Ethical Chairs
JimEade
newsgroup. Mr. Thall is chair of the delegates appointed committee on Ethics
within the USCF.
When I attended Kolty's 95th birthday party I got an earful about Mr. Thall.
Perhaps he will be good enough to address some of my concerns. (The account I
give is second hand. It is what I remember from a discussion with three former
PB members, who are usually pretty informed about these things.)
It seems that Mr. Thall ran for chair of the Ethics committee knowing that the
first item of busines would be the 100 page ethics complaint filed by Bill
Goichberg against Tom Dorsch (apparently Bill downloaded a bunch of postings
from deja-news and submitted them), and Tom's counter complaint.
Bill Goichberg complains about a member of the committee being involved in any
ruling on this matter, because of his long standing political differences with
this person. Mr. Thall agrees and recuses the individual (which is illogical,
but that's what they said he tried to do. My understanding is that a person
can recuse themself, but not another.) Apparently, he lectures the committee
that they must be above politics, without realizing that he has just
politicized it by agreeing to Bill's request.
Next, Dorsch argues against a member of the office staff being involved in the
process, because of long standing political differences between the two of
them. He is given a stern warning about interferring with the committee! Not
only does Mr. Thall grant a request by Bill Goichberg (one party in the
dispute), but he professes outrage that the other party would dare to make a
similar request at all. (Remember, this is the Chair of our Ethics committee,
we're talking about.)
Now, I've got my head in my hands at this point listening to the story. I'm
thinking this can't get any goofier. Well, it does. It turns out that Mr.
Thall has agreed to work for Bill at an upcoming tournament. Mr. Thall
realizes that this is a conflict and recuses himself from further involvement
in the matter. His rulings against Dorsch and in favor of Goichberg have
already been made, of course.
Thankfully, some members of the Ethics committee step in and set things right.
No one is off the case, unless they take themselves off. The matter seems to
have become de-politicized once again.
One thing I'm not sure about though. At what point did Mr. Thall agree to go
work for Bill? Did Goichberg offer Mr. Thall a job before Mr. Thall was made
Chair of the Ethics committee, or while he was Chair, but before he made a
pro-Goichberg ruling, or after the pro-Goichberg ruling was made?
It stinks in any event, but for different reasons. Of course, the anticipated
backlash will be outrage that Eade would post such a thing. Cooler heads will
realize that I am reporting what multiple sources have confirmed, although I
may not have the story 100% correct. I would gladly accept any correction on
matters of fact, so that we can all draw the proper conclusions.
Mr. Thall, do I have the story right? When did you agree to work for Bill and
when did you inform the committee about your agreement? Why did you agree to
take the action requested by Bill and throw a fit when Dorsch made a similar
request? don't you agree that the Ethics Chair should not put himself in a
position where people would even wonder about payoffs?
James Eade
Hypermodern Press
Andrew Thall
start. I relied on advice from several people who have previously served on
the Ethics Committee and made preliminary rulings. I always stated to the
Committee that the Committee could, at its will, overrule any decision I
made.
The agreement with Goichberg to assist at Las Vegas was made at Kona. There
was absolutely no discussion of the Ethics Committee -- not the first
word -- with Goichberg. I approached him. My reason was very simple. My
wife and I met and married in Las Vegas and the tournament is only 6 weeks
before our 10th anniversary. Since my wife let me go to Kona without her,
it was my way of giving her a vacation. I didn't give any more thought to
it.
The campaign for the Chair was held about 1 week after Kona. When I ran, I
gave no thought to my agreement with Goichberg. Had I thought of it, I
would not have run. Its as simple as that.
When I received the recusal request/complaint from Goichberg, I immediately
contacted a former member of the Committee who had great expertise in past
practices. The advice given was to follow prior presidence and recuse all
candidates for the Policy Board. That decision was eventually overturned by
the will of the Committee.
Shortly after that, two e-mails were sent, by two of the Committee members.
Both of the messages were internal Committee business, but both had carbon
copies sent to Dorsch and Doyle. In my opinion, the sending of internal
Committee correspondence to outside parties -- especially to one of the
parties who would be involved in the upcoming complaint -- was, on the face
of it, a conflict of interest and I moved to recuse the Committee members.
It was at about this time that I realized that I had a conflict and would
have to recuse myself. I requested that the Committee vote for a Vice-Chair
who would handle the complaint. Bob Smith was elected. I told Bob that I
would support all decisions he made -- including any decisions to over turn
my rulings. To assure that I would be out of the loop, I instructed Ken
Sloan to create another e-mail address the Committee could use that would
not forward to me any of the internal Committee discussions concerning the
Goichberg-Dorsch matter. Another thing that I did before recusing myself was
to establish a time-line for the parties to respond to the complaints and
counter arguments. That time-line was forwarded to the entire Committee and
to Dorsch and Goichberg.
Please note that I am keeping the identies of people I ruled against out of
print. If those names have been discussed, it has been by others and not by
me.
Andrew Thall
Chairman, Ethics Committee
JimEade
does not disgust - or what is worse, bore - us with excuses.
Yet there were two parties, not just the one, who together moved the Ethics
complaint forward, all the while knowing, but not acknowledging their business
relationship. Bill Goichberg petitioned Mr. Thall to have him disenfranchise a
(delegates appointed) member of the Ethics committee.
