Should Marinello and Hanke be Permanently Expelled, Barred and Banned from the USCF??
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> Also, one board member, Tim Hanke, has gone missing since February 10
>> and the delegates could take action such as remove him or even expel
>> him. Several persons have even suggested that Beatriz Marinello could
>> be expelled from the USCF by the delegates.
>
>Especially given the fact these two Executive Board members were
>elected directly by the USCF membership, the Board of Delegates has no
>power of recall, and no power to expel a member (they only handle
>appeals), and there is no pending action, SFAIK, against these members
>by either the Ethics Committee or the Executive Board, I do not see how
>the 2005 Board of Delegates would have the power do this. Nor, do I
>think there is any chance they would this even if they were to have the
>power, which SFAIK they do not.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
I disagree. The USCF Board of Delegates clearly does have the legal
right, power and authority to expel a member. For example, Bobby
Fischer was expelled by "Objections Proceedure" by the Executive
Board. I feel that this was wrong and should not have been done, but
nevertheless nobody has claimed that they did not have the right to do
this.
There have been numerous cases where members have been suspended. Mike
Nolan, Roman Dzindzichashvilli and Stan Vaughan were all suspended I
believe. (Roman might have been expelled). The reasons were relatively
trivial.
I agree that no member should be expelled except for very, very
serious reasons. Whether Beatriz Marinello and Tim Hanke reach that
standard would be something for the delegates to decide.
I would not make the motion but if somebody else made the motion I
would vote to expel them both for the following reasons:
1. Tim Hanke has been missing since February 10, 2005. Hanke is the VP
of Finance. If he was going to be absent for a long time, he should
have resigned. The VP of Finance is supposed to approve any
expenditures by the President. Since Hanke has been absent, we do not
know whether he approved the $13,000 that Beatriz paid herself or not.
2. Beatriz has committed many illegal or improper acts. Among them
are:
A) Beatriz had herself appointed Chief Operating Officer, a clear
violation of the by-laws which state that no member of the board can
be an employee or officer of the USCF.
B) Beatriz endorsed Natrol, a drug that claims the ability to speed up
the brain, and she accepted money from Natrol and had their ad put on
the USCF website, all without even notifying the board.
C) After her slate was defeated in the July 21, 2005 election, Beatriz
signed a contract to build an new building against the wishes of the
new board and also in violation of the by-laws under which the
President has no power to sign contracts for the USCF. Only the
Executive Director has that power.
These factors plus the many other misdeeds committed by Hanke and
Marinello are more than enough to require their permanent expulsion
and ban from the USCF, in my opinion.
Sam Sloan
George John
[SNIP]
> I disagree. The USCF Board of Delegates clearly does have the legal
> right, power and authority to expel a member.
The USCF Bylaws do NOT give this right. It is given to the Executive
Board with right of appeal to the Board of Delegates.
> For example, Bobby
> Fischer was expelled by "Objections Proceedure" by the Executive
> Board.
Yes, the Executive Board does have the power to do this, but NOT the
Board of Delegates.
[SNIP]
> I agree that no member should be expelled except for very, very
> serious reasons. Whether Beatriz Marinello and Tim Hanke reach that
> standard would be something for the delegates to decide.
I do not see how they have the power to decide this. There is nothing
in the Bylaws or any passed motion of the Board of Delegates that I can
find to support the idea of the Board of Delegates having the power to
expel a member.
I guess with a 2/3 vote they might be able to modify the Bylaws to do
so, but I think that would be an abuse of power. A motion like that
needs to be on the advance agenda so all members with an interest have
a chance to discuss such a motion with the Delegates.
>
> I would not make the motion but if somebody else made the motion I
> would vote to expel them both for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Tim Hanke has been missing since February 10, 2005.
This is false, and has already been rebutted. How many more times will
it be necessary to do so? For example, Hanke participated in the May
21, 2005 Executive Board meeting.
[SNIP]
> A) Beatriz had herself appointed Chief Operating Officer, a clear
> violation of the by-laws which state that no member of the board can
> be an employee or officer of the USCF.
The Executive Board voted in favor of this. While it is not a "best
practice", I see nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits this. All that
is prohibited is a USCF employee running for the Executive Board and
being a Delegate.
>
> B) Beatriz endorsed Natrol, a drug that claims the ability to speed up
> the brain, and she accepted money from Natrol and had their ad put on
> the USCF website, all without even notifying the board.
While Beatriz has accepted *responsibility* for the Natrol deal, it is
not at all clear how the actual deal came into being. In any event,
regardless how wise or unwise the deal was, I see no justification to
expel someone from the USCF over this. The agreement entered in to was
a one time deal with a contract amount of $5000. Nowhere, that I can
find, was signing this agreement, without Executive Board approval, a
violation of any motion, Bylaw, or policy.
>
> C) After her slate was defeated in the July 21, 2005 election, Beatriz
> signed a contract to build an new building against the wishes of the
> new board and also in violation of the by-laws under which the
> President has no power to sign contracts for the USCF. Only the
> Executive Director has that power.
This is false!
The power to enter into contracts is delegated from the Board of
Delegates to the Executive Board, while the Board of Delegates are not
meeting:
"The Executive Board shall manage the affairs of the Federation,
including employment and other contracts"
The Executive Board can authorize the President and/or staff to enter
into contracts on their behalf. Here is the current policy, and I
quote:
"Limitations on the Contractual Authority of USCF Staff
On May 22, 2005, the USCF Executive Board passed the following motion:
The Executive Board mandates the following: Employees of the US Chess
Federation, including the Executive Director and Director of
Publications, cannot enter into contracts that are greater than $10,000
or obligate either party for more than 12 months without Executive
Board approval or written approval of the President. If greater than
$30,000, the approval of the Executive Board is required."
So in many instances the Executive Director will NOT be able to sign a
contract on his or her own volition.
The construction contract was approved by the Executive Board, and
therefore the President was fully authorized by the USCF Executive
Board to sign such a contract provided either the VP of Finance or ED
signed, too. I quote:
"The note, deed of trust, and all other loan documents are to be signed
by any two of the following: Beatriz Marinello-President, Tim
Hanke-Vice President for Finance, or Bill Hall-Executive Director."
[SNIP]
Best regards,
George John
[crossposting snipped]
Sam Sloan
Marinello board to give itself authority it did not otherwise have.
George John claims that this was perfectly legal I disagree.
The USCF is a 80,000 member membership organization with a complex
structure. Like most comparable organizations, we have committees who
consider matters and take votes. These are then forwarded to the
Delegates for consideration. The delegates debate these matters and
motions are passed or failed.
The delegates then refer these matters to the Executive Board which
conducts meetings that are supposed to be announced and open. Any
USCF member should be allowed to speak at these meetings and have his
views heard. The Executive Board then votes and refers the results to
the Executive Director for action.
Instead of all this, Beatriz Marinello has just set up herself as a
one-woman dictator. She has repeatedly done things such as the Natrol
deal without even informing her allies on the board, much less her
opponents.
Virtually everything Beatriz Marinello has done in the past two years
has been in violation of the by-laws and in violation of the standard
and recognized proceedures for doing things in the USCF.
For this reason, and because of the irreparable harm she has done to
the organization, I believe that Beatriz Marinello should be expelled
and permanently banned from the USCF.
Sam Sloan
On 3 Aug 2005 11:58:47 -0700, "George John" <geo...@neosoft.com>
George John
[SNIP]
> The USCF is a 80,000 member membership organization with a complex
> structure. Like most comparable organizations, we have committees who
> consider matters and take votes.
Most committees are Executive Board advisory committees. The Executive
Board decides who are on those committees. These committees have zero
power. If they take votes, they are for information purposes only.
The Board of Delegates has committees, too. One that has real power is
the Life Member Assets (LMA) Committee. IIRC, the LMA Committee agreed
with the decision to start construction and approved a $100,000 down
payment for the construction loan. No other Board of Delegates
committee is relevent to this discussion.
> These are then forwarded to the
> Delegates for consideration. The delegates debate these matters and
> motions are passed or failed.
The 2003 USCF Board of Delegates ratified the 2003 McCrary board's
decision to move to Crossville, and approved a distinct Crossville move
budget. The 2004 USCF Board of Delegates could have blocked any move
to Crossville, but did not.
The decision to move to Crossville was made by two different Executive
Boards, explicitly approved by one USCF Board of Delegates, and subject
to review by another. It was a very publically made decision that even
included the governor of a state. Land valued at $264,000 was donated
to the USCF contingent on the USCF constructing a building on it.
These last actions of the Marinello simply completed a plan that was
set into motion by the McCrary Board and USCF Board of Delegates in
2003.
> The delegates then refer these matters to the Executive Board which
> conducts meetings that are supposed to be announced and open.
While it is true that the Board of Delegates can refer motions to the
Executive Board with the power to act, the USCF Executive Board is not
limited to only carrying out motions passed by the Board of Delegates.
Basically, the Executive Board is mostly free to do as it wishes,
constrained only by the Bylaws, laws of the land, and any Delegate
motions of continuing interest.
Teleconferences have never been open SFAIK. There is no requirement
for the Executive Board to announce their meetings to the membership or
make them open; although, whenever feasible they should do IMO.
[SNIP]
>
> Virtually everything Beatriz Marinello has done in the past two years
> has been in violation of the by-laws and in violation of the standard
> and recognized proceedures for doing things in the USCF.
I can think of no Bylaws violations other than the Secretary's repeated
failures to post recordings of some of the Executive Board meetings on
the USCF Website. I seriously doubt that Sam Sloan would be able to
cite any specific, concrete example of a violation which includes
relevant Bylaws language. Perhaps that is why he continues to speak
only in generalities and hyperbole.
Best regards,
George John
Bruce
but I must say that it's been wonderful being out of the chess
political and USCF political scene for well over 1.5 years.
I had the opportunity to look in on the Cornhusker State Games a couple
weeks ago and talked a bit with Mike Nolan about what's going on and
who's running for the board.
Some things don't ever change as Sam of course is running and always
will run as long he can do it.
Took a look at some of the numbers and saw that USCF has finally
stabilized in sort of a semi-comatose but stable condition although it
still doesn't seem to know where to go or what to do to become healthy
or vibrant again, assuming that there is anything it can any longer do.
