Do we need the delegates?
Tim Hanke
but it would never be passed by the delegates."
USCF seems to have delegates for historical reasons, but are there still
good business reasons to have delegates?
I'm guessing the delegate system is dear to the egos of innumerable small
chess politicians, but again, are there good BUSINESS reasons to have
delegates?
USCF has to operate in a modern business environment. Leaving most of our
important business to be decided at an annual meeting of local chess
politicians, who represent various interest groups, seems to me like a
formula for business failure.
Important decisions get put off year to year, or never get made at all. The
Good Ship USCF drifts with the tides but does not sail purposefully.
The Executive Director gets paid a six-figure salary (the last I heard,
anyway) but is little more than a glorified office manager, because he can't
make crucial decisions.
I work for a nonprofit with a similar budget to USCF, and we have a
membership structure like USCF. But we have no delegates. We have a National
Office, Board of Directors, Chapters (analogous to state associations), and
Support Groups (analogous to local chess clubs). No delegates. Why would my
nonprofit want delegates to muck up our governance process?
So I'm just asking, whether USCF really needs delegates either. If the
answer is, "We don't need delegates, but we can't get rid of them," that
sounds to me like a big problem. Because as long as we have this delegate
system, it seems to me that we can't operate efficiently.
Tim Hanke
--
I am a candidate for the U.S. Chess Federation Executive Board in the 2003
election. Please visit my website at http://www.timothyhanke.net.
Neil Brennen
"Tim Hanke" <timoth...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:PjAka.109392$OV.211363@rwcrnsc54...
> I work for a nonprofit with a similar budget to USCF, and we have a
> membership structure like USCF. But we have no delegates. We have a
National
> Office, Board of Directors, Chapters (analogous to state associations),
and
> Support Groups (analogous to local chess clubs). No delegates. Why would
my
> nonprofit want delegates to muck up our governance process?
How are elections of your Board of Directors handled?
Neil Brennen
> good business reasons to have delegates?
Yes. The delegates serve as a place for state federations to store some of
the bad apples that would cause trouble if they indulged themselves in chess
politics at the state level. Eric Johnson, for instance, was a PA delegate
despite his well-known distaste for PSCF. Now PSCF can effectively run chess
in PA and Eric can do whatever he does without causing trouble.
Tim Hanke
>
> "Tim Hanke" <timoth...@attbi.com> wrote ...
> > I work for a nonprofit with a similar budget to USCF, and we have a
> > membership structure like USCF. But we have no delegates. We have a
> National
> > Office, Board of Directors, Chapters (analogous to state associations),
> and
> > Support Groups (analogous to local chess clubs). No delegates. Why would
> my
> > nonprofit want delegates to muck up our governance process?
>
> How are elections of your Board of Directors handled?
Our Board of Directors is self-perpetuating (in other words, current members
recruit future members). We have term limits, so no Board member can serve
more than two consecutive terms. A term is three years.
Until two years ago, the membership elected Board members. But this process
was time-consuming and seemed not to add any value, so the Board changed the
bylaws to make the Board self-perpetuating. The members were not asked their
opinion of this change, and as far as I know, none of them objected.
Howver, I'm not arguing for or against self-perpetuating Boards. I'm asking
whether the USCF delegate system works for us.
Tim Hanke
> the bad apples that would cause trouble if they indulged themselves in
chess
> politics at the state level. Eric Johnson, for instance, was a PA delegate
> despite his well-known distaste for PSCF. Now PSCF can effectively run
chess
> in PA and Eric can do whatever he does without causing trouble.
Neil,
So what you're saying is, you would rather have your bad apples cause
trouble on a national level than a state level?
I guess this is one way of handling bad apples, but it means 50 states (plus
Washington, D.C. and Guam) suffer instead of just your state.
Isn't there some way you can restrict Eric's activities to Allentown? You
could surround him and isolate him, like Saddam in Baghdad. Admittedly the
residents of Allentown would suffer, but you could allow the civilians to
flee.
Mike Nolan
>Howver, I'm not arguing for or against self-perpetuating Boards. I'm asking
>whether the USCF delegate system works for us.
I'd like to know what important decisions you think the Delegates have made
recently.
They set dues and approve the budget, but they do not set ratings fees or
TLA fees, they have not hired or fired any executive directors or editors,
they did not make decisions about whether to emphasize or deemphasize
B&E sales, they do not appoint our FIDE team or set selection criteria
for our national teams or invitational events.
--
Mike Nolan
ASCACHESS
>but it would never be passed by the delegates."
>
>USCF seems to have delegates for historical reasons, but are there still
>good business reasons to have delegates?
A better question is "Are there still good business reasons to have an
Executive Board".
Tim Hanke
Hmm, no, I don't think that's really a good question. I think we are
required by law to have a board of directors. Does anyone know for sure?
Tim Hanke
> I'd like to know what important decisions you think the Delegates have
made
> recently.
>
> They set dues and approve the budget, but they do not set ratings fees or
> TLA fees, they have not hired or fired any executive directors or editors,
> they did not make decisions about whether to emphasize or deemphasize
> B&E sales, they do not appoint our FIDE team or set selection criteria
> for our national teams or invitational events.
I don't go to delegates' meetings. I just know what I read. What I've read a
hundred times if I've read it once, is that delegate approval is a sticking
point to any number of improvements in how we do business.
Are you saying this isn't true?
If the delegates really DON'T make any important decisions, why keep them
around to confuse everybody and muddy the waters?
At least you admit the delegates have to approve dues changes. I think the
USCF dues structure is one of the most screwed up parts of the organization.
I have heard that delegate approval is the sticking point to making
necessary changes to dues, especially junior dues. If we could get dues
decisions out of the delegates' hands, wouldn't that be an important step in
moving USCF toward better and more efficient business practices?