We know now, from Mr Thall, that Bill Goichberg made this request after he
had arranged to employ Mr. Thall in one of his tournaments. Cozy, cozy, cozy.
Mr. Thall understands that this was wrong. Does Mr. Goichberg?
It was wrong of Bill to politicize the committee in the first place. If we
excluded everyone who has a beef with Goichberg and/or Dorsch, there would be
none left to serve.
More importantly, the delegates appointed these people precisely because they
felt that they could rule on anyone at anytime or would recuse themselves as
appropriate. The delegates wanted these people on this committee, and it should
not be up to Goichberg or his hirelings to determine who rules on what.
Bill you can't offer some one a job and then ask them to do you a favor. It is
wrong. As Ross Perot would put it, this is the carzy aunt in the attic no one
has been willing to talk about in the USCF Family.
I doubt Andy Thall will make this mistake again. I am convinced that Bill
Goichberg will.
James Eade
Hypermodern Press
Andrew Thall
a request from Dorsch. I do not consider a request made to a Chairman of
ANY committee for a ruling based on a factual presentation to be
politicization per se. No where in his communication to me was any mention
made of our agreement to have me work for him.
For the record, I have directed for Bill several times in the past -- at the
World Open, St. Louis, Kings Island to name a few. He was helpful in
letting me get in the necessary 100-player tournaments so that I could
become an NTD.
Despite this, anyone who knows me knows that I would not show bias in making
any decisions in the Ethics Committee. Frankly, I am of the opinion that
the disagreements between Dorsch and Goichberg do not belong in front of the
Ethics Committee at all. If Dorsch could prove his charge that Goichberg
profited illegally, then he should take that evidence to a District Attorney
and have charges brought. If Goichberg is certain that he could show that
Dorsch has slandered or libeled him, then he should sue him. There is so
much animus between them that I think the only solution would be pistols at
20 paces. However, the matter has been placed in the Committee's hands at
the express direction of the Delegates. I dare say that no matter what
decision is made by the Committee, the dispute between Dorsch and Goichberg
will continue for years to come -- much to the detriment of chess.
Andy Thall
JimEade
>a request from Dorsch.
Buzzer sound! I don't think so. I was told that you objected in outrage when
Dorsch made precisely the same sort of challenge that Bill made.
You ruled for Bill and lectured Dorsch. It didn't sound very impartial the way
it was told to me.
Don't forget, there is a history of a double standard here. When Dorsch
filed an ethics complaint against Goichberg (when Goichberg committed the most
egregious breach of confidentiality imaginable) the Ethics committee refused to
hear it. When Goichberg files against Dorsch they apparently take it.
The Policy Board code of conduct clearly does not govern Internet postings.
Nor does it cover Bill's bad mouthing of me at his tournaments. It governs us
when we are in session conducting official business.
IMHO, the committee should first rule on whether it should even hear the case.
>> I do not consider a request made to a Chairman of
>ANY committee for a ruling based on a factual presentation to be
>politicization per se.
Huh? Bill raised an objection to a (delegates appointed) member. The
objection was based on their past political differences. You removed that
person, and I would say that you did so illegally.
You ruled that, because of politics, one member would not be allowed to
participate. I think you exceeded your authority. Fortunately, your decision
was over turned, but there is no question that the process had been
politicized.
>No where in his communication to me was any mention
>made of our agreement to have me work for him.
>
So? You both new it existed, and neither of you, at that time, had informed
the other committee members of its existence. That's the point.
>For the record, I have directed for Bill several times in the past -- at the
>World Open, St. Louis, Kings Island to name a few. He was helpful in
>letting me get in the necessary 100-player tournaments so that I could
>become an NTD.
>
>Despite this, anyone who knows me knows that I would not show bias in making
>any decisions in the Ethics Committee.
People who do not know you would draw the exact opposite conclusion based on
your early rulings.
Frankly, I am of the opinion that
>the disagreements between Dorsch and Goichberg do not belong in front of the
>Ethics Committee at all. If Dorsch could prove his charge that Goichberg
>profited illegally, then he should take that evidence to a District Attorney
>and have charges brought. If Goichberg is certain that he could show that
>Dorsch has slandered or libeled him, then he should sue him. There is so
>much animus between them that I think the only solution would be pistols at
>20 paces.
I agree. It is clearly childish of Bill to continue to pursue an ethics
complaint. If the ethics committe rules that free speech does not exist for
Board members outside of Board meetings, they will certainly regret it. If the
USCF tries to constrain Internet postings, they will find themselves unable to
do so. Clearly the law protects Bill, and if he chooses not to avail himself
of its protections that's his call. Dragging others into his messy fights is a
cowardly act.
> However, the matter has been placed in the Committee's hands at
>the express direction of the Delegates.
I beg your pardon? When did that happen? The delegates took no action on this
matter. They established the committee. Period. Bill filed his complaint.
That's when it was "placed in your hands". The delegates had no part in that.
The delegates chose people they expected would rule on controversial and
delicate matters, and entrusted them to recuse themselves when appropriate.
You, belatedly, demonstrated that their trust in you was well founded. You
did, however, get off to a rocky start.
I dare say that no matter what
>decision is made by the Committee, the dispute between Dorsch and Goichberg
>will continue for years to come -- much to the detriment of chess.
>
>Andy Thall
>
>
I agree with this last bit as well.
James Eade
Hypermodern Press