"George John" wrote in message
. ..

-snip-

I think the USCF paying for his reasonable expenses associated
with his Board service and that includes his flying in just before the
time
the new Board is seated.

What I meant to say is the USCF should not only pay for his flight to Los
Angeles, but also all reasonable expenses associated with his flying in
early so that he can attend the key workshops that all Board members should
(but do not always) attend.

George

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:00:34 GMT, "George John"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Sam,

-snip-

It is outrageous and unprecedented that Tim Hanke would ask to be paid
even before he is on the Board. Nobody has ever done that before.

The training and development of new Board members SHOULD be a priority of
the USCF. We WANT Tim at those workshops, especially the Finance Workshop.
We want him at the Board of Delegate meeting. He should be and I totally
expect will be devoting his time for free far over and above the typical
delegate . I think the USCF paying for his reasonable expenses associated
with his Board service and that includes his flying in just before the time
the new Board is seated.

The fact that this is even an issue for Tim or any new board member
demonstrates just how incredibly FUBAR the USCF is. It's really very sad.

-snip-

George John

As everybody knows, the USCF is in financial difficulty.

Now, you propose that the USCF spend several thousand dollars to
"train" Tim Hanke to do something which he declared that he new how to
do by running for election.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Sam,

-snip-

Now, you propose that the USCF spend several thousand dollars to
"train" Tim Hanke to do something which he declared that he new how to
do by running for election.

Even the most experienced of new employees will benefit from some on the job
training. Tim no doubt has learned a great deal from his working for a
not-for-profit, but he will still need to learn the particulars of the USCF.
A very good way of doing that is the face-to-face contact he will get in Los
Angeles. The USCF *should* reimburse him for his round trip travel to LA
for the EB meeting he will participate in beginning the Monday after the BOD
meeting. It makes sense for them to get him in early and pay for a few
extra nights of hotel so that he can attend the key workshops, the BOD
meeting, and ad hoc meetings with his new Board members and others.

Yes, the USCF is in extreme financial difficulty. That said, if we can't
afford to reimburse the reasonable expenses of our seven volunteer Board
members, we should either cut back the number of members on the Board or
eliminate the board completely. While we are at it, we should eliminate the
Board of Delegates as well.

-snip-

George

Paul Rubin wrote:

"Tim Hanke" writes:
From all the evidence I have seen, I think it is remarkable you were even
certified as a candidate.

I think few people would deny that Sam is certifiable.

Let's get of this tiresome little detail in life, shall we chaps?. The
bigger question surely is if the M-16 is prone to jam in the sands of
Iraq, how long to un-jam?. Is the AK-47 prone to such un-god sanctioned
'jamming'?..

michael adams wrote:


Let's get of this tiresome little detail in life, shall we chaps?. The
bigger question surely is if the M-16 is prone to jam in the sands of
Iraq, how long to un-jam?. Is the AK-47 prone to such un-god sanctioned
'jamming'?..

I recently read "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts" by Col. David Hackworth.
It's an account of his time as a battalion commander in Viet Nam
during 1969.

While preparing the ground for a new base, a bulldozer uncovered
a buried corpse still holding an AK-47. Col. Hackworth, after
first checking to see that the barrel was not plugged, proceeded
to pull back the bolt and fire off the entire clip into the air.
Even after being buried in the mud for months, the weapon worked
flawlessly!

At 07:03 AM 7/21/2003 EDT, wrote:
I am no fan of Tim Henke but he is 100 percent right on this one. He MUST. be
given his expences. Here is a theory as to where his mysterious votes came
from. Folks thought they were voting for yours truly, Jrrry HaNKEn! YHR.


I am very surprised at your remark. Tim Hanke is not on the board yet.
He will not be on the board until the conclusion of the delegate's
meetings in Los Angeles. He is not entitled to have his ticket paid to
Los Angeles. No incoming board member has EVER had his ticket paid.
You have been on the board several times, so you know that.

In this case, there is doubt that Hanke will ever serve on the board.
I am certain that he will not serve out his four year term. He will
drop out, the only question is when.

