Johnny Poorknight, The Poor Little Third Grade Chess Player.
Bruce Draney
Yes, Johnny?
USCF raised my dues to $19.00. Can I still play chess?
I'm sorry Johnny, but we're very poor and it's either eat or pay $19.00
for you to play chess. You'll have to sell your clock, board and set,
because we're no longer able to afford it.
But mommy? Didn't you pay $300.00 for hotel rooms, and $100.00 for
entry fees to the four tournaments I played in last year, plus buy me a
clock, board and set and take me out to eat at least 12 times at a total
cost of at least $60.00? I'm only in third grade mom, but when I added
that up $4.00 didn't seem like it should put an undue burden on our
finances?
Don't argue with me Johnny. We're poor and that's all I want to hear
about it. You are too young to understand elasticity of demand curves,
but the USCF delegates are exactly right that we are way too poor to pay
$19.00/year. Clearly, adult dues at $49.00 are inelastic and children's
dues at $19.00 are elastic.
Mom?
Yes Johnny?
Can I play soccer instead?
Sure Johnny. Here's a check for $50.00. Sign up tomorrow.
And so Johnny Poorknight, was able to lead a normal, happy life despite
the evil USCF raising his dues to $19.00/year.
Johnny was able to pawn his baseball cards so that he could purchase
$100.00 Nikes and play right field for the Poughkeepsie Poopheads.
Johnny and his mother never returned to chess, and Johnny remained poor
for the rest of his days.
Johnny however did not give up on chess. He later became a scholastic
coach and equipment vendor and fought hard to keep dues as low as
possible for the rest of USCF's days. Unlike his mother Johnny became
wealthy and moved into the fanciest house in Dallas Fort-Worth, mostly
using income from his local chess equipment business.
Johnny also started his own separate scholastic chess organization
which offered ratings for free and hundreds of thousands of poor
children just like Johnny were able to enjoy chess in America.
Best Regards,
Bruce
George John
"Bruce Draney" <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:3DC4AE...@novia.net...
-snip-
Bruce,
I have some questions for you. Would you believe it if someone were to tell
you the following:
1) there are children who can afford to pay nothing for chess or any other
extracurricular activity?
2) these children participate in chess ONLY because a school, or club pays
for their activity?
3) many of these schools and clubs are on a fixed budget?
4) if dues are raised these schools or clubs will be forced to tell some of
these children they can no longer participate in chess?
-snip-
I have one more question for you. Have you ever been a scholastic chess
coach for poor children?
George
Bruce Draney
>
> "Bruce Draney" <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
> news:3DC4AE...@novia.net...
>
> -snip-
>
> Bruce,
>
> I have some questions for you. Would you believe it if someone were to tell
> you the following:
>
> 1) there are children who can afford to pay nothing for chess or any other
> extracurricular activity?
I've been teaching for over 20 years George. I believe there are many
children who can't afford to pay anything to join USCF and they don't.
>
> 2) these children participate in chess ONLY because a school, or club pays
> for their activity?
I had some kids that joined when the school paid for their memberships
and some that didn't join even if the school offered to pay it. I had
some who would join even if the school didn't pay for it, and I have
some that wouldn't pay anything to play rated chess.
Are entry fees to your tournaments free for poor children George or do
you have a standard entry fee? If you have a standard entry fee is it
at least $13.00? Do you charge children who register late an extra fee
for the trouble and confusion caused by late entries? If so do you
charge them $5.00 or more?
>
> 3) many of these schools and clubs are on a fixed budget?
Many adults are on a fixed budget too.
>
> 4) if dues are raised these schools or clubs will be forced to tell some of
> these children they can no longer participate in chess?
Nonsense. They can run a chess club. What you mean is they can't join
USCF or play in rated chess events by USCF. This is not even true by
the way. You can actually run school events without requiring USCF
membership using the old JTP memberships. You can also offer JTP's to
all children K-3 as long as they play in K-3 sections.
>
> -snip-
>
> I have one more question for you. Have you ever been a scholastic chess
> coach for poor children?
One of my good friends in New York was one of the best childrens' chess
coaches in the U.S.. He worked his butt off every year to raise mega
money to get his kids to play in USCF events. His kids were among the
poorest of the poor, but you know what, he managed to get his kids to
Orlando, Peoria, Terra Haute or wherever else nationals were being held
and you know what else, I don't believe that he was wringing his hands
in anger claiming that $4.00 more per child was going to destroy chess
at his school.
When state organizations stop raising their own dues on kids and
organizers stop charging entry fees that are higher than an entire
year's dues to the same kids you're saying are too poor to afford them
I'll believe it.
One other thing, this was meant humorously.
>
> George
Best Regards,
Bruce
Ron Suarez
Poor is poor. We do live in a capitalistically run economic society.
The only way for the poor in our society to become "not poor" is to
get into a system where they learn how to earn a decent income. The
cost to play chess is not high compared to other activities for all
ages.
If the school system is on such a fixed budget that they cannot afford
normal increases in costs, then they have more problems than letting
little Johnny play chess! An increase in cost of a few dollars a year
should be expected and prepared for. I am sorry if some think they
will not be able to afford it. They obviously need to learn a few
lessons in life. Most items in our society have raised in cost over
the last five to six years. How long has it been since USCF dues have
increased? The USCF's bills increase as all others do. I am sure the
school has other increased costs for things like books, heating, etc.
Maybe it is time to break apart the fees that are charged for chess.
If this is done, I can assure you the ultimate cost to the individual
will increase.
I do agree with Bruce and his wonderfully humorous insight on the
situation.
Ron Suarez
Neil Brennen
> When state organizations stop raising their own dues on kids and
> organizers stop charging entry fees that are higher than an entire
> year's dues to the same kids you're saying are too poor to afford them
> I'll believe it.
I'll note here the PSCF charges adults and kiddies the same dues, with no
undue hardship to kids. The cost of playing in the PSCF Scholastic in
Bloomsburg far exceeds the cost of USCF membership.
I should add there is a PSCF Board motion from 2001 to increase dues up to
$10 a year for the purpose of improving The Pennswoodpusher. The Board
motion applies to adult dues only, I understand.
> One other thing, this was meant humorously.
I thought it was a brilliant skewering of a "John" who moved to Texas.
George John
Bruce,
-snip-
> Are entry fees to your tournaments free for poor children George or do
> you have a standard entry fee?
There is a standard entry fee, but I have been willing to consider waiving
fees for those children who are on the free-lunch program. No one has
approached me to do so, however.
> If you have a standard entry fee is it
> at least $13.00?
$7.00 is not uncommon. I'm doing my every three year event in February.
The entry fee will be $10.00.
> Do you charge children who register late an extra fee
> for the trouble and confusion caused by late entries?
Yes.
> If so do you
> charge them $5.00 or more?
Yes. But I'm running two TLA (three if School Mates comes out again, but
that's uncertain), already have a Website up, and fliers will be circulated
at major scholastic events in time to beat the deadline.
> > 3) many of these schools and clubs are on a fixed budget?
>
> Many adults are on a fixed budget too.
This is apples-to-oranges. The analogy would be if adults who could afford
to pay $0 for chess were being subsidized by a club. Society tends to do
more to look out for its children than adults. Normal adults are assumed to
be able to take care of themselves. No such assumption is made about
children.
> > 4) if dues are raised these schools or clubs will be forced to tell some
of
> > these children they can no longer participate in chess?
>
> Nonsense. They can run a chess club. What you mean is they can't join
> USCF or play in rated chess events by USCF.
Correct. That's what I meant. The result would be some of the kids who
could play in the rated in-house events can do so no longer. When they look
at the USCF Website using a school computer, they will no longer see their
rating change while some of their peers will. To avoid cutting 31% of the
students, the school might decide to drop all USCF play.
> This is not even true by
> the way. You can actually run school events without requiring USCF
> membership using the old JTP memberships.
Is that program still offered? I thought it had been cut.
> You can also offer JTP's to
> all children K-3 as long as they play in K-3 sections.
Is that still offered? I recently tried to find this on the USCF Website
and could not do so. I'm running an event with a Primary section in
February and was wondering if USCF membership was required or not. If you
can find any information about this on the Web that would be great.
> > I have one more question for you. Have you ever been a scholastic chess
> > coach for poor children?
>
> One of my good friends in New York was one of the best children's chess
> coaches in the U.S.. He worked his butt off every year to raise mega
> money to get his kids to play in USCF events.
Good for him!
> His kids were among the
> poorest of the poor, but you know what, he managed to get his kids to
> Orlando, Peoria, Terra Haute or wherever else nationals were being held
> and you know what else, I don't believe that he was wringing his hands
> in anger claiming that $4.00 more per child was going to destroy chess
> at his school.
Fundraising may be a bit easier in NYC than it is in parts of Texas.
> When state organizations stop raising their own dues on kids and
The TCA allows a $1.00, no-magazine, one tournament only, membership fee for
any of its scholastic events. Our membership fees haven't changed in years
and is currently $7.50 a year. That includes 6 magazines.
> organizers stop charging entry fees that are higher than an entire
> year's dues to the same kids you're saying are too poor to afford them
> I'll believe it.
The Houston Chess Association (http://www.hschess.org/) charges a $7.00
entry fee. Assume a child goes to three such events a year. The current
total charge, including membership, would be $34. After the dues increase
it would be $40. In this instance, a school would have to cut 17.5% of its
hardship kids who could not get the US Chess Trust memberships.
> One other thing, this was meant humorously.
I understand, but since the humor may have applied to poor kids I felt like
I needed to say something.
George
Tom Klem
Isn't it possible, that based on a demonstrated need, the USCF could/would
waive all fees for some children? Didn't that in fact happen in Brooklyn,
NY?
Just curious.
Tom Klem
"George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:jv2x9.267785$121.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
John Fernandez
Hardship cases should be free, not $13.
Would that perhaps push us towards 501(c)3?
John Fernandez
George John
"Ron Suarez" <ron_suar...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3dc4be12...@news.bwsys.net...
Ron,
> Poor is poor. We do live in a capitalistically run economic society.
We live in a mixed economy. Even those, who are altruistically challenged,
should have an enlightened self-interest in seeing that all children receive
a quality education, and extracurricular activities are part of a quality
education, IMHO.
> The only way for the poor in our society to become "not poor" is to
> get into a system where they learn how to earn a decent income.
How do you propose a nine year old child do that, please?
> The
> cost to play chess is not high compared to other activities for all
> ages.
Okay ...? And, if a family can afford to spend only $0, does it matter
whether the activity is $40 a year or $400? To a school on a fixed (or
shrinking) budget, it very much matters.
>
> If the school system is on such a fixed budget that they cannot afford
> normal increases in costs,
A 46% increase in a cost is not 'normal' IMO.
> then they have more problems than letting
> little Johnny play chess!
And your experience with poor schools is ...?
> An increase in cost of a few dollars a year
> should be expected and prepared for.
I don't consider a $6.00 increase when compared to a base of $13 to be
either "expected" or something to "prepare for".
> I am sorry if some think they
> will not be able to afford it.
It not a question about "thinking". It's reality for some.
> They obviously need to learn a few
> lessons in life.
Who does "they" refer to? What "lessons" do you propose sharing with them?
> Most items in our society have raised in cost over
> the last five to six years. How long has it been since USCF dues have
> increased?
They changed in January 1, 2001 when they went from as little as $7 for a
first time student to $13. Renewing students went from $12 to $13. Youth
members went from $17 to $20.
> The USCF's bills increase as all others do. I am sure the
> school has other increased costs for things like books, heating, etc.
I imagine they have, which puts even more pressure on extracurricular
budgets.
> Maybe it is time to break apart the fees that are charged for chess.
In a sense that is what will happen to the scholastic membership January 1,
2003. The cost for the right to play in tournaments will be $13. To get
the magazine one pays an extra $6.
This already happened for adults, too. While the regular membership was
$40, there has been an Internet (Economy) membership for $32 (no magazine)
> If this is done, I can assure you the ultimate cost to the individual
> will increase.
No doubt.
-snip-
George
George John
"Tom Klem" <the...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:Jv3x9.335055$o.36...@news1.west.cox.net...
Tom,
-snip-
> Isn't it possible, that based on a demonstrated need, the USCF could/would
> waive all fees for some children? Didn't that in fact happen in Brooklyn,
> NY?
It's certainly possible, after all they are waiving most of the fees for the
NCAL state scholastic.
Seriously, a school that has kids that want to play chess but can't afford
the fees should at least ask for either a full or partial waiver. The worst
that will happen is they will hear "no" (although hearing "no" can hurt).
George
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
news:20021103015324...@mb-cg.aol.com...
John,
> George,
>
> Hardship cases should be free, not $13.
>
> Would that perhaps push us towards 501(c)3?
The US Chess Trust is 501(c)(3). They offer the free memberships. It's not
a well-advertised program though, and it's not available to all children in
a school since the maximum is 10 per school. Plus, you have families that
don't meet the free-lunch criteria, but are just getting by.
George
John Fernandez
>From: "George John" geo...@neosoft.com
>Date: 11/3/2002 2:40 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Rp4x9.268946$121.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>
I'm asking why we need the US Chess Trust to do that.
Can't we do that ourselves?
John Fernandez
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
-snip-
> Can't we do that ourselves?
Given the current USCF finances, I don't think the USCF can afford to give
out free memberships.
-snip-
George
John Fernandez
>From: "George John" geo...@neosoft.com
>Message-id: <wH4x9.269050$121.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>
George...
Rewind a second here.
There's a logical inconsistency with the way the USCF is going about this.
First of all, I'd like to know why the USCF and US Chess Trust can't be one
body. It seems like it would be a home run if we were a 501(c)(3).
Secondly, we're making a financial model for memberships based on "hardships",
when there is a 501(c)(3) organization specifically created to handle such
"hardships" (heck, it's in the same building!). This leads me to believe that
there are two possibilities for this:
- The "hardship" issue is bullshit
or
- The US Chess Trust isn't doing a good enough job
Which is it?
Why are there a lot of 501(c)(3)s in the USA doing chess related stuff which
should be part of our mission statement, but aren't being done by us? (c.f. US
Chess Trust, America's Foundation For Chess, Chess-In-The-Schools, etc. etc.)
John Fernandez
Tom Klem
Aren't there any magnanimus persons in Texas? I hope you are not telling me
that a demonstrated need would not be provided for in the context of Chess.
Tom Klem
"George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:jk4x9.268915$121.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Tom Klem
Providing for Chess education.
In this day and age, I simply cannot accept that children would be denied
something as inexpensive, and fulfilling as the thrill of belonging to a
chess club and major chess organization like the USCF.
I have heard some rather disturbing things here about scholastic funding,
and I hope they are not true.