Wouldn't getting rid of the delegates completely be an even bigger and
better step in the right direction?
Kenneth Sloan
> >...
> > A better question is "Are there still good business reasons to have an
> > Executive Board".
>
> Hmm, no, I don't think that's really a good question. I think we are
> required by law to have a board of directors. Does anyone know for sure?
> ...
The Executive Board is not the "board of directors".
The Delegates are the "board of directors".
--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/
Mike Nolan
>Hmm, no, I don't think that's really a good question. I think we are
>required by law to have a board of directors. Does anyone know for sure?
Illinois non-profit law requires at least three directors, as I recall,
but there is no upper limit.
Legally speaking, the Delegates are the USCF's Board of Directors. That's
why the Delegates have to annually ratify the actions of the Board.
--
Mike Nolan
Kenneth Sloan
> ...
> I don't go to delegates' meetings. I just know what I read. What I've read a
> hundred times if I've read it once, is that delegate approval is a sticking
> point to any number of improvements in how we do business.
And also a sticking point to any number of loony ideas on how we do
business.
>
> Are you saying this isn't true?
>
> If the delegates really DON'T make any important decisions, why keep them
> around to confuse everybody and muddy the waters?
"the law requires that we have a Boarde of Directors"...now, who said that???
> ...
> Wouldn't getting rid of the delegates completely be an even bigger and
> better step in the right direction?
>
No.
> ...
Mike Nolan
>Wouldn't getting rid of the delegates completely be an even bigger and
>better step in the right direction?
That may depend on whether you think the Board always does the right thing.
The Delegates are a restraint upon the Board, though not always an
effective one.
--
Mike Nolan
Tim Hanke
>
> The Executive Board is not the "board of directors".
>
> The Delegates are the "board of directors".
OK, fine, you win the semantics & minutia contest and I lose it.
If I can get you guys to think outside the box for one minute, what about
getting rid of the delegates, and making the body that we now call the
"Executive Board" the actual board of directors?
Tim Hanke
> but there is no upper limit.
>
> Legally speaking, the Delegates are the USCF's Board of Directors. That's
> why the Delegates have to annually ratify the actions of the Board.
Mike,
Thanks. So, back to my question. Why not get rid of the delegates and have
the USCF Executive Board be an actual board of directors?
George John
-snip-
> I work for a nonprofit with a similar budget to USCF, and we have a
> membership structure like USCF. But we have no delegates.
How many members does your organization have? How are their interests
represented?
What is your opinion of publicly held corporations that have annual meetings
which the shareholders can attend and vote on important matters of the
corporation?
-snip-
George
Jerome Bibuld
Heil Dubya!
I don't think you get Timmy's point. The USCF is a membership organization and
Timmy is the FOREMOST PROPONENT of democracy posting to rgc. It's only logical
that he question the need for a board of delegates in a membership
organization. That's what democracy means: "how we do business".
(I wonder why he doesn't just propose elimination of the ENTIRE electoral
system. I don't remember the exact words, but isn't Timmy the boy who said
something like he doesn't even try to understand the position of those who
disagree with him? Hitler had the right idea. He got elected Chancellor, then
scrapped the entire system.)
Heute Uhmuhrikkka und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!
Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!
Fraternalloy,
Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus
Tim Hanke
> "Tim Hanke" <timoth...@attbi.com> writes:
> > I don't go to delegates' meetings. I just know what I read. What I've
read a
> > hundred times if I've read it once, is that delegate approval is a
sticking
> > point to any number of improvements in how we do business.
>
> And also a sticking point to any number of loony ideas on how we do
> business.
And where do most of these loony ideas come from? Probably from the
delegates, unless I miss my guess.
> "the law requires that we have a Boarde of Directors"...now, who said
that???
Right. So how about getting rid of the delegates, who are an unnecessary
layer of governance, and having the Executive Board be a real board of
directors?
> > Wouldn't getting rid of the delegates completely be an even bigger and
> > better step in the right direction?
>
> No.
Hmm, just "No." Are you God, so you don't need to justify your statements?
My answer is "Yes." How are we going to break this tie? Or will you just say
"No" again, and claim a 2-1 victory?
Tim Hanke
Obviously I don't think the Board always does the right thing, or I wouldn't
be wasting my time and money running for it.
Here's my point: a modern business can't operate effectively without
centralized and efficient decision-making. USCF is neither effective nor
efficient in its decision-making. This suggests to me, that we may have a
decision-making structure that could be improved.
Does anybody take my point?
Tim Hanke
>
> "Tim Hanke" <timoth...@attbi.com> wrote ...
>
> > I work for a nonprofit with a similar budget to USCF, and we have a
> > membership structure like USCF. But we have no delegates.
>
> How many members does your organization have? How are their interests
> represented?
We have about 7,000 members. (Our donor list is much larger.) Their
interests are represented by the staff and the board of directors.
Note that our members are automatically members of their local Chapters
and/or Support Groups (unlike in USCF, where members have to pay an
additional fee to join their state association and sometimes a third fee to
join their local chess club).
If our Chapters disagreed with how the National Office and/or the Board of
Directors were doing business, they could break away from the national
organization and do their own thing. In fact, that has happened once in the
last three years; the breakaway Chapter soon returned to the fold.
> What is your opinion of publicly held corporations that have annual
meetings
> which the shareholders can attend and vote on important matters of the
> corporation?
Doesn't seem like a good analogy to me. Shareholders are owners; USCF
members are customers. At least that's how I see it.
ASCACHESS
>
>OK, fine, you win the semantics & minutia contest and I lose it.
This is not a word game.
The delegates are the board of directors.
If you are running for the EB at the very least you should know who the board
of directors actually are.
Rp
Tim Hanke
Let me repeat again: what if we get rid of the delegates, and make the
Executive Board the legal board of directors (instead of just de facto, as
they pretty much are now)?
