wrote in message
ups.com...


Phil

Hi Marcus:

I have a number of things to say - the first is that while any of these
issues might be true, this is not the time to discuss them, since the person
is currently in no position to make a response, but (b) a greater point is
that without standards we only discuss personality issues - and USCF is
seemingly run /only/ on that basis. Therefore, I suggest to you that USCF or
any suceeding organisation, needs to (c) complement personality politics
with more than a little bit of science [of management].

In fact, it seems as though we do nothing but talk about the political level
of chess, and nothing of how this chess organisation is run by the people in
it - and it seems to me that the problem is not getting better people to do
the same thing, but in adjusting the balance so that the staff of the
organisation receive enough insulation from political meddling to be able to
deliver good services to the members.

I don't think this can be done without standards - which really means that
there are processes in place to channel directives from board or delegates,
which also have checks and balances built into them.

Constantly we read here about especially board members simple doing things
without reference to any standards whatever, or even to the knowledge of
other board members. This sosrt of rampant individualism has been
universally destructive, actually undermining all confidence in USCF to do
anything well.

They list of personality-crimes is huge! Whether its unwonted sponsors, poor
organisation of national events, in-the-pocket 'journalism', or the
ridiculous forum which is entirely politicized according to an ex USCF Pres.
[Reminds me of the bad days of the Soviet Union!]

When you read about any board member promoting a measure ensuring clear and
cogent process that the staff can sensibly undertake to member's benefit,
and without further interference from the board, then this will indicate the
route to recovery has begun.

But instead of fixing anything by grounding procedures in staff activity,
problems are attended to by blaming either outside parties or other chess
personalities. The obsession with this character-level orientation as the
sole means of governance is itself why USCF has declined in the chess
community's confidence. It now needs considerable balancing activity - and a
shift of power to the staff.

Consider this - if USCF were an actual small business, and had no board at
all, what would the difference be? In effect, would it be better or worse?
If USCF were an small incorporated business, then it would normally have a
quarterly board meeting composed mostly of people outside its own scope, but
with substantial business experience who can propose clear directions to
staff, and means to measure same. If USCF were a national non-profit,
pro-bono Caissa, it would actually perform a governance activity in setting
standards for chess, in spirit and in law, aimed at greater public
incorporation of the game - which certainly include normal community
standards for USCF's main market, scholastics.

All these things would allow us to rest our confidence [and out dollars!] in
it. Absense of these things make the issue of confidence more one of hopeful
expectation, and as for money - can the organisational structure actually
contain any?

Therefore, in the above I respectfully change the subject! When there are
sufficent standards in place, including checks and balances on
rogue-personalities, then the true role of personality can be contained, and
better channeled for the benefit of all. That, I submit, is the remedy, and
the gaping void of decent standards of behavior is ignored by those who
resent the constriction this will place on their own activities - even if
such constriction makes their contribution more useful to chess in the
country!

That criticism of personality politics applies to the entire board - and
perforce, by which I mean, necessarily - makes for 'dirty politics', since
that is the only means that warring egos can take to get their way - forgood
or for ill, but for sure!

Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont

Do you recall the USCF Delegates voted to pay 15,000 dollars of her
medical bills, after she attacked Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, President of
FIDE. In fact, she BACKSTABBED KIRSAN. She wrote an article attacking
Ilyumzhinov, and then DID THE SAME THINNG BY TAKING MONEY, except
Kirsan repaid FIDE, and Beatriz put the 15,000 dollars in her pocket.

Marcus Roberts