Tom Klem
"George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:Zm4x9.268933$121.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
AlforChess
Hi, George--
I agree with some of the things you say, but, regardless of the percentage rate
of increase, we're talking about a few dollars in a YEAR.
I think the ultimate solution to USCF's Great Schism is that not every kid
playing chess in school needs to be a USCF member.
Programs can be USCF affiliated, and we should think of ways to do that.
But, in general, USCF and the rest of us should be happy that kids are playing
chess and that some small percentage of them will want to be more seriously
involved and join USCF.
Regards, al
The Dirty Vicar
list, plus a search of several people finding websites, reveals the truth:
THERE IS NO JOHNNY POORKNIGHT!!! You made up the whole story to push your
evil capitalistic agenda! How dare you suggest that adult USCF members
shouldn't subsidize well-off children and the scholastic organizer/equipment
sellers cabal!?
You capitalist lackey tool! Now you have no choice but to retire permanently
from RGCP and USCF with your head hung in eternal shame!!!
"Bruce Draney" <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:3DC4AE...@novia.net...
StanB
"Bruce Draney" <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
> Johnny was able to pawn his baseball cards so that he could purchase
> $100.00 Nikes and play right field for the Poughkeepsie Poopheads.
Didn't Larry Parr use to pitch for the Poopheads?
StanB
ASCACHESS
>normal increases in costs, then they have more problems than letting
>little Johnny play chess!
Typically the districts are not the ones who pay USCF memberships. In fact,
they are legally prevented from doing this in more than half the states.
Rp
Bruce Draney
No, you're thinking of the Singapore Shitkickers.
Best Regards,
Bruce
George John
Tom,
> Aren't there any magnanimus persons in Texas?
There are, but they get a lot of requests for their money for many different
parties.
> I hope you are not telling me
> that a demonstrated need would not be provided for in the context of
Chess.
It depends on if they have exhausted their budgets in other areas already.
With the down market, Enron dominoes, etc. people aren't giving as much
money as they have before. I'm not saying it's impossible, it is just much
more difficult than it was a year or two ago. Being faced with raising
prices and less giving isn't a great combination.
Plus, some of these schools and clubs don't know how to go about looking for
extra money, particularly in a very economically depressed area. It's not
exactly widely advertised how to go about doing that.
George
George John
"AlforChess" <alfor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021103054247...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> << A 46% increase in a cost is not 'normal' IMO. >>
>
>
> Hi, George--
>
> I agree with some of the things you say, but, regardless of the percentage
rate
> of increase, we're talking about a few dollars in a YEAR.
It's $6.00 a year per student which adds up on a very tight budget.
I have a question for you. How recently have you talked with coaches and
teachers who work in very economically disadvantaged areas about the
problems they face with money and their chess programs? Have you ever
coached in a poor school before?
> I think the ultimate solution to USCF's Great Schism is that not every kid
> playing chess in school needs to be a USCF member.
That may be, but when raise prices go up and budgets do not, you are faced
with telling children who were members that they no longer can be members.
Instead of making the hard decision of cutting some of the children, you
might decide to cut all of them, which either means discontinue the chess
program altogether or drop USCF memberships and participation in USCF events
altogether.
> Programs can be USCF affiliated, and we should think of ways to do that.
I'm willing to think outside of the box. What do you have in mind?
> But, in general, USCF and the rest of us should be happy that kids are
playing
> chess and that some small percentage of them will want to be more
seriously
> involved and join USCF.
This sounds like the small tent model. I'm not surprised that this is what
you may be advocating. That's not meant to be an insult, BTW. It also may
be the correct model, but I'm far from convinced that this is true, and it's
certainly NOT what I want.
If we can't make money on a $13 membership with no magazine (the basic cost
is entering some information on a computer and sending them a membership
card), then the USCF is FOOBAR beyond all hope. We should want these $13
members, as many as we can possibly get. They should be revenue positive,
are helping promote the mission, and increasing membership counts.
Since you are a past USCF Executive Director, I am honestly surprised by
some of your comments. I look forward to your response.
George
George John
Tom,
> I thought that this was the very purpose chartered by the Chess Trust.
> Providing for Chess education.
I don't know, but that sounds very reasonable.
> In this day and age, I simply cannot accept that children would be denied
> something as inexpensive, and fulfilling as the thrill of belonging to a
> chess club and major chess organization like the USCF.
I AGREE!!
> I have heard some rather disturbing things here about scholastic funding,
> and I hope they are not true.
I have heard of problems, too. I'm hoping these are mostly due to
communication issues. What I don't know, but need to find out, is how does
the US Chess Trust advertise their free memberships and how close they come
to using up their budget for free memberships each year.
Maybe someone who is on the Trust will read this and fill us in. I don't
think the Trust has its own Website, and I'm not very aware of their
financials or much of anything in the way of how they spend their money
other than what I have found at http://www.uschess.org/org/patrons.html#PP
On that page they show contributors and tell us how to contribute. One
might think they would also let us know how contributions are used beyond
just some very general statements.
There is also no program information available to those who might have needs
that the Trust can fulfill.
They have a nice carrot right now to donate $10. I wonder how many people
know about this? I didn't until now.
"
Donate $10 to the U.S. Chess Trust for a chance to
win an American AirlinesT
round trip flight anywhere in the
continental United States and Canada
No blackout dates - 14-day advance booking required
Expires one year from date of issue
All donations to the Chess Trust are tax-deductible "
I might actually give them $10.00 if I were to learn a bit more about where
the money has gone in the past and where it might go in the future.
George
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
> First of all, I'd like to know why the USCF and US Chess Trust can't be
one
> body. It seems like it would be a home run if we were a 501(c)(3).
One of my many asked but not answered questions is why the USCF is a
501(c)(4) and not a 501(c)(3) organization. I'm certain there are good
reasons, I just haven't heard them from anyone.
> Secondly, we're making a financial model for memberships based on
"hardships",
It's a part of the financial model. It's far from all of it.
> when there is a 501(c)(3) organization specifically created to handle such
> "hardships" (heck, it's in the same building!). This leads me to believe
that
> there are two possibilities for this:
> - The "hardship" issue is bullshit
>
> or
>
> - The US Chess Trust isn't doing a good enough job
>
> Which is it?
You have raised good questions. I don't know the answers beyond what I have
been told by leadership and talking to coaches. I believe the hardship
issue is real in some cases. I don't know the numbers though, and it may be
overblown and possibly could be completely solved by the Trust. If the
Trust works like the USCF, we already have the answer for your second
possibility. :-( I can't find on the US Chess Trust Webpage
(http://www.uschess.org/org/patrons.html#PP) any information about the free
membership program. If that's a major service they provide, information
about it should be there! I also can't find any financials on the Web,
which would hopefully disclose prior year spending on the free membership
program.
> Why are there a lot of 501(c)(3)s in the USA doing chess related stuff
which
> should be part of our mission statement, but aren't being done by us?
(c.f. US
> Chess Trust, America's Foundation For Chess, Chess-In-The-Schools, etc.
etc.)
The USCF's mission may be too broad for it to be a 501(c)(3). The Trust
handles the part which qualifies. Some of what the USCF does may preclude a
501(c)(3) being an option. I just don't know.
I have been interested in seeing the USCF possibly forming an organization
whose mission is "fostering national or international amateur sports
competition". This can qualify for 501(c)(3) (see
http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96099,00.html). I thought this
was in the works, but I haven't heard any news about this other than a
committee was formed to explore this. Too many good ideas die in
committees. I hope this isn't one of them.
George
George John
"Less Paul" <lessp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%qax9.55150$bt.7...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> Assume scholastic membership rates were raised to $19.
>
> Would it be possible to have discount scholastic memberships that do not
> have a magazine for students under financial duress? One copy of
SchoolMates
> would then be sent to the school library or chess club.
>
> Just about any criteria could be used for qualification for hardship, as
the
> vast majority of kid would want SchoolMates of their own; mom and dad
would
> happily sign up for a $19 membership.
Less,
You idea is certainly a good one at first glance, and worth exploring
further. My understanding of the $13 no-magazine membership is exactly what
you described, except that hardship does not have to be demonstrated. Maybe
that's a problematic 'except' though. The issue is how much red-tape would
be generated and the cost involved with dealing with it? I can see the need
for free memberships. But for a (likely) revenue positive $13 membership
that will likely generate more direct profit (less loss?) than the $19
membership, I wonder if proving hardship would be cost justified?
George
Bruce Draney
In St. Paul we were shocked and amazed to learn that the Chess Trust
had only spent something on the order of $5,000 on memberships for poor
children.
I don't think this was because that's all the CT wanted to spend, I
think it had to do with the fact that most coaches have no idea
whatsoever how to contact the Chess Trust and apply for aid to poor
students or children who are interested.
Years ago, teachers, coaches or school officials could get free chess
sets and equipment from the Chess Trust, but there was hardly any
written information on how people could do this. You had to really hunt
and search or contact someone who could tell you who to contact.
Jumping through hoops in other words was what kept the numbers of people
being helped by the CT low.
When I was President of the Nebraska State Chess Association, the
Lincoln Chess Foundation our 501c3 that works closely with us on
projects used to serve as a local source of information about how to get
chess clubs and programs started in the Lincoln Public Schools. For a
number of years Mike Nolan and several other generous Lincoln chess
players were actively involved with the Lincoln Public Schools through
the LCF. There was a brief period a few years back where LPS changed
its attitude and temporarily dropped support of chess, but now the
Lincoln Chess Foundation and the Lincoln Public Schools are working
together again.
I guess my point is that if our pricing decisions are going to be based
on knee jerk Sally Struthers like appeals to not desert starving
children who want to play chess, then dues will never be adequate to
support a starving organization.
It has been pointed out that there are many foundations and non-profit
organizations that can help poor children who want to play USCF chess.
One of the best ideas used in many states, is the blended events, where
unrated sections are held at low entry fees. Prizes can be awarded for
good performances in the unrated sections in the form of free USCF
memberships. I've already mentioned the K-3 and in school tournament
exemptions which should be more than adequate to allow children who
truly are poor and can't spring for a USCF membership the opportunity to
play rated chess.
What it really amounts to is that extremely poor children are not going
to pay anything to be involved in chess. Organizers base their entry
fees on enough to cover their costs to run the event, possibly pay their
helpers a nominal fee and make a small amount if things go well. Some
structure their entry fees to maximize their profits.
When these same individuals then turn around and play the "poor child"
card in emotional appeals to keep annual USCF dues at rock bottom rates,
it is self serving and appalling.
The USCF is supposed to be encouraging and promoting chess for all
people, adults, children, men, and women. When it continually stacks
the deck in favor one loud and militant group, it betrays its mission.
The job of adult regular members should not be to protect the assets of
the LMA from further raiding, nor should it be to put childrens' dues at
the lowest rates they can possibly be in order to enrich the coffers of
scholastic chess organizers, coaches and equipment vendors. One well
known vendor in the Dallas area bought a mansion off the money he made
selling chess equipment to children. He built his business primarily
upon the backs of USCF members who paid more so the kids who were his
customers could join for pennies a week while he raked in the cash.
Until USCF addresses the issues of fairness, adults will continue to
flee the organization and recruiting new adults to replace them will get
more and more difficult.
Best Regards,
Bruce
George John
Bruce,
-snipped much of a very interesting and informative post-
> I've already mentioned the K-3 and in school tournament
> exemptions
Are you CERTAIN these still exist? If so, is there any information on the
USCF Website (that isn't from 1993 -grin-) that confirms this?
-snip-
George
Bruce Draney
If you read the definitions/qualifications for tax exemption, the USCF
clearly falls into the "Membership Organization", category and not the
"Foundation/Trust" category.
To qualify as 501c3 it was my recollection that the organization had to
devote all of its money beyond its operational costs to
educational/social benefit purposes.
Another way was to be classified as an amateur sport. A number of
states have 501c3 Foundations, that donate proceeds to promoting chess
in the schools in their state. South Dakota for example has the Sioux
Empire Chess Foundation which puts on the Governor's Cup every Fall, the
afforementioned Lincoln Chess Foundation which promotes chess in the
Lincoln Public Schools, and various others.
One of the reasons I supported our inclusion in the Olympics originally
was because of the tremendous possibilities that would be opened up to
chess in America if it were declared an amateur sport that not only
could USCF solicit contributions from individuals that were tax exempt,
but every local and state chess association that could show it was an
amateur sport could do likewise.
Best Regards,
Bruce
George John
-snip-
> What it really amounts to is that extremely poor children are not going
> to pay anything to be involved in chess. Organizers base their entry
> fees on enough to cover their costs to run the event, possibly pay their
> helpers a nominal fee and make a small amount if things go well. Some
> structure their entry fees to maximize their profits.
While true, some organizers run very low cost events. One of the more
active organizers in the greater Houston area has events with entry fees of
one or two dollars. There are no or very small cash prizes and no trophies.
The playing area is free. All he wants to do is cover rating fees. He
doesn't make a dime for himself.
>
> When these same individuals then turn around and play the "poor child"
> card in emotional appeals to keep annual USCF dues at rock bottom rates,
> it is self serving and appalling.
I'm concerned about the coaches and teachers who are running programs in
their schools. Are you certain the JTP program is still available?!
-snip-
George
Less Paul
>>
>> Would it be possible to have discount scholastic memberships that do
>> not have a magazine for students under financial duress? One copy of
>> SchoolMates would then be sent to the school library or chess club.
>>
>> Just about any criteria could be used for qualification for
>> hardship, as the vast majority of kid would want SchoolMates of
>> their own; mom and dad would happily sign up for a $19 membership.
> You idea is certainly a good one at first glance, and worth exploring
> further. My understanding of the $13 no-magazine membership is
> exactly what you described, except that hardship does not have to be
> demonstrated. Maybe that's a problematic 'except' though. The issue
> is how much red-tape would be generated and the cost involved with
> dealing with it? I can see the need for free memberships. But for a
> (likely) revenue positive $13 membership that will likely generate
> more direct profit (less loss?) than the $19 membership, I wonder if
> proving hardship would be cost justified?
I don't think there would be need for red tape beyond creating additional
scholastic membership categories.I would think the only criteria needed
would be school or parental indication or hardship upon application. Sure, a
few follks who could well afford would take the low road, but not the vast
majority. I tend to believe the simplest answers are often the best.
--
Less Paul
LessP...@yahoo.com
Bruce Draney
As far as I know George, the intra-school and K-3 section membership
exemption rules still exist. I ran the Nebraska State Scholastic event
in February of 2000 in Omaha, and I know we still used it at that time.
We had a membership exempt K-3 section. I know they didn't change the
rules at St. Paul or Framingham. I can't speak to the matter as to what
happened in Cherry Hill, but I would guess that nothing has really
changed.
