan
membership to change from the delegate's system to the OMOV System.
This movement was led by Larry Parr, Nigel Eddis (who just died a few
weeks ago) and Grandmaster Larry Evans. Wayne Praeder was also a
strong proponent of the OMOV System.
I still have letters and correspondence on my website about this.
Search and you will find.
One of the biggest complaints by supporters of OMOV was that all the
power in the USCF was held by a small number of delegates, only about
125 at the time.
In response to the growing movement towards OMOV, changes were made to
increase the number of delegates and voting members so that such a
small self-perpetuating group would not hold all the power.
Gradually, the number of voting members increased from about 125 to
about 550, to satisfy the demands for more democracy.
At the 1999 USCF Delegates Meeting in Reno, OMOV failed by only about
two votes. The reason it failed was that Tim Dorsch and Jim Eade, who
were strongly opposed to OMOV, kept the Northern California delegates
in their iron grip. For example, Alan Fifield (who is a member of this
forum) was prevented from attending the 1999 delegates meeting as a
Delegate from Northern California, by being given another job to do,
because Dorsch and Eade know that Fifield would vote for OMOV.
The Blue Ribbon Committee was formed as a group of anti-OMOV delegates
to craft a new system of governance that would satisfy the demands for
democracy without throwing the federation to the dogs.
The Blue Ribbon Committee did a lot of serious studies of this issue,
studying other organizations similar to the USCF. The Blue Ribbon
Committee proposals finally passed at the 1998 delegate's meeting in
Hawaii. The first election under the new system was held in 1999 and
several members of the Blue Ribbon Committee ran for election.
Unfortunately, the outcome of the 1999 election was that the new board
fired Mike Cavallo and hired in his place George DeFeis. George DeFeis
impressed everybody (including me) as a good guy, but he turned out to
be a terrible, horrible executive director. (Will I be sanctioned
again for writing this?)
Because of the terrible consequences on the 1999 election, several of
the strongest supporters of the delegate's system switched sides and
became supporters of OMOV. These included Bill Goichberg and Don
Schultz.
As a result, at the 2001 USCF Delegates meeting in Framingham MA, the
Blue Ribbon Committee System was swept away and the OMOV System was
voted in by an overwhelming margin. There were almost no supporters
left of the old system.
However, we can now see that the results of OMOV have been bad. Many,
including myself, who strongly supported OMOV, would like to see a
return to the old system.
Sam Sloan
parrt...@cs.com
< However, we can now see that the results of OMOV have been bad.
Many,
including myself, who strongly supported OMOV, would like to see a
return to the old system.
-- Sam Sloan
If it hadn't been for OMOV you would never have been elected in the
first place and you would have no chance now.
parrt...@cs.com
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS
Author: Larry Evans
Cardoza Publishing (2007)
www.cardozapub.com
294 pages pb
$9.95
Reviewed by Anthony Saidy
Chess columnists in the mainstream press have for over a century been
bulwarks of the game. If they are to attract new chess devotees, then
besides the usual games and positions to solve, they ought to write
well and supply human interest. I recall I. A. Horowitz' sprightly
prose, with such an unusual word as "sockdolager." To him, a weak
player was a "pusillanimous palooka." He annoyingly called the US Open
the "USCF Open." He was succeeded at the N.Y. Times by Robert Byrne,
who for three decades turned out a stereotyped product: one game per
column with comments. Experts doted on it, but I doubt that he brought
new players into the game.
In Los Angeles, Isaac Kashdan wrote plodding journalism. His successor
Jack Peters does not shrink from occasionally inserting his opinions
on chess politics, and omits championship titles that he does not
recognize.
Who is a strong GM with a taste for intriguing chess, as well as a
fine popularizing writer able to bridge the discourse to amateurs;
experienced at the summit of US chess, with sharp opinions on chess
politics and the ability continually to vary the content of his spicy,
concise columns? Only five-time US Champ and Fischer co-author Larry
Evans. His columns are syndicated, but in all my travels around the
US, I have yet to see them in a local paper. Luckily they were
collected in a very enjoyable previous book by this prolific chess
author, THE CHESS BEAT.
Now we have THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS, a new collection of about 100
columns, some augmented, plus an extended article or two, exploring
the whole panorama of chess off-the-board conflict, elucidating the
murky world of chess politics, with a few examples of actual chess.
Suffice to say that no office-holder, whether FIDE crook Campomanes
(who banned his critic R. Calvo from intl. chess with American help),
the grandiose Ilyumzhinov or a mediocre USCF bumbler, manages to dodge
Evans' barbs. Evans campaigned for one man one vote (OMOV) in the USCF
and succeeded in modifying the cronyism at the top.
samsloan
> DEAR SAM
>
> < However, we can now see that the results of OMOV have been bad.
> Many,
> including myself, who strongly supported OMOV, would like to see a
> return to the old system.
> -- Sam Sloan
>
> If it hadn't been for OMOV you would never have been elected in the
> first place and you would have no chance now.
> Larry Parr
Sorry, but I disagree.
I ran against a weak field in 2006 and I was the only one who
campaigned. There was really no support for any of my opponents. I
would have finished first, not second, except that Jerry Hanken
campaigned hard for Randy Hough and turned out the vote in Southern
California.
In the current election, Bill Goichberg seems to think he will be re-
elected almost by acclimation. He may be proven wrong. A number of
people who are thought of as pro-Goichberg have told me privately that
it is time for a change and they will not be voting for Goichberg.
Nobody can predict the outcome. I admit that I am a long-shot, but to
say that I have no chance is probably not accurate.
