Which State Affiliates Are Not Current?
Bruce
48 State Affiliates are currently listed. If Northern and Southern
California and DC are required to be State Affiliates, this means that
at least 4 states have either not renewed their membership or that the
audit is a couple months behind which is possible, seeing as how it was
last updated in early June and it's approaching mid August.
Still for several months the affiliate total was less than 52 and a few
months ago it was only 47. I just wondered if a state delegation can
be seated at a Delegates' meeting if it's affiliation is expired? Kind
of an interesting question.
If I just had to venture a guess I'd guess Montana, Oklahoma, and
Nevada might be three of the states. I hope it's not Nebraska but we
just elected a brand new President last month.
Matt Nemmers
news:1123790252.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There was a HUGE brouhaha within the Oklahoma Chess Association a couple
years ago. It's my understanding that they have two "official" state
associations now as well.
caro
Alan Kantor
RSH...@aol.com
Oregon, Idaho, and Montana were recently sold to China.
Old Haasie
Mike Murray
wrote:
>I think that may be due to the fact that the states of Washington,
>Oregon, Idaho, and Montana were recently sold to China.
Well, the Japanese needed the money.
Mike Nolan
>There was a HUGE brouhaha within the Oklahoma Chess Association a couple
>years ago. It's my understanding that they have two "official" state
>associations now as well.
Your understanding is incorrect. There is only one official state chapter
for Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Chess Association, T5011361.
There is another group that would like to be recognized as the official
state chapter for Oklahoma, but it is not easy to decertify a state chapter,
nor should it be.
Oddly enough, there appear to be two state chapters for Rhode Island.
I think that's the result of a processing error at the USCF office, it will
have to be reviewed and corrected.
There are five state chapters that are not current in their dues as of
today, though there may be dues payments not yet recorded, for example
if they were paid at the US Open. They are:
CT (Feb 2005), NC (Feb 2005), OR (Feb 2005), TX (June 2005), LA (July 2005)
If these state chapters are not current as of the start of the Delegates
Meeting, they will not be permitted to name Additional Alternate Delegates.
(The Delegates and Alternates are now elected by the USCF voting
members in the state, so the status of the state chapter is irrelevant.)
George John
Mike Nolan wrote:
[SNIP]
> There are five state chapters that are not current in their dues as of
> today, though there may be dues payments not yet recorded, for example
> if they were paid at the US Open. They are:
>
> CT (Feb 2005), NC (Feb 2005), OR (Feb 2005), TX (June 2005), LA (July 2005)
News to me, but I just renewed (I hope!) the Texas Chess Association
affiliate for $40.00. I will refrain from commenting on the process
since I understand it will be revised (hopefully sooner than later).
When I return from Phoenix, I will check to see what notices were
received, but I don't recall any by e-mail. The TCA is registered
online. We submitted an event and many memberships electronically.
> If these state chapters are not current as of the start of the Delegates
> Meeting, they will not be permitted to name Additional Alternate Delegates.
> (The Delegates and Alternates are now elected by the USCF voting
> members in the state, so the status of the state chapter is irrelevant.)
Hopefully, what I just did will work. If not, I will pay again onsite,
and the TCA will be good for two years.
Best regards,
George John
Bruce
think attendance would be good in Phoenix, particularly for the western
U.S. Maybe not as good for the northeast or southeast.
I'm curious who represented NorCal this year?
Bruce
forgive me if this is an obvious question?
Catalan
"Bruce" <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:1124037398.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hey is Hanken still active? You can tell I've been out of the loop, so
> forgive me if this is an obvious question?
Yes, to the extent that a guy in a wheelchair can be.
Duncan Oxley
> Hey is Hanken still active? You can tell I've been out of the loop, so
> forgive me if this is an obvious question?
>
He's in a wheelchair now. Still writing for Chess Life although
he had to take a pass on at least one of his regular beats recently.
Ah the ravages of time...
Duncan
Mike Nolan
I don't have the list, the western states were far better represented
than ones further away. I think around 78 delegates were certified.
--
Mike Nolan
George John
> Hopefully, what I just did will work. If not, I will pay again onsite,
> and the TCA will be good for two years.
Although the online store lacks a clear option for state affiliate
renewal (I selected regular instead), immediate feedback given by the
online store is not clear at all, IMO, and the automated e-mail which
is sent soon after is not clear enough, the USCF staff side of this
transaction was excellent. The onsite person accept the three hard
copies I printed before I left, and when I checked my e-mail later, I
found a clear renewal confirmation from the USCF office which was sent
on the same day of my transaction.
BTW, my first impression of the new staff people from the Tennessee
office, while I was at the US Open for three days or so, has been most
positive, especially the new Executive Director, Bill Hall. I am very
hopeful that, if the new Executive Board refrains from micromanagement,
and other "issues" which I will retrain from addressing at this time in
the interest of giving the new board "space", IMHO, I expect this new
team will do an outstanding job for us.
Best regards,
George John
Bruce
Are you being overly optimistic in believing that Mr. Hall will be
given full rein to run USCF as the ED?