I think that more or less USCF just needs to accept the fact that it
has peaked and that it mainly just needs to be able to function and do
the things it has to do to survive.
If USCF could not generate a surplus even AFTER ridding itself of the
book and equipment albatross then it would indeed be a question of why
the hell not?
I just wanted to say hi to all my past friends and foes alike,
including but not limited to Randy, Neil, Tim, Kevin, Matt, Stan,
George, Mr. "Mensa" himself, old Haasie, and yes even Sam.
I am still alive and actually much happier and well here in Omaha. I
even played in an unrated tournament in northwestern Nebraska last
Spring and tied for first with my son. I had more fun doing that than
in any rated events I've played in, for a few years as well.
I've heard a rumor that adult dues might be rolled back to a reasonable
level and I might consider rejoining USCF if that happens, but I have
reprioritized my life and my time commitments to careers, personal and
family goals and chess is way, way down the list, although I do miss
the fun and the banter I used to take part in here in the old days.
I must confess to even still getting a kick out of reading Sam Sloan's
stuff which hasn't really changed much since 1998. :)) I'm happy,
healthy, and enjoying what's left of my life and don't intend to get
back into chess politics unless someone gives me a brain transplant or
a million dollars. LMAO!!
As for Sam's desire to expel board members, I always get a good laugh
out of Sam's interpretation of USCF bylaws. My predictions are that
Sam will not finish last, nor will he make it onto the board. Actually
I was hoping that there might be results of the election already posted
here, which is one reason I came to RGCP. This e-mail address no
longer works by the way, but it is the one I've got registered under
years ago. So those who want to keep in touch with me will have to get
my new e-mail address from me.
Best Regards,
Bruce
George John
Bruce,
Good to hear from you!
> I've heard a rumor that adult dues might be rolled back to a reasonable
> level and I might consider rejoining USCF if that happens,
You are currently eligible for a promotional membership (available to
new members and those whose memberships expired in 2003 or earlier).
If you renew online you can get the following deals:
1 yr - $36.00
2 yr - $65.00 ($32.50 per year)
3 yr - $93.00 ($31.00 per year)
If the budget permits, I'd go for the 3yr deal at $31.00 per year.
> Actually
> I was hoping that there might be results of the election already posted
> here,
See: http://georgejohn.bcentralhost.com/USChessSuccess/Results.htm
Best regards,
George John
Catalan
"Bruce" <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:1123187296.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello everyone on RGCP. I'll bet you're all surprised to hear from me,
> but I must say that it's been wonderful being out of the chess
> political and USCF political scene for well over 1.5 years.
> I just wanted to say hi to all my past friends
They both say hello.
Bruce
Oooo wow, someone has taken my place as RGCP chief smartass. :))) Did
you fight Ken Sloan for the honor or did Ken retire form a rock band?
Catalan
>> > I just wanted to say hi to all my past friends
>>
>> They both say hello.
>
> Oooo wow, someone has taken my place as RGCP chief smartass. :))) Did
> you fight Ken Sloan for the honor or did Ken retire form a rock band?
Ken and Steve Dowd no longer post here. I suspect their common employer
censored them.
Seriously, Larry and Sam say hello.
The Historian
Bruce wrote:
> Hello everyone on RGCP. I'll bet you're all surprised to hear from me,
> but I must say that it's been wonderful being out of the chess
> political and USCF political scene for well over 1.5 years.
I envy you.
(Snip)
> I just wanted to say hi to all my past friends and foes alike,
> including but not limited to Randy, Neil, Tim, Kevin, Matt, Stan,
> George, Mr. "Mensa" himself, old Haasie, and yes even Sam.
Hi Bruce,
You'll find the newsgroup has managed to sound new lows over the past
couple of months. Recently we saw an endless series of threads naming
Sam Sloan as a child molester; however, the posters of said threads
were willing to throw away their scruples for the sake of skittles with
Scammy for money. I find there are very few posters on RGCP I can
respect anymore.
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
Sam Sloan
>As for Sam's desire to expel board members, I always get a good laugh
>out of Sam's interpretation of USCF bylaws. My predictions are that
>Sam will not finish last, nor will he make it onto the board. Actually
>I was hoping that there might be results of the election already posted
>here, which is one reason I came to RGCP. This e-mail address no
>longer works by the way, but it is the one I've got registered under
>years ago. So those who want to keep in touch with me will have to get
>my new e-mail address from me.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Bruce
The election is over. George John finished last, where he belongs.
You seem to think that things are pretty much as before. Not true. The
situation is vastly worse than at any time previous.
Remember how you used to yell and scream about how Don Schultz, USCF
President, spent $90 dollars in USCF funds to take a liimo to the
airport.
What will you say when you learn that Beatriz Marinello paid herself
more than $13,000 in unspecified expenses?
Remember how you used to complain about how the Treasuere was treated?
What will you say when you find out that the current treasurer
disappeared on February 10, six months ago, and nobody sems to know
what he is?
On January 29, 2005, Tim Hanke wrote:
"Now that I have saved the USCF, I'm looking around for something else
to do. This is why I re-joined the National Guard two weeks ago. The
Iraq mess needs to be cleaned up, and I like a challenge."
Since then, he has not been heard from. I feel that the above letter
should have been deemed a letter of resignation. Instead, however, we
have gone for the last six months without any treasurer at all.
What do you think about that?
Sam Sloan
Bruce
Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> The election is over. George John finished last, where he belongs.
>
> You seem to think that things are pretty much as before. Not true. The
> situation is vastly worse than at any time previous.
>
> Remember how you used to yell and scream about how Don Schultz, USCF
> President, spent $90 dollars in USCF funds to take a liimo to the
> airport.
>
I can see that after 1.5 years that your accuracy and memory have not
improved. I NEVER said anything at all about Don Schultz and limo
services. That was Tom Dorsch and not me.
> What will you say when you learn that Beatriz Marinello paid herself
> more than $13,000 in unspecified expenses?
>
> Remember how you used to complain about how the Treasuere was treated?
>
> What will you say when you find out that the current treasurer
> disappeared on February 10, six months ago, and nobody sems to know
> what he is?
Your charges and allegations quite often prove to be unfounded,
exaggerated, untrue or simply wrong. Why would I care about an
organization I'm no longer a member of and haven't been since 2003?
>
> On January 29, 2005, Tim Hanke wrote:
>
> "Now that I have saved the USCF, I'm looking around for something else
> to do. This is why I re-joined the National Guard two weeks ago. The
> Iraq mess needs to be cleaned up, and I like a challenge."
>
> Since then, he has not been heard from. I feel that the above letter
> should have been deemed a letter of resignation. Instead, however, we
> have gone for the last six months without any treasurer at all.
>
> What do you think about that?
I think that you are often wrong, often exaggerate or often speak
before you know the facts or that you sometimes make up facts or twist
them to suit your own political agenda. You once reported to all of us
that Peter Leko was dead.
Bruce
>
> Sam Sloan
Bruce
Sam Sloan wrote:
> The election is over. George John finished last, where he belongs
Ironically if those inked ballots you complain about in your other
thread are counted George finishes ahead of you because you are only 5
votes ahead of him and he would get 62 more votes and you would get
only 50 more votes.
I can see that the slate system has become endemic and insures that no
real leadership change over the long haul really occurs at USCF.
If you go long enough everything comes full circle. When I first
started on RGCP, who was in charge of USCF? Why it was Don Schultz and
Bill Goichberg. Who's in charge after all of the turmoil? Don Schultz
and Bill Goichberg.
George John
Bruce,
[SNIP]
> I can see that the slate system has become endemic and insures that no
> real leadership change over the long haul really occurs at USCF.
IMO, and in hindsight, OMOV is a half-baked system that is in *major*
need of reform. Four of the objections to OMOV were as follows:
1) A highly undesirable, "fringe" candidate might be elected.
2) Someone with high name recognition and/or with easy access to a
significant percentage of the voting members, but relatively unsuitable
to governance would be elected.
3) A very wealthy person might run and spend a large sum of money on
the campaign including mailings to as many Voting Members as possible,
effectively buying a seat on the board.
4) Slates would form, causing inexperienced, relatively unknown
candidates to be elected on the coat tales of one or more politically
strong candidates. One or more highly qualified, but not as
politically strong, candidates on a different slate will lose.
Fortunately for the USCF, IMO, the nightmare scenario of #1 above did
not occur. That's the good news. The bad news, IMO, is #2, #3, and #4
may have all occurred.
I will end this post here to see if there what comments follow. I do
want this discussion to continue with how OMOV can be changed, assuming
there is agreement that it should be changed, to deal with the above
and other issues. Comments are welcomed.
Note: I have changed the subject to reflect the shift in discussion.
Best regards,
George John
Sam Sloan
>Sam wrote in part:
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>> The election is over. George John finished last, where he belongs
>
>Ironically if those inked ballots you complain about in your other
>thread are counted George finishes ahead of you because you are only 5
>votes ahead of him and he would get 62 more votes and you would get
>only 50 more votes.
Bruce, you have reverted to you old form, which is that you have
everything ass-backwards.
I beat George John by 5 votes after the provisional ballots were
included.
If the provisional ballots are excluded, I beat him by 17 votes, or 12
votes more.
By the way, I am NOT questioning the ballot count. I accept the
results of the election. I was wondering whether the order of finish
might change. It is now clear that regardless of whether or not the
provisional ballots are counted, the standings are unchanged.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
I happen to agree with George John that serious problems have emerged.
I think we have to consider going back to the old system.
However, George John is wrong above. The nightmare scenario of #1
above did occur. Tim Hanke was clearly a very far out on the fringe
candidate. His camplain platform advocated the complete break-up and
end of the USCF as we know it. He advocated expelling all scholastic
members, withdrawing from FIDE and stopping the publication of Chess
Life Magazine, among other things.
Hanke got elected because many voters confused his name with Hanken,
the well known chess journalist.
Under the old system, Tim Hanke, Elizabeth Shaughnessy and Randy Bauer
would never have been elected because none of them had attended
meetings or participated in chess governance in the past. As it turned
out, all three were elected and all three turned out to be very bad
board members.
Sam Sloan
George John
[SNIP]
> I think we have to consider going back to the old system.
I do NOT want to go back to the old system. What I do want is
meaningful reform of the current one; although, the devil may be in the
details of how to do that.