Responses to the question, rather than remarks about what I should or should
not know, would be appreciated.
PBusw13724
>are there good BUSINESS reasons to have
>delegates?
>
>USCF has to operate in a modern business environment.
Mr Hanke: I enter into this discussion with some unease, because the ethos of
the USCF is unknown to me and I can only comment from experience over here. I
defer readily to knowledgeable contradiction.
I comment: a national chess federation does indeed have to operate in a
businesslike fashion, but at its very core it is _not_ a business. It has an
element of promoting a cause which is not susceptible to any cost-benefit
analysis. This can cause tensions for many not-for-profit organisations.
For as long as the members have ultimate control of the federation I suggest it
has in their eyes a certain moral legitimacy which encourages them to support
activities which do not have an immediate tangible benefit for them: from
sending a team to the Olympiad to encouraging interested non-players to learn
the moves. If the federation is seen to be entirely a business, and they have
no ultimate control, why would they support those activities? (It is assumed
that those activities are inherently desirable, but that is only an
assumption).
Perhaps you should be attracting a better class of delegate, or managing your
structure better, rather than overturning the USCF's ultimate raison d'être.
I accept that I speak from ignorance.
Paul Buswell
Mike Nolan
>And where do most of these loony ideas come from? Probably from the
>delegates, unless I miss my guess.
That depends on which ideas you think were loony.
Recently we have had boards that went two radically different directions
in terms of our books & equipments business. Most likely one of those
boards was wrong, we just don't know which one yet.
The 'national grandmaster' idea was originated by the Board.
The TLA increases were initiated by the Board.
US Chess Live was a Board idea.
The Professional Players Health and Benefits Fund was a Delegate idea.
OMOV was a Delegate idea.
Dues are kind of a mixed bag. Most dues proposals have come from the
Board, but the Delegates have undoubtably added to the complexity of our
dues structure.
We probably have too many Delegates and we definitely abuse the concept
of appointing Alternate Delegates at each meeting. But those are both
fixable problems. Eliminating the Delegates eliminates the one effective
check on the Board.
--
Mike Nolan
George John
Tim,
> Doesn't seem like a good analogy to me. Shareholders are owners; USCF
> members are customers. At least that's how I see it.
The USCF members are MEMBERS, too!
Customers don't get to vote for those who run the companies they do business
with. USCF *members* do. While the USCF would be wise to understand some
of the elements that go into a well-run business, it is much more than just
a business with customers, IMHO.
That said, given that we now have OMOV and the Executive Board is directly
accountable to the members, AND how routinely the Executive Board and
Executive Director either ignore or fail to follow the Bylaws and passed
motions of the Board of Delegates, I have thought more than once that it
might be a good idea for the Board of Delegates to vote to eliminate
themselves and pass all power to the Executive Board, saving the
organization a good deal of money if nothing else. Any group that can not,
does not, or will not enforce adequate accountability should possibly not
continue.
-snip-
George
Kenneth Sloan
> "Kenneth Sloan" <sl...@uab.edu> wrote ...
> > "Tim Hanke" <timoth...@attbi.com> writes:
> > > I don't go to delegates' meetings. I just know what I read. What I've
> read a
> > > hundred times if I've read it once, is that delegate approval is a
> sticking
> > > point to any number of improvements in how we do business.
> >
> > And also a sticking point to any number of loony ideas on how we do
> > business.
>
> And where do most of these loony ideas come from? Probably from the
> delegates, unless I miss my guess.
Perhaps - and the rest of the Delegates do a fair job of acting as a
sticking point to those loony ideas. Part of the cost of doing
business.
Remember the TLA flap? That loony idea didn't emanate from the Board of
Delegates. It serves as an excellent example of why it's not such a
good idea for *all* of the trains to run on time.
Perhaps you should stop believing everything you read, and also stop
guessing.
>
> > "the law requires that we have a Boarde of Directors"...now, who said
> that???
>
> Right. So how about getting rid of the delegates, who are an unnecessary
> layer of governance, and having the Executive Board be a real board of
> directors?
Assumes facts not in evidence. The point is precisely that *you* think
the Board of Delegates are "an unnecessary layer of governance", and I
don't. Of course, I have the advantage of actually *attending* a
meeting of the Board of Delegates and so have some chance of knowing
what I'm talking about, whereas you seem to wear your self-imposed
ignorance as a badge of honor.
Also, I wonder what *you* think is the proper role of the current
Executive Board? If you turn the Executive Board into a Board of
Directors, who will perform the tasks currently handled by the EB? Or,
are they another "unnecessary layer of governance"?
You proudly state that you "don't go to delegates' meetings". I suppose
that's OK - you aren't running for Delegate, are you? But, it seems
relevant to ask: have you ever attended a meeting of the Executive Board?
Do you have any clue what its current function is? What they do at
meetings? What they do between meetings? Can you please outline how
that would change under your proposal to eliminate the Board of
Delegates and turn the EB into the Board of Directors?
>
> > > Wouldn't getting rid of the delegates completely be an even bigger and
> > > better step in the right direction?
> >
> > No.
>
> Hmm, just "No." Are you God, so you don't need to justify your statements?
You asked a question. I answered it. I'm not trying to convince you of
anything. You can take my answer, or discard it, it matters not a bit
to me.
You want justification? Ask for it, and earn it by demonstrating that
you have done your homework.
>
> My answer is "Yes." How are we going to break this tie? Or will you just say
> "No" again, and claim a 2-1 victory?
This isn't an election. You've shared your view on the matter, and I've
shared mine. I've seen enough of your justification to know that I
don't want to read any more of it.