I still remember Cavallo, DeFeis and Niro. I felt DeFeis was little
more than Tim Redman's sock puppet. Cavallo didn't seem to have ANY
experience or knowledge about running or managing a small
not-for-profit and Niro well what can one say about Frank?
George John
Bruce,
> Hmmmm Bill Goichberg is President and Don Schultz is Vice President.
> Are you being overly optimistic in believing that Mr. Hall will be
> given full rein to run USCF as the ED?
If I had actually said that, I would agree that I was being overly
optimistic. Since I did not say what you have attributed to me
(right?), I think I am not. The word "if" is critical in this
instance.
On the topic of the new officers, nearly everyone (and I really mean
nearly) with whom I spoke thought that new President *should* be Robert
Tanner. This idea first hit me like a flash while I was talking with
Greg, whom I found most impressive, notably with his ability to quickly
evaluate what is important in a political situation, his
*independence*, courage, and resolve. In my estimation he has great
potential to be a major contributor to USCF governance.
Why Robert Tanner? As much as I like Bill, the issue of Conflict of
Interest and a past history of divisiveness (fair or unfair) continues
to haunt me. The second is personality. Watching Robert in action
reminded me how intelligent, polished, and professional he is in front
of a group and individually. His resume is outstanding. And, he has
very few political opponents. The need for the organization to come
together and end its bitter feuding is high. I think Robert could have
done that much better than Bill. Bill has a chance to do so, too, but
it's going to be a MUCH steeper hill for him to climb than it would
have been for Robert IMHO.
The additional fallout from the selection of Bill over Robert is we
will now likely lose Beatriz from the board. I think had Robert been
made President, she would have remained. BTW, many encouraged her to
remain on the board, and she seemed willing to do so. Now it appears
(I am sad to say) she will not. IMO, this loss of seasoned board
member experience is huge.
Less important, but worth mentioning perhaps, is I think Joel lost a
major opportunity to accomplish two goals which in my estimation I
think he wants: one, to reduce the divisiveness in the USCF, and two,
to clearly prove his independence. If he had voted for Robert, I think
he would have likely achieved both goals. For certain, he would have
demonstrated to us that he will *truly* be his own man. Now, IMO, he
still has his work cut out for him in this regard.
This is all based on the information I have at hand. There may have
been good reasons to go with Bill over Robert. I just don't know what
they are. But, based on what I know right now, the choice of Robert
over Bill was compelling IMO.
I really do hope that Bill will do a great job, but based on past
history I can't realistically expect it with any high degree of
certainty. Avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest (and actual
COI of course!) and avoiding micromanaging the office to do things the
way *he* thinks it they should be done will be absolutely essential
IMO.
Best of luck to Greg, Bill, Joel, and Robert! I will look forward to
hearing the recording of the open session of their first meeting from
yesterday within a month.
Best regards,
George John
Bruce
I'm sure Sam will lambast whatever you say, just because you are you
and Sam is Sam. :)
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the B&E business and all of its
associated costs were the primary obstacle to anyone successfully
managing the organization. That and the fact that membership numbers
were plummeting during the time when USCF was losing money.
Once personnel costs were drastically reduced and the albatross of B&E
was shed and numbers at least stabilized and didn't dramatically worsen
the organization started having surpluses instead of deficits.
I think the main problem with Don and Bill is that they just cannot
accept a changing USCF. They insist upon hoping to take USCF back to
its glory years and that just isn't going to happen I don't believe.
George John
Bruce,
> Thanks for the reply and details of your personal observations, George.
You are welcome.
> I'm sure Sam will lambast whatever you say, just because you are you
> and Sam is Sam. :)
Since you mention him, I was just reminded on a different forum that a
significant number of votes for Sam Sloan were most likely *protest*
votes. Many voters are extremely upset with the USCF. A vote for Sam
Sloan is their attempt to send a very hostile message to the leadership
just how upset they are.
> Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the B&E business and all of its
> associated costs were the primary obstacle to anyone successfully
> managing the organization. That and the fact that membership numbers
> were plummeting during the time when USCF was losing money.
I agree the unsuccessfully managed B&E business was most likely a big
drain. Processing and servicing memberships and rating reports takes a
lot of work, too. Allowing those to be submitted online has been a
major breakthrough for the USCF in making it much more labor efficient.
> Once personnel costs were drastically reduced and the albatross of B&E
> was shed and numbers at least stabilized and didn't dramatically worsen
> the organization started having surpluses instead of deficits.
The pity is $1,700,000 went down the drain first.
> I think the main problem with Don and Bill is that they just cannot
> accept a changing USCF. They insist upon hoping to take USCF back to
> its glory years and that just isn't going to happen I don't believe.
I assume by "glory years" you mean when Fischer won the WC, and the
resulting boom in memberships. I agree that doing business the same
way won't be sufficient. If there are any dynamic, *positive* changes
in strategy for the USCF, it is likely to come from a Greg or Bill
Hall, and likely not anyone from inside the "old guard".
Best regards,
George John
Duncan Oxley
"Mike Nolan" <no...@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:ddp9fc$996$1...@gw.tssi.com...
How can I find out? Although I suspect my question should be WHEN.
Duncan