I'm hoping to see some good posts here on this subject. I'm
intentionally refraining from offering my suggestions; although, I
certainly do have some ideas on how to possibly improve OMOV,
especially how to help level the playing field to offset the advantage
of high name recognition, those with deep pockets, and slates.
We need to consider if there are any fair and reasonable ways to filter
the candidates better. I find this one a tough issue. For example,
some advocate prohibiting anyone with an adult felony conviction from
running or being a board member. I see merits to both sides, and am
wrestling with how to vote on this one.
"ADM 05-18 [SNIP]): A convicted felon may not serve on the Executive
Board of the U.S. Chess Federation. If an individual is elected to the
Board and it is later found that he or she is a convicted felon, that
person shall be removed from the Board and the person achieving the
highest number of votes but not elected in the election in which the
felon was chosen for the Board shall become a Board member in his/her
place. Rationale: We live in an era in which "due diligence" - a
scrupulous examination of an organization or individual with which or
whom one proposes some partnership is scrutinized using search engines
such as Google - is a normal practice. The Federation cannot be
exposed to the potential embarrassment of having a felon on its
Executive Board."
Comments are welcomed.
zdrakec
Executive Board member.
<<shrug>>
zdrakec
Bruce Leverett
George John wrote:
> Bruce Draney wrote:
>
> > I can see that the slate system has become endemic and insures that no
> > real leadership change over the long haul really occurs at USCF.
It seems to me that this election highlighted the risk of "slate"
politics. One announced "slate" was created, and all its candidates
were defeated. What if the four candidates had not created a slate? I
can't say without exit polling, of course. But I suspect that they
would not have been so soundly defeated; several of them may even have
been elected.
What was the purpose of forming a slate? Maybe George can speak
frankly about this now that the election is over. I was under the
impression, from reading hypothetical discussions of political science
in this forum, that the idea was to keep out one or more highly
undesirable candidates. Suppose that X is highly undesirable, but the
other 8 candidates are all just fine. Voters may split their support
for the other 8 evenly, with X getting extra votes because of "name
recognition" (notoriety). To avoid this, 4 candidates band together to
try to beat X. Or maybe X and Y. Whatever. Who was the enemy, or who
were the enemies?
My guess would be that this backfired. Voters noticed that Mr. Name
Recognition, Goichberg, was not in the "slate", and they smelled
partisan maneuvering, so they rejected the whole slate. I don't even
know if Goichberg was the intended "X". But that's why I suspect that,
if there had been no "slate", the four members of the slate would have
fared much better.
So, Bruce D., I would say that when the next election rolls around,
candidates will think twice before trying to form a slate.
This is all a learning experience for me. I have to add that I voted
for the whole "slate". Such a supporter of lost causes I am.
> IMO, and in hindsight, OMOV is a half-baked system that is in *major*
> need of reform. Four of the objections to OMOV were as follows:
>
> 1) A highly undesirable, "fringe" candidate might be elected.
>
> 2) Someone with high name recognition and/or with easy access to a
> significant percentage of the voting members, but relatively unsuitable
> to governance would be elected.
>
> 3) A very wealthy person might run and spend a large sum of money on
> the campaign including mailings to as many Voting Members as possible,
> effectively buying a seat on the board.
>
> 4) Slates would form, causing inexperienced, relatively unknown
> candidates to be elected on the coat tales of one or more politically
> strong candidates. One or more highly qualified, but not as
> politically strong, candidates on a different slate will lose.
>
> Fortunately for the USCF, IMO, the nightmare scenario of #1 above did
> not occur. That's the good news. The bad news, IMO, is #2, #3, and #4
> may have all occurred.
Well it's pretty easy to guess whose names George has in mind for his
scenarios #2 and #3. However I don't endorse his use of the pharse
"relatively unsuitable to governance" to describe any of the four who
were elected. I didn't vote for 'em, but I am ready to get behind 'em.
Also, I believe it's unnecessarily derogatory to suggest that one of
them "bought" a seat on the board. He spent money on a campaign,
that's all. That's not unheard of. Moreover, it's far from obvious to
me that his campaign spending had a decisive effect on the outcome.
Moreover, it looks to me like #4 definitely did not occur. There was
only one slate, and it got busted.
> I will end this post here to see if there what comments follow. I do
> want this discussion to continue with how OMOV can be changed, assuming
> there is agreement that it should be changed, to deal with the above
> and other issues. Comments are welcomed.
Months ago, I posted some messages to this forum expressing alarm at
the possibility that a completely unsuitable candidate, Sloan, would
get elected. I thought that his chances were better under OMOV than
they had been with a smaller, but better informed, electorate.
The outcome of the election suggests that I might have saved my
worrying. So perhaps even a large, semi-informed, electorate can
distinguish the unsuitable candidates, at least if they're that bad. I
don't know. I'm still not convinced that OMOV is better than, or even
just as good as, the old system, but it worked all right this time.
Bruce Leverett
Bruce
when I talked to Mike a couple weeks ago in Lincoln was that Don, Bill,
and his guys who won had spent thousands of dollars campaigning as a
group. Maybe I got that wrong. When I ran in 2001, there was a slate
of four that easily won featuring Steve S., Frank Brady, and the two
others whose names escape me because it's been over 4 years. Don
Schultz told me over a drink that they had spent huge amounts of money
to win and I realized at that point that there wasn't a chance in hell
I could have ever gotten elected as an independent candidate regardless
of whether my ideas were popular or not.
Just because a group of candidates don't CALL themselves a "slate"
doesn't mean they AREN'T one. :))
Hey Bruce, good to see you're still around by the way. Hope all is
going well.
Bruce
Bruce Leverett
Bruce wrote:
> Having been out of the loop for over a year and a half my impression
> when I talked to Mike a couple weeks ago in Lincoln was that Don, Bill,
> and his guys who won had spent thousands of dollars campaigning as a
> group. Maybe I got that wrong. When I ran in 2001, there was a slate
> of four that easily won featuring Steve S., Frank Brady, and the two
> others whose names escape me because it's been over 4 years. Don
> Schultz told me over a drink that they had spent huge amounts of money
> to win and I realized at that point that there wasn't a chance in hell
> I could have ever gotten elected as an independent candidate regardless
> of whether my ideas were popular or not.
I judge the spending by the amount of mail I received. I don't
remember getting more than three mailings: one for the "Success Team",
one for Channing, and maybe one other from Goichberg, but pardon me if
I'm just confused about the one from Goichberg; maybe I just was
looking at his web site.
So it seems to me that the mailing score was not too far off balance.
Money was spent, no doubt about that. You know, this is pretty
bass-ackwards. I'd spend money now to get OFF a board of directors, if
I thought it would work :-)
> Just because a group of candidates don't CALL themselves a "slate"
> doesn't mean they AREN'T one. :))
Shahade posted to this newsgroup several times to say that he was not
on a slate and didn't want to be. That's as much as you can expect a
guy to do. (I mean really, should he $end out a mailing saying he is
not on a slate?) He didn't campaign, but he was easily the 2nd highest
vote getter.
> Hey Bruce, good to see you're still around by the way. Hope all is
> going well.
I have an MP3 file of the Monty Python skit about Bruces (professors of
philosophy), if you are interested.
Bruce L.
George John
> George John wrote:
Bruce,
[SNIP]
> It seems to me that this election highlighted the risk of "slate"
> politics. One announced "slate" was created, and all its candidates
> were defeated. What if the four candidates had not created a slate? I
> can't say without exit polling, of course. But I suspect that they
> would not have been so soundly defeated; several of them may even have
> been elected.
I would like to think that Randy Bauer would have been elected, but
quite honestly without a Herculean effort I have my doubts that even he
could have been elected *if* the effort made against him were similar
to what actually transpired. Now, if he had not run on a slate, he may
have been off the radar, and that could have helped, but I don't know
if it would have been enough.
> What was the purpose of forming a slate? Maybe George can speak
> frankly about this now that the election is over.
I wasn't involved in the decision to form one, so I can only speculate.
OMOV is a VERY expensive proposition if mailings to at least some of
the individual members is considered necessary to win (and, in its
current form, it probably is). The costs of mailings is largely fixed.
Campaign literature which supports four candidates isn't much more
expensive than for only one.
Personally, I liked the idea of running with a team that I saw as
successful in two critical areas that every past administration had
failed at, finishing in the black, and upgrading the office especially
its information technology systems.
I will speculate that a hoped for goal for the slate idea was to keep
Bill Goichberg from being elected. I don't think this was a passion
for anyone on the slate, SFAIK; although, it most certainly was for
some who backed the slate. From my POV, there is much to like about
Bill, but I just haven't been able to get past certain issues such as a
history of causing divisiveness and conflict of interest.
> My guess would be that this backfired. Voters noticed that Mr. Name
> Recognition, Goichberg, was not in the "slate", and they smelled
> partisan maneuvering, so they rejected the whole slate. I don't even
> know if Goichberg was the intended "X". But that's why I suspect that,
> if there had been no "slate", the four members of the slate would have
> fared much better.
It's possible that the Goichberg/Schultz side would not have run either
as hard or as negative. They may have seen the possibility of my slate
winning all four slots which triggered an all out campaign. Sending
mail to as many Voting Members as possible, some more than once, is in
my estimation an all out campaign.
> So, Bruce D., I would say that when the next election rolls around,
> candidates will think twice before trying to form a slate.
Unless OMOV can be reformed, I see slates forming again because they
are so cost effective. The exception is a very wealthy person who
decides to run solo, or a group of candidates who lack sufficient
support or financial means to spend money on direct mailings.
> This is all a learning experience for me. I have to add that I voted
> for the whole "slate". Such a supporter of lost causes I am.
Don't feel alone! -smile-
[SNIP]
> Well it's pretty easy to guess whose names George has in mind for his
> scenarios #2 and #3. However I don't endorse his use of the pharse
> "relatively unsuitable to governance" to describe any of the four who
> were elected.
Fair enough. How about if we substitute "less suitable" for
"unsuitable"?
> I didn't vote for 'em, but I am ready to get behind 'em.
I truly wish this group the best. I'm ready to get behind 'em, too.
But, I am also going to watch this group closely. Some, because of
their past record, and some because of no past record. The "open
letter" ploy has left a bitter taste in my mouth. It was a major
blunder in my estimation assuming the winners had truly hoped to build
bridges with the current administration and their supporters.