I can't remember where the JTP rules exemptions are listed, but I
wouldn't try to find them on a 10,000 page website.
My recommendation would be to call Tom Brownscombe and ask him directly
or e-mail him. If they have changed the policy to the best of my
knowledge they have not informed scholastic organizers here in
Nebraska.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Tom Doan
You shouldn't quit your day job, either, Bruce.
What exactly are you proposing? Your analysis of the plight of the
scholastic member could be applied just as well to that of the adult
member who pays $225 + $1000 or so in travel expenses to play in the
World Open. USCF has, at least of late, been setting adult dues rates
based upon an incorrect notion of what the "typical" adult member is
like. While some, indeed, are hard-core tournament players for whom an
extra $9 is nothing (and there are likely enough of these that, at
least in the short-term, the adult dues revenues will go up), there is
a much higher percentage than policy makers seem to want to admit
whose play (at least in rated events) is sporadic or non-existent, and
who might have a very hard time justifying $49. Plus, of course,
virtually every long-term, committed tournament player started out as
a tire kicker at one point.
USCF makes bad decisions based upon faulty analysis of regular adult
memberships. So I guess the best way to deal with this is to use
equally faulty analysis of scholastic memberships. Is that your
message?
Tom Doan
George John
Less,
-snip-
> I don't think there would be need for red tape beyond creating additional
> scholastic membership categories.I would think the only criteria needed
> would be school or parental indication or hardship upon application. Sure,
a
> few follks who could well afford would take the low road, but not the vast
> majority. I tend to believe the simplest answers are often the best.
Your solution sounds reasonable. What definition, if any, would use for
'hardship'?
George
Less Paul
<snip>
> Your solution sounds reasonable. What definition, if any, would use
> for 'hardship'?
George,
My opinion -- which supplemented with 85 cents might get you a cup of
coffee -- a simple line on the bottom of the application which reads
something like:
"Due to financial hardship, the above student qualifies for reduced cost
membership. Signed (Parent or Teacher)
Note: Reduced cost memberships do not include subscription to SchoolMates
magazine. However a copy will be sent monthly to the school chess club or
library."
So I guess there would be overhead in making sure only one subscription to
SchoolMates was entered for any one school club (or library).
--
Less Paul
LessP...@yahoo.com
Fifiela
the fees should at least ask for either a full or partial waiver. The worst
that will happen is they will hear "no" (although hearing "no" can hurt).>>>>
I work with poor kids; They certainly aren't going to dip into their fairly
generous daily coke and candy at the 7-11 store across the street allowance to
join USCF.
Fifiela
Why?; Someone that poor maybe shouldn't be playing chess. I've seen "poor
kids" rag the hell of a peer when they discovered them actually paying for
something.
Fifiela
In general yes; Many of the hardship kids will have no trouble buying pizza and
pop at a tournament while adult due go to $99..
Fifiela
you described, except that hardship does not have to be demonstrated>>>
This will be the std USCF Scholastic membership.
Fifiela
'hardship'?>>>
Definition of hardship: $13 is cheaper than $20 and I don't want the magazine
anyway.
John Fernandez
> If you read the definitions/qualifications for tax exemption, the USCF
>clearly falls into the "Membership Organization", category and not the
>"Foundation/Trust" category.
Ok...
> To qualify as 501c3 it was my recollection that the organization had to
>devote all of its money beyond its operational costs to
>educational/social benefit purposes.
If correct, why wouldn't we qualify? B&E? USCL? I think everything else is
educational/social benefit. If not, it's close.
> Another way was to be classified as an amateur sport. A number of
>states have 501c3 Foundations, that donate proceeds to promoting chess
>in the schools in their state. South Dakota for example has the Sioux
>Empire Chess Foundation which puts on the Governor's Cup every Fall, the
>afforementioned Lincoln Chess Foundation which promotes chess in the
>Lincoln Public Schools, and various others.
>
> One of the reasons I supported our inclusion in the Olympics originally
>was because of the tremendous possibilities that would be opened up to
>chess in America if it were declared an amateur sport that not only
>could USCF solicit contributions from individuals that were tax exempt,
>but every local and state chess association that could show it was an
>amateur sport could do likewise.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruce
Don't need to be in the Olympics for that to happen, Bruce. USOC recognition is
sufficent.
John Fernandez
John Fernandez
>From: fif...@aol.com (Fifiela)
>Date: 11/3/2002 7:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20021103191159...@mb-ca.aol.com>
Look, we have to include the poor in chess, somehow, whether its programs like
CIS or the tons of other 501(c)(3)s out there.
My concern is that the scholastic lobby got what it wanted, no membership
increase. (Actually, they got a membership decrease, IIRC, since it's $13 with
$1 affiliate, which means they can charge $12.) Meanwhile the other nice
suckers actually think they helped poor kids.
John Fernandez
John Fernandez
>"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
>news:20021103033238...@mb-mv.aol.com...
>
>John,
>
>> First of all, I'd like to know why the USCF and US Chess Trust can't be
>one
>> body. It seems like it would be a home run if we were a 501(c)(3).
>
>One of my many asked but not answered questions is why the USCF is a
>501(c)(4) and not a 501(c)(3) organization. I'm certain there are good
>reasons, I just haven't heard them from anyone.
Right. :)
>> Secondly, we're making a financial model for memberships based on
>"hardships",
>
>It's a part of the financial model. It's far from all of it.
True, but I think that it's a bigger chunk than we realize. I assume that all
of the money comes from memberships, since we haven't seen any evidence of B&E
actually funding anything beside itself lately. (Heck, it doesn't even
adequately fund itself.)
In that case, our financial model IS memberships, unless there's something that
I'm unaware of making money in New Windsor.
Scholastics are our largest piece of the membership puzzle.
Quod era demonstratum.
>> when there is a 501(c)(3) organization specifically created to handle such
>> "hardships" (heck, it's in the same building!). This leads me to believe
>that
>> there are two possibilities for this:
>
>> - The "hardship" issue is bullshit
>>
>> or
>>
>> - The US Chess Trust isn't doing a good enough job
>>
>> Which is it?
>
>You have raised good questions. I don't know the answers beyond what I have
>been told by leadership and talking to coaches. I believe the hardship
>issue is real in some cases. I don't know the numbers though, and it may be
>overblown and possibly could be completely solved by the Trust. If the
>Trust works like the USCF, we already have the answer for your second
>possibility. :-( I can't find on the US Chess Trust Webpage
>(http://www.uschess.org/org/patrons.html#PP) any information about the free
>membership program. If that's a major service they provide, information
>about it should be there! I also can't find any financials on the Web,
>which would hopefully disclose prior year spending on the free membership
>program.
Right. You said something like $5,000 was given to free memberships. If the
Chess Trust is paying $13 for each membership, that's only 385.
Fact is, if people on the Executive Board aren't using Chess Trust, who the
hell is?
>> Why are there a lot of 501(c)(3)s in the USA doing chess related stuff
>which
>> should be part of our mission statement, but aren't being done by us?
>(c.f. US
>> Chess Trust, America's Foundation For Chess, Chess-In-The-Schools, etc.
>etc.)
>
>The USCF's mission may be too broad for it to be a 501(c)(3). The Trust
>handles the part which qualifies. Some of what the USCF does may preclude a
>501(c)(3) being an option. I just don't know.
I think our mission should be changed. :)
>I have been interested in seeing the USCF possibly forming an organization
>whose mission is "fostering national or international amateur sports
>competition". This can qualify for 501(c)(3) (see
>http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96099,00.html). I thought this
>was in the works, but I haven't heard any news about this other than a
>committee was formed to explore this. Too many good ideas die in
>committees. I hope this isn't one of them.
>
>George
For amateur sports, we have to be USOC recognized. (If we're talking about the
same thing.)
John Fernandez
Fifiela
increase. (Actually, they got a membership decrease, IIRC, since it's $13 with
$1 affiliate, which means they can charge $12.)>>>
My guess is that $12 a kid with no School Mate's is a heck of a better deal for
USCF than $13 with 4 issues of School Mates.
AlforChess
some of your comments. >>
Please explain your comment.
Regards, al
John Fernandez
>From: fif...@aol.com (Fifiela)
>Message-id: <20021103214224...@mb-fq.aol.com>
Probably, but I'm still not sure how much losing School Mates will save us. I'm
curious to see the numbers.
Knowing the USCF, they would just put that spending towards Chess Life.
I also happen to think that getting kids NO magazine is probably bad for the
USCF. Lack of affinity and whatnot. I don't understand why we aren't shipping
kids 12 issues of Chess Life.
John Fernandez
Fifiela
USCF. Lack of affinity and whatnot.>>>
Valid point; I sure don't know the answers. We do have one heck of a problem
for sure.
Bruce Draney
>
> >One other thing, this was meant humorously.
>
> You shouldn't quit your day job, either, Bruce.
>
> What exactly are you proposing?
I don't recollect proposing anything. It was a satirical rip at the
argument that poor kids won't join because dues are $19.00/year.
Your analysis of the plight of the
> scholastic member could be applied just as well to that of the adult
> member who pays $225 + $1000 or so in travel expenses to play in the
> World Open. USCF has, at least of late, been setting adult dues rates
> based upon an incorrect notion of what the "typical" adult member is
> like.
As far as I can tell they are basing adult dues rates on what is
politically possible to achieve. They need more money. They can't get
it past vocal and intimidating scholastic delegates and the Life Members
are angry at their money being depleted.
Perhaps with your extensive knowledge of the database you could tell us
what percentage of the USCF adult membership takes part in the World
Open? I have no idea, nor do I care, since I've never played in it, nor
do I plan to.
While some, indeed, are hard-core tournament players for whom an
> extra $9 is nothing (and there are likely enough of these that, at
> least in the short-term, the adult dues revenues will go up), there is
> a much higher percentage than policy makers seem to want to admit
> whose play (at least in rated events) is sporadic or non-existent, and
> who might have a very hard time justifying $49. Plus, of course,
> virtually every long-term, committed tournament player started out as
> a tire kicker at one point.
Did you have a point here or did I merely miss it?
>
> USCF makes bad decisions based upon faulty analysis of regular adult
> memberships.
I wasn't aware that there had been any analysis. Most of what I have
seen has been backward looking decisions made on assumptions from the
past that were probably not even accurate originally let alone now or in
the future. Calling this analysis is like calling subtraction,
calculus.
So I guess the best way to deal with this is to use
> equally faulty analysis of scholastic memberships. Is that your
> message?
Thus far the only figures I've seen is that scholastic chess continues
to grow in a robust and healthy manner, while the other categories all
continue to decline. Do you have some figures that challenge this?
>
> Tom Doan
I'll take that under advisement Tom. Thanks for your positive input.
Chiao.
You can always pass on reading it, if it bothers you.
Best Regards,
Bruce
George John
"AlforChess" <alfor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021103221955...@mb-mv.aol.com...
Al,
I will quote two statements of yours that most stood out for me:
"I think the ultimate solution to USCF's Great Schism is that not every kid
playing chess in school needs to be a USCF member."
"But, in general, USCF and the rest of us should be happy that kids are
playing
chess and that some small percentage of them will want to be more seriously
involved and join USCF."
I would expect you and all current and past USCF Executive Directors would
be supportive of polities that:
1) Add to the profit of the organization
2) Increase the number of members
3) Support the mission
The continuation of a $13 membership, that will likely allow certain
students to participate, who otherwise may not be able to do so, may support
the above by:
1) Being likely revenue positive (at least at the margin)
2) Increases the number of members (large numbers of a class of members
might drop out without it)
3) Supports the mission (more kids playing quality chess)
While it is highly likely not to be either a realistic or attainable goal,
if the financial model were sustainable and quality could be maintained, I
would be absolutely delighted if every child who played chess were also a
USCF member.
George
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
> Probably, but I'm still not sure how much losing School Mates will save
us. I'm
> curious to see the numbers.
The estimate management gave us was a least a net improvement of $50,000.
The elimination (mostly) of School Mates creates a major plus for
publication staff. The months "School Mates" was published was reported as
creating a major strain.
> Knowing the USCF, they would just put that spending towards Chess Life.
It *could* mean a better publication. That *could* mean additional value to
the membership, which could help with retention and promoting the mission.
> I also happen to think that getting kids NO magazine is probably bad for
the
> USCF.
A key will be access to the magazine at the club or school. Perhaps kids
with $19 memberships will share (and be encouraged to share) their magazines
with the kids who don't get them. Perhaps school librarians will be
encouraged to subscribe to "Chess Life" for the school library.
> Lack of affinity and whatnot. I don't understand why we aren't shipping
> kids 12 issues of Chess Life.
Cost is the major one. Secondarily is the issue of making all 12 issues
appropriate for younger children. That may be too much for the regular
members to stomach -- maybe. They will possibly tolerate it 5 issues a
year, but maybe not all 12.
George
Timothy Hanke
>
> > In this day and age, I simply cannot accept that children would be
denied
> > something as inexpensive, and fulfilling as the thrill of belonging to a
> > chess club and major chess organization like the USCF.
>
>
> I AGREE!!
Extremely fuzzy-headed thinking. If this level of intellect is typical of
the scholastic chess crowd, no wonder USCF is in such deep trouble.
USCF membership is not a basic human right. It is an economic good. Despite
the best will in the world, we cannot all have everything we want. USCF
membership is only available to those who can afford to pay for it. Others
who can't pay for it must depend on the limited largesse of the U.S. Chess
Trust and whatever benevolent programs the USCF deems it can afford to
offer.
So far this year, I have sold over 20 scholastic memberships at my own chess
club. I am happy to have these new members playing USCF-rated chess at my
club. But I refuse to be seduced by the false god of head counts. If we
can't make money as an organization, we will go out of business. We must not
let the scholastic advocates--who are obviously deeply irrational--guide the
USCF's financial decisions, or we are doomed.
Tim Hanke
ASCACHESS
>us. I'm
>> curious to see the numbers.
>
>The estimate management gave us was a least a net improvement of $50,000.
Yikes.
That is all.
How can this be true?
It was just a couple of years ago that we were told the costs of publishing
SchoolMates were just over $6 per member. Multiply that by 30,000 (then) and I
come up with a bigger number than $50,000.
This is just another example of different managements telling us what they
want us to believe until they want us to believe something else.
I am still waiting for the second half of the "adults cost $42 and scholastics
cost $23" numbers from Chicago or Alexandria, I forget. This is not a senior
moment. It has just been a long, long time without any concrete or unspinable
numbers.
Honestly, I place all these management representations in the Sam Sloan
"everybody knows" school of accounting. More wishful thinking than accounting.
Let's hope our faith in Frank is well placed in this regard.
Richard Peterson
ASCACHESS
>"I think the ultimate solution to USCF's Great Schism is that not every kid
>playing chess in school needs to be a USCF member."
