Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
ericmark wrote:

I would like to correct a few factual inaccuracies in Mr. Sloan's
account of the meeting and forum last Sunday.

As for those present: Apart from the five EB members and ED Bill Hall,
there was one more young lady seated at the board table. She said
almost nothing but followed the proceedings closely with bright eyes.
I got the feeling I should know who she is, but alas I do not.


Unless you are referring to my daughter, Sandra, the lady with "bright
eyes" was Rachel Lieberman. sitting next to her husband Myron
Lieberman.

The Liebermans are mildly controversial. They do a wonderful job,
video-taping all these meetings and then writing the minutes. We could
hardly do without them, especially since nobody else wants to do those
dirty jobs.

On the other hand, the USCF pays their expenses to fly around the
country to attend these meetings.

The Liebermans do not really play chess. (Myron has a 1300 rating).
Yet Rachel served on the Executive Board for 6 years and Myron served
for either three or six years. Everybody wonders why.
[quote="ericmark"]
Sam Sloan arrived midway through the meeting, during the discussion of
the Polgar proposal. The audience included Frank Brady, who left for a
while then came back, and Brenda Goichberg. I think Hal Terrie was
there for a bit, and there were also two ladies I believe are Mrs.
Schultz and Mrs. Brady.
[/quote="ericmark"]

Yes. Hal Terrie steped in for just a second and then left. I believe
that he was not there during any substantive discussions. Also, I
forgot that Maxine Brady, the wife of Frank Brady, Theresa Schultz,
the wife of Don Schultz and the wife of Joel Channing were all there.

I guess I considered them to be non-persons.

When I get elected to the board, I will bring all my wives and
children to the meetings.

ericmark wrote:

The board did vote on the Channing amendment or motion in re
confidentiality; in fact that vote came before the vote on the Schultz
motion to endorse the Polgar proposal in re the all-girls AAT.

Channing's motion passed 3-2, with Schultz and Marinello opposed,
while the Schultz motion passed 4-1 with Marinello the lone "no" vote.

It was Bill Goichberg who proposed a alternate motion to endorse the
Polgar proposal "in principle" and refer it to the Scholastic Council,
the Women in Chess Committee and possibly elsewhere.

The question of whether Schultz' motion refers only to the text of the
Polgar email or rather that text plus the rating chart was and is not
100% clear to me. I suspect it's not 100% clear to 100% of the board.

Bill G. said Sunday his biggest objection to the proposal was the
rating chart. That's why he proposed to support the plan "in
principle."

Also technical issues complicated things. Based on comments Sunday, it
seems that the Polgar email message came as a whole text document to
some of its reipients, while to others the rating chart came as a
separate attachment. That's how it showed up on the Liebermans'
laptop, for instance.

Sam makes a good point that the requirement for USCF to "publicize"
the girls' AAT is too vague. Does that mean articles and photos in
Chess Life or does someone expect the Fed to take out ads in USA
Today?


Since you are a real journalist in real life and since you took notes,
I am sure that your account is more accurate than mine.

Thank you,

Sam Sloan Very Happy