> Also, I believe it's unnecessarily derogatory to suggest that one of
> them "bought" a seat on the board.
Point taken. I should have phrased that more tactfully.
> He spent money on a campaign,
> that's all. That's not unheard of.
Actually, a lot of money was spent by both sides. And, yes, by all
accounts I have heard the Goichberg/Schultz side greatly outspent my
side. Thankfully -smile-, none of it was mine except for the $250
filing fee. But, I think you might be shocked at how much money was
spent. It's a shame, because this money could have been so much better
spent elsewhere in the support of chess, IMO.
The problem of direct mail campaigns, without sufficient compensating
channels for communication, is a huge problem for OMOV, IMO. The 150
words + 2 half pages in "Chess Life" is a joke, compared to what a four
page letter can do when mailed to everyone.
I know, because in Texas my side was able to mail a four page letter to
about 2/3 of the Texas voters, and my side took #1, #2, #3, and almost
#4 (missed by 6 votes) in the Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma region.
> Moreover, it's far from obvious to
> me that his campaign spending had a decisive effect on the outcome.
Some people strongly think it did. Of course, there is no way to know
without exit polling, which we don't have.
> Moreover, it looks to me like #4 definitely did not occur. There was
> only one slate, and it got busted.
I honestly think there were two slates. One was up front about it.
The other one was not; although, I do believe Greg Shahade when he said
he wasn't part of a slate. That said, just about everyone treated him
as if he was part of the Goichberg slate, and his signing on to the
"open letter" punched a big hole in my hopes for his being independent
from the influence of Goichberg and Schultz. But, I'm still hoping he
will prove to be a strong independent who will "trust, but verify"
-smile-.
> Months ago, I posted some messages to this forum expressing alarm at
> the possibility that a completely unsuitable candidate, Sloan, would
> get elected. I thought that his chances were better under OMOV than
> they had been with a smaller, but better informed, electorate.
His chances are much better under OMOV, but they are steadily
diminishing. I don't know if you saw my post on his record in the
2003, 2004, and 2005 elections. In each election his percentage
decreases. The only danger is with membership turnover, sufficient
knowledge about him will be lost some day. It's very tempting to vote
in favor of ADM 05-18 for this reason, and it may be a not-for-profit,
governance best practice, regardless.
> I'm still not convinced that OMOV is better than, or even
> just as good as, the old system, but it worked all right this time.
With regard to getting the best people on the Executive Board, I'm not
convinced either; although, I continue to support OMOV. I'm hoping
OMOV will be improved, and we find ways to recruit better candidates,
develop those we already have, and find better and more cost-effective
ways for the candidates to communicate with the Voting Members.
Best regards,
George John
George John
> spent thousands of dollars campaigning as a
> group.
Make that tens of thousands of dollars and you are closer to the truth.
I doubt six figures were spent, but it wouldn't surprise me if it
were.
Keep in mind one candidate is reportedly worth at least nine figures.
Rumor has it the campaign budget was "unlimited".
In fairness, my side spend a lot of money, too, but nothing like the
other side did. I spent $250 on my filing. Others helped me to the
tune of about $1600 for mailings to about 2/3 of the Texas voters.
The 2003 election had about 1800 ballots cast; 2004, about 1300. The
strategists on my side expected a modest turnout in the 2500-3000
range. They adopted a *limited* mailing campaign thought to be
sufficient to win.
What they didn't count on was a ballot disaster that just happened to
adversely affect friendly areas much more so than unfriendly ones, and
required the mailing of replacement ballots by first class mail to
everyone. Some think this greatly increased the nationwide voter
turnout. I think all the mailings may have, too. And, certainly this
election seemed to be much more hotly contested than the 2003 and 2004
elections of course.
To complete the post game analysis, some think the incumbent team made
some major blunders when viewed though a political lens only.
One was voting Schultz as Secretary, who is in charge of the election
and significantly in control of communication to the membership or lack
thereof. One of the mysteries of the 2005 election is how the
Goichberg/Schultz side gained access to *certain* Voting Member
addresses that my side did not.
The second, and much more major blunder politically, was appointing
Bill Goichberg as Executive Director. This allowed Bill to take credit
(at least in part, and no doubt with some justification) for the
turnaround. It also allowed him an article in the February "Chess
Life" as is customary for departing Executive Directors. What is not
customary is for Executive Directors to resign to run for the Executive
Board.
Clearly, this loophole in the Bylaws needs to be closed. No USCF
staff, especially an Executive Director, even a volunteer one, should
be allowed to resign to run for office. That gets a double sheesh.
So, with the appointment of Don Schultz as Secretary, and Bill
Goichberg as Executive Director, my team may have spotted the other
side a rook and a pawn. That's hard to overcome in the best of
circumstances.
Best regards,
George John
George John
> successful in two critical areas that every past administration had
> failed at, finishing in the black,
Sorry, I meant to include "since 1997", and to say "every past
administration since 1997". Clearly, many administrations prior to
1997 finished in the black. I apologize for my omission.
Best regards,
George John
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
I will not comment on the above posting except to say that George John
is living in a dream world. He has no idea. He has not the slightest
clue of whatr is reality.
Sam Sloan
Tool Time Timmy
greatly outspent my
> side. >>
What was your side? How many people are on the Board of Directors? Where is
all this information available? When will the dirty dyke be deposed?
George John
Sam Sloan wrote:
[SNIP]
> I will not comment on the above posting except to say that George John
> is living in a dream world. He has no idea. He has not the slightest
> clue of whatr is reality.
Heavens, I'm closer to the truth than I thought. -grin-
Best regards,
George John
Bruce Leverett
This paragraph caught my attention. There are a number of things to
think about here.
In other organizations where I can vote on the leadership, such as the
Association for Computing Machinery and the Harvard Alumni Association,
I get one mailing. It has pictures of, bios of, and statements by all
the candidates. It comes from the organization, not from candidates or
from "campaign managers". I don't know how these mailings are paid
for; perhaps the organization pays for it all, or perhaps the
organization requires all candidates to make a contribution, perhaps a
large enough contribution to cover the whole expense. If anybody was
curious, I could probably find out the answer to that question.
I think a system like that might be suitable for the USCF. I wonder if
it would be an improvement on the present system, which I take it is a
free-for-all, with mailings organized by whoever decides to organize
them. The total expense of one large mailing would, I gather, be less
than the total expense of several mailings. I wonder what the other
candidates, or other "election mavens" reading this newsgroup, think of
that idea.
George, you're making it sound as if (let me exaggerate just a little)
you joined, or helped to form, a political alliance in order to be able
to afford a campaign. To the extent that that is true, it implies that
our election setup has a big problem. The jungle of political
infighting is bad enough, without the additional effect of artificial
alliances. That's why I'm suggesting a procedural change, whereby the
organization itself (USCF) would put together one mailing, which would
serve for all candidates.
Your numbers in Texas were very impressive, especially in contrast to
your generally poor showing nationally. The people that know you, love
you, plus, you have huge coattails. I am not aware that any of the
other candidates had such a significant home-state following.
Mike Nolan
>In other organizations where I can vote on the leadership, such as the
>Association for Computing Machinery and the Harvard Alumni Association,
>I get one mailing. It has pictures of, bios of, and statements by all
>the candidates. It comes from the organization, not from candidates or
>from "campaign managers". I don't know how these mailings are paid
>for; perhaps the organization pays for it all, or perhaps the
>organization requires all candidates to make a contribution, perhaps a
>large enough contribution to cover the whole expense. If anybody was
>curious, I could probably find out the answer to that question.
Find out how the candidates are selected as well. I'm a former member of
the ACM as well as the IEEE Computer Society and the Academy of Management,
but their procedures may have changed since I was last a member.
In most organizations like that the candidates are heavily vetted before
being presented to the electorate. It was rare for there to be more than
two candidates for any office. (It was also rare for more than 5% of the
members to vote.)
--
Mike Nolan
George John
Bruce,
[SNIP]
> If anybody was
> curious, I could probably find out the answer to that question.
Yes, I would be interested in hearing the answer please.
> I think a system like that might be suitable for the USCF. I wonder if
> it would be an improvement on the present system, which I take it is a
> free-for-all, with mailings organized by whoever decides to organize
> them.
I think it is effectively a free for all. The only two restrictions I
know of are, one, the USCF mailing list is restricted to those who have
not opted out from receiving additional mailings, and two, there can be
no political advertising in "Chess Life". However, if an address can
be gained by some other means, even Voting Members who have opted out,
can receive mail. I know of at least one person who received candidate
mail who had opted out, and was not on the list I received from the
USCF office. It remains a mystery how this address was "harvested".
> The total expense of one large mailing would, I gather, be less
> than the total expense of several mailings.
It could be less expensive by a factor of four. For example, my Texas
campaign included two postcards. There was no extra cost to include
the names of four candidates instead of one.
> I wonder what the other
> candidates, or other "election mavens" reading this newsgroup, think of
> that idea.
The person I most respect on this topic thinks that the space devoted
in "Chess Life" should be expanded and/or the campaign be taken to Web
(at a minimum via links on the USCF Website), and direct mail be shut
down or discouraged if possible.
> George, you're making it sound as if (let me exaggerate just a little)
> you joined, or helped to form, a political alliance in order to be able
> to afford a campaign.
First, I didn't form it, others did. Others did offer to contribute as
much as $2000 to my campaign, as I had *no* interest in spending any
more than the $250 filing fee; although, I did offer my time to the
campaign including Webmaster time for the USChessSuccess.com site
(which proved to be a disappointment, but that's a different story).
Since I didn't form the slate, I can only speculate on the reasons
why it was formed, but my best guess is one of the primary motivations
was to make direct mailing as cost effective as possible.
> To the extent that that is true, it implies that
> our election setup has a big problem. The jungle of political
> infighting is bad enough, without the additional effect of artificial
> alliances.
You have absolute agreement from me on these points.
> That's why I'm suggesting a procedural change, whereby the
> organization itself (USCF) would put together one mailing, which would
> serve for all candidates.
The cost effective vehicle for this would probably be "Chess Life".
Possibly, the way to go is use one issue of "Chess Life" instead of
three, expand the total number of pages (would have been a good use of
space instead of that TT article -grin-), and educate the voters to
turn to the USCF Website (at least for links) for additional
information.