>
Al,
What would you think of selling rating services at a profit to public education
institutions without requiring USCF memberships?
Richard Peterson
George John
"Timothy Hanke" <timoth...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:9ynx9.27700$bG.30146@rwcrnsc53...
> "George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote ...
> >
> > > In this day and age, I simply cannot accept that children would be
> denied
> > > something as inexpensive, and fulfilling as the thrill of belonging to
a
> > > chess club and major chess organization like the USCF.
> >
> > "Tom Klem" <the...@lvcm.com> wrote ...
> >
> > I AGREE!
Warning! A good deal of sarcasm and less than civil comments will be found
in the message.
> Extremely fuzzy-headed thinking.
Are you mumbling out loud about yourself again?
> If this level of intellect is typical of
> the scholastic chess crowd, no wonder USCF is in such deep trouble.
We are so fortunate to have someone of your great mental gifts commenting on
this subject. Please allow me to probe a bit into your 'DEEP' intellectual
treatise.
> USCF membership is not a basic human right.
Who ever said that it is? I had hoped you had given up making straw-man
arguments. No such luck I see.
> It is an economic good.
That sheds a good deal of light onto the subject.
> Despite
> the best will in the world, we cannot all have everything we want.
Another Tim Hanke PGITO (penetrating glimpse into the obvious)
> USCF
> membership is only available to those who can afford to pay for it.
This statement is of course false, but to your credit you at least partially
correct the error in your next sentence.
> Others
> who can't pay for it must depend on the limited largesse of the U.S. Chess
> Trust
And what is that "limited largesse". What is the Trust's total budget for
free memberships? How much of it did they spend last year? How about the
year before? I imagine a man of your great intellectual gifts would never
have made such a statement, such as the one above, without such knowledge.
> and whatever benevolent programs the USCF deems it can afford to
> offer.
You seem to have ignored other sources of potential funding such as
Chess-in-the-Schools programs, fundraisers, and sponsors who recognize the
value of both scholastic chess and altruism.
> So far this year, I have sold over 20 scholastic memberships at my own
chess
> club. I am happy to have these new members playing USCF-rated chess at my
> club. But I refuse to be seduced by the false god of head counts. If we
> can't make money as an organization, we will go out of business.
How is a $13 membership, whose only direct cost is a membership card and
some time spent entering a small amount of data into a database, going to
bankrupt the USCF? Same question regarding the $19 membership? I can't
wait to get your financial analysis and insights.
> We must not
> let the scholastic advocates--who are obviously deeply irrational--guide
the
> USCF's financial decisions, or we are doomed.
Why are the advocates irrational? The sale of any of these scholastic
memberships help accomplish three key goals:
1) brings much needed money into the organization
2) increases the number of members (that IS a goal of a membership
organization)
3) serves to further the mission (which is to get people playing in USCF
rated events, among other things)
The reasons why the USCF is hurting is complicated, but fundamentally the
organization has been poorly managed for a very long time. Life Membership
money has been squandered. Deficient, key systems have not been corrected.
There are insufficient Regular Members to support a bloated, inefficient
operation.
There is a basic tendency in people to find scapegoats. Yours seems to be
scholastics. I guess that is your right, but I think you are wrong -- very
wrong.
George
George John
"ASCACHESS" <asca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021104003312...@mb-fg.aol.com...
> >> Probably, but I'm still not sure how much losing School Mates will save
> >us. I'm
> >> curious to see the numbers.
> >
> >The estimate management gave us was a least a net improvement of $50,000.
>
> Yikes.
> That is all.
> How can this be true?
>
> It was just a couple of years ago that we were told the costs of
publishing
> SchoolMates were just over $6 per member. Multiply that by 30,000 (then)
and I
> come up with a bigger number than $50,000.
> This is just another example of different managements telling us what
they
> want us to believe until they want us to believe something else.
The $50,000 figure made sense at the time, but now I can't exactly recall
the context. To the best of my recollection it takes into account the cost
of issues of "Chess Life", minus all costs involving "School Mates". Six
issues of "Chess Life" has an estimated cost of $6.00 per member. To save
$50,000 for 37,693 members the TOTAL costs of "School Mates" would have been
somewhat more than $7 per member. That's not so far away from your $6 per
member figure.
> I am still waiting for the second half of the "adults cost $42 and
scholastics
> cost $23" numbers from Chicago or Alexandria, I forget. This is not a
senior
> moment. It has just been a long, long time without any concrete or
unspinable
> numbers.
>
> Honestly, I place all these management representations in the Sam Sloan
> "everybody knows" school of accounting. More wishful thinking than
accounting.
>
> Let's hope our faith in Frank is well placed in this regard.
I agree we need much better and more detailed numbers from New Windsor.
George
Neil Brennen
"George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:Wzmx9.271770$Fw2.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "AlforChess" <alfor...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021103221955...@mb-mv.aol.com...
>
> Al,
>
> > << Since you are a past USCF Executive Director, I am honestly surprised
> by
> > some of your comments. >>
> >
> > Please explain your comment.
>
> I will quote two statements of yours that most stood out for me:
>
> "I think the ultimate solution to USCF's Great Schism is that not every
kid
> playing chess in school needs to be a USCF member."
Why do you have difficulty with this common-sense statement?
> "But, in general, USCF and the rest of us should be happy that kids are
> playing
> chess and that some small percentage of them will want to be more
seriously
> involved and join USCF."
Another common-sense statement.
> I would expect you and all current and past USCF Executive Directors would
> be supportive of polities that:
> 1) Add to the profit of the organization
> 2) Increase the number of members
> 3) Support the mission
And nothing in Al Lawrence's statements conflicts with any of these points.
> The continuation of a $13 membership, that will likely allow certain
> students to participate, who otherwise may not be able to do so, may
support
> the above by:
> 1) Being likely revenue positive (at least at the margin)
> 2) Increases the number of members (large numbers of a class of members
> might drop out without it)
> 3) Supports the mission (more kids playing quality chess)
> While it is highly likely not to be either a realistic or attainable goal,
> if the financial model were sustainable and quality could be maintained, I
> would be absolutely delighted if every child who played chess were also a
> USCF member.
Typical Scholastic Chess Industry stuff. Headcount, headcount, headcount....
Neil Brennen
> > Knowing the USCF, they would just put that spending towards Chess Life.
>
> It *could* mean a better publication. That *could* mean additional value
to
> the membership, which could help with retention and promoting the mission.
Spending for Chess Life isn't the issue. What they choose to spend it on is
the issue. Content is the problem with Chess Life, which is a magazine
filled with political dues-paying and back-scratching. "Ads posing as
articles in magazines we're forced to get in the mail", to quote Joel
Benjamin in Chess Chow. Wolff-chess? U of T at Dallas? Sid Samole Museum? 37
little photos of chess set collectors (gotta get those people's photos in
the magazine)? Two page photo spread and "essay" by Parr on the theme of "We
did not talk chess politics"? The Parr/Evans "Fischer Question of the month"
column?
Instead, Chess Life should look to New In Chess for a model. Or possibly
Georgia Chess, California Chess Journal, Chess Horizons, or Iowa Chess News
En Passant, all excellent state magazines that focus on chess, not chess
politics.
I don't blame the present editor entirely, however. If the USCF allows the
country's biggest organizer to have private, one on one chats with the Chess
Life editor and dictate content, as has been reported on this newsgroup...
Neil Brennen
> >
> > > In this day and age, I simply cannot accept that children would be
> denied
> > > something as inexpensive, and fulfilling as the thrill of belonging to
a
> > > chess club and major chess organization like the USCF.
> >
> > "Tom Klem" <the...@lvcm.com> wrote ...
> >
> > I AGREE!!
>
> Extremely fuzzy-headed thinking. If this level of intellect is typical of
> the scholastic chess crowd, no wonder USCF is in such deep trouble.
Actually, George John is one of the more level-headed on the Scholastic
Chess Industry people. Peterson is the irrational one. Doan just snipes.
> USCF membership is not a basic human right. It is an economic good.
Despite
> the best will in the world, we cannot all have everything we want. USCF
> membership is only available to those who can afford to pay for it. Others
> who can't pay for it must depend on the limited largesse of the U.S. Chess
> Trust and whatever benevolent programs the USCF deems it can afford to
> offer.
>
> So far this year, I have sold over 20 scholastic memberships at my own
chess
> club. I am happy to have these new members playing USCF-rated chess at my
> club. But I refuse to be seduced by the false god of head counts. If we
> can't make money as an organization, we will go out of business. We must
not
> let the scholastic advocates--who are obviously deeply irrational--guide
the
> USCF's financial decisions, or we are doomed.
Agreed.
Neil Brennen
(Snip George John with the gloves on)
> There is a basic tendency in people to find scapegoats. Yours seems to be
> scholastics. I guess that is your right, but I think you are wrong --
very
> wrong.
George, this is yet another example of what you went through with me. Recall
you had to apologize for calling me "negative on scholastics" after you
discovered I had been involved in scholastic chess. Now you do the same to
Hanke.
Typical Scholastic Chess Industry stuff: label the critic anti-scholastic or
anti-child.
John Fernandez
>The estimate management gave us was a least a net improvement of $50,000.
$1.50 per kid? :)
>The elimination (mostly) of School Mates creates a major plus for
>publication staff. The months "School Mates" was published was reported as
>creating a major strain.
Yeah, I heard that too.
I'm just baffled how we have like 40 or 50 employees or whatever in New
Windsor, and they're always overworked. What the hell is going on up there?
>A key will be access to the magazine at the club or school. Perhaps kids
>with $19 memberships will share (and be encouraged to share) their magazines
>with the kids who don't get them. Perhaps school librarians will be
>encouraged to subscribe to "Chess Life" for the school library.
Part of our mission should be getting Chess Life in every library in the United
States. We shouldn't be charging for this either, or charging, at maximum,
cost.
>Cost is the major one. Secondarily is the issue of making all 12 issues
>appropriate for younger children. That may be too much for the regular
>members to stomach -- maybe. They will possibly tolerate it 5 issues a
>year, but maybe not all 12.
>
>George
How weaker do you want it? I was doing some post-Rugby hottubbing and tried to
read through the current Chess Life and see what I found interesting. Here's my
list:
ABC's of Chess - Useful for my students.
Ollie LaFreniere's obit - Very nice guy that I met in Seattle this year
World Open - Ok, it's a good four months after the fact, yawn. Was still
interesting to read anyway. Some things were a bit weird, like mentioning that
Yakobashvili hasn't had a master rating for a 'while', when he was over 2200
when I beheaded him in Nov 2000. Mmmh.
Benko's column- Worse than usual, but Knight endings are still cool, and
Maroczy was a good player.
Jenn Shahade's Book Review- Typical goodness from Jenn.
That's it. On the other hand, Chess Life floated very well.
John Fernandez
Neil Brennen
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
> George John wrote:
> >A key will be access to the magazine at the club or school. Perhaps kids
> >with $19 memberships will share (and be encouraged to share) their
magazines
> >with the kids who don't get them. Perhaps school librarians will be
> >encouraged to subscribe to "Chess Life" for the school library.
>
> Part of our mission should be getting Chess Life in every library in the
United
> States. We shouldn't be charging for this either, or charging, at maximum,
> cost.
John, do you realize just how many libraries are in the USA? I think we
should charge at MINIMUM cost, and more if the market will take it. However,
I don't think Eric Johnson's suggestion that we charge libraries more than
membership prices is workable.
> >Cost is the major one. Secondarily is the issue of making all 12 issues
> >appropriate for younger children. That may be too much for the regular
> >members to stomach -- maybe. They will possibly tolerate it 5 issues a
> >year, but maybe not all 12.
> >George
>
> How weaker do you want it? I was doing some post-Rugby hottubbing and
tried to
> read through the current Chess Life and see what I found interesting.
Here's my
> list:
>
> ABC's of Chess - Useful for my students.
> Ollie LaFreniere's obit - Very nice guy that I met in Seattle this year
> World Open - Ok, it's a good four months after the fact, yawn. Was still
> interesting to read anyway. Some things were a bit weird, like mentioning
that
> Yakobashvili hasn't had a master rating for a 'while', when he was over
2200
> when I beheaded him in Nov 2000. Mmmh.
This game was published, with John's annotations, in Delaware Valley Chess
(RIP). It (and the interview accompying it) was one of the four best
received articles during the newsletter's lifetime. The other three were an
instructional article by Heisman, a tournament report and annotations by
Khmelnitsky, and a historical article on a Lasker simul by Hilbert.
> Benko's column- Worse than usual, but Knight endings are still cool, and
> Maroczy was a good player.
> Jenn Shahade's Book Review- Typical goodness from Jenn.
>
> That's it.
I might add Soltis in some months.
> On the other hand, Chess Life floated very well.
Yes, but it's not soft and absorbent enough.
George John
"Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aq594c$kns$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Neil,
-snip-
> > I will quote two statements of yours that most stood out for me:
> >
> > "I think the ultimate solution to USCF's Great Schism is that not every
> kid
> > playing chess in school needs to be a USCF member."
>
> Why do you have difficulty with this common-sense statement?
It has too much rhetorical excess. The rhetorical device is to take an
obvious statement, dress it up with words like "ultimate", "Great Schism",
and "every", and create a straw-man argument out of it.
The goal isn't to get EVERY children that plays chess into the USCF, but
getting MORE into the USCF if feasible. How many more will depend on the
market (not well understood and definitely not sufficiently analyzed), and
the internal business systems (currently deficient, but hopefully improving)
in the USCF which will influence how efficiently the USCF can take on more
non-full price memberships.
I think it highly unlikely that few if any have a goal of turning EVERY
child that plays chess into a USCF member, but that should not dissuade us
from recruiting more children into the ranks of the USCF *IF* it is done in
such a way where quality is maintained and within a financially sustainable
model.
> > "But, in general, USCF and the rest of us should be happy that kids are
> > playing
> > chess and that some small percentage of them will want to be more
> seriously
> > involved and join USCF."
>
> Another common-sense statement.
Why should we be happy with the status quo when we don't have a clear
understanding of what the potential is. In May, 1988 there were 1271
scholastic members. Today there is 37,693. I wonder if Al was content with
the 1271 number and having "some small percentage" of kids as USCF members
in 1988?
Using 2000 census data, the following are population counts by age bands:
Age 5-9 20,549,505
Age 10-14 20,528,072
For a total of approximately 41 million. Given our current number of
37,693, the USCF currently has a bit fewer than 1 child for every 1000.
What does "common sense" tell you about whether that ratio can be improved
or not?
Since we both like classical music, here's an analogy for you to consider.
What makes for a truly exceptional classical recording?
