(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
I am in the process of changing my mind about OMOV. For many years, I
was one of the strongest supporters of OMOV, which means One Member
One Vote. OMOV was long opposed by the stalwarts and insiders in the
USCF. They feared that under OMOV somebody like Larry Parr would be
elected.

The reason OMOV finally passed was the widespread revulsion of the
action of Tim Redman while he was president. Redman was only president
for one year, from August 2000 to August 2001, but in that one year he
nearly destroyed the USCF.

The Redman presidency was the last straw for the old system. It was
not only problems with Redman. There had been problems with the
Schultz Board, with the Barry Board, with the Dlugy Board, and with
the Winston Board. But, after one year of Redman, even long time
opponents of OMOV were ready to vote in favor of it, and it passed
overwhelmingly in Framingham, 2001.

Now, however, I am no longer so sure about OMOV. Nobody predicted what
would happen. What has happened is that the much-feared Larry Parr has
not run. Instead a bunch of people nobody ever heard of who have never
attended a USCF meeting and presumably know very little about the USCF
are running. What has happened is that a well financed outside group
could come in and take over and do a lot of harm (but also possibly a
lot of good) to the federation.

So, I will be thinking about this. I will be wondering whether or not
we should go back to the old system. This new election features five
candidates who have never attended a USCF meeting and it is guaranteed
that at least one of them will be elected. Is this a good thing or a
bad thing?

Sam Sloan

_________________________
Why even call it OMOV, when it is a minority of members that are
actually granted a vote? Perhaps it should be CMOV (certain members
one vote).

kiddon