I'm guessing that you are totally unaware of the recent re-design of the
USCF goverenance process. My position is that I'm relatively satisfied
with how things work under that design and would prefer to USE the
governance process to actually get things done. It seems to me that
when someone openly declares that he doesn't understand the process and
then offers up a one-line plan for improvement then the burden is on
*him* to provide "justifications".
Give it your best shot.
Louis Blair
> I'm not arguing for or against self-perpetuating Boards.
_
"It's time to adopt a new organizational model
...
For years I believed OMOV was the answer to the USCF's
problems. I thought openness and democracy would help us
get beond old ways of doing things.
But I have changed my mind.
...
Someone or some group that can move ahead, take chances,
and do what makes sense, needs to take over." - Timothy
Hanke (2002-12-07 07:30:10 PST)
Kenneth Sloan
> "Tim Hanke" <timoth...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:PvCka.55886$ug3.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> Tim,
>
> > Doesn't seem like a good analogy to me. Shareholders are owners; USCF
> > members are customers. At least that's how I see it.
>
> The USCF members are MEMBERS, too!
>
> Customers don't get to vote for those who run the companies they do business
> with. USCF *members* do. While the USCF would be wise to understand some
> of the elements that go into a well-run business, it is much more than just
> a business with customers, IMHO.
> ...
so, here's the plan.
a) get rid of the Board of Delegate and make the Executive Board into
the legal Board of Directors
b) get rid of the idea of "membership" and "voting". These serve no
useful BUSINESS purpose. Make the new Board of Directors
self-perpetuating.
Once free of the Delegates and the Members, the USCF will be able to
efficiently serve its CUSTOMERS.
c) reduce staff to 3. That should be plenty to efficiently serve
the CUSTOMERS. Smaller staff will also make it easy on the
Board of Directors.
Louis Blair
> USCF is neither effective nor efficient in its decision-making.
> This suggests to me, that we may have a decision-making
> structure that could be improved.
_
What will Timothy Hanke be trying to do with regard to
OMOV?
Tim Hanke
> guessing.
Ken,
With all due respect, your post is more than a little odd. Where did I say I
believe everything I read? Also, please resist your temptation to quibble.
When I used the word "guess," it was in the sense of "surmise," or
"believe," or "think." I wasn't closing my eyes and throwing darts.
> Of course, I have the advantage of actually *attending* a
> meeting of the Board of Delegates and so have some chance of knowing
> what I'm talking about, whereas you seem to wear your self-imposed
> ignorance as a badge of honor.
Err, no, I don't recall saying I was proud of not going to delegates'
meetings. You are simply making this up.
> Also, I wonder what *you* think is the proper role of the current
> Executive Board?
Haven't I already answered this question several times? I think it should be
a board of directors. This is really a weird post by you, Ken.
> If you turn the Executive Board into a Board of
> Directors, who will perform the tasks currently handled by the EB?
You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Many if not most nonprofits do
not have "delegates." They simply have a "board." I'm not sure why you think
the USCF Board would have more tasks to handle than any other nonprofit
board. Frankly, I'm really not understanding your arguments here, if they
can even be called arguments.
> Or,
> are they another "unnecessary layer of governance"?
Please don't be silly, Ken. I was trying to have a meaningful discussion
here. What is your goal?
> You proudly state that you "don't go to delegates' meetings".
Err, no, there you go again with your made-up ad-hominen claim that I am
somehow proud of not going to delegates' meetings. Although, if all the
delegates are like you, I can see why it would be a waste of my time.
> I suppose
> that's OK - you aren't running for Delegate, are you? But, it seems
> relevant to ask: have you ever attended a meeting of the Executive Board?
No. As far as I know, it is relatively common for members of nonprofit
boards not to have attended previous meetings of boards they join.
> Do you have any clue what its current function is? What they do at
> meetings? What they do between meetings?
Yes, yes, and yes.
> Can you please outline how
> that would change under your proposal to eliminate the Board of
> Delegates and turn the EB into the Board of Directors?
It wouldn't change, except that the Executive Board would be a real board of
directors instead of a pseudo-board of directors.
> You asked a question. I answered it. I'm not trying to convince you of
> anything. You can take my answer, or discard it, it matters not a bit
> to me.
>
> You want justification? Ask for it, and earn it by demonstrating that
> you have done your homework.
Who is being proud here, Ken? You or me? I'm sorry, I don't plan to jump
through any hoops for you. Frankly, I think you are just using cheap
rhetoric to avoid answering the question.
> This isn't an election. You've shared your view on the matter, and I've
> shared mine. I've seen enough of your justification to know that I
> don't want to read any more of it.
I see: first you demand I "earn" a rational answer from you; then you say
you don't want to hear what I have to say anyway. I "surmise" I didn't catch
you on one of your better days, did I?
> I'm guessing that you are totally unaware of the recent re-design of the
> USCF goverenance process.
Sorry, here's one of your "guesses" that's mistaken.
> My position is that I'm relatively satisfied
> with how things work under that design and would prefer to USE the
> governance process to actually get things done.
This is a fair statement. I can accept that point of view.
> It seems to me that
> when someone openly declares that he doesn't understand the process
Err, not sure I said that, Ken.
> and
> then offers up a one-line plan for improvement then the burden is on
> *him* to provide "justifications".
>
> Give it your best shot.
Ken, I thought I offered several justifications already. I could "pull a
Kevin" and just say "re-read what I wrote," but instead I'll repeat what I
already wrote, in hope you actually read it this time:
1) The main justification I offered for abolishing the delegates was that
USCF has to operate in a modern business environment and therefore could
benefit from quicker decision-making, rather than waiting for a once-a-year
meeting to be held.
2) Another justification I offered for abolishing the delegates was to
remove important decisions from the hands of interest groups among the
delegates.
3) Another justification I offered was in response to Mike Nolan, who
suggested the delegates didn't have much power anyway; I responded, if they
don't have much power anyway, then it shouldn't cause a problem to get rid
of them.