1. Great musicians (& sometimes great conducting)
2. Great composition (the composer's contribution)
3. Great recording engineering
To reduce this to only one of the three above would be absurd. Do you see
any problems with reducing the list of goals I gave above, which are Money,
Membership, and Mission to only Membership, Membership, and Membership?!
George
George John
Neil,
In your case I didn't know you were involved with scholastics. Tim has made
it abundantly clear that he has scholastic players in his club, that he
likes having them there, and that he sells scholastic memberships. He can
do all of this, and can still be using scholastics as a scapegoat for the
USCF's problems.
George
Tom Doan
>Tom Doan wrote:
>>
>> >One other thing, this was meant humorously.
>>
>> You shouldn't quit your day job, either, Bruce.
>>
>> What exactly are you proposing?
>
> I don't recollect proposing anything. It was a satirical rip at the
>argument that poor kids won't join because dues are $19.00/year.
You need new material. Liam probably had a keystroke macro that spit
out stuff like that, he posted it so often.
>Your analysis of the plight of the
>> scholastic member could be applied just as well to that of the adult
>> member who pays $225 + $1000 or so in travel expenses to play in the
>> World Open. USCF has, at least of late, been setting adult dues rates
>> based upon an incorrect notion of what the "typical" adult member is
>> like.
>
> As far as I can tell they are basing adult dues rates on what is
>politically possible to achieve. They need more money. They can't get
>it past vocal and intimidating scholastic delegates and the Life Members
>are angry at their money being depleted.
But the adult dues aren't being raised out of spite. They're being
raised because those in charge don't think there will be that big a
hit to the number of regular members as a result. Unfortunately, I
think they're underestimating the effect two or three years out.
> Perhaps with your extensive knowledge of the database you could tell us
>what percentage of the USCF adult membership takes part in the World
>Open? I have no idea, nor do I care, since I've never played in it, nor
>do I plan to.
Missed the point, there, didn't you, Bruce?
Regular adult members who play in big EF tournaments, or who play in
scads of smaller tournaments, aren't the norm. Scholastic members that
play in Nationals also aren't the norm.
>
>While some, indeed, are hard-core tournament players for whom an
>> extra $9 is nothing (and there are likely enough of these that, at
>> least in the short-term, the adult dues revenues will go up), there is
>> a much higher percentage than policy makers seem to want to admit
>> whose play (at least in rated events) is sporadic or non-existent, and
>> who might have a very hard time justifying $49. Plus, of course,
>> virtually every long-term, committed tournament player started out as
>> a tire kicker at one point.
>
> Did you have a point here or did I merely miss it?
Yes and yes. Hint: I'm agreeing with you about the folly of raising
adult dues.
>>
>> USCF makes bad decisions based upon faulty analysis of regular adult
>> memberships.
>
>
> I wasn't aware that there had been any analysis. Most of what I have
>seen has been backward looking decisions made on assumptions from the
>past that were probably not even accurate originally let alone now or in
>the future. Calling this analysis is like calling subtraction,
>calculus.
That's about the only reasonable way for such an analysis to be done.
The past two times adult dues were raised, there was an immediate
increase in revenues. There's no particular reason to believe that
that won't happen again. It's the longer-term impact that I think is
being underestimated. With $25 to $30, the numbers recovered. With $30
to $40, they didn't. I think Frank C believes the latter is the
aberration (ICC and all that), not the former. I don't.
>So I guess the best way to deal with this is to use
>> equally faulty analysis of scholastic memberships. Is that your
>> message?
>
> Thus far the only figures I've seen is that scholastic chess continues
>to grow in a robust and healthy manner, while the other categories all
>continue to decline. Do you have some figures that challenge this?
Regular membership is down roughly 25% over the past seven years.
Youth membership is down roughly 13% over two. Yes, scholastic is
still growing. So was youth prior to 2000: from 1995-2000, it was
growing at a faster rate than scholastic. Youth/scholastic is a much
more volatile market segment because it's dependent upon decisions
made by organizers whether to run USCF rated or unrated tournaments.
George John
Neil,
-snip-
> Actually, George John is one of the more level-headed on the Scholastic
> Chess Industry people.
I'd like to pin down a bit more what makes a person part of this so-called
"Scholastic Chess Industry" please.
Assume, hypothetically speaking of course ;-), a person is attempting to be
an even-handed and fair advocate for all segments of the USCF membership
population. If that person on occasion speaks on the behalf of a group that
comprises over 40% (and over 55% when one adds Youth members) of the
membership, does that automatically make them a "SCI" member? If a person
sees a group being turned into a scapegoat and used as an excuse for
persistent, poor management practices, and comes to the defense of this
group, does that make them a "SCI" member?
The two most popular scapegoats on this forum are the Life Members and
children. IMO, neither are to blame. The Life Members have been THE major
contributors to the USCF and not only just financially. Scholastics are a
different market segment that experienced rapid growth. A low-cost
membership will work great if an organization is efficient and well-managed.
If it's grossly inefficient and poorly managed, it may be hurt, possibly
badly. One of the 'secrets' past administrations either don't either want
you to know, they are in denial about themselves, or are sufficiently
ignorant and unable to understand adequately (and probably all three are
factors) are these deficiencies. It's tough to admit to one's errors, but
usually first step in solving a problem is admitting that one has one.
Frank Niro seems to have realized that the USCF has MAJOR internal problems.
He's working on fixing them. It's not going to be easy. It will take time,
money (hence the dues increase), a lot of work, and (should he ask for it)
our help. In turn we should observe what he is doing (assuming he will tell
us what he's doing), offer constructive criticism, and most of all exercise
reasonable patience. What we should not do is turn past management errors
into a 'war' between the members. That seems to be what some of us are
doing. If true, I find this most unfortunate and wrong.
-snip-
George
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
-snip-
> ABC's of Chess - Useful for my students.
> Ollie LaFreniere's obit - Very nice guy that I met in Seattle this year
> World Open - Ok, it's a good four months after the fact, yawn. Was still
> interesting to read anyway. Some things were a bit weird, like mentioning
that
> Yakobashvili hasn't had a master rating for a 'while', when he was over
2200
> when I beheaded him in Nov 2000. Mmmh.
> Benko's column- Worse than usual, but Knight endings are still cool, and
> Maroczy was a good player.
> Jenn Shahade's Book Review- Typical goodness from Jenn.
What dollar value would you assign to this for yourself? How about your
students?
-snip-
George
George John
"Tom Doan" <doanf...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3dc68898...@netnews.attbi.com...
Tom,
-snip-
>With $30
> to $40, they didn't. I think Frank C believes the latter is the
> aberration (ICC and all that), not the former. I don't.
Please elaborate.
-snip-
George
ASCACHESS
>the scholastic chess crowd, no wonder USCF is in such deep trouble.
>We must not
>let the scholastic advocates--who are obviously deeply irrational--guide the
>USCF's financial decisions, or we are doomed.
Immature thought.
I mean that in the most liberal sense.
Not that you are immature, but that your thought process on this issue is not
well or completely formed.
Every once in a while, you and Neil and John hit upon the core reason for our
problems.
John just wrote, what are those 40 or 50 people in New Windsor doing and how
can they be overworked? This is a great question. What are they doing?
Has it occured to you that overspending for staff IS the problem?
That lack of modernization IS the problem?
There is no monolithic scholastic block. For instance, Pete Nixon and I have
very little in common, yet we both have little difficulty seeing the train is
running off the track and that raising dues for both adults and children is not
going to fix the rails.
What seems obvious to me is the reality that if we have to increase dues, then
we are spending too much money.
Raising dues causes membership contraction and is self defeating.
Is this less true for scholastic chess than it is for adults?
Bureaucrats will always find a way to spend money. What we require is some
serious contraction of spending.
The administration talks euphemistically about rebuilding the LMA. As far as I
am able to determine, this idea is an absolute fantasy and keeps the financial
pressure on those who have utilized increased membership fees but have failed
to restrain spending.
Richard Peterson
John Fernandez
>Date: 11/4/2002 11:41 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Wqxx9.275132$Fw2.8...@twister.austin.rr.com>
I wouldn't pay the $3.75 at the newsstand. I find it unreadable, so I probably
wouldn't even pay $1 for it. Then again, I happily snap up NiCs at the
newsstand for $12 a pop.
For my students, I consider it worthless.
Then again, I also feel that the USCF has to send it to every member. No one
should be able to opt out of it.
John Fernandez
ASCACHESS
>raised because those in charge don't think there will be that big a
>hit to the number of regular members as a result. Unfortunately, I
>think they're underestimating the effect two or three years out.
>The past two times adult dues were raised, there was an immediate
>increase in revenues. There's no particular reason to believe that
>that won't happen again. It's the longer-term impact that I think is
>being underestimated. With $25 to $30, the numbers recovered. With $30
>to $40, they didn't. I think Frank C believes the latter is the
>aberration (ICC and all that), not the former. I don't.
>
As so frequently is the case, Tom holds the common sense position.
When dues become an annual financial judgement call for the members, then Tom's
logic makes perfect sense and repeating the history of the $30 to $40 increase
is certainly on the horizon.
On the other hand, if the office does not take care of immediate problems then
there is no future. There is a desperate need for immediate cash by almost
whatever means.
Bruce's questions were on target and Frank Niro's answers were certainly
wanting. Specifically, using percentage comparisons of sales to what was
basically a nonexistent sales year is just silly. Gee, we are up 75% from the
almost nothing of the prior year. Not really a meaningful statistic, but sure
to be repeated ad nauseum by the board.
Richard Peterson
ASCACHESS
>children.
Well, there are clear problems regarding the LMA. Life members should not be
scapegoated, but the draining of the LMA may well have an effect on those same
life members.
Considering the effects of the underfunding of the LMA must be considered.
Richard Peterson
John Fernandez
I've never pointed blame at only the Scholastics. The reason for the USCF's
failure is horribly complex, and it probably would be impossible to give a true
answer and take everything into account.
In my opinion, Scholastics are a huge reason for it- not necessarily because
the kids may or may not be pulling their weight at $13, but because the
Scholastic Lobby is so strong that somehow they have demanded that this problem
doesn't apply to THEM or their membership category, and squawk whenever they're
asked to help. Whenever put into a difficult predicament, you'll get one of the
following answers:
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!"
"We're going to take our kids and leave!"
"Look!! Look at this!! SEE????? IT ISN'T US!!! IT ISN'T THE KIDS!!"
"We only do this because we're looking out for the poor unfortunate children,
like little Johnny Poorknight."
The posturing is ridiculous. I consider the scholastic lobby worthless if only
due to its unwillingness to help, and put the blame on anyone BUT them.
I'm becoming more and more rapidly convinced that a separate scholastic
organization would be a good thing for the USCF, on the one hand lessening the
burden of the revolving kiddie problem, and on the other hand, to get the
scholastic lobby out of USCF.
John Fernandez
George John
> >The two most popular scapegoats on this forum are the Life Members and
> >children.
>
> Well, there are clear problems regarding the LMA. Life members should not
be
> scapegoated, but the draining of the LMA may well have an effect on those
same
> life members.
When I recently said (in this same thread) that "Life Membership money has
been squandered" I meant it.
> Considering the effects of the underfunding of the LMA must be considered.
The USCF is in a deep hole. It's going to be tough to climb out of it. The
underfunding of the LMA and the lack of much of anything to compensate for
it (for example a healthy, steady growth of regular members, major profits
from B&E sales, sponsorships, donations, etc.) is a major problem.
George
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
-snip-
> I'm becoming more and more rapidly convinced that a separate scholastic
> organization would be a good thing for the USCF,
It would be a disaster, IMO. The difference between profit and loss for
many USCF clubs and organizers is the scholastic members who participate in
non-scholastic events. Furthermore, scholastic events often underwrite
non-scholastic events. Take away all those scholastic members and you will
see some clubs close and fewer and poorer events. Furthermore, with two
organizations economies of scale are lost and you lose much of the synergy
between the scholastic and non-scholastics.
But if the 'war' between scholastic and non-scholastics escalates much
beyond the pages of rgcp and starts causing real, major damage to chess,
then in the best interests of chess at large, I agree the organization
should be divided into two. But, I strongly recommend scholastic and
non-scholastic advocates learn how to work together (I realize this is
difficult for some chess players to do, given the nature of their passion
which is zero sum), and focus on what they have in common rather than what
divides them. They might be surprised by just how much in common they have
and how their futures are in many ways shared.
> on the one hand lessening the
> burden of the revolving kiddie problem,
We have revolving adult problem, too. Have you looked at the adult
retention numbers? They aren't a whole lot better than the children. And,
an efficient organization can manage this issue regardless. Too bad we
don't have one.
> and on the other hand, to get the
> scholastic lobby out of USCF.
Life members be warned, if the a new scholastic organization is formed, you
will become the sole scapegoat for the USCF problems. -grin-
What is this scholastic lobby anyway? Scholastic and youth members
represent approximately 55% of the total membership. Any lobby that has a
clear majority and allows a 46% increase in its dues (jump from $13 to $19)
or a roughly 50% loss of value in its membership (loss of magazines that
cost $6-7 of the $13 membership), while the other 'lobby' gets a 23%
increase (about half of the scholastic jump) is a pretty ineffective
'lobby'.
Would you please at least consider the possibility that what happened in
Cherry Hill was a compromise? I don't think anyone felt they made a killing
nor did they think they were getting totally burned. I do appreciate how
many wanted to see regular memberships stay at $40 (or lowered) and the
scholastic dues increased to $25 (or more), but a proposal where scholastic
dues are increased by 100% (or more) and regular by 0% (or less) was DOA.
Sufficient voters recognized the excessive risk of that large of a jump in
scholastics (46% may already be risky. That's a big jump in most markets)
Now for the cost side of the problem. Yes, office mismanagement, waste,
inefficiency, and bloat are all real issues. But, no one (so far) seems to
be willing or able to make the truly hard choices here, and, yes, I'm
painfully aware of how difficult it would be to make them. I don't know if
I could do it, at least not without a lot of support, and I were convinced I
was putting the best interests of around 90,000 people ahead of the
interests of less than 50. The office move, while expensive and risky in
itself, seems to avoid much of the need to make some of the most painful
decisions and avoid the inherent problems that come with such decisions.
I see two paths. One is to significantly retract. The other is to renew
the organization. Management seems to be going down the second path. I
supported that path in Cherry Hill. I hope it proves to be a good one.
George
AlforChess
be supportive of polities that:
1) Add to the profit of the organization
2) Increase the number of members
3) Support the mission >>
And here you bury some premises in all this straw. (sorry!)
Really, number three was going over the line. You're defining your position as
"supporting the mission," when I feel our argument is about what "supports the
mission."
Number one is part of the continuing points of contention.
