USCF Candidate Statements in June Chess Life

With the Election period over, I decide to re-read the candidate
statements to see who I would vote for were I not running myself. Here
are my reflections:

Wayne Praeder

Wayne Praeder managed to write 500 words without saying anything at
all. His statement contains not one word about chess. He could just as
well be running for the board of the United States Cricket Federation.

No wonder that everyone feels that Praeder will finish last. However,
be careful with such predictions. During the last election, everybody
thought that Tim Hanke would finish last. He was ignored, nobody
campaigned against him, and so he was elected.

Sam Sloan

Naturally I feel that I wrote the best statement. Every word is
factual and provides information which most of the general membership
probably does not know, although all of it is well known to regular
readers of this forum.

However, perhaps my statement is too negative and too factual. How
many votes will it get me? Would not I have done better with the happy
talk and vague generalities which characterize the statements by the
other candidates?

Randy Bauer

I would like to see Randy Bauer on the board. We desperately need
someone with the qualifications he claims to have. If he is elected, I
will push hard to have him made VP of Finance. Our current VP of
Finance knows nothing about finance and bull****ted his way into a
position for which he is totally unqualified and unsuited.

However, I am concerned about Randy Bauer making such a big issue
about conflict of interest. This is a veiled attack on Bill Goichberg
and Frank Camaratta. Every time anybody in the USCF talks about
conflict of interest they are talking about Bill Goichberg and Frank
Camaratta, even though their names are not mentioned. In my view, Bill
Goichberg and Frank Camaratta saved the federation. If it were not for
them, we would not have a USCF to argue over. Therefore, I would have
to vote no on Randy Bauer.

Mikhail Korenman

Mikhail Korenman lists the chess events he has organized recently. I
am allergic to this. On several occasions in the past, a candidate for
the board has organized a big chess event during the time of the
election campaign just to prove what a great candidate he is, and then
when elected has done nothing. For example, Garrett Scott organized
the US Junior Championship when he was running for the board but then
did nothing and turned out to be a terrible board member once elected.

However, my guess is that Mikhail Korenman is for real. Although he is
the new kid in town, this seems to be more substantial than just
window dressing and so I would vote for him.

Elizabeth Shaughnessey

Elizabeth Shaughnessey is a better candidate than her candidate's
statement reveals. Months ago I said that there was a thus far secret
candidate who would blow away the rest of the field once the election
campaign started. I was writing about Elizabeth Shaughnessey.

I know her fairly well. My daughter Jessica played in several of her
weekly Friday night tournaments at the Berkeley Chess Club. She has
been organizing chess events for years. However, I do not like the
fact that much of her candidates statement consists of a list of chess
personalities whom she says support her. Any of the candidates could
have created such a list. Also, her list consists almost entirely of
Northern California chess players plus players she probably met in the
World Chess Olympiads which she attends. Why is there nobody even from
Southern California on her list?

The last time we had a candidate like her was when Doris Barry ran and
presented a long of list of chess players across a broad spectrum who
supported her. Doris Barry was elected and turned out to be one of the
worst board members ever. Almost nobody who was on her list of those
who supported her any longer supported her when she resigned two years
later.

David A. Huff

Although he is far too focused around scholastic issues, I like much
of what he says, such as for example when he says that one of the
concepts should be everyone plays and everyone pays. I agree with him
that we need to strengthen our scholastic chess but we also need to
make sure that the little darlings carry their own weight. We can no
longer run scholastic chess as a loss leader.

On the other hand, I have never heard of David A. Huff before. I do
not know who he is. He is the only candidate that I never heard of.
His rating is 1047 and he has not played in six years. I would not
vote for him.

Summary

Mikhail Korenman gets my vote. Randy Bauer would get my vote except
for one point: I do not like him yapping about conflict of interest
which is a personal attack on Bill Goichberg whom I see to be the
savior of the federation. Third comes Elizabeth Shaughnessy. One
negative point is that some of the people whom she says supports her
do not really support her. They think she is a front for Eade. Next is
David Huff. Last is Wayne Praeder whom no chess player has ever seen
and there is doubt that he even exists.

Sam Sloan