Tim Hanke
> Mr Hanke: I enter into this discussion with some unease, because the
ethos of
> the USCF is unknown to me and I can only comment from experience over
here. I
> defer readily to knowledgeable contradiction.
Mr. Buswell,
Your modesty is duly noted.
> I comment: a national chess federation does indeed have to operate in a
> businesslike fashion, but at its very core it is _not_ a business. It has
an
> element of promoting a cause which is not susceptible to any cost-benefit
> analysis. This can cause tensions for many not-for-profit organisations.
Yes, well, thank you for this civics lecture, but in fact our current
problems are business-related: we don't have enough money. It is this lack
of money that concerns me at the moment.
> If the federation is seen to be entirely a business
I think there is some misunderstanding here. Did I say "the federation is to
be entirely a business"? Don't think so.
> Perhaps you should be attracting a better class of delegate, or managing
your
> structure better, rather than overturning the USCF's ultimate raison
d'être.
Yes, well, we would all like to attract a better class of delegate, but what
we actually have to work with are people like Ken "Because I say so" Sloan
and Eric "Chesspride" Johnson. This is yet another reason I think chucking
the whole delegate apparatus into the nearest swamp might be a good idea.
Also I see that you have now emerged from your cover of a becoming modesty
to state rather dramatically that my idea of getting rid of the delegates is
"overturning the USCF's ultimate raison d'être." I believe this is what we
call "assuming the matter under discussion."
Liam Too
>
>>politicians, who represent various interest groups, seems to me like a
> formula for business failure.<<
How does the governance of the USA operates now? IMO, it is the best
type of governance in the world that has been working for centuries.
Failure? I don't think so.
Liam
Tim Hanke
> of appointing Alternate Delegates at each meeting. But those are both
> fixable problems. Eliminating the Delegates eliminates the one effective
> check on the Board.
Don't you see OMOV elections as a check on the board?
What about the nonprofit organizations that do not have delegates? How do
you suppose they struggle by?
Tim Hanke
Tim Hanke
>
> so, here's the plan.
>
> a) get rid of the Board of Delegate and make the Executive Board into
> the legal Board of Directors
>
> b) get rid of the idea of "membership" and "voting". These serve no
> useful BUSINESS purpose. Make the new Board of Directors
> self-perpetuating.
>
> Once free of the Delegates and the Members, the USCF will be able to
> efficiently serve its CUSTOMERS.
>
> c) reduce staff to 3. That should be plenty to efficiently serve
> the CUSTOMERS. Smaller staff will also make it easy on the
> Board of Directors.
Ken,
Please note, this your plan, not mine.
I was hoping you would contribute usefully to the discussion, but apparently
this is not going to happen.
Bruce Draney
You forgot (d) and (e)
d) Have three remaining employees do freelance work on company time.
e) Hire the Iraqi information minister to explain how well the USCF is
doing.
Best Regards,
Bruce
John Fernandez
We have OMOV now! :)
John Fernandez
ASCACHESS
>Executive Board the legal board of directors (instead of just de facto, as
>they pretty much are now)?
>
>Responses to the question, rather than remarks about what I should or should
>not know, would be appreciated.
>
>Tim Hanke
>--
Now, don't get your panties in a bunch.
The interference with the office occurs from the EB far more than the
delegates.
Why not get rid of the EB and leave the delegates to perform their statuatory
function?
Rp
Tim Hanke
>
> Why not get rid of the EB and leave the delegates to perform their
statuatory
> function?
Richard,
This isn't the worst idea I've heard. In my opinion, having an Executive
Board AND a collection of delegates is redundant.
However, I don't think having a meeting once a year is sufficient governance
in the modern business environment, so I'd recommend getting rid of the
delegates and giving their power to the Executive Board, which could then
function as a real board of directors similar to other nonprofit
organizations.
But I've noticed, in the course of this campaign, that the insiders never
think much of my "new ideas." They would prefer to stick with the wonderful
concepts and wonderful people who got USCF where we are today: almost broke
and increasingly irrelevant.
Jerome Bibuld
Heil Dubya!
Aha! You seem, at last, to have Timmy Boy right. Congratulations!
Heute Uhmuhrikkka und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!
Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!
Fraternally,
George John
Tim,
-snip-
> However, I don't think having a meeting once a year is sufficient
governance
> in the modern business environment, so I'd recommend getting rid of the
> delegates and giving their power to the Executive Board, which could then
> function as a real board of directors similar to other nonprofit
> organizations.
The Executive Board is *fully* empowered to conduct the business of the
Board of Delegates when they are not in session, constrained only by the
Bylaws and applicable Board of Delegate motions. They are most limited in
the area of memberships, but I have little hope for an organization which
can't get its membership pricing structure straight once a year. We really
don't want to be making adjustments (other than promotional memberships)
more often than this. For whatever its worth, management for the most part
has been getting what it wants in the way of dues changes. The Board of
Delegates haven't been a huge impediment, and many might argue they have
been a useful one. The other primary area of Board of Delegate control is
the approval of the annual budget, but from what I have seen this is mostly
a rubber stamp process, largely granting management the budget it proposes.
So, in the final analysis, I don't see the Board of Delegates as much of an
impediment to the success of the USCF. Worst case, it can continue to serve
its primary function (along with the so-called 'scholastic lobby' and rgcp)
as the 'official' scapegoat of the USCF management team. ;-)
-snip-
George
Louis Blair
> I'd recommend getting rid of the delegates and giving their power
> to the Executive Board, which could then function as a real board
> of directors similar to other nonprofit organizations.
_
"Most of the recent Board members had their brains
devoured by worms long ago" - Timothy Hanke
(2003-02-20 08:50:07 PST)
StanB
> > A better question is "Are there still good business reasons to have an
> > Executive Board".