Sam Sloan
parrt...@cs.com
<If it hadn't been for OMOV you would never have been elected in the
first place and you would have no chance now.>
"Sorry, but I disagree." -- Sam Sloan
Put on your reading glasses. I said you DO have a chance now because
of OMOV. Under the old system you probably would be dead in the
water.
samsloan
>
> < However, we can now see that the results of OMOV have been bad.
> Many,
> including myself, who strongly supported OMOV, would like to see a
> return to the old system.
> -- Sam Sloan
>
> If it hadn't been for OMOV you would never have been elected in the
> first place and you would have no chance now.
I respectfully disagree.
I ran against a weak field in 2006 and I was the only one who
campaigned. There was really no support for any of my opponents. I
would have finished first, not second, except that Jerry Hanken
campaigned hard for Randy Hough and turned out the vote in Southern
California.
In the current election, Bill Goichberg seems to think he will be re-
elected almost by acclimation. He may be proven wrong. A number of
people who are thought of as pro-Goichberg have told me privately that
it is time for a change and they will not be voting for Goichberg.
In the current election, I might have a better chance under the old
system. Goichberg has been a disaster as president. The USCF has lost
more than $500,000 during Goichberg's four years in office. All of the
current raft of lawsuits listed on page 48 of the March Chess Life are
a direct and forseeable consequence of the actions of Bill Goichberg.
Under the old delegates system,. nobody would vote for the Polgar
candidates, who are Lugo, Hecht and Korenman, especially because of
the scandal at the 2008 Miami Open where Lugo and Hecht underpaid the
guaranteed prizes by $20,000. However, under the current system, the
voters will probably not find out about the $20,000 and Lugo and Hecht
might be elected.
Thus, if the old delegates system were still in effect, the race would
come down to the pro-Goichberg people against the anti-Goichberg
people. Admittedly the pro-Goichberg group would hold a big advantage
but there is a chance that the non or anti Goichberg people could win.
I tried for form a slate of good anti-Goichberg candidates, but the
three people I wanted to run with me all chickened out at the last
moment so I am running alone.
Sam
jkh...@aim.com
1) Under the "old" system, you ran several times, and I don't think
you ever topped 20 votes. I suppose it's _possible_ that you might
have been elected by the Delegates. If they all simultaneously came
down with Mad Cow Disease.
> I ran against a weak field in 2006 and I was the only one who
> campaigned. There was really no support for any of my opponents. I
> would have finished first, not second, except that Jerry Hanken
> campaigned hard for Randy Hough and turned out the vote in Southern
> California.
2) Shows how far out of it Sam is. Jerry Hanken has (and had) very
little influence in Southern California these days. Randy Hough got
elected because he ran an active campaign, including several targeted
mailings to people in Southern Cal likely to vote for him if they
voted at all. Sam got elected because the other two serious candidates
disdained to campaign. And because he wrote decent CL statements,
which no doubt looked impressive to those unfamiliar with his long
history as a nutjob.
samsloan
> Bill,
>
> I have asked this before and I will ask it again. Please exclude me from any
> and all of your discussions / debates with Mr. Sloan. I already blocked all
> emails from him and I would appreciate it if you exclude me from your
> response to Mr. Sloan.
>
> Thank you.
> Susan Polgar
Poor victim of invidious discrimination Susan.
If she would just resign from the board, nobody would bother her any
more with these pesky emails.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
> Who is a strong GM with a taste for intriguing chess, as well as a
> fine popularizing writer able to bridge the discourse to amateurs;
> experienced at the summit of US chess, with sharp opinions on chess
> politics and the ability continually to vary the content of his spicy,
> concise columns? Only five-time US Champ and Fischer co-author Larry
> Evans. His columns are syndicated, but in all my travels around the
> US, I have yet to see them in a local paper. Luckily they were
> collected in a very enjoyable previous book by this prolific chess
> author, THE CHESS BEAT.
By the way, thanks for reminding me.
If elected, I will ORDER the Chess Life editor to bring back Larry
Evans. I will not just politely suggest that Larry Evans will be
brought back, as Goichberg has done. This will be a direct order.
Sam Sloan
None
Larry Evans' column was ghost-written for years. What's to bring back?
samsloan
I am certain that this is not true.
By the way, aren't you Tom Dorsch?
Sam Sloan
parrt...@cs.com
>Larry Evans' column was ghost-written for years. What's to bring back?> -- None
<I am certain that this is not true. By the way, aren't you Tom
Dorsch? -- Sam Sloan
Why bother?
By now everyone knows that "None" is a vile guttersnipe, too cowardly
to own his own name. This toxic creature can't possibly be Tom Dorsch,
who would never utter such a lie.
samsloan
> DEAR SAM
>
> >Larry Evans' column was ghost-written for years. What's to bring back?> -- None
>
> <I am certain that this is not true. By the way, aren't you Tom
> Dorsch? -- Sam Sloan
>
> Why bother?
>
> By now everyone knows that "None" is a vile guttersnipe, too cowardly
> to own his own name. This toxic creature can't possibly be Tom Dorsch,
> who would never utter such a lie.
Dear Larry,
You have apparently forgotten that Tom Dorsch launched some truly
nasty vicious personal attacks on Grandmaster Larry Evans back in
1998-1999.
In fact, it was my defense of Larry Evans against one of the attacks
by Dorsch that started Dorsch attacking me too.
You must jhave missed these, because when I later said that Tom Dorsch
had obviously become mentally ill, you refused to believe it.
Sam
madams
Dear Chaps,
I've re-named the thread as I think it's more suggestive of the level of
chatter going on here - also, it's quite in keeping with your new
hair-do's too..
All the best..
m.