Hanke is simply an Internet Gadfly who posts a lot. He has been
posting since 1994 that I know of. He has never expesssed an interest
in the serious business of chess governance. His election points out a
serious weakness in the OMOV System. Under the old system, Hanke would
not have received even one vote, not even his own, because he has
never been a delegate or a voting member.

Your theory as to why Hanke got elected has some merit. His name, Tim
Hanke, is similar to your name, Jerry Hanken. I doubt that anybody
voted for you thinking that he was voting for him, however.

Jerry Hanken did not receive even one write-in vote, incidentally. I
have the complete list of 95 persons who received write-in votes. Just
about everybody who is anybody is on that list, except for you.

I have heard that you got Beatriz Marinello elected. You circulated
petitions for her in Los Angeles when she could not get enough
signatures in New York. Is that true?

Sam Sloan

"Briarroot" wrote ...
michael adams wrote:


Let's get of this tiresome little detail in life, shall we chaps?. The
bigger question surely is if the M-16 is prone to jam in the sands of
Iraq, how long to un-jam?. Is the AK-47 prone to such un-god sanctioned
'jamming'?..

I recently read "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts" by Col. David Hackworth.
It's an account of his time as a battalion commander in Viet Nam
during 1969.

While preparing the ground for a new base, a bulldozer uncovered
a buried corpse still holding an AK-47. Col. Hackworth, after
first checking to see that the barrel was not plugged, proceeded
to pull back the bolt and fire off the entire clip into the air.
Even after being buried in the mud for months, the weapon worked
flawlessly!

The word in the barracks is that the M-16 is more accurate but jams easily.
The AK-47 is less accurate but functions more reliably.

I have fired both, and I can verify the M-16 jams *a lot*. In fact, when my
platoon was engaged in a marksmanship competition with other platoons, let
me tell you how I helped us win the competition. I am a lousy shot, because
I can't close my non-firing eye and I see double, but I have a few smarts.
So when it was my turn to go up and fire at the pop-up targets, I took my
own weapon and told my buddy to *leave his weapon* at the firing point. Sure
enough, about halfway through my qualification, my weapon jammed and I
couldn't clear it quickly. This was a crisis becase the targets are still
popping up, moving around, etc.--they wait for no man. So I grabbed the
extra weapon, switched my clip to it, and used my buddy's weapon to qualify
successfully. If I had not had the extra M-16, I would not have qualified
successfully and we would not have won the competition.

Tim Hanke

Sam Sloan wrote:

On 20 Jul 2003 09:58:12 -0700, Paul Rubin
wrote:

(Sam Sloan) writes:
Apparently, Hanke did not realize that he is running for a VOLUNTEER
POSITION. Delegates do not have, and have never had, their expenses
paid.... Had Hanke ever attended a meeting, he would know that
these meetings are attended by more than one hundred delegates, none
of whom have any of their expenses paid.

Hanke ran and was elected to the EB, not the Delegates. Whether Delegates
get expenses paid is irrelevant.

What has the past practice been about EB members (not Delegates) getting
expenses? I seem to remember hearing about other EB members getting
quite a few expenses reimbursed in the past, as well as stuff like
fax machines paid for.

What I believe you are referring to is an incident back in about 1998
when Tom Dorsch complained that the USCF has purchased a FAX machine
for Rachel Lieberman, who was USCF Secretary for six years.

Rachel Liebeman of course needed a FAX machine because as USCF
Secretary she was sending and receiving FAXes all the time. Buying her
a FAX machine was a minor expense, considering the amount of time and
work she was providing FREE OF CHARGE.

The fact that this created a big controversy illustrates the fact that
Board members do not always get their expenses paid. Also, they never
get their expenses paid before the event. They have to lay out the
money and then apply for reimbursement, which is sometimes given and
sometimes not. Reimbursement must be approved by the USCF Treasurer,
who is Frank Camaratta at present. Do you think that Camaratta is
going to give Hanke the money he wants?

It is outrageous and unprecedented that Tim Hanke would ask to be paid
even before he is on the Board. Nobody has ever done that before.

Sam Sloan

Y'know, if Hancke has allready demonstrated unalloyed greed & contempt,
by flagrantly, already rifling the tills of USCF. Well, shan't the
beckoning future prove interesting times indeed? for some!..