>
> Hmm, no, I don't think that's really a good question. I think we are
> required by law to have a board of directors. Does anyone know for sure?
You are required to have certain officers such as president, secretary, and
treasure. The rest is dictated by your bylaws which accompany the 1022 or
1023 seeking nonprofit status.
StanB
John Fernandez
meaningless and that our board of directors is whoever feels like showing up at
the US Open.
John Fernandez
StanB
"George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:ugCka.22056$Q27.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> What is your opinion of publicly held corporations that have annual
meetings
> which the shareholders can attend and vote on important matters of the
> corporation?
A joke.
StanB
WinWinscenario
>USCF has to operate in a modern business environment and therefore could
>benefit from quicker decision-making, rather than waiting for a once-a-year
>meeting to be held.
As a matter of political theory, this makes good sense. Democracy and
Capitalism are polar opposites. You can't have more of one unless you have
less of the other. An organization exists somewhere on the continuum between
the two poles. The closer it is to the "C" pole, the more efficient it is.
The closer it is to the "D" pole, the more it can effectuate the things Mr.
Buswell refers to as "non-profit objectives."
>
>2) Another justification I offered for abolishing the delegates was to
>remove important decisions from the hands of interest groups among the
>delegates.
Which goes to the point, a rather obvious one, that the overwhelming majority
of delegates are not qualified to run a chess club, let alone a $6 million
business, and their decision-making reflects this shortcoming over and over.
There are far more Jerry Hanken and Don Schultz types than there are Fan Adams
and Jim Rachels types.
>
>3) Another justification I offered was in response to Mike Nolan, who
>suggested the delegates didn't have much power anyway; I responded, if they
>don't have much power anyway, then it shouldn't cause a problem to get rid
>of them.
This is also irrefutable logic. It might be noted that EBs routinely ignore or
disregard any restrictions imposed by the Delegates that they disagree with,
rendering the Delegates even more ineffective.
You might have added:
4. Elimination or curtailment of the Annual Meeting would save at least $20K.
That is the amount spent on renting facilities, producing written materials,
and organizing the meeting, including staff time.
>
>Tim Hanke
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
Tim Hanke
Hey, what gives. Tom Dorsch agreed with me.
Kenneth Sloan
"Decisions are made by those who show up" C.J. Craig
Greg Wren
some time to reply with comments (24 hours?) and then an online vote being
taken? (The technophobes may object, but hopefully can find someone with
internet access willing to lend a hand) - I suppose every delegate would
have to be given a secure "password" . . . This is one approach.
WPraeder
>
>Tim Hanke
Tim,
For what it is worth, I would also generally agree with your and Tom's points.
I am, however, in favor of an annual meeting of the members but am also
concerned about doing it in the most cost effective manner.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/ilcs/ch805/ch805act105articles/ch
805act105Sub7.htm
>Subject: Re: Do we need the delegates?
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bredband!news-s
pur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!wn13feed!wn12feed!world
net.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc02.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: "Tim Hanke" timoth...@attbi.com
>Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
>References: <WcEka.406243$S_4.474835@rwcrnsc53>
><20030408163717...@mb-cd.aol.com>
>Lines: 65
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
>Message-ID: <5WGka.373111$L1.106939@sccrnsc02>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.30.72.215
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@attbi.com
>X-Trace: sccrnsc02 1049836289 66.30.72.215 (Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:11:29 GMT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:11:29 GMT
>Organization: AT&T Broadband
>Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:11:29 GMT
Edward Bonaventure
of Alabama at Birmingham scribbled:
->so, here's the plan.
->
->a) get rid of the Board of Delegate and make the Executive Board
into the legal Board of Directors
->b) get rid of the idea of "membership" and "voting". These serve
no useful BUSINESS purpose. Make the new Board of Directors
->
->Once free of the Delegates and the Members, the USCF will be able
->to efficiently serve its CUSTOMERS.
->
->c) reduce staff to 3. That should be plenty to efficiently serve
-> the CUSTOMERS. Smaller staff will also make it easy on the
-> Board of Directors.
The final paragraph makes it clear that all of this is apparently
another example of Prof. Sloan's barbed wit.
However, speaking in a more serious vein as a participant in the
momentous 1975 meeting of the Board of Delegates (as it was renamed
by that meeting), I have to note that several notions put forward
here as humorous repartee were then, and likely still are, illegal
under Illinois law. That's what caused the legal crisis which pro-
duced the political crisis that resulted in the unique, massive
gathering at Lincoln, Nebraska, for the 1975 B.O.D. meeting.
Humor is one thing. But people who jabber about such things as
eliminating boards of officers and/or directors or eliminating
elections should do their legal (and historical) homework (as I and
other people did in the 1974-75-76 period) before ranting on in
supposedly serious public banter about such topics. That applies
especially to candidates!
--
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
>>> david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo <<<
>>> Censornati, Ohio - USA <<<
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
* "Always take notes!" -- Gerard of Cremona *
(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)
George John
"Edward Bonaventure" <era...@the.39.square.lotus.chessboard> wrote in
message news:Pine.GSO.4.53.0304091636370.28248@shell1...
-snip-
> Humor is one thing. But people who jabber about such things as
> eliminating boards of officers and/or directors or eliminating
> elections should do their legal (and historical) homework (as I and
> other people did in the 1974-75-76 period) before ranting on in
> supposedly serious public banter about such topics. That applies
> especially to candidates!
What is there in the 1986 Illinois Not-for-Profit Act that prohibits
eliminating the Board of Delegates and transferring power to the Executive
Board?
While I'm not currently in favor of eliminating the Board of Delegates (I
have been a Delegate at the past five meetings), I'm not 100% opposed to
eliminating it either, particularly now that we have OMOV (we do need a way
to recall Board Members though!), and am very willing to discuss the pros
and cons of eliminating the Board of Delegates. I agree with Wayne, that if
the Board of Delegates is eliminated, we should continue to have an annual
membership meeting. I hope that Wayne will share with us more how that
annual membership meeting would fit into the overall governance structure.