Point two is an argument over definition as well. Does a "member" get nothing
from the organization? No contact? I'll bet many of the 13-dollar kids won't
even know they belong to USCF, and wouldn't know where to send a renewal check
if they wanted to. And in an effort to make some contact, we'll spend our
"margin."
Look, USCF suffers a Great Schism. We have to heal it somehow.
Perhaps we do after all need a separate scholastic federation that is
affiliated with the USCF in some cooperative way. Maybe that's the only way to
get over this. That way the scholastic group can make the rules it wants and
USCF can go back to governing itself in a consistent way.
One of USCF's goals is to promote chess in general. So why is it so terrible to
contemplate USCF promoting school chess without USCF "membership"? (To my mind,
we don't have those "members" now.)
Anyway, perhaps I'm totally wacked on this one from thinking about it too much.
Perhaps I'm playing Jefferson Davis to your Abraham Lincoln. History will be
kinder to you, but I'll feel safer in theatres.
Regards, al
.
AlforChess
What would you think of selling rating services at a profit to public education
institutions without requiring USCF memberships?
Richard Peterson >>
Not necessarily against it. Have to see how it would fit into an overall
approach, I guess.
Regards, al
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Mon, 04 Nov 2002 05:26:29 GMT,
"Timothy Hanke" <timoth...@attbi.com> writes:
<snip>
>So far this year, I have sold over 20 scholastic memberships at my own chess
>club. I am happy to have these new members playing USCF-rated chess at my
>club. But I refuse to be seduced by the false god of head counts. If we
>can't make money as an organization, we will go out of business. We must not
>let the scholastic advocates--who are obviously deeply irrational--guide the
>USCF's financial decisions, or we are doomed.
Scholastic advocates aren't irrational, they are just selfish
and greedy.
James B. Shearer
Vince Hart
> "Bruce Draney" <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
> news:3DC4AE...@novia.net...
>
> -snip-
>
> Bruce,
>
> I have some questions for you. Would you believe it if someone were to tell
> you the following:
>
> 1) there are children who can afford to pay nothing for chess or any other
> extracurricular activity?
>
> 2) these children participate in chess ONLY because a school, or club pays
> for their activity?
>
> 3) many of these schools and clubs are on a fixed budget?
>
> 4) if dues are raised these schools or clubs will be forced to tell some of
> these children they can no longer participate in chess?
>
> -snip-
>
> I have one more question for you. Have you ever been a scholastic chess
> coach for poor children?
>
> George
I would think that the best way to deal with those needs would be
fundraising on the local level rather than having the national
organization keep the dues rate at an artificially low level. That
way members could donate money to responsibly run scholastic programs
rather than being forced to subsidize every nitwit who wants to sell
chess to kids without taking any responsibility for whether or not
they actually learn the game.
Vince Hart
George John
Al,
> << I would expect you and all current and past USCF Executive Directors
would
> be supportive of polities that:
>
> 1) Add to the profit of the organization
> 2) Increase the number of members
> 3) Support the mission >>
>
> And here you bury some premises in all this straw. (sorry!)
>
> Really, number three was going over the line. You're defining your
position as
> "supporting the mission," when I feel our argument is about what "supports
the
> mission."
>
> Number one is part of the continuing points of contention.
Well, are these $13 and $19 members revenue positive to the organization or
not? I would appreciate a substantive answer please and not more
obfuscation.
> Point two is an argument over definition as well. Does a "member" get
nothing
> from the organization?
The answer depends upon your definition of "nothing", but I will assume you
mean mailings. One can ENCOURAGE school librarians to carry our
publications, and have affiliates, coaches, siblings, team members, and
friends share their copies with those who don't get one. Plus, the plan I
heard was to have a least one mailing a year for the $13 members. It might
be a catalog with a "School Mates" wrapper. Finally, contact can be by
e-mail (if an address is given) and via the Web on the USCF Website (if the
members have access to the Internet at school, a library, or home). Of
course, we (and the "we" is a broad one) will need to get the word out about
the USCF Website and have sufficient content there that someone might
actually be interested in. That's something we want anyway for other
reasons.
> No contact?
Straw indeed. -grin-
> I'll bet many of the 13-dollar kids won't
> even know they belong to USCF, and wouldn't know where to send a renewal
check
> if they wanted to.
One might presume that we would require at least an address from these
members. Should the club or school not renew in time, a renewal notice
would go to the address. In turn one might think the parents or child would
say something to the sponsor about the need to renew.
> And in an effort to make some contact, we'll spend our
> "margin."
Number pleases? Rough, ball-park estimates would be great. I obviously am
in need of an education (perhaps I'm not alone in this need?). Who better
to do it than a former ED.
>
> Look, USCF suffers a Great Schism. We have to heal it somehow.
I see no such great schism except on the pages of rgcp and in the minds of a
handful of chess politicians. In Texas there is for the most part great
harmony between scholastics and non-scholastics. Each works to the other's
benefit.
> Perhaps we do after all need a separate scholastic federation that is
> affiliated with the USCF in some cooperative way.
Management would lose their scapegoat. Can they really afford to do
this?! -evil grin-
> Maybe that's the only way to
> get over this.
I don't know what we are trying to get over, other than a finger pointing
game where all of the fingers are pointing in the wrong direction.
> That way the scholastic group can make the rules it wants
And, what rules do scholastics want that are so different than what
non-scholastics want?
> and
> USCF can go back to governing itself in a consistent way.
And might that be rule by the 'elite' behind closed-doors? -another evil
grin-
> One of USCF's goals is to promote chess in general. So why is it so
terrible to
> contemplate USCF promoting school chess without USCF "membership"? (To my
mind,
> we don't have those "members" now.)
There is nothing 'terrible' about this at all. It partially satisfies the
'mission' part of the 3 M's I keep repeating. However, it does nothing to
directly promote the 'membership' part. All other things being equal,
membership organizations like having members. Even if contact isn't as
direct as you might like, it is possible for these kids to feel like they
are part of something. Once they play four games, they will have a
nationally recognized rating that they can look up on the Internet. They
will be able to play in USCF rated events. We want people to think that
USCF rated events offer the best chess for children in the United States.
In Texas that is routinely the case.
> Anyway, perhaps I'm totally wacked on this one from thinking about it too
much.
> Perhaps I'm playing Jefferson Davis to your Abraham Lincoln. History will
be
> kinder to you, but I'll feel safer in theatres.
I thought you were the person who was advocating against this kind of
imagery?!
George
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
> I wouldn't pay the $3.75 at the newsstand. I find it unreadable, so I
probably
> wouldn't even pay $1 for it. Then again, I happily snap up NiCs at the
> newsstand for $12 a pop.
What does NiC offer that makes it at least 12 times more valuable to you
than CL?
> For my students, I consider it worthless.
What would need to change for it to have at least $1.00 worth of value per
issue?
> Then again, I also feel that the USCF has to send it to every member. No
one
> should be able to opt out of it.
You wish to push a product you think is essentially worthless to you and
your students on the membership?! Please explain.
-snip-
George
George John
"Vince Hart" <Vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7e6b09b.02110...@posting.google.com...
Vince,
> I would think that the best way to deal with those needs would be
> fundraising on the local level rather than having the national
> organization keep the dues rate at an artificially low level.
That's already being done. Otherwise, many of these children would not be
able to participate at all.
> That
> way members could donate money to responsibly run scholastic programs
> rather than being forced to subsidize every nitwit who wants to sell
> chess to kids without taking any responsibility for whether or not
> they actually learn the game.
"Nitwit"? Do you think I am more likely to listen to your arguments or
less when you use terms like that?
I have tried very hard to avoid using ad hominems with you. Perhaps you can
please extend the same courtesy to those who spend a good deal of their
volunteer time trying to make a difference in children's lives.
George
John Fernandez
>
>"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
>news:20021104140502...@mb-ch.aol.com...
>
>John,
>
>> I wouldn't pay the $3.75 at the newsstand. I find it unreadable, so I
>probably
>> wouldn't even pay $1 for it. Then again, I happily snap up NiCs at the
>> newsstand for $12 a pop.
>
>What does NiC offer that makes it at least 12 times more valuable to you
>than CL?
Much better writing, better interviews, better analysis (by the top players
themselves) which is more detailed and theoretically relevant.
Chess Life is full of very rushed and haphazard analysis, when you're lucky to
get any. The tournament reports are squished, and the writers are generally not
doing a great job. I link that to the poor compensation they get. Also, Chess
Life is full of "ad-columns" which are really advertisements in column form.
>> For my students, I consider it worthless.
>
>What would need to change for it to have at least $1.00 worth of value per
>issue?
Better analysis of games. Thurough explanations of a game from top to bottom,
enough for 1100's to understand, but even for 2400's to appreciate. There's a
lot of interesting stuff under the surface of a chess game that you can bring
out.
>> Then again, I also feel that the USCF has to send it to every member. No
>one
>> should be able to opt out of it.
>
>You wish to push a product you think is essentially worthless to you and
>your students on the membership?! Please explain.
>
>George
Like it or not, the Chess Life is the one real link that the USCF has with its
members. It does have the TLAs in the back, and that has some value, certainly
(although TLAs have definitely not recovered from the TLA butchering of De
Feis.) If you stop sending them that, all they are doing is paying for a rating
service.
John Fernandez
John Fernandez
>But if the 'war' between scholastic and non-scholastics escalates much
>beyond the pages of rgcp and starts causing real, major damage to chess,
>then in the best interests of chess at large, I agree the organization
>should be divided into two.
George,
It's painfully clear to me that this has been happening over and over. Cherry
Hill was the most blatant example of that. To say that this war hasn't caused
real and major damage to chess is just mistaken.
>We have revolving adult problem, too. Have you looked at the adult
>retention numbers? They aren't a whole lot better than the children. And,
>an efficient organization can manage this issue regardless. Too bad we
>don't have one.
Don't get me wrong, adult members are having problems too, but we seem to be
taking membership increases for them very lightly. Any sane person looking at
the numbers wouldn't jack up the adult rate.
>What is this scholastic lobby anyway? Scholastic and youth members
>represent approximately 55% of the total membership. Any lobby that has a
>clear majority and allows a 46% increase in its dues (jump from $13 to $19)
>or a roughly 50% loss of value in its membership (loss of magazines that
>cost $6-7 of the $13 membership), while the other 'lobby' gets a 23%
>increase (about half of the scholastic jump) is a pretty ineffective
>'lobby'.
From my viewpoint, things were much better for the scholastic lobby.
I felt (and I'm not alone in this) that scholastics should pay 50% of the adult
rate. They went from paying 33% pre-Cherry Hill to either 39% or 27% of the
adult rate.
Where the hell was the big bite? I don't see it.
A scholastic lobby gets up in front of the microphone and says "If you don't
give us this option, we'll walk." No one did this on behalf of the adults.
>Would you please at least consider the possibility that what happened in
>Cherry Hill was a compromise? I don't think anyone felt they made a killing
>nor did they think they were getting totally burned. I do appreciate how
>many wanted to see regular memberships stay at $40 (or lowered) and the
>scholastic dues increased to $25 (or more), but a proposal where scholastic
>dues are increased by 100% (or more) and regular by 0% (or less) was DOA.
>Sufficient voters recognized the excessive risk of that large of a jump in
>scholastics (46% may already be risky. That's a big jump in most markets)
I don't consider that a compromise. I consider it a token of good faith
followed by a demand. I'm sure there are many scholastic people who don't think
the scholastic dues were raised by one dime, and will happily continue to offer
it at $13. The compromise was "Ok, we'll let some other kids pay $19." They
were only looking after their own.
John Fernandez
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
-snip-
> Much better writing, better interviews, better analysis (by the top
players
> themselves) which is more detailed and theoretically relevant.
>
> Chess Life is full of very rushed and haphazard analysis, when you're
lucky to
> get any. The tournament reports are squished, and the writers are
generally not
> doing a great job. I link that to the poor compensation they get.
How much does NiC pay for a column versus CL? How do their total budgets
compare? Would you be willing to sacrifice total number of pages for
columns that meet your quality standards?
> Also, Chess
> Life is full of "ad-columns" which are really advertisements in column
form.
> >> For my students, I consider it worthless.
> >
> >What would need to change for it to have at least $1.00 worth of value
per
> >issue?
>
> Better analysis of games. Thurough explanations of a game from top to
bottom,
> enough for 1100's to understand, but even for 2400's to appreciate.
There's a
> lot of interesting stuff under the surface of a chess game that you can
bring
> out.
I hope you will send all of these comments to the CL Editor.
> >> Then again, I also feel that the USCF has to send it to every member.
No
> >one
> >> should be able to opt out of it.
> >
> >You wish to push a product you think is essentially worthless to you and
> >your students on the membership?! Please explain.
> >
> >George
>
> Like it or not, the Chess Life is the one real link that the USCF has with
its
> members.
One would have hoped that by now for many it could be the Website, too, but,
alas, it appears to not be so.
> It does have the TLAs in the back, and that has some value, certainly
Is the TLA section possibly worth at least $1.00 a month?
> (although TLAs have definitely not recovered from the TLA butchering of De
> Feis.) If you stop sending them that, all they are doing is paying for a
rating
> service.
Almost immediately after I heard about the TLA increase I posted a message
with 8 bullet points regarding why I thought it was such a bad policy (very
non- Black of me to do that -grin-), but I missed one of the most obvious
reasons why it was so bad, and that was that once a company loses market
share it becomes very difficult to regain it. Organizers have found other
means to advertise; although, I must say that a 6-line ad in CL for two
months for $15.00 is a real bargain.
Let's hope that B&E doesn't suffer the same fate as the TLA section of CL!
George
AlforChess
>imagery?!
>
>George
Hi, George--
I'm sorry you're taking offense at my opinions and way of expressing them. I
really mean no offense.
Even a nod toward your possibly being the correct one gets twisted into a
negative. Did it really offend your sensibilities that I made a Lincoln
"theatre" joke? I apologize. It was an attempt at humor.
To at least some substance: Your idea of "third-party" memberships where there
is another entity between USCF and the "member" giving out info is not mine. I
don't think that makes the kids members of USCF in the way I'd like them to be.
Look, I want more kids to play chess in schools. I visit schools and libraries
several times a month, giving simuls and talking about chess. In fact, I spent
2 hours at a middle school today. I LIKE kids to play chess.
One of the goals of USCF when I was ED was simply to get kids to play chess. I
did a lot to accomplish that. In fact, the whole scholastic emphasis happened
with my involvement. (I am NOT claiming indispensibility nor being the primary
force).
Maybe I'm wrong and adult members don't see the pricing as inappropriate. Maybe
there's a new association reality that no-contact membership can lead to
success. Could honestly be.
