Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet

The USCF Executive Board has decided to hold the February 2008 meeting
online over the Internet. There is no way that the general membership
will be able to participate. This was because Paul Truong refused to
go to California and Bill Goichberg refused to hold the board meeting
anywhere other than California, where he lives during the Winter
months. I am wondering if it is a violation of the by-laws not to
invite the membership to one of the quarterly board meetings.

This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
defeats the very purpose of having these meetings. Otherwise, the
meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.

Sam Sloan

Originally Posted by Brian Mottershead

Why does holding the meeting using an
online meeting service such as WebEx or GoToMeeting mean that there
cannot be any observers? That does not follow at all. If the
meeting is made closed because it is Internet-based, that will be a
pretext. It does not have to be closed.

I just looked at http://gotomeeting.com and it appears to be just a
fancy telephone conference call that outsiders can listen to. Is that
what we want?

Also, http://www.webex.com fails to explain how it works. None of this
seems to be an acceptable substitute for a live meeting with real
people present and members allowed to ask questions.

Sam Sloan

Originally Posted by Hal Terrie

It's not a violation of the Bylaws either. Article
VI, Section 3 of the Bylaws specifies that:

"The Executive Board shall meet at least twice per year, the day and
place to be fixed by vote of that Executive Board. Special meetings,
including conference telephone calls or Internet conference meetings,
may be called by the President or upon the written request of any
three members of the Executive Board."

That wording seems to imply that two meetings must be held in person
but others may be held in any way the EB wants. Article VI, Section 3
doesn't say anything about access of the membership to open sessions.
It says only that the minutes shall be posted on the web site within
six weeks and the audio recording of the open sessions shall be posted
within one month.

-- Hal Terrie

I am so glad that Hal Terrie brought up this last point, where it
says, "the audio recording of the open sessions shall be posted within
one month".

As a member of the board, I attended five board meetings plus one
telephone conference call. (Bill Goichberg is opposed to telephone
conference calls and that is the reason we only had one, although many
more were requested.)

The meetings were on August 14, 2006, November 17-18, 2006, February
2-3, 2007, May 21-22, 2007 and August 2, 2007. The telephone
conference call was on February 25, 2007.

Will somebody explain why so far only the May 21-22, 2007 meeting and
part of the February 3, 2007 meeting have been posted? We know that
the tapes of all of these meetings exist because Myron Lieberman was
present taping all of them. He states that he handed over all these
tapes to Bill Hall. Why has not Bill Hall posted them?

Is it possibly because of the objectionable comments that certain
board members plus the Executive Director made at these meetings?
Yesterday, I posted four short excerpts of the just concluded meeting
held on November 3-4, 2007 in Crossville, Tennessee. Many USCF members
are shocked to hear the remarks made by Joel Channing and Bill Hall. I
can assure you that this is only the tip of the iceberg. If the other
tapes were posted, it would be seem that many other comments are far,
far worse.

Meanwhile, there are constant claims that I made objectionable
comments at these meetings. However, if the tapes were produced it
would be shown that I was the most business-like board member at the
meetings. I never told dirty jokes or made off-color remarks like
certain board members did. I stayed on topic and was always all-
business.

So, when are these tapes going to be produced and posted? When will
the Executive Director and the board start complying with the by-laws?
Ever? Never?

Sam Sloan

On Nov 8, 9:09 am, samsloan wrote:

The USCF Executive Board has decided to hold the February 2008 meeting
online over the Internet. There is no way that the general membership
will be able to participate. This was because Paul Truong refused to
go to California and Bill Goichberg refused to hold the board meeting
anywhere other than California, where he lives during the Winter
months. I am wondering if it is a violation of the by-laws not to
invite the membership to one of the quarterly board meetings.

This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
defeats the very purpose of having these meetings. Otherwise, the
meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.

Apparently, the evil minions of the USCF can do nothing
right.

a) If they fly board members somewhere, they will be
accused of wasting the members' money.

b) If they don't fly them anywhere, they will be accused
of excluding the members.

c) If they were to demand that board members transport
themselves at their own expense, they would likely be
accused of excluding the ones who failed to show up,
as part of some evil conspiracy.


Typically, no solutions are offered by Mr. Sloan, just
never-ending complaints. (If complaining is the goal, I
heartily recommend replacing the worst officer of the
board with Sam Sloan, effective immediately.)


-- help bot

On Nov 8, 10:25 am, samsloan wrote:

So, when are these tapes going to be produced and posted? When will
the Executive Director and the board start complying with the by-laws?
Ever? Never?

A: It will happen only when Sam Sloan is made
Director of the board. (That was an easy one.)


-- help bot

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...

This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
defeats the very purpose of having these meetings.

Laugh - no, it just eliminates potential inclusion of member's
contributions.

In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:

"I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."

Which of course is quite true. Pretense you have no responsibility is
absurd. And How Absurd!

Here is the one place where USCF could take the responsibility already
granted to it, to act for the betterment of chess players - and it sticks
its head in the sand!! ROFL.

And on a more general note, without a timed agenda, if the President wants
to talk for an hour with no seconder for any clearly stated motion, or even
without a motion - and if even Sam Sloan thought Paul Truong spoke
consistently to a topical point, while others wavered in the wind... this
could only politely be termed discussion at all.

What is the name for a topic-less discussion?

Otherwise, the
meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.

Which they will be. Which has to be cheaper than flying everyone to
Crossville to discuss...? What exactly had anything at the past meeting of
import to chess players?