Currently, I believe anything that is passed at that meeting goes to the
beginning of the New Business agenda for the Delegates to either pass or
reject.
George
Mike Nolan
>What is there in the 1986 Illinois Not-for-Profit Act that prohibits
>eliminating the Board of Delegates and transferring power to the Executive
>Board?
Nothing as far as I know, though it would take some time to do it, as you
cannot change the term limits for sitting directors. (That's in addition
to the time it takes to figure out how to make the change, it took OMOV
nearly a decade to move out of the class of 'just a screwball idea' and
another five years to be passed. (It may still turn out to BE a screwball
idea, though.)
>While I'm not currently in favor of eliminating the Board of Delegates (I
>have been a Delegate at the past five meetings), I'm not 100% opposed to
>eliminating it either, particularly now that we have OMOV (we do need a way
>to recall Board Members though!), and am very willing to discuss the pros
>and cons of eliminating the Board of Delegates.
A recall doesn't provide an easy means for correcting mistakes made by
the Executive Board. The Delegate get a chance to do this every year.
Under a recall procedure you'd first have to recall and then replace
enough Board members to create a majority willing to make the underlying
policy change, the latter is by no means ensured by the former.
--
Mike Nolan
Edward Bonaventure
->The biggest problem with our "board of directors" is that the
->election is meaningless and that our board of directors is whoever
->feels like showing up at the US Open.
That's two problems. But seriously, I feel that it wasn't like
that in my salad days. The practice of appointing literally anybody
at all to any vacancy at the actual meeting -- in spite of the total
absence of any geographical relationship, and possibly in spite of
the absence of any political relationship with the appointing state
-- seems to me to be a phenomenon of recent times.
I recall that 20 or 30 years ago there were minor controversies
on several occasions when states would appoint Delegates who played
chess or "organized" in their state but lived on the other side of
a state boundary line. People in the "tri-state area" of the
metropolis I reside in could easily identify with this practice,
but it was not always obvious or politically acceptable elsewhere.
More recent practices seem to have gone way beyond this.
The solutions to the problems referred to would appear to be: (1)
tightening up on the residency requirements. E.g., limiting out-
of-state appointments to residency in contiguous states, and then
only under tighter rules. (For the purpose of disclosure, I might
note that I was once in that situation.)
And (2) as another poster noted, attracting what might be
referred to -- with all due respect to present and past incumbents
-- as "better qualified" people. "Better qualified," as the
poster put it, for running a multi-million dollar not-for-profit
hobby organization.
Ideas that could possibly encourage such supposedly "better"
Delegates would include:
o Slightly decreasing the size of the B.O.D. (so as to have a
greater concentration of the best talent).
o Paying remuneration of $100 or $200 per year per Delegate
(which would be small potatoes compared to the expenses involved,
but better than nothing).
o Increasing the number of B.O.D. meetings per year to at least
four (so as to increase the effectiveness of the B.O.D. in oversight
of the organization's affairs).
o Development of a system of standing commissions consisting
entirely of Delegates, with specific legal powers of oversight,
which would report only to the B.O.D.
o Creation of an "inspector general" type office which would be
legally independent of the executive, separately funded, and would
report directly and solely to the B.O.D.
These are just some possibilities. The effect of each idea
individually might be small, but the cumulative effect of implement-
ing several or all could be significant.
--
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
>>> david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo <<<
>>> Censornati, Ohio - USA <<<
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
* No extra charge for ratiocination! *
Edward Bonaventure
of Alabama at Birmingham scribbled:
"Volunteer labor is 100% unreliable." -- James R.A. Schroeder
(who should need no introduction)
--
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
>>> david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo <<<
>>> Censornati, Ohio - USA <<<
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
* Philately will get you nowhere! *
George John
"Edward Bonaventure" <era...@the.39.square.lotus.chessboard> wrote in
-snip-
.
> o Development of a system of standing commissions consisting
> entirely of Delegates, with specific legal powers of oversight,
> which would report only to the B.O.D.
Currently we have LMA, Bylaws, and Ethics. What else would you like to see?
> o Creation of an "inspector general" type office which would be
> legally independent of the executive, separately funded, and would
> report directly and solely to the B.O.D.
Please elaborate a bit on this idea.
-snip-
George
Kenneth Sloan
> "Edward Bonaventure" <era...@the.39.square.lotus.chessboard> wrote in
> message news:Pine.GSO.4.53.0304091724310.28248@shell1...
>
> -snip-
> .
> > o Development of a system of standing commissions consisting
> > entirely of Delegates, with specific legal powers of oversight,
> > which would report only to the B.O.D.
>
> Currently we have LMA, Bylaws, and Ethics. What else would you like to see?
LMA, Bylaws, and Ethics Committee membership is not restricted to
Delegates.
>
> > o Creation of an "inspector general" type office which would be
> > legally independent of the executive, separately funded, and would
> > report directly and solely to the B.O.D.
>
> Please elaborate a bit on this idea.
Sounds a bit like the Executive Board...except that they now answer to
the rabble.
> ...
StanB
> > o Creation of an "inspector general" type office which would be
> > legally independent of the executive, separately funded, and would
> > report directly and solely to the B.O.D.
>
> Please elaborate a bit on this idea.
AKA Internal Control. Jim Pechac's profession. A more affordable idea is an
audit committee.
StanB
Neil Brennen
"George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:xL1la.48689$rd4.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > legally independent of the executive, separately funded, and would
> > report directly and solely to the B.O.D.
>
> Please elaborate a bit on this idea.
Read Gogol.