[SNIP]
I look forward to more substantive comments on how OMOV can be
reformed. I remain convinced it is in need of *substantial* reform.
If it is not or can not be reformed, it may be best to return to an
elector system; although, I would hate to have to do that. But, this
current system, which creates a need for spending huge amounts of money
on direct mailing and artificial slates to offset these costs, is
highly undesirable, IMO, and we need to find ways to significantly
reduce or eliminate the need for this.
BTW, the elector system had the same issue, just much less so.
Best regards,
George John
Gunsberg
George John wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>
> > spent thousands of dollars campaigning as a
> > group.
>
> Make that tens of thousands of dollars and you are closer to the truth.
> I doubt six figures were spent, but it wouldn't surprise me if it
> were.
>
> Keep in mind one candidate is reportedly worth at least nine figures.
> Rumor has it the campaign budget was "unlimited".
"Nine figures"?? Are you suggesting that one of the (winning)
candidates has a net worth that is in the hundreds of millions of $$ ??
Such a person should be elected as a matter of course, just on the
merest speculation that he might be willing to give a mere 1-2% of his
assets to the USCF.
Bruce
perfect and that candidates would not spend large amounts of money on
mailings or phone calls to voters just to get a seat on the USCF Board.
The figure that I heard that was spent by the winners was six dollar
figures, by his estimate.
What happens is that just like in any other endeavor, any changes made
in any system merely make the manipulators come up with new tactics
that will work for them.
People form slates for many reasons, one is to save money on mailing
costs one is to more easily organize a platform what as a group they'd
like to accomplish if all elected.
I will put it this way that someone who wants to spend over 20,000 to
get a seat on the USCF Board is probably going to be successful at
getting a seat on the USCF Board.
How many people care THAT much? A few obviously do.
chessdon
the playing field should be leveled and not favor name recognition nor
campaign spending Various other ideas have been put forth.
The fact is, IMO, the spending of money in this last campaign equalized
the playing field. At the start of the election virtually everyone in
this newsgroup predicted Joel Channing would do poorly. Who ie Joel
Channing? become a joke. At the Amateur Team East, a team from Harvard
named themselves "Searching for Joel Channing." he had less name
recognition than any other candidate. His broad Campaigning wiped out
that disadvantage. With a level playing field, he won because he had
spent a great deal of time the previous 18 months meeting withe the
leaders of US CHess - players, organizers; child players, parents, TDs
etc.. He impressed these leaders and from them hesecured the most
prestigious set of endorsements any candidate in any USCF election ever
had. He also recognized that the chief reason people would vote for him
was his business credentials. He attracted the interest of many in the
scholastic community because of his interest in promoting chess for
children. That is why people voted for him that and some fundamental
mistakes of the ChessSuccess team. As soon as they announced themselves
as a team many on our side knew they would lose/ The fact is, they tied
their own hands so as not to go against their own partners. They came
across as hipercritical and in fact many of them were not. By the time
of voting, I knew and said publically that it would be a slaughter.
Bauer was the one most hurt ny the slate decision and despite the large
discrepancy between 4th and Bauer's 6ht position, I think he may have
won had his hands not been tied. Then too was the added work he had
due to the job change.
The bottom line is; we got good new EB members who are truly
independent. OMOV has given us a good Board as you will find out.
Don
George John
Gunsberg wrote:
[SNIP]
> "Nine figures"?? Are you suggesting that one of the (winning)
> candidates has a net worth that is in the hundreds of millions of $$ ??
That's the rumor, one which I would not be at all surprised to learn is
true.
> Such a person should be elected as a matter of course, just on the
> merest speculation that he might be willing to give a mere 1-2% of his
> assets to the USCF.
Actually, people are often put on boards because they have either
promised to contribute or have contributed a lot of money to the
organization, or know people whom they can likely convince to do so.
If one or more of the new board members can bring in a lot more money
in donations and/or sponsorships, and don't give up the ranch in the
process, more power to them.
SFAIK, USCF governance has not been modeled on selling seats on the
Board, but if that what we decide we want to do, and are up front about
it, so be it. I would much prefer to see wealthy people spending the
money on chess and not on campaigns.
Best regards,
George John
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>Bruce Leverett wrote:
>
>> George, you're making it sound as if (let me exaggerate just a little)
>> you joined, or helped to form, a political alliance in order to be able
>> to afford a campaign.
>
>First, I didn't form it, others did. Others did offer to contribute as
>much as $2000 to my campaign, as I had *no* interest in spending any
>more than the $250 filing fee; although, I did offer my time to the
>campaign including Webmaster time for the USChessSuccess.com site
>(which proved to be a disappointment, but that's a different story).
>
>Since I didn't form the slate, I can only speculate on the reasons
>why it was formed, but my best guess is one of the primary motivations
>was to make direct mailing as cost effective as possible.
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
I am surprised that you state that you did not form the "Success Team"
slate, because everyone else thinks that you did.
In my view, forming this slate was a major blunder. Randy Bauer would
have had a good chance to be elected, had he not been on the Success
Team slate.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
I agree 100% with everything Don Schultz writes above. I want to add
that I believe that the formation of a "Success Team" Slate was a
major blunder. The Success Team slate was formed to stop Bill
Goichberg from being elected, and perhaps to a lesser extent to stop
me from being elected, because Bill and I were the two best known
candidates.
I feel that if there had been an every-man-for-himself election I
might have been elected and in any case the results of the election
would probably have been vastly different. The Success Team had, on an
individual basis, the best candidates. Certainly Randy Bauer was very
highly qualified. However, every time a new scandal came out about
Beatriz Marinello, the Success Team had to defend her or at least
remain silent. whereas the other candidates could freely attack her.
Perhaps the decisive blow was the Natrol Deal. Even though the Natrol
Deal was terrible and horrible, George John and Elizabeth Shaughnessy
ran to defend Beatriz Marinello and Steve Shutt said nothing.
Similarly, every other bad deal Beatriz Marinello made and every other
crooked, evil deed she did dragged down the entire Success Team.
The formation of the Success Team slate compelled Bill Goichberg to
form his own slate. Bill Goichberg has been involved in every USCF
Election since the 1960s but this is the first time he has ever formed
a slate. As a result, a fairly weak slate of undistinguished
candidates swept to an unprecedented victiory. The Success Team
members can only blame themselves for this result.
Sam Sloan
George John
Sam Sloan wrote:
> I am surprised that you state that you did not form the "Success Team"
> slate, because everyone else thinks that you did.
Some day I hope to meet "everyone". It's not often in my experience to
encounter someone who is wrong so often. -grin-
I don't remember exactly remember if I was the last person added to the
slate or second to last. I initially said yes to running during a
moment of weakness after having enjoyed a particularly nice bottle of
Cabernet Sauvignon (which I *much* prefer to Merlot -smile-) one Friday
night. But, reality quickly set in, and I asked the slate's organizer
if he could find someone more qualified to run. I guess he could not
or did not, and I remained on the slate since I do honor my
commitments. And yes, my arms felt tied at times in this campaign;
although, I do not think that was decisive at all.
Bottom line, I most definitely did NOT form the slate.
Best regards,
George John
Bruce Leverett
Apparently this motion was from Tim Redman.
It's characteristic of the way we reinvent the wheel for USCF
governance. Other organizations have a Nominating Committee. For
instance, the Pittsburgh Chess Club, and (as I learned this afternoon)
the Association for Computing Machinery. And, perhaps, the Texas CF,
led by such luminaries as Tim Redman and George John?
I suspect that this ADM was drafted with Sam Sloan in mind. Maybe it
will not pass because everyone thinks Sam will never get elected. And
maybe he never will.
But step back a second. Yes, there is a real potential problem with
crackpots running for the Board. And the usual solution is to have a
Nominating Committee. Why doesn't the USCF have a Nominating
Committee? I don't know. But why shouldn't it? Wouldn't that be
simpler and more flexible than trying to pass the right combination of
ADM's to keep out the bad guys while letting in the good guys?
Here's how the ACM Nominating Committee works. It is five people, who
are appointed by their Executive Committee, which is comparable to the
officers of the EB, and approved by the Council, which is comparable to
the whole EB. They are required to nominate at least two candidates
for each vacancy for an officer position, but for vacancies of
members-at-large, they only have to nominate at least two more
candidates than there are vacancies (and at most twice the number of
vacancies). Nominations by petition are accepted, but the number of
signers has to be at least 1% of the membership. With the membership
probably in the tens of thousands (like that of the USCF), this would
come to several hundred signatures.
I suspect this is pretty typical of nonprofits the size of ours, but I
haven't finished my research yet.
Why does the USCF have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to
governance? Why can't we just do it the way successful organizations
do it?
Bruce Leverett
Catalan
"Bruce Leverett" <blev...@spinnakernet.com> wrote in message
news:1123554954.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Here's how the ACM Nominating Committee works. It is five people, who
> are appointed by their Executive Committee, which is comparable to the
> officers of the EB, and approved by the Council, which is comparable to
> the whole EB. They are required to nominate at least two candidates
> for each vacancy for an officer position, but for vacancies of
> members-at-large, they only have to nominate at least two more
> candidates than there are vacancies (and at most twice the number of
> vacancies). Nominations by petition are accepted, but the number of
> signers has to be at least 1% of the membership. With the membership
> probably in the tens of thousands (like that of the USCF), this would
> come to several hundred signatures.
>
> I suspect this is pretty typical of nonprofits the size of ours, but I
> haven't finished my research yet.
What isn't typical is to have elections. Ergo, nominating committees,
defacto or otherwise, recruit board members. However, in c-4s, membership,
fraternal organizations, it iisn't uncommon.
> Why does the USCF have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to
> governance? Why can't we just do it the way successful organizations
> do it?
Here is your homework assignment: What do "successful organizations" do?
Does it make for their success? When is a government by fiat better than a
democracy?
Mike Nolan
>It's characteristic of the way we reinvent the wheel for USCF
>governance. Other organizations have a Nominating Committee. For
>instance, the Pittsburgh Chess Club, and (as I learned this afternoon)
>the Association for Computing Machinery. And, perhaps, the Texas CF,
>led by such luminaries as Tim Redman and George John?
It is worth noting that most members of the ACM are college teachers,
or computer professionals (many are PhDs), that the ACM's annual dues
are $99, and that a bachelor's degree (or equivalent) or two years of
experience in the IT industry are required to be a member.
