Ray Gordon wrote:

There are plenty of other strange characteristics of Sloan, including
his tasteless posts about his past sexual activities, many of them also
chronicled on his personal website, to lead me to conclude he is not
fit to serve on the Executive Board of the USCF.

Is it USCF policy to pass judgment of off-the-job behavior now? I heard
explicitly to the contrary when I raised concerns about what some of the
board members were doing on this group.

I am not a Board member; I am, however, a voting member of the USCF,
and I am expressing my personal opinion.

Is USCF admitting to Googling people now to check them out? If so, then
anyone who is a whistleblower would be known to them by virtue of that
search, and that foreknowledge is a key element in proving retaliation.

I did not claim to represent USCF practice. I know for a fact,
however, that many companies do Internet content searches when making
employment decisions.

The problem with trying to judge Sam on anything that isn't related to chess
is that USCF should be consistent if it goes that route. If they don't want
Sam having a good chance at getting elected (I'm tempted to join USCF to
vote for him myself), then they should not give him campaign fodder with all
the secrecy they've been engaging in.


Too bad Sam isn't running for Executive Board of the "non members of
the USCF" With Parr, Innes, Repa, Jerzy, Gordon, etc. on the bandwagon
he'd be a shoo-in.

Randy Bauer