John J. wrote:
That may be true about the felonies. However, after seeing the number of
questionable decisions made by the board in the past few years and the way
they were made makes me think that electing Sam Sloan isn't such a bad idea
after all.

I also recall that once upon a time, it was thought that bloodletting
was good medicine.

I know many competent CEOs and CFOs. I seriously doubt that any of
them would find the prospect of a Sam Sloan serving on the Board of
Directors as anything but a bad idea.

Randy Bauer





"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

jr wrote:
For decades the USCF has fostered a culture of secrecy.

I am voting for Sam Sloan despite his faults because he has
the instincts of an investigative journalist and can't keep secrets.

With him on the board, at least we won't be kept in the dark.
And when he's wrong about something, the other board members
will be forced to tell us why he's wrong.

Either way, we win.

The USCF doesn't "win" by electing ex-felons who have had their
securities license revoked because of their "conduct." The guy
couldn't even keep his cab license. Even the Libertarian Party is
smart enough to keep him off the ballot. There is nothing to be gained
by putting a flake of this magnitude in a position of responsibility.

Randy Bauer