Ah! Well, this appears to be one vote of no confidence in our affaire
celebre!

"If our actions or inactions were ever found by a
jury to be the cause of significant damage to the
image and career of a high profile personality,
a jury award could easily be well into the millions."

I wonder who he can be thinking of?

And of course, not all confidence is equal, since very few people joke
around with their /own/ money, whereas of other people's money you might as
well be the awful NY Times ;(


"samsloan" wrote in message
...
Now, Joel Channing has posted to the USCF Issues Forum a statement
that he resigns effective immediately if the vote to cancel the
"Internet Insurance" passes. The problem with this is that at every
meeting while I was on the board, Channing said that he was
considering resigning. This is clearly part of his bullying tactics,
saying "If you don't do things my way, I am taking my ball and going
home".

Clearly bullying? I read these sentences rather differently:-

"This would mean that the financial health of the Federation itself, as
well
as those of the directors, could be at risk."

Its that's 'bullying' then bully for him! At least Mr. Channing seems to
have an appreciation of the difference between 'free' speech and responsible
speech. As indeed do Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, who rather pointedly do
not take part in USCF's forum, and also seek to have it closed down. Mr.
Channing seems less bullying, more prudent.

Now, we are waiting to see if he is bluffing or if he really will
resign. As one wag has pointed out, he says that he wants his assets
protected, but he wants USCF Membership dues money used to protect his
assets. He should use his own money to protect his assets.

That 'wag' does not understand Mr. Canning's sense of his legal exposure,
nor of any other USCF officer or board member. If USCF business activities
are attached in a suit, then those who direct those activities can be
personally responsible. Surely we should allow Mr. Channing's business
experience to advise his activities of which way is up?

All in all, "deep rook's" report of the departure of Mr. Canning seems to be
true! I can see no compromise possible here; the options being during a
financial crisis like none before to continue to pay lots of insurance for
the inconsiderable and very troublesome forum, or shut it down. Those Who
Must Be Obeyed are not famous for accommodation to others, nor even to
objective sense, and if they cannot accommodate Canning's business
experience, then I think it is better for both parties to formally divorce
their relationship with each other.

The overall impact of Channing's statement seems to me to indicate
substantial doubt and a certain distancing of himself from USCF's current
'activities' in terms of legal responsibilities, [and by the way, while Rome
smolders] the impending financial crisis which I think will hit home [that
is, the homes of USCF's employees] at about Christmas time.

200 grand adrift is about 7 salaried postions.

Phil Innes


Here is what Channing has posted:


"I agree with your characterization of our potential liability as
probably a long shot. However, I'm surprised that you, as a horse
racing devotee, don't readily acknowledge that long shots tend to
produce big payoffs. As I've said before, my business is based on
minimizing risk in the pursuit of a big payoff, not a big payout! If
our actions or inactions were ever found by a jury to be the cause of
significant damage to the image and career of a high profile
personality, a jury award could easily be well into the millions. This
would mean that the financial health of the Federation itself, as well
as those of the directors, could be at risk. As I've also said before,
I could ignore the risk of loss if I were confident that any loss
would be a small one. In this case, however, I think you'd have to be
delusional not to acknowledge the possibility that a jury award might
be very big. Also, as we've seen, legal fees for high quality lawyers
can also scr*w up our budget.

"In short, I think it would be extremely imprudent to put my personal
assets, your assets and the assets of the Federation at risk of great
loss, no matter how small the potential for loss. I am in the business
of building, not losing, assets and that is what I came here to do. I
also think that before the board decides to accept the risk of going
"naked" with respect to cyber liability, the finance and LMA
committees should be consulted.

"As I told you last week, there'll be no hard feelings on my part if I
resign over this issue."


Third, my decision:

I hereby resign my seat on the USCF Board contingent on the Board's
passing a motion directing the Executive Director to cancel our
Internet Insurance.


Joel Channing


P.S.: If the motion carries and it turns out that the above statement
wasn't properly submitted, I'll simply resign unconditionally at that
time.