Peace.
al
Louis Blair
_
If the issue is "the burden of the revolving kiddie problem",
then it seems to me that one needs a definitive answer to the
issue of whether or not the kids are "pulling their weight".
If the issue is the willingness "to help", I do not see how
forming "a separate scholastic organization" would increase
willingness "to help".
George John
Al,
> >I thought you were the person who was advocating against this kind of
> >imagery?!
> >
> >George
>
> Hi, George--
>
> I'm sorry you're taking offense at my opinions and way of expressing them.
I
> really mean no offense.
I wasn't offended. I was primarily attempting to point out that your
behavior in this case wasn't consistent with a request you made of others
recently.
> Even a nod toward your possibly being the correct one gets twisted into a
> negative. Did it really offend your sensibilities that I made a Lincoln
> "theatre" joke? I apologize. It was an attempt at humor.
I understand it was an attempt at humor. I could be mistaken, but wasn't it
you who asked we refrain from this type of humor on rgcp?
> To at least some substance: Your idea of "third-party" memberships where
there
> is another entity between USCF and the "member" giving out info is not
mine. I
> don't think that makes the kids members of USCF in the way I'd like them
to be.
We frequently use "third-parties", namely our affiliates, to communicate
information. In fact we rely on them, at least in the short-run (and
sometimes exclusively, which I dislike) to transmit important information,
usually involving the rules.
I'm simply trying to argue that having access to a shared magazine if better
than nothing at all. You seem to disagree. If so, fine. We can agree to
disagree until either of us comes up with something substantive to disprove
the other.
> Look, I want more kids to play chess in schools. I visit schools and
libraries
> several times a month, giving simuls and talking about chess. In fact, I
spent
> 2 hours at a middle school today. I LIKE kids to play chess.
GOOD!
> One of the goals of USCF when I was ED was simply to get kids to play
chess. I
> did a lot to accomplish that. In fact, the whole scholastic emphasis
happened
> with my involvement. (I am NOT claiming indispensibility nor being the
primary
> force).
Whew, for a moment I thought you might be saying that you created scholastic
chess (similar to a famous Al and the Internet)! -big grin-
> Maybe I'm wrong and adult members don't see the pricing as inappropriate.
A lot of adult members are concerned about the pricing, but I think it's not
so much due to the fact the kids are getting a cheaper membership, discounts
for kids are common. What they ARE concerned about is the lack of value of
the membership. That can be corrected by either improving the product
and/or better explaining to the members what the value of the membership is.
IMO, the USCF could stand major improvement in communicating the value of
the membership.
Here's an exercise for you. Spend 5 minutes on the USCF Website. Pretend
you know nothing about the USCF and organized chess. Would you be sold on
the value received for $49 having done this exercise? That should be the #1
goal of the USCF Website, which is someone enters the USCF Website with
little or no knowledge of the USCF and leaves having spent $49 in the online
store for a membership or $19 or $23 (assume the day you do this is January
1st, 2003) for a child's membership.
> Maybe
> there's a new association reality that no-contact membership can lead to
> success. Could honestly be.
You keep suggesting that the $13 membership will be a no-contact membership?
Why do you keep saying this? You have not refuted a single point I made
about other means of access (other than direct mail to the individual which
you find so absolutely crucial) to our publications have you?
I keep hoping the $13 option will be used only when absolutely necessary.
Let's assume the worse, do you really think a revenue positive, no-contact
member IS WORSE than a zero revenue, no member at all?
>
> Peace.
Much better! -smile-
Peace, also.
George
John Fernandez
>How much does NiC pay for a column versus CL? How do their total budgets
>compare?
I don't know, but I'll try to find out.
>Would you be willing to sacrifice total number of pages for
>columns that meet your quality standards?
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I count 28 pages in CL of actual content
(not ads). The November issue is 66 pages long. I count 84 pages of actual
content in NiC in a 98 page magazine.
(Yes, I know that CL is 8.25" x 10.75" vs. NiC's 6.5" x 9.5", in other words,
NiC is 70% the size of CL.)
>I hope you will send all of these comments to the CL Editor.
To be honest, I don't think there's any way that this could ever happen. It
would require carpet bombing Chess Life and starting all over. I count 6 1/2
pages of actual NEWS in the magazine, about 3 tournaments. Maybe the USCF has
studies showing that people like the same columns and fluff pieces. I dunno.
Then again, I happily admit to having a strong player bias.
Then again, I've been working on my annotations for the game where Hikaru nuked
me in Bermuda for ChessBase (annotated in 7 languages!!)
>One would have hoped that by now for many it could be the Website, too, but,
>alas, it appears to not be so.
Don't get me started on the website. The "news" section hasn't been updated
since February, and there's only a brief mention of the Olympiad on the front
page.
>Is the TLA section possibly worth at least $1.00 a month?
It could be. Then again, it's available for free on the website.
John Fernandez
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
> It's painfully clear to me that this has been happening over and over.
Cherry
> Hill was the most blatant example of that. To say that this war hasn't
caused
> real and major damage to chess is just mistaken.
The most major 'damage' I can think of is that this discussion tends to
cause us to become distracted and not see what are most likely the real
problems that face the organization.
> >We have revolving adult problem, too. Have you looked at the adult
> >retention numbers? They aren't a whole lot better than the children.
And,
> >an efficient organization can manage this issue regardless. Too bad we
> >don't have one.
>
> Don't get me wrong, adult members are having problems too, but we seem to
be
> taking membership increases for them very lightly.
No, we have not!! I voted VERY RELUCTANTLY for an adult dues increases. My
problem was no one else proposed what I thought was a more viable
alternative. When an organization is in trouble, hard choices have to be
made. I went with what I thought was the best plan (really the only
comprehensive plan that was offered).
> Any sane person looking at
> the numbers wouldn't jack up the adult rate.
Well, then it's obvious that a majority of your 2002 Board of Delegates were
not "sane" then. Since I am one of the 'insane', why are you even
discussing this with me? I can't see how discussing this topic with someone
who is 'insane' is a very productive use of your time. -big grin-
Seriously, what is YOUR alternative. You have advocated elimination of B&E.
You want a better CL which will cost more money. What else? Take the
existing budget and suggest some alternate numbers please.
> >What is this scholastic lobby anyway? Scholastic and youth members
> >represent approximately 55% of the total membership. Any lobby that has
a
> >clear majority and allows a 46% increase in its dues (jump from $13 to
$19)
> >or a roughly 50% loss of value in its membership (loss of magazines that
> >cost $6-7 of the $13 membership), while the other 'lobby' gets a 23%
> >increase (about half of the scholastic jump) is a pretty ineffective
> >'lobby'.
>
> From my viewpoint, things were much better for the scholastic lobby.
Do you consider your POV to be unbiased? If I told someone membership
category "A" had a 46% dues increase and category "B" had a 23% dues
increase, which one would do you think would answer got the better deal?
We could look at this in terms of absolute dollars, too, but would that be a
more fair way of looking at this? And, is a net increase of $4 really so
different than $5?
> I felt (and I'm not alone in this) that scholastics should pay 50% of the
adult
> rate. They went from paying 33% pre-Cherry Hill to either 39% or 27% of
the
> adult rate.
This is partially an apples to oranges comparison assuming ANY REASONABLE
VALUE associated with the publications. The Youth membership, which does
have the same benefits as Regular members, IS 50%. Subtract 6 CL issues and
you get a Scholastic membership. Since Youth is $23 (half of the $45 net
Regular dues) and $23 - $6 = $17 we are exactly where we need to be for the
net Scholastic dues with magazine. Subtract another $5 dollars (less 6 CL +
1 SM Annual) and we get $12 which is exactly the net cost of the no-magazine
Scholastic.
So, this seems to me to conform almost exactly with what you want, a 50%
discount for the kids for the same services (comparable to kid discounts
elsewhere). So, where's the beef?
> Where the hell was the big bite? I don't see it.
I don't understand this comment.
> A scholastic lobby gets up in front of the microphone and says "If you
don't
> give us this option, we'll walk."
When was THIS said?! I never heard such a thing! And who is this so-called
lobby? You have access to the minutes. Please give me some names.
> No one did this on behalf of the adults.
You are correct. Again, no one did this for ANYONE. Nor should have
anyone done this!
> I don't consider that a compromise.
Then we must agree to disagree, and sadly my ability to take you seriously
has been diminished. One of the keys in life is the ability to reach
consensus and compromise. It's difficult to work with any apparent
hardliner, who is so totally convinced that his position is the unbiased
truth and there is no room for compromise. Fortunately, a majority of the
Board of Delegates did not subscribe to your apparent POV.
> I consider it a token of good faith
> followed by a demand.
I don't understand this comment.
> I'm sure there are many scholastic people who don't think
> the scholastic dues were raised by one dime, and will happily continue to
offer
> it at $13.
They lost their magazine!! That's a major loss of value. From an ex-ED's
POV it seems to be a total loss of value. I don't go quite so far as he,
but I think it's a major loss of value, far more than the savings and hence
I won't recommend it unless it's absolutely necessary to save the most needy
from dropping out.
> The compromise was "Ok, we'll let some other kids pay $19." They
> were only looking after their own.
Those who can afford $19 SHOULD PAY IT. Those programs, which are faced
with cutting children, can instead opt to go with the $13 option. Just
because YOU think CL has effectively no value doesn't mean that everyone
else thinks this way. I think 6 magazines has much more value than $6. I
will recommend the $19 option whenever possible.
George
John Fernandez
>then it seems to me that one needs a definitive answer to the
>issue of whether or not the kids are "pulling their weight".
I think we need a definitive answer on this, although it seems painfully
obvious from the current state of affairs.
>If the issue is the willingness "to help", I do not see how
>forming "a separate scholastic organization" would increase
>willingness "to help".
The scholastic lobby (again, I'm making some blatant generalizations here, but
I mean no personal offense) is quite motivated when it comes to scholastic
chess itself. Perhaps it would be more worthwhile to have that section fund
itself, especially since it could take advantage of 501(c)(3) laws.
Such a scholastic organization would be at some level tied to the USCF, but
completely independent as far as policy and whatnot. I'd suggest they use the
same rating system, for example.
John Fernandez
John Fernandez
>The most major 'damage' I can think of is that this discussion tends to
>cause us to become distracted and not see what are most likely the real
>problems that face the organization.
I agree. There's too much finger pointing and too little action.
>No, we have not!! I voted VERY RELUCTANTLY for an adult dues increases. My
>problem was no one else proposed what I thought was a more viable
>alternative. When an organization is in trouble, hard choices have to be
>made. I went with what I thought was the best plan (really the only
>comprehensive plan that was offered).
I understand that, but I still remain uneasy. None of us seem to have any idea
what the true financial situation is, and to be honest, there's a certain level
of distrust I have towards the USCF Executive. The cuts are going to have to
happen in New Windsor, and there's unstandably some feelings against it.
>Seriously, what is YOUR alternative. You have advocated elimination of B&E.
>You want a better CL which will cost more money. What else? Take the
>existing budget and suggest some alternate numbers please.
My alternative is to basically level everything. Start all over. New mission
statement, new technology, new everything. Sell everything off, and then use
that money to build up a USCF. My idea of the USCF is sure as hell not a 40-50
employee behemoth. If it employs 10 full time, I'd be shocked.
I think the entire budget is so FUBAR (not FOOBAR, *grin*) that using it on
anything is absurd.
We get $2M or so in memberships annually, plus rating fees. The magazine should
be its own independent department, as should ratings. The other group should be
working on the promotion of chess.
>> >What is this scholastic lobby anyway? Scholastic and youth members
>> >represent approximately 55% of the total membership. Any lobby that has
>a
>> >clear majority and allows a 46% increase in its dues (jump from $13 to
>$19)
>> >or a roughly 50% loss of value in its membership (loss of magazines that
>> >cost $6-7 of the $13 membership), while the other 'lobby' gets a 23%
>> >increase (about half of the scholastic jump) is a pretty ineffective
>> >'lobby'.
>>
>> From my viewpoint, things were much better for the scholastic lobby.
>
>Do you consider your POV to be unbiased?
Not at all.
>If I told someone membership
>category "A" had a 46% dues increase and category "B" had a 23% dues
>increase, which one would do you think would answer got the better deal?
It depends. I feel category A was horribly underpriced and category B was
probably just right, and erring on the side of too much. It would be one thing
if people thought both were equally fair.
>We could look at this in terms of absolute dollars, too, but would that be a
>more fair way of looking at this? And, is a net increase of $4 really so
>different than $5?
Isn't it $9 vs. $6?
>> I felt (and I'm not alone in this) that scholastics should pay 50% of the
>adult
>> rate. They went from paying 33% pre-Cherry Hill to either 39% or 27% of
>the
>> adult rate.
>
>This is partially an apples to oranges comparison assuming ANY REASONABLE
>VALUE associated with the publications. The Youth membership, which does
>have the same benefits as Regular members, IS 50%. Subtract 6 CL issues and
>you get a Scholastic membership. Since Youth is $23 (half of the $45 net
>Regular dues) and $23 - $6 = $17 we are exactly where we need to be for the
>net Scholastic dues with magazine. Subtract another $5 dollars (less 6 CL +
>1 SM Annual) and we get $12 which is exactly the net cost of the no-magazine
>Scholastic.
Okay, but let's be fair- I've been screaming about everyone getting 12 Chess
Lifes for years now.
>So, this seems to me to conform almost exactly with what you want, a 50%
>discount for the kids for the same services (comparable to kid discounts
>elsewhere). So, where's the beef?
That what we're left with is awkward. For more beef, see below.
>> A scholastic lobby gets up in front of the microphone and says "If you
>don't
>> give us this option, we'll walk."
>
>When was THIS said?! I never heard such a thing! And who is this so-called
>lobby? You have access to the minutes. Please give me some names.
Shutt did, in not so many words, if lots of people are to be believed. What he
said wasn't listed in the minutes.
Don't get me wrong, I love Steve. I've known him for years, and he's a great
supporter of our tournament since day one. Maybe he just had the courage to say
what a lot of other people were thinking. It was pretty clearly laid down that
they wouldn't put up with a $19 Scholastic membership. If it wasn't, this $13
option wouldn't exist.
>> No one did this on behalf of the adults.
>
>You are correct. Again, no one did this for ANYONE. Nor should have
>anyone done this!
I think lots of people were concerned more about the scholastic industry than
the USCF. To be brutally honest, I think you're naive for not accepting that
people may have ulterior motives on this.
>> I don't consider that a compromise.
>
>Then we must agree to disagree, and sadly my ability to take you seriously
>has been diminished. One of the keys in life is the ability to reach
>consensus and compromise. It's difficult to work with any apparent
>hardliner, who is so totally convinced that his position is the unbiased
>truth and there is no room for compromise. Fortunately, a majority of the
>Board of Delegates did not subscribe to your apparent POV.
