Chess One wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

You know, the thing with S. Polgar is that she loves the game. She is
devoted to it, mand needs no other qualifications at all! Whereas the rest
of the candidates need to state their cases, et ca. People admit this of
Polgar since she demonstrates it beyond any personal intriguing or benefit.
It has been something missing from American chess, a sort of
immigrant-purity factor, that simply loves the game regardless of how others
behave - and this, by all accounts, is completely winning.

It's very true. When I was elected the last time, Susan sought me out,
and we had a conversation that lasted at least 30 minutes (keep in mind
we had never met before) about a variety of chess topics -- she is very
passionate about building chess in this country, and it was obvious to
me that she would provide the energy, drive, determination, etc., to
get it done. You're right that we should focus on results, and she has
delivered.

You, OTOH, must work at it, like all the other candidates. And to you must,
Randy, ask more pointedly about these 'awards' of big chunks of cash,
without bid, and without measure, scandals if conducted with govt. money
[though common as muck!] if you want to hold what any marketeer can garner
for you.

OK, but we must also be willing to take risks from time to time. On
the USCF forum, Mikhail Korenman's successes, both in securing
additional funding for chess and other activities were listed, and it's
pretty darn impressive. Here is what Paul Truong listed:

Fundraising:

2003 - Received a grant from the State of Kansas for $251,000 to
operate the Karpov International School of chess in Lindsborg, KS

2005/06 - Raised $150,000 for the Chess for Peace program featured
former President Mikhail Gorbachev, World Champions Anatoly Karpov and
Susan Polgar and a nationalwide scholastic group trip to Moscow for a
match with Russian scholastic players

For the USCF sponsored activities:

2003, 2004 - Raised over $15,000 for the Final Four College
Presidential Cup (officially sponsored by USCF! With $0 support in 2003
from USCF)

2004 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov inauguration to the Hall of Fame
(USCF sponsored $1,000)

2005 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov participation at the SuperNational
in Nashville, TN (USCF support - $0)

Chess Organizer:

· 2004 U.S. Junior Open
· 2004 U.S. Junior Championship
· 2004 U.S. Cadet Championship
· 2004 Pan American Intercollegiate Championship
· 2003, 2004 Final Four Presidential Cup
· 2001-2004 Lindsborg Rotary Open
· 2002-2005 Lindsborg Open
· 2003 Lindsborg Invitational
· 2004 Lindsborg Knock-Out
· 2003, 2004, 2005 KS Open
· 2004, 2005 Anatoly Karpov - Susan Polgar Match
· 2001-2006 Scholastic tournaments
· 2005 KS Scholastic Grade Championship
· 2001-2006 Summer camps
· 2003-2005 Seminars for Educators
· 2006 Illinois Championship

Awards:

2006 USCF Special Service Award
2005 FIDE International Organizer
2005 Community Service Award (Lindsborg)
2005 Rotary International Service Award
2004 USCF Chess Organizer of the Year

Dr. Korenman is also an important member of the USCF Scholastic
Council. He is well respected by many people including former WC
Anatoly Karpov, former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, Susan
Polgar and countless others.

Now, if I were a funder presented with this history, I might think it
worth a $10,000 investment. That said, I agree with the basic point,
that the USCF EB is not Santa Claus, and we should expect a return on
our investments and hold people to specific tasks and quantifiable
deliverables.

You may know that I've moved into the world of consulting, and that is
what my clients demand of me -- I am more than willing to expect the
same for the USCF.


(snip)

Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a
will
to do it, but a means to do it.

That's entirely correct and a fair point. That is why I've pledged to
support any other reasonable candidates with the background,
temperment, and ability to work collectively for change. I'm not
interested in serving on another board that is sharply divided. I
think that I can work with Bill, Joel, Don, etc. and I pledge to do so
if I'm elected.

Bad idea!

What you must do, is serve the constituency of players for whom Bill, Joel
and Don are merrily innocent, since these are the folks who have never
conducted a survey of US members on anything significant matter, and can
arrange a meet the critics meeting with critics who can't say dickey-boo.

It's a cogent point, but I don't think our positions aren't mutually
exclusive. The last time I served on the Board, I was supported and
aligned with a Board majority with whom I parted ways on several
important occasions. I worked to sway their votes, and sometimes I was
frustrated by what I perceived to be an "us versus them" mentality.
That is what I would work to eliminate from the Board's deliberations.


At the same time, I think it is important, once the Board has a made a
decision to constructively support the decision. Granted, there are
obviously exceptions for things like malfeasance, but when it's on the
margin, the Board needs to project itself as a team working for common
goals and objectives. That was my approach last time -- while I did
not agree with the decision at the time to select Crossville, I worked
to make it a success and argued for the good aspects of the decision.
I still think that is the right approach.

There are, however, some places where I went along last time where I
would now make more of a stand. I think that comes with experience and
with understanding your role. I like to think that I wouldn't need on
the job training.


You need your own plank - and you don't get it yet. You need to be a right
******* about spending money in accountable ways, and your experience allows
you to do that, and you have no competition whatsoever!

See the paragraph above -- I am happy to fulfill that role. The joke
in the Vilsack Administration when I was budget director was that the
Governor got to say yes, and it was my job to say no. I've practice
plenty in front of mirrors, and I can say no to just about anybody.

As someone who is indifferent to liking or not liking you, this is my
opinion. Ask 'uncle Larry' who is much the same, and although he actively
doesn't like you, he can still overcome his own liking or disliking to offer
disinterested and very practiced advice.

Thanks Phil -- although I think your indifference is more to the point
than Larry's.

But I shove my opinionis at you too hard, and you will have to tolerate me,
perhaps because I will not be insistent that you do these things, but that
someone, for gawd's sake! does.

Phil Innes

Randy Bauer