Mike Nolan
>LMA, Bylaws, and Ethics Committee membership is not restricted to
>Delegates.
As far as I know, there is no Bylaws restruction that would prohibit non-USCF
members from serving on any committee, whether it is one appointed by the
Delegates or one appointed by the Executive Board.
You do have to be a USCF member to be a Delegate or on the Executive Board.
--
Mike Nolan
Mike Nolan
>AKA Internal Control. Jim Pechac's profession. A more affordable idea is an
>audit committee.
Yup, and the Finance Commttee spent several weeks back in November and December
putting together a charter for an audit committee. I don't know that the
Board has acted upon it yet.
--
Mike Nolan
George John
"Mike Nolan" <no...@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:b72m8l$2c4$1...@gw.tssi.com...
Might it make more sense for this to be a Board of Delegates Committee
instead?
George
Edward Bonaventure
On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 at 23:10:21 GMT, "George John" scribbled:
->What else would you like to see?
"Peace for our time," as somebody once said. That would be nice.
->> o Creation of an "inspector general" type office ...
-> Please elaborate a bit on this idea.
No need. Precedents exist elsewhere.
(My thanks to Mike Nolan and Prof. Sloan for answering other
questions that were raised.)
--
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
>>> david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo <<<
>>> Censornati, Ohio - USA <<<
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
* Excelsior! *
Mike Nolan
>> Yup, and the Finance Commttee spent several weeks back in November and
>December
>> putting together a charter for an audit committee. I don't know that the
>> Board has acted upon it yet.
>Might it make more sense for this to be a Board of Delegates Committee
>instead?
The whole concept has some liability issues. In most corporations the
audit committee is a subset of the Board of Directors, but that means
they also have coverage under the Board's D&O insurance. The Board
has this coverage year-round, the Delegates only during their meetings.
If an audit committee is empowered by the Delegates and can take any
action or even be contacted by the auditors (in some kind of whistle-blowing
situation when the auditors feel the ED or the Board may be compromised,
for example), it may need to be included in the D&O policy. If it is just
an advisory committee to the Board, it may not need that coverage.
Insurance companies seldom expand coverage for free.
As the FC gets ready to make its committee report and prepare ADM's for LA,
we'll revisit this recommendation.
BTW, committee chairs and Delegates: Committee reports are due on May
15th, ADM's by June 2nd.
--
Mike Nolan
Ernest W. Schlich
<< so, here's the plan.
a) get rid of the Board of Delegate and make the Executive Board into
the legal Board of Directors
b) get rid of the idea of "membership" and "voting". These serve no
useful BUSINESS purpose. Make the new Board of Directors
self-perpetuating.
Once free of the Delegates and the Members, the USCF will be able to
efficiently serve its CUSTOMERS.
c) reduce staff to 3. That should be plenty to efficiently serve
the CUSTOMERS. Smaller staff will also make it easy on the
Board of Directors. >>
Hi Ken. You forgot to post the sarcasm indicator.
Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich <ESch...@aol.com
Jerome Bibuld
Heil Dubya!
I think Professor Sloan's English was perfectly clear. The "sarcasm indicator"
may have been necessary for Herr Hanke and his supporters, but, for those of us
who understand the English language -- as opposed to Dubya double talk -- it
was not necessary.
Heute Uhmuhrikkka und Iraq. Morgen die ganze Welt!
Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber
Alles!
Fraternally,
Jerry Bibuld
gens una sumus
StanB
No.
StanB
BREDALBANE
organization?. If so, good. Once required to show a profit, they will get rid
of the dead weight.
Scott Campbell
Louis Blair
> Why not get rid of the delegates and have
> the USCF Executive Board be an actual board of directors?
_
Tim Hanke wrote:
> I've noticed, in the course of this campaign, that the insiders
> never think much of my "new ideas."
_
George John wrote:
> I ... am very willing to discuss the pros and cons of eliminating
> the Board of Delegates.
_
I think it would be better to discuss the "new ideas" that Timothy
Hanke apparently does not want to have to sell to the delegates.
How eager is Timothy Hanke to talk about his "Grand Scheme"?
It seems to me that we have not seen much about it here since the
note that contained:
"It isn't my nature to do things gradually, but I'm coming
to the painful realization it's hard to make changes to an
existing organization like the USCF.
... it may not be possible to make radical changes to USCF
quickly, without killing the patient." - Timothy Hanke
(2003-02-28 07:30:37 PST)
Ernest W. Schlich
In article <Pine.GSO.4.53.0304091724310.28248@shell1>, Edward Bonaventure
<era...@the.39.square.lotus.chessboard> wrote:
<< That's two problems. But seriously, I feel that it wasn't like that in
my salad days. The practice of appointing literally anybody at all to any
vacancy at the actual meeting -- in spite of the total absence of any
geographical relationship, and possibly in spite of the absence of any
political relationship with the appointing state -- seems to me to be a
phenomenon of recent times. >>
This process has been around for a long time. When I attended my first US Open
in Chicago around 1979.
There are some good points to the current system. First, as was the case when I
lived in NH, there was only one delegate spot and two very interested members
who routinely attended US Opens. Having a mechanism to allow both to serve as a
delegate both allowed interested members to participate and perhaps also
reduced potential conflict at the state level in the competition for the
delegate spot.
Another reason why the system exists is to make easier to have the required
quorum.
Finally, as first, you have to be appointed by a state representative, and 2nd
you come at the end of the line following all the properly elected delegates
and alternate delegates for whichever state you are trying to represent, there
is a some quality control to insure that those added have the respect of those
they represent. I returned to VA in 2000, after the Delegate nominations were
closed. I was added to the Texas delegation after making a request.
It is my opinion that the majority of added delegates are interested in seeing
the issues properly considered and benefit the governance process. However, as
I have occasionally been a beneficiary of the process, I cannot be considered
disinterested.