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan

In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:

"I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."

Phil Innes


Are the USCF leaders truely as ignorant as they appear? Frankly chess
knowledge and ability are actually far from being the most important
characteristics of a Coach! The best coaches are rarely those who have
been
top players whether we are talking about Chess, Athletics or anything
else.
On the other hand Character is of the utmost importance along with
protecting
children from predators.

I speak from experience having served as a volunteer wrestling coach
for some
8 years. I came into it with absolutely Zero knowledge of the sport,
just a
willingness to learn and a desire to help both my child and others
become
exposed to and hopefully enjoy being a part of this activity. Frankly
the vast
majority of volunteer youth sports coaches start this way. Each and
every year
I submitted to FBI background checks a nd for the last five of those I
did so
twice per year as I became a volunteer youth football coach as well.

It never occured to me to question the need for this, the requirement
was just
blatently obvious and while the legues would indeed have been exposing
themselves
to liability if they failed to do this, this angle was never even
discussed at the
board meetings. We simply focused on Protecting The Children and over
time
added training programs designed to both provide an enjoyable
experience for
all participants while still producing highly competitive teams. These
programs
were extremely effective.

These requirements also had the favorable side effect of disuading
many of those
who appeared to be participating out of a desire fore personal
aggrandizement.
Something that appears to be something of an issue with the USCF
governance.

On Nov 8, 10:33 am, wrote:

Are the USCF leaders truely as ignorant as they appear? Frankly chess
knowledge and ability are actually far from being the most important
characteristics of a Coach! The best coaches are rarely those who have
been
top players whether we are talking about Chess, Athletics or anything
else.

Bull of the highest order. Chess is about knowledge, therefore the
best coach will have a strong knowledge of the game. Those "good
coaches" in physical performance sports may not have been good players
due to a physical deficit of some kind, but they took the time to
learn the game.

Simply because you stumbled though a sport as coach doesn't mean you
were a coach of any ability at all, except you sound like a competent
babysitter. And perhaps that is what parents want, to protect their
children while they ignore them in the pursuit of Almighty cash.


board meetings. We simply focused on Protecting The Children and over
time


Yes the battle cry of the inept and scared - save the children from
the world!

samsloan wrote:

snip

Will somebody explain why so far only the May 21-22, 2007 meeting and
part of the February 3, 2007 meeting have been posted? We know that
the tapes of all of these meetings exist because Myron Lieberman was
present taping all of them. He states that he handed over all these
tapes to Bill Hall. Why has not Bill Hall posted them?

Is it possibly because of the objectionable comments that certain
board members plus the Executive Director made at these meetings?
Yesterday, I posted four short excerpts of the just concluded meeting
held on November 3-4, 2007 in Crossville, Tennessee. Many USCF members
are shocked to hear the remarks made by Joel Channing and Bill Hall. I
can assure you that this is only the tip of the iceberg. If the other
tapes were posted, it would be seem that many other comments are far,
far worse.

Meanwhile, there are constant claims that I made objectionable
comments at these meetings. However, if the tapes were produced it
would be shown that I was the most business-like board member at the
meetings. I never told dirty jokes or made off-color remarks like
certain board members did. I stayed on topic and was always all-
business.

So, when are these tapes going to be produced and posted? When will
the Executive Director and the board start complying with the by-laws?
Ever? Never?

Sam Sloan


To my mind this is both a fair and excellent point. Is there anything
false about Sam's claim that the tapes should be released?

First, this sounds like a good potential source of evidence for
litigation. Is a subpoena in order?

Second, if the membership rallied around the idea, I bet the tapes would
end up being released. This might answer a lot questions for people on
all sides of many of the issues.

third, the longer this is put off, the more likely the tapes will meet
with destruction in an "accident."
--


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Simply because you stumbled though a sport as coach doesn't mean you
were a coach of any ability at all, except you sound like a competent
babysitter. And perhaps that is what parents want, to protect their
children while they ignore them in the pursuit of Almighty cash.

Perhaps I was simply blessed with exceptional talent for many
consecutive
years...

But that said many of the wrestlers who were unfortunate to be stuck
with
me as coach were able to perform such miracles (hindered no doubt by
my babysitting) as winning tournaments, qualifying for the state
championship,
starting as freshmen on their High School teams - no doubt without my
dragging them down they would have all be national champs ... but then
again
it seems that Dan Gable was otherwise occupied .

Similarly in five seasons as a football coach (a sport I actually did
have some
experience in) I was only able to achieve a winning record 4/5 times
with only
one championship appearance (we lost) so it was no doubt my fault that
we
failed to dominate the legue.

Never mind that were were somehow able to beat players coached by
people with college experience in their respective sports and so on.
And
looking back, I really don't recall a whole lot of professional
football coaches
being star players, in fact many of best ones seem to have been to
have
been players who were only able suceed at all by virtue of exceptional
effort -
go figure.

PS - to add a chess note - My own High School Chess Coach was a very
weak player, inferior to anyone on the team and yet we somehow managed
to take 3rd, 2nd and 2nd in the state of Illinois the three years I
was there
but I am sure that a Master class pedophile would have been our ticket
to
nationals and everyonee would have come out better for it.

And clearly someone like Bruce Pandolfini is in no way qualified to be
a
coach given that he peaked as a player at mere USCF mater level. If it
weren't for him old Bobby would have dominated at least the Galaxy if
not
the Universe instead of just the world.