For the most part, the boards of professional societies do little other
than decide where the annual meetings are (usually after the office presents
a single recommendation) and appoint the editorial review panels for
their refereed publications. (That's probably the biggest duty they have,
since it affects who gets published.)
At some (possibly most) colleges, being a board member of your professional
society is considered when making tenure decisions.
>But step back a second. Yes, there is a real potential problem with
>crackpots running for the Board. And the usual solution is to have a
>Nominating Committee. Why doesn't the USCF have a Nominating
>Committee? I don't know. But why shouldn't it?
I wonder how many former USCF Board members would have made it past a
nominating committee? Depending on the nominating committee members,
Bill Goichberg might not have made it onto the ballot.
--
Mike Nolan
Edward Bonaventure
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 at 16:19 -0700, George John scribbled:
->Clearly, this loophole in the Bylaws needs to be closed. No USCF
->staff, especially an Executive Director, even a volunteer one,
->should be allowed to resign to run for office.
This proposal puts Mr. John at odds with centuries of tradition
in the real-life politics of our Anglo-American society as well as
European and other countries practicing what today is called the
democratic system of government. Of course, Mr. John has every
right to propose such a bad idea, but a bad idea it nevertheless
remains.
If such a restriction had been in effect in real-life politics,
for example, General Dwight D. Eisenhower would not have been able
to resign his position as NATO commander in order to run for the
Republican party nomination for U.S. president in 1952. Eisenhower,
incidentally, won that nomination and was elected in a landslide
(as was Bill Goichberg in the current USCF election, according to
information posted here in recent days).
And if a rule along these lines had existed in real-life in 1864,
General George B. McClellan would not have been able to run for U.S.
president on the ticket of the major opposition party against the
incumbent president Lincoln. McClellan didn't fare as well as
Eisenhower; he was on the losing end of a landslide, but there are
interesting parallels with USCF politics: McClellan was fired by
Lincoln, then ran for president against his former boss. It might
be said that they had a few policy differences during that skirmish
known as the Civil War. McClellan, incidentally, didn't resign from
the army until election day. (What would Mr. John say about that!?)
Closer to our own time, a rule such as Mr. John proposes would
probably have prevented General Wesley Clark from running for the
Democratic party's nomination for U.S. president last year. As in
the cases of Eisenhower and McClellan, the country was involved in
a war and as a candidate Clark proposed a different course of ac-
tion than was being followed by the incumbent government which he
had served. In this country generals are supposed to be nonpoli-
tical; if they want to offer up a different policy, they're supposed
to resign and run for office.
That's the tradition in our system of government. While examples
at the federal level may be relatively few, albeit spectacular like
those cited above, this is a common phenomenon at the local level.
There are probably hundreds of cases every year involving people who
work for a village, city, township, county, or what-have-you, and
who split with their elected boss, political ally, or mentor, and
then run for election in opposition to that erstwhile friend or em-
ployer.
That's the way it's supposed to be done. If you think you have
better ideas, then you're supposed to run for office and let the
voters decide who's right. That's the opposite of what Mr. John
proposes. His proposal would stifle the right of staff appointees
to resign in order to campaign for USCF leadership positions. His
idea scores points for so-called Political Correctness, but I would
not label it as encouraging potential openness or dynamism in the
system.
In those situations where openness and dynamism would be needed
the most, Mr. John's rule would prevent people from being able to
say, "I've been there; I've seen what's wrong; I can do better."
(As it happens, isn't that the gist of both Mr. Goichberg's campaign
this year and Ms. Marinello's campaign in an earlier election!?) In
short, it ain't no loophole and it doesn't need fixing! <grin>
--
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
>>> david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo <<<
>>> Censornati, Ohio - USA <<<
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
* One Hour Rationalizing -- at your service! *
(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)
Sam Sloan
<per...@tempests.and.teapots> wrote:
> [crosspostings snipped]
>
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 at 16:19 -0700, George John scribbled:
>->Clearly, this loophole in the Bylaws needs to be closed. No USCF
>->staff, especially an Executive Director, even a volunteer one,
>->should be allowed to resign to run for office.
>
> This proposal puts Mr. John at odds with centuries of tradition
>in the real-life politics of our Anglo-American society as well as
>European and other countries practicing what today is called the
>democratic system of government. Of course, Mr. John has every
>right to propose such a bad idea, but a bad idea it nevertheless
>remains.
>
> If such a restriction had been in effect in real-life politics,
>for example, General Dwight D. Eisenhower would not have been able
>to resign his position as NATO commander in order to run for the
>Republican party nomination for U.S. president in 1952. Eisenhower,
>incidentally, won that nomination and was elected in a landslide
>(as was Bill Goichberg in the current USCF election, according to
>information posted here in recent days).
This is a perfect example of how George John is completely
unprincipled with no ethics or morality although he speaks in high
minded terms.
He wants to make a rule which would have prevented Bill Goichberg
friom running for election, stopping the voters from deciding, as they
did, that Bill Goichberg finished first and George John finished last.
He makes no objection to the fact that his ally, Beatriz Marinello,
did the same thing. Beatriz Marinello was a USCF Employee. She was
fired (she claims that she resigned in protest) so she ran for the
board and was elected.
George John also finds nothing wrong with the most outrageous
violations of all. Beatriz Marinello then proceeded to appoint herself
as Chief Operating Officer of the USCF and to pay herself $350 per
week no taxes as expense money, which is clearly and absolutely
prohibited by the by-laws.
In short, George John is completely political. He has no ethics or
morality. Everything his team does is good. Everything his political
opponents do is wrong, according to George John.
Sam Sloan
Bruce Leverett
> I wonder how many former USCF Board members would have made it past a
> nominating committee? Depending on the nominating committee members,
> Bill Goichberg might not have made it onto the ballot.
Well sure. If there is open warfare between factions, then the faction
that is "out" is going to tend to stay "out". Is that good or bad?
Maybe it would discourage open warfare.
Something tells me that the requirements for petition candidates could
be made fairly stiff and Bill Goichberg could have surmounted them
anyhow.
I am not familiar with ACM personalities, but I know that Herb Grosch
was definitely an "outsider", when he made it past their committee.
Interesting but I don't know what it proves.
I also remember when there was a bunch of nominated-by-petition
candidates for the Harvard Board of Governors and Harvard Alumni
Association, people who wanted "divestiture" (from South Africa). The
people organizing the election obviously were displeased, but they must
have held their noses and gone along. At least one of the candidates,
Desmond Tutu, got elected. But he resigned his seat before the end of
his term because the time commitment and the travel got to be too much
(surprise, surprise).
Come to think of it, I remember when my diocese (I was an Episcopalian)
picked a bishop, a few years ago. The outgoing bishop had hired a guy
for his staff with the obvious intention that he would have the inside
track. But the equivalent of a nominating committee didn't select him.
A group of supporters from both the "liberal" and "conservative"
factions got together to get him on the ballot anyway, and he won
easily. This little mini-drama probably had a positive effect -- it
made his supporters feel like their participation in the political
process really mattered. Of course, time marches on. The new bishop
was Bob Duncan, who is now the leader of the "we're dropping out of the
national Episcopal Church because they let another diocese pick a gay
bishop" faction. Can't win 'em all. (Q: Why can't Episcopalians play
chess? A: Because they can't tell a queen from a bishop.)
George John
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 01:47:02 -0400, Edward Bonaventure
[SNIP]
> He wants to make a rule which would have prevented Bill Goichberg
> friom running for election, stopping the voters from deciding, as they
> did, that Bill Goichberg finished first and George John finished last.
This isn't about Bill Goichberg at all, and it isn't about how either
he or I finished in the election.
What it is about is restructuring USCF governance to reduce the
*potential* and *incentive* for conflict of interest and manipulating
the system for personal, political gain. To allow an Executive
Director to resign and in less than two weeks become a certified
candidate for the Executive Board he or she was just working for and
was supervised by opens the door to all sort of abuses which I think we
should best avoid, even if it keeps delays a highly qualified
individual from running for a year (for example).
>
> He makes no objection to the fact that his ally, Beatriz Marinello,
> did the same thing. Beatriz Marinello was a USCF Employee. She was
> fired (she claims that she resigned in protest) so she ran for the
> board and was elected.
My intent is to not prohibit someone from running for life, only to
delay it for some reasonable period of time. I don't recall exactly
when Ms. Marinello resigned, but years separated her employment with
the USCF and her running for office. Sam Sloan's comparison is
apples-to-oranges.
[SNIP]
> Beatriz Marinello then proceeded to appoint herself
> as Chief Operating Officer
FALSE!
She did not appoint herself. At the December 19, 2004 meeting the USCF
Executive Board appointed her Volunteer Chief Operating Officer.
Passed 4-0-3 In Favor Shutt, Bauer, Hanke and Shaughnessy; Abstaining
Marinello, Schultz and Brady.
Please note that NO ONE on the Executive Board objected (at least by
their vote) to this action.
> of the USCF and to pay herself $350 per
> week no taxes as expense money, which is clearly and absolutely
> prohibited by the by-laws.
I ask Sam Sloan to quote from the Bylaws the clause which prohibits
Executive Board members from having their reasonable volunteer expenses
reimbursed. The following motion passed during a conference call on
September 8, 2004 applied (see below).
Please note that this motion passed unanimously except for President
Marinello who appropriately abstained for voting.
Sincerely,
George John
"EB 05-07: (Schultz): The following expense reimbursement for Board
members applies: [SNIP] In addition, the President will have a
discretionary expense account of $5,000 dollars. Additional expenses
required by Board members will require the signature of the President
and VP of Finance. PASSED 5-0-1 In Favor: Shutt, Schultz, Brady,
Shaughnessy and Bauer; Abstaining: Marinello; Absent: Hanke"
Sam Sloan
<blev...@spinnakernet.com> wrote:
>Mike Nolan wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many former USCF Board members would have made it past a
>> nominating committee? Depending on the nominating committee members,
>> Bill Goichberg might not have made it onto the ballot.
>
>Well sure. If there is open warfare between factions, then the faction
>that is "out" is going to tend to stay "out". Is that good or bad?
>Maybe it would discourage open warfare.