Where's the compromise?
The adults got a $9 rate increase. They didn't get any special perks or stealth
memberships.
The kids grudgingly went up around where they should have been in the first
place, but even then, the scholastic lobby demanded, and got, a $12/$13
membership for them.
I don't see a compromise for the Adults. I don't see one for the Life Members.
I don't see one of the Youth members. I only see it for the Scholastics.
If you can't take my seriously on this, fine.
>They lost their magazine!! That's a major loss of value. From an ex-ED's
>POV it seems to be a total loss of value. I don't go quite so far as he,
>but I think it's a major loss of value, far more than the savings and hence
>I won't recommend it unless it's absolutely necessary to save the most needy
>from dropping out.
I think they should be getting 12 issues of Chess Life. I agree that this is
bad, but they're still getting a rate of either 26% or 39% of the Adult
membership. The $13 scholastic membership isn't any different than the
"Internet" Membership.
>> The compromise was "Ok, we'll let some other kids pay $19." They
>> were only looking after their own.
>
>Those who can afford $19 SHOULD PAY IT. Those programs, which are faced
>with cutting children, can instead opt to go with the $13 option. Just
>because YOU think CL has effectively no value doesn't mean that everyone
>else thinks this way. I think 6 magazines has much more value than $6. I
>will recommend the $19 option whenever possible.
>
>George
I just think we disagree on how common the $13 vs. $19 will be. Only time will
tell.
John Fernandez
AlforChess
behavior in this case wasn't consistent with a request you made of others
recently. >>
George, this dialectic seems hopeless.
The polite request I made some time ago was that people not threaten each other
with physical violence on this newsgroup. (I never said anything about offense
"imagery," as you claim.) Although unfortunately I made my request in reaction
to what I later clearly discerned as a joke, it was in the context of some
pretty serious sounding threats from others.
The throwaway remark I made in our little debate had nothing to do with any of
this. Anyone reasonable and not hell-bent on ratcheting up a disagreement
should be able to see this.
Your revisiting it just shows me you want to try to "win" a debate with any
tactic you can. There are others here that will gladly take turns with these
rules, but not me, George. I tried to honestly admit that you could be right,
that I could be simply overthinking the problem, while making my points.
But you just bludgeon away.
Have the chopping party without me, please.
Regards, al
George John
Al,
> << I wasn't offended. I was primarily attempting to point out that your
> behavior in this case wasn't consistent with a request you made of others
> recently. >>
>
> George, this dialectic seems hopeless.
>
> The polite request I made some time ago was that people not threaten each
other
> with physical violence on this newsgroup. (I never said anything about
offense
> "imagery," as you claim.) Although unfortunately I made my request in
reaction
> to what I later clearly discerned as a joke, it was in the context of some
> pretty serious sounding threats from others.
Sorry, I recalled, it seems incorrectly, that you had asked people to not
joke about committing violence against each other. My mistake. I
apologize.
>
> The throwaway remark I made in our little debate had nothing to do with
any of
> this. Anyone reasonable and not hell-bent on ratcheting up a disagreement
> should be able to see this.
I'm not hell-bent on ratcheting up anything. It's based on my
misunderstanding of your request. I should have reread your statement
before commenting I guess. I thought my memory was clear. It wasn't.
Again, I'm sorry.
> Your revisiting it just shows me you want to try to "win" a debate with
any
> tactic you can.
You would be incorrect to think this. It may surprise you to learn that I
not interested in "winning" debates. I have different goals in mind, which
are to understand better what led to the current sorry state of the USCF and
how what might work and not work in our attempt to turn things around.
Since you have worked professionally in chess administration, I'm going to
tend to press you especially hard for answers and information. If I'm
pushing too hard, just let me know and I will back off.
> There are others here that will gladly take turns with these
> rules, but not me, George. I tried to honestly admit that you could be
right,
I did appreciate the possibly of an acknowledgement that I might have a
valid point or two, but it was so muddled by the Lincoln thing, I discounted
it -- is seems improperly.
> that I could be simply overthinking the problem, while making my points.
>
> But you just bludgeon away.
I don't think Lincoln's assassination is joking matter in any context.
Possibly you do. If so, we will have to agree to disagree on this as well.
Then again, maybe it wasn't a joke and was instead a metaphor, that I will
be verbally 'assassinated for my attempts at holding the USCF 'union'
together, but may be eventually recognized as having being justified in my
quest.
> Have the chopping party without me, please.
No one is forcing you to continue this discussion. Since most of my
questions have gone unanswered anyway despite repeated attempts, I certainly
won't mind. I think we can both find more productive uses of our time other
than going around in circles over these points.
Again, sorry my misunderstanding. Hopefully, our next exchange will be more
positive and productive.
George
AlforChess
I think nearly everything (I do have a few personal lines in the humor sands)
can be a general context for humor of some kind. I don't care for humor that's
intended to be hurtful to any particular group, but just goofy humor about an
historical occurrence seems fair game to me.
That doesn't mean that I think Lincoln's actual assassination is funny. Did you
think that was the case, George? I'm normally not confused about what's real
and what's a joke.
Here's one aboutmy reaction to your correspondence:
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Regards, al
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
-snip-
> I understand that, but I still remain uneasy.
I am uneasy, too. The Board of Delegates routinely works with too little
information and much of that is given to them at the last moment.
> None of us seem to have any idea
> what the true financial situation is,
Even the ED doesn't know, because of inadequate financial systems. He's
working to correct that. We are already starting to see better reports.
The big advance will be when the cost center accounting is in place (unless
it has already been done).
> and to be honest, there's a certain level
> of distrust I have towards the USCF Executive.
Given past administrations' actions and this one's seeming lack of interest
in communication, I don't blame you or anyone if they are distrustful.
-snip-
> >We could look at this in terms of absolute dollars, too, but would that
be a
> >more fair way of looking at this? And, is a net increase of $4 really so
> >different than $5?
>
> Isn't it $9 vs. $6?
Based on "list" prices, yes. I used net amounts after "commission". I'm
assuming the office will actually set commissions to the maximums allowed by
the Board of Delegates and many affiliates will waive the commission to
lower costs to their patrons.
-snip-
> Okay, but let's be fair- I've been screaming about everyone getting 12
Chess
> Lifes for years now.
I think you want all members to get CL each month (even though it's a
"crappy" magazine with little value -grin-). The problem is cost. The
other possible problem is printing something each month that must satisfy
scholastic and non-scholastic members. The every-other-month schedule
reduces that problem.
-snip-
> >> A scholastic lobby gets up in front of the microphone and says "If you
> >don't
> >> give us this option, we'll walk."
> >
> >When was THIS said?! I never heard such a thing! And who is this
so-called
> >lobby? You have access to the minutes. Please give me some names.
>
> Shutt did, in not so many words, if lots of people are to be believed.
What he
> said wasn't listed in the minutes.
I do NOT recall his saying anything of the sort. I believe his concern was
that without the $13 option we might lose many members because programs
would no longer be able to pay for them. There was NO threat of a
scholastic walkout even hinted at that I heard.
> Don't get me wrong, I love Steve. I've known him for years, and he's a
great
> supporter of our tournament since day one. Maybe he just had the courage
to say
> what a lot of other people were thinking. It was pretty clearly laid down
that
> they wouldn't put up with a $19 Scholastic membership. If it wasn't, this
$13
> option wouldn't exist.
He pushed for the $13 option, but I think only for the right reasons.
> >> No one did this on behalf of the adults.
> >
> >You are correct. Again, no one did this for ANYONE. Nor should have
> >anyone done this!
>
> I think lots of people were concerned more about the scholastic industry
than
> the USCF. To be brutally honest, I think you're naive for not accepting
that
> people may have ulterior motives on this.
Some people no doubt do have ulterior motives, but they do not exclusively
exist in the so-called scholastic camp. Non-scholastics have their camps,
too. What hurts non-scholastics is that they have more than one camp and
these camps engage in bitter feuding.
> Where's the compromise?
All dues were increased (scholastic and non-scholastic). Please recall that
regular members have a no-magazine option, too, called the Economy
Membership (formally the Internet Membership)
>
> The adults got a $9 rate increase. They didn't get any special perks or
stealth
> memberships.
It's a net increase of $5.00 if affiliates waive the commission. Adults
have had a stealth membership since St. Paul. It was called the Internet
Membership and has been renamed the Economy Membership. Like the $13
option, it probably won't be widely advertised; although, it possibly does
save the office money.
> The kids grudgingly went up around where they should have been in the
first
> place, but even then, the scholastic lobby demanded, and got, a $12/$13
> membership for them.
>
> I don't see a compromise for the Adults. I don't see one for the Life
Members.
The only no-magazine membership that makes sense to me today is for the
hardship kids. I think the Economy Membership is probably a mistake, but
then again it might save some memberships for those who absolutely refuse to
pay the additional $5/$9.
> I don't see one of the Youth members. I only see it for the Scholastics.
And, for Regular members, too, but no one else SFAIK.
-snip-
> I think they should be getting 12 issues of Chess Life. I agree that this
is
> bad,
I'm confused.
> but they're still getting a rate of either 26% or 39% of the Adult
> membership.
Okay?
> The $13 scholastic membership isn't any different than the
> "Internet" Membership.
They are both no-magazine memberships. I'm not certain what point you are
trying to make here.
-snip-
> I just think we disagree on how common the $13 vs. $19 will be. Only time
will
> tell.
You are right. However, I think we can take steps that will significantly
influence the outcome. The reasons why the $19 option should be preferred
to the $13 must be strongly communicated to the affiliates and the
membership.
George
George John
Al,
> << I don't think Lincoln's assassination is joking matter in any context.
>>
>
> I think nearly everything (I do have a few personal lines in the humor
sands)
> can be a general context for humor of some kind. I don't care for humor
that's
> intended to be hurtful to any particular group, but just goofy humor about
an
> historical occurrence seems fair game to me.
>
> That doesn't mean that I think Lincoln's actual assassination is funny.
Did you
> think that was the case, George? I'm normally not confused about what's
real
> and what's a joke.
Let's just say that there are some things I'd prefer that people not joke
about or use in their jokes or attempts at humor, and try to leave it at
that. Presidential assassinations fall into that group. I think "goofy"
humor is inappropriate in this context. But, I really don't want to make a
big production out of this. How about we agree to no intended harm, no
foul, and move on please?
-snip-
George
George John
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
John,
-snip-
> I'm not sure what you're referring to. I count 28 pages in CL of actual
content
> (not ads). The November issue is 66 pages long. I count 84 pages of actual
> content in NiC in a 98 page magazine.
I think you said that NiC has $12 of value for you and CL less than $1 per
issue. Given the 70% page size, for CL to have $1 of value (its current
cost to produce for each member) for you CL would need to have about 5 pages
( 84 / 12 * 0.7 ) of content at the level of quality of NiC. Would you
settle for five pages of CL if those pages were to have the same level of
quality as NiC? Now let's try $2.50 for a CL issue (based on the
subscription price of $30 a year). That would be 12.5 pages of articles.
Would that work for you?
>
> (Yes, I know that CL is 8.25" x 10.75" vs. NiC's 6.5" x 9.5", in other
words,
> NiC is 70% the size of CL.)
>
> >I hope you will send all of these comments to the CL Editor.
>
> To be honest, I don't think there's any way that this could ever happen.
It
> would require carpet bombing Chess Life and starting all over. I count 6
1/2
> pages of actual NEWS in the magazine, about 3 tournaments. Maybe the USCF
has
> studies showing that people like the same columns and fluff pieces. I
dunno.
> Then again, I happily admit to having a strong player bias.
If no one ever sends feedback to the Editor, CL may never change.
Communication is two-way. The office needs to do a better job communicating
with the members, but is not the reverse also likely true?
> Then again, I've been working on my annotations for the game where Hikaru
nuked
> me in Bermuda for ChessBase (annotated in 7 languages!!)
Perhaps CL would have an interest?
> >One would have hoped that by now for many it could be the Website, too,
but,
> >alas, it appears to not be so.
>
> Don't get me started on the website.
Or, me either.
> The "news" section hasn't been updated
> since February, and there's only a brief mention of the Olympiad on the
front
> page.
One might have hoped that with the Webmaster outsourcing agreement that was
struck well before Cherry Hill things would have improved by now. Oh well.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. -grin-
> >Is the TLA section possibly worth at least $1.00 a month?
>
> It could be. Then again, it's available for free on the website.
How about for those who don't have convenient access to or dislike using
Websites?
George
B. Hardesty
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
{snip}
> The scholastic lobby (again, I'm making some blatant generalizations here,
but
> I mean no personal offense) is quite motivated when it comes to scholastic
> chess itself. Perhaps it would be more worthwhile to have that section
fund
> itself, especially since it could take advantage of 501(c)(3) laws.
I will bring up a point that is always overlooked in these endless
discussions.
How much profit does USCF make off the numerous national scholastic
tournaments that the organization runs? How does this compare to the profits
(if any) made from the non-scholastic tournaments sponsored by USCF? (I have
asked these questions to this group before, and no one answered, so I will
try again.)
These numbers MUST be factored in whenever we look at the total cost/benefit
to USCF of having lots of kids as members. If large numbers are so wonderful
for OTHER "scholastic organizers" (which is the refrain I often hear on this
newsgroup), then why are those large numbers not ALSO good for USCF in its
role as a tournament organizer. A few years ago, before USCF decided to
take over direct management of these tournaments, local clubs and organizers
were glad to bid on these national scholastic tournaments, because the
locals usually could make a profit. If USCF is not making a profit on them
now, perhaps they should go back to the old system of bidding by local
organizers. If they ARE making a profit, they certainly can't afford to lose
this money, which would happen if they decided to spin off scholastics as a
separate organization.
Brenda Hardesty
Austin, Texas
Senior TD
Occasional Scholastic and Adult Tourney Organizer
Mike Cummings
news:20021105004800...@mb-ch.aol.com:
> << I don't think Lincoln's assassination is joking matter in any
> context. >>
>
> I think nearly everything (I do have a few personal lines in the humor
> sands) can be a general context for humor of some kind. I don't care
> for humor that's intended to be hurtful to any particular group, but
> just goofy humor about an historical occurrence seems fair game to me.
Es[ecially when you consider that no one is left alive who was intimately
connected with it, so it's not like you are being cruel to anyone.
Dark humor is a good thing, although your joke barely even crossed over
to the dark side. The funniest people, I think, dance along the line
between good and bad taste. Better to inadvertently cross it now and then
than be safe and ever so dull. I thought the joke was funny, for what
it's worth (not much).
> Here's one aboutmy reaction to your correspondence:
>
> Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
I'm going to resist the urge to add to this.