>
>Something tells me that the requirements for petition candidates could
>be made fairly stiff and Bill Goichberg could have surmounted them
>anyhow.
George John finds that he cannot get elected by getting the members to
vote for him, either under the OMOV System or the older Delegate's
Elections, so now he has a new approach which is to disqualify all his
opponents.
I, of course, would disqualify George John from having his name on the
ballot at least until he can prove that his real name is George John
and until he can provide verification for his claim to be a computer
expert with 25 experience in software development.
I feel that the real problem is getting good candidates to run. I feel
that the list of candidates in the election just concluded was one of
the weakest ever. In past years many good candidates like Arthur
Bisguier ran, were defeated and never ran again. I long for the days
when Jerry Hanken and John Donaldson sat on the board.
If we can get better candidates to run, these other problems will go
away.
Sam Sloan
George John
Edward Bonaventure wrote:
[SNIP]
> This proposal puts Mr. John at odds with centuries of tradition
> in the real-life politics of our Anglo-American society as well as
> European and other countries practicing what today is called the
> democratic system of government.
Perhaps, but it does not put me at odds with the Sierra Club. I quote:
"SR. 5-2-7: Eligibility of Employees for Nomination
Sierra Club employees are ineligible for nomination as Director.
Former employees shall remain ineligible for a period of two years
after the last date of their employment. Former temporary employees
who have worked for the Club less than six months in the previous two
years shall be eligible for nomination as a Director three months after
their last day of employment. Persons who are paid by the Club as
independent contractors or consultants rather than employees are not
subject to the two-year period of ineligibility, but may not continue
the financial relationship with the Club after being nominated either
by the Nominating Committee or by petition. Adopted 11/20-21/82;
amended 11/15-16/97"
I imagine other not-for-profits have similar prohibitions. To the best
of my knowledge, it's considered a best practice by many experts.
Best regards,
George John
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>I imagine other not-for-profits have similar prohibitions. To the best
>of my knowledge, it's considered a best practice by many experts.
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
>
Are those the same experts that you say say you are a computer expert?
Sam Sloan
George John
Edward Bonaventure wrote:
[SNIP]
> This proposal puts Mr. John at odds with centuries of tradition
> in the real-life politics of our Anglo-American society as well as
> European and other countries practicing what today is called the
> democratic system of government. [SNIP]
BTW, the mirror image of this idea is an ADM this year (see below). I
plan to vote for it.
Best regards,
George John
"ADM 05-23 ([SNIP]): Modify Article VI of the Bylaws to add the
following section to the Bylaws: Section __: Restrictions. Elected
members of the Executive Board may not serve as paid USCF employees,
paid consultants or as vendors of goods or services to the USCF during
their tenure on the Executive Board and for a period of one year after
their board service ends. Except as noted below, this shall not affect
a board member's ability to organize or direct USCF-rated events or
to serve as an officer or owner of a USCF affiliate. Elected members
of the Executive Board may not serve as the chief TD for USCF national
events during their tenure on the Board and for a period of one year
after their board service ends. Elected members of the Executive Board
may not serve as the organizer of a USCF national event (or as an
officer or owner of a USCF affiliate serving as the organizer of a USCF
national event) during their tenure on the Board and for a period of
three years after their board service ends unless the agreement to
serve as the organizer of that national event was signed prior to that
person's becoming a candidate for election to the Executive Board.
In unusual circumstances, elected Executive Board members may be
assigned tasks dealing with day-to-day operations of the USCF. No
compensation for these tasks beyond the reimbursement of direct
out-of-pocket expenses may be paid."
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>
George John's Anti-Goichberg Amendment.
This amendment if passed would prohibit Bill Goichberg from organizing
a national chess tournament for three years after his term of office
ends, which means that Goichberg could not organize a national chess
tournament from now until August 2012.
I hope this proves my point to everybody that George John is a worm
and a slime. George John finished last in the election for good
reason. With this latest dirty trick, and with George John having
contributed nothing positive to chess, I wonder if we should not just
consider kicking George John out of the federation altogether.
Sam Sloan
George John
Sam Sloan wrote:
> George John's Anti-Goichberg Amendment.
Sam Sloan wrote:
[SNIP]
> George John's Anti-Goichberg Amendment.
Sam Sloan likely didn't check to see who the sponsor is of this ADM. I
wonder what he will do when he learns who it is?
[SNIP]
Sincerely,
George John
Sam Sloan
>--- In fide-...@yahoogroups.com, "robmtchl" <robmtchl@y...> wrote:
>
>> Sam,
>> I see no problem with this reform. Current board members would of
>> course be grandfathered in. It would help to remove any appearance
>of
>> impropriety and make canidates as yourself more attractive to voters
>> as a choice.
>> At least thats what I think.
>> Rob
>
>Rob,
>
>I agree with you that it's a good reform, one which I plan to
>support. The USCF has long had problems with actual conflict of
>interest or the appearance thereof. IMO, this is good step in the
>right direction.
>
>And yes, I think you are quite correct to say it will not impact Bill
>Goichberg at all because he will be grandfathered.
>
>Therefore, Sam Sloan's allegations against me are doubly absurd. It's
>neither my motion, nor is it "Anti-Goichberg".
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
I do not believe that as written Bill would be grandfathered because
Bill Goichberg has not started his term of office yet and technically
he has not even been elected yet. The vote count is still unofficial.
More importantly, this ADM was proposed by Mike Nolan months ago when
the Beatriz Marinello Gang was expecting to be elected. George John, a
member of the Gang, did not advocate this amendment at that time. It
is only now that George John lost the election and finished dead last
that he suddenly advocates this ADM. Had George John been elected you
can be certain that he would not be in favor of this ADM, as it would
apply to him.
Sam Sloan
Bruce Leverett
I tried to send you e-mail about this, but I haven't heard back.
Perhaps both of us are using bogus e-mail addresses to post messages to
RGCP. If that is the problem I'm not sure how to solve it. Let me
know.
Bruce
George John
Now that you mention it (to Mike) ...
I did reply to the information you sent to me, and it bounced. Thanks
for the info. If you learn anything more, please send it my way.
Best regards,
George John
George John
> At 03:12 AM 8/10/2005 -0000, George John wrote:
[SNIP]
> I do not believe that as written Bill would be grandfathered because
> Bill Goichberg has not started his term of office yet and technically
> he has not even been elected yet. The vote count is still unofficial.
People ran for office under the assumption the current rules would not
change. Grandfathering is proper. If grandfathering is not implicit,
and anyone on the board wishes to be grandfathered, it should be
explicitly included. We do *not* want to change in the rules in the
middle of the event so to speak.
> More importantly, this ADM was proposed by Mike Nolan months ago when
> the Beatriz Marinello Gang was expecting to be elected. George John, a
> member of the Gang, did not advocate this amendment at that time. It
> is only now that George John lost the election and finished dead last
> that he suddenly advocates this ADM. Had George John been elected you
> can be certain that he would not be in favor of this ADM, as it would
> apply to him.
This is more nonsense about me from Sam Sloan. I became aware of this
ADM only when I read about it in the 2005 Delegates Call which was
recently made available online and by mail. My lack of public advocacy
for any given ADM does not imply my lack of support for it. Any
motivation I have for governance reform is never personal or factional.
IOW, I would have supported Mike's ADM regardless of the outcome of
the election because I believe that conflict of interest is a *real*
issue for the USCF which should be addressed more aggressively than it
has been in the past.
Regardless whether I would have been grandfathered or not had I won, I
have never organized an USCF event for personal gain, nor do I expect
to in the future. In fact I am minus $100, since every event I have
ever helped organized was as an unpaid volunteer and all the money went
to a non-for-profit, except for one event where all entry fees were
returned and I added $100 to the prize fund. IOW, I depend upon *no
income* from chess for my family's wellbeing; hence, my very low
conflict of interest with chess.
While my decisions are not personally motivated, the behavior of
certain individuals may red flag the need for reform. While I
generally support inclusion over exclusion, the ADM which will prohibit
anyone convicted of an adult felony offense from running for or being
on the Executive Board is looking very good to me right now. I have
been told is a governance best practice.
"ADM 05-18 ([SNIP]): A convicted felon may not serve on the Executive
Board of the U.S. Chess Federation. If an individual is elected to the
Board and it is later found that he or she is a convicted felon, that
person shall be removed from the Board and the person achieving the
highest number of votes but not elected in the election in which the
felon was chosen for the Board shall become a Board member in his/her
place. Rationale: We live in an era in which "due diligence" - a
scrupulous examination of an organization or individual with which or
whom one proposes some partnership is scrutinized using search engines
such as Google - is a normal practice. The Federation cannot be
exposed to the potential embarrassment of having a felon on its
Executive Board."
Sincerely,
George John
Mike Murray
wrote:
>While my decisions are not personally motivated, the behavior of
>certain individuals may red flag the need for reform. While I
>generally support inclusion over exclusion, the ADM which will prohibit
>anyone convicted of an adult felony offense from running for or being
>on the Executive Board is looking very good to me right now. I have
>been told is a governance best practice.
>"ADM 05-18 ([SNIP]): A convicted felon may not serve on the Executive
>Board of the U.S. Chess Federation. If an individual is elected to the
>Board and it is later found that he or she is a convicted felon, that
>person shall be removed from the Board and the person achieving the
>highest number of votes but not elected in the election in which the
>felon was chosen for the Board shall become a Board member in his/her
>place. Rationale: We live in an era in which "due diligence" - a
>scrupulous examination of an organization or individual with which or
>whom one proposes some partnership is scrutinized using search engines
>such as Google - is a normal practice. The Federation cannot be
>exposed to the potential embarrassment of having a felon on its
>Executive Board."
This ADM is pretentious nonsense. Beneath the high-falutin' phrasing
it's aimed at a single person, namely Sloan. Seems perilously close
to a bill of attainder.
As written, it effectively disenfranchises those who would choose to
vote for someone known to have a record. If the ADM mentioned felony
convictions undisclosed at the time of election, I could support it.
As written, it would also invalidate the election of someone convicted
in one state for actions not recognized as crimes in other states. Or
for "convictions" during the civil rights era. We wouldn't want a
convicted miscegenationist on our board, now would we?
With the Federation's history of flaming incompetence and
self-dealing, to prattle about "potential embarrassment" and "due
diligence" seems disingenuous. These are rationalizations, and we all
know it.
(By the way, I have never voted for Sloan and can hardly envision a
situation which would cause me to do so.)
George John
Mike,
> This ADM is pretentious nonsense. Beneath the high-falutin' phrasing
> it's aimed at a single person, namely Sloan. Seems perilously close
> to a bill of attainder.
Your comments are most appreciated.
Since it's not my ADM, and I have not talked to the sponsor about it, I
do not know what his reasons for submitting it are beyond those he gave
in his justification.
I think this ADM has no chance of passing in its current form and, now
that I'm speaking with complete frankness on the subject since I am
responding to you and not Sam Sloan, should not pass in its current
form.
Some organizations, governments, and companies do exclude convicted
felons from leadership roles. My discomfort is these blanket
exclusions do not allow from someone who made a mistake earlier in
life, who has more than made up for it, to have a chance to fully
contribute to society. That said, sometimes mistakes will haunt
someone for a lifetime, and perhaps some should do so. I can see both
sides of this argument.
What should probably happen to this ADM is it should be substantially
modified to require any adult felony convictions to be disclosed in one
of the candidate's "Chess Life" campaign statements. If there is a
failure to do so, and a conviction is discovered, the person is
immediately removed from the Executive Board or the candidacy is
invalidated if discovered prior to when the election results are made
official by the Board of Delegates.
[SNIP]
Best regards,
George John
Mike Murray
wrote:
>What should probably happen to this ADM is it should be substantially
>modified to require any adult felony convictions to be disclosed in one
>of the candidate's "Chess Life" campaign statements. If there is a
>failure to do so, and a conviction is discovered, the person is
>immediately removed from the Executive Board or the candidacy is
>invalidated if discovered prior to when the election results are made
>official by the Board of Delegates.
This makes more sense. The candidate would have the opportunity to
discuss the nature and circumstances of the conviction, life-changes
since the conviction, and the electorate could decide whether it's
worth pandering to those who would withhold money and support, should
we have the audacity to elect a convicted felon.
Since we're delving into personal details, how about the same
reporting requirements and penalties for candidates having filed for
bankruptcy or been terminated for cause from past jobs (both
unfortunate events having possible relevance to effective Federation
stewardship)?
Sam Sloan
Yea. Make sure Tim Hanke lists all the jobs he has been fired from.
When he ran for election, Hanke listed all the jobs he had been hired
to, but he neglected to mention that he had been fired from all of
those jobs.
The problem is that Hanke has only 500 words to provide his biography.
He would not have enough space to list all the jobs he has been fired
from.
Sam Sloan
WPraeder
George John wrote:
>
> I will end this post here to see if there what comments follow. I do
> want this discussion to continue with how OMOV can be changed, assuming
> there is agreement that it should be changed, to deal with the above
> and other issues. Comments are welcomed.
>
> Note: I have changed the subject to reflect the shift in discussion.
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John
George,
In my view Bill Goichberg with CCA assistance pulled his slate with
him. In the current evolutionary cycle of the USCF and with the
candidates that were running I might suggest the outcome would be
similar even in the previous system.
Note I am very impressed at the recent election turnout as well as the
organizations financial turnaround. In my opinion the USCF has an
excellent base from which to move forward, grow, and improve. (See
http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/indicator.htm ).
My two cents on how we might continue to enhance the current system can
be found at http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/nextsteps.htm .
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
WPraeder
>
> I look forward to more substantive comments on how OMOV can be
> reformed. I remain convinced it is in need of *substantial* reform.
> If it is not or can not be reformed, it may be best to return to an
> elector system; although, I would hate to have to do that. But, this
> current system, which creates a need for spending huge amounts of money
> on direct mailing and artificial slates to offset these costs, is
> highly undesirable, IMO, and we need to find ways to significantly
> reduce or eliminate the need for this.
>
> BTW, the elector system had the same issue, just much less so.
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John
George,
We can probably agree to disagree on the idea of returning to previous
systems. However, for a bit dated overview of our systems and various
reforms see: http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/factors.htm
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
rec...@aol.com
This motion was submitted by Mike Nolan. I support the motion. I have
not organized a national tournament since 1997 and have no intention of
organizing one in the forseeable future.
>
> I hope this proves my point to everybody that George John is a worm
> and a slime. George John finished last in the election for good
> reason. With this latest dirty trick, and with George John having
> contributed nothing positive to chess, I wonder if we should not just
> consider kicking George John out of the federation altogether.
This is ridiculous, as not only is the motion perfectly appropriate,
but it was also not submitted by George John.
Bill Goichberg
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Marinello board to give itself authority it did not otherwise have.
George John claims that this was perfectly legal I disagree.
The USCF is a 80,000 member membership organization with a complex
structure. Like most comparable organizations, we have committees who
consider matters and take votes. These are then forwarded to the
Delegates for consideration. The delegates debate these matters and
motions are passed or failed.
The delegates then refer these matters to the Executive Board which
conducts meetings that are supposed to be announced and open. Any
USCF member should be allowed to speak at these meetings and have his
views heard. The Executive Board then votes and refers the results to
the Executive Director for action.
Instead of all this, Beatriz Marinello has just set up herself as a
one-woman dictator. She has repeatedly done things such as the Natrol
deal without even informing her allies on the board, much less her
opponents.
Virtually everything Beatriz Marinello has done in the past two years
has been in violation of the by-laws and in violation of the standard
and recognized proceedures for doing things in the USCF.
For this reason, and because of the irreparable harm she has done to
the organization, I believe that Beatriz Marinello should be expelled
and permanently banned from the USCF.
Sam Sloan
On 3 Aug 2005 11:58:47 -0700, "George John" <geo...@neosoft.com>
wrote:
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2005 08:42:30 -0700, "George John" <geo...@neosoft.com>
>> wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> I disagree. The USCF Board of Delegates clearly does have the legal
>> right, power and authority to expel a member.
>
>The USCF Bylaws do NOT give this right. It is given to the Executive
>Board with right of appeal to the Board of Delegates.
>
>> For example, Bobby
>> Fischer was expelled by "Objections Proceedure" by the Executive
>> Board.
>
>Yes, the Executive Board does have the power to do this, but NOT the
>Board of Delegates.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> I agree that no member should be expelled except for very, very
>> serious reasons. Whether Beatriz Marinello and Tim Hanke reach that
>> standard would be something for the delegates to decide.
>
>I do not see how they have the power to decide this. There is nothing
>in the Bylaws or any passed motion of the Board of Delegates that I can
>find to support the idea of the Board of Delegates having the power to
>expel a member.
>
>I guess with a 2/3 vote they might be able to modify the Bylaws to do
>so, but I think that would be an abuse of power. A motion like that
>needs to be on the advance agenda so all members with an interest have
>a chance to discuss such a motion with the Delegates.
>
>>
>> I would not make the motion but if somebody else made the motion I
>> would vote to expel them both for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. Tim Hanke has been missing since February 10, 2005.
>
>This is false, and has already been rebutted. How many more times will
>it be necessary to do so? For example, Hanke participated in the May
>21, 2005 Executive Board meeting.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> A) Beatriz had herself appointed Chief Operating Officer, a clear
>> violation of the by-laws which state that no member of the board can
>> be an employee or officer of the USCF.
>
>The Executive Board voted in favor of this. While it is not a "best
>practice", I see nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits this. All that
>is prohibited is a USCF employee running for the Executive Board and
>being a Delegate.
>
>>
>> B) Beatriz endorsed Natrol, a drug that claims the ability to speed up
>> the brain, and she accepted money from Natrol and had their ad put on
>> the USCF website, all without even notifying the board.
>
>While Beatriz has accepted *responsibility* for the Natrol deal, it is
>not at all clear how the actual deal came into being. In any event,
>regardless how wise or unwise the deal was, I see no justification to
>expel someone from the USCF over this. The agreement entered in to was
>a one time deal with a contract amount of $5000. Nowhere, that I can
>find, was signing this agreement, without Executive Board approval, a
>violation of any motion, Bylaw, or policy.
>
>>
>> C) After her slate was defeated in the July 21, 2005 election, Beatriz
>> signed a contract to build an new building against the wishes of the
>> new board and also in violation of the by-laws under which the
>> President has no power to sign contracts for the USCF. Only the
>> Executive Director has that power.
>
>This is false!
>
>The power to enter into contracts is delegated from the Board of
>Delegates to the Executive Board, while the Board of Delegates are not
>meeting:
>
>"The Executive Board shall manage the affairs of the Federation,
>including employment and other contracts"
>
>The Executive Board can authorize the President and/or staff to enter
>into contracts on their behalf. Here is the current policy, and I
>quote:
>
>"Limitations on the Contractual Authority of USCF Staff
>
>On May 22, 2005, the USCF Executive Board passed the following motion:
>The Executive Board mandates the following: Employees of the US Chess
>Federation, including the Executive Director and Director of
>Publications, cannot enter into contracts that are greater than $10,000
>or obligate either party for more than 12 months without Executive
>Board approval or written approval of the President. If greater than
>$30,000, the approval of the Executive Board is required."
>
>So in many instances the Executive Director will NOT be able to sign a
>contract on his or her own volition.
>
>The construction contract was approved by the Executive Board, and
>therefore the President was fully authorized by the USCF Executive
>Board to sign such a contract provided either the VP of Finance or ED
>signed, too. I quote:
>
>"The note, deed of trust, and all other loan documents are to be signed
>by any two of the following: Beatriz Marinello-President, Tim
>Hanke-Vice President for Finance, or Bill Hall-Executive Director."
>
>[SNIP]
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
>
>[crossposting snipped]
>
Andrew Zito
Sam Sloan wrote:
Sam Sloan and Marcus Roberts should be permanently expelled, barred and
banned along with the other bozos.
Louis Blair
wrote (Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:04:54 GMT):
> ... The USCF Board of Delegates clearly does have the legal
> right, power and authority to expel a member. For example,
> Bobby Fischer was expelled by "Objections Proceedure"
> by the Executive Board. ...
_
"Bobby Fischer has not been on the USCF
membership list since he requested that the
USCF stop sending him 'Chess Lies' in the
1970's.
_
He was never assigned a USCF ID when the
USCF first issued them. The Board's action
following 9/11 was purely symbolic." - Mike
Nolan (4 Feb 2006 16:04:48 GMT)