On the agenda of the USCF's Annual Meeting of the Board of Delegates,
Aug. 14-15, 2004:

NEW BUSINESS
Advance Delegate Motion 04-11 (co-sponsored by Myron and Rachel
Lieberman, delegates at large from Arizona): The Delegates approve the
merger of the USCF with the America's Foundation for Chess with all
necessary Bylaws changes, including in governance. The name of the
final organization shall remain the United States Chess Federation.

This motion is ridiculous and absurd. It should never have been
presented. There is also probably no legal way to accomplish this
"merger".

The AF4C was not even able to honor its contractual committment to
organize the 2004 US Championship. This was the cause of the so-called
"Anna Hahn Crisis".

So far, the AF4C has only organized three US Championships. We still
cannot be sure that it will be able to organize another one.

I doubt that this motion has been legally presented. At the very
minimum, we need to see the balance sheet of AF4C. Does it even have a
balance sheet? Does it have members? What about OMOV?

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

NEW BUSINESS
Advance Delegate Motion 04-11 (co-sponsored by Myron and Rachel
Lieberman, delegates at large from Arizona): The Delegates approve the
merger of the USCF with the America's Foundation for Chess with all
necessary Bylaws changes, including in governance. The name of the
final organization shall remain the United States Chess Federation.

This motion is ridiculous and absurd. It should never have been
presented. There is also probably no legal way to accomplish this
"merger".

I suspect that dear couple just want to get it on the table, out of the
secret meetings and into the open.

The AF4C was not even able to honor its contractual committment to
organize the 2004 US Championship. This was the cause of the so-called
"Anna Hahn Crisis".

So far, the AF4C has only organized three US Championships. We still
cannot be sure that it will be able to organize another one.

Yes.

On 04 Aug 2004 10:56:43 GMT, eepmeep (John
Fernandez) wrote:

At 11:31 PM 8/3/2004, Sam Sloan wrote:
On the agenda of the USCF's Annual Meeting of the Board of Delegates,
Aug. 14-15, 2004:

NEW BUSINESS
Advance Delegate Motion 04-11 (co-sponsored by Myron and Rachel
Lieberman, delegates at large from Arizona): The Delegates approve the
merger of the USCF with the America's Foundation for Chess with all
necessary Bylaws changes, including in governance. The name of the
final organization shall remain the United States Chess Federation.

This motion is ridiculous and absurd.

Why? Sounds like the best opportunity USCF has had in a long time.


Does it have members? What about OMOV?

Sam Sloan

Who cares, and who cares?

John Fernandez


The fact that John Fernandez thinks that this proposed merger is "the
best opportunity USCF has had in a long time" shows that he has very
poor judgment, which we already knew, and no business sense at all.

Former USCF President John McCrary writes: "They are willing to make
compromises, such as accepting minority representation on a Board with
elected USCF reprsentatives (as I was told yesterday) along with all
sorts of safeguards."

Their willingness to accept "minority representation" by elected USCF
"representatives" is mighty white of them. We have an organization of
more than 90,000 members and high name recognition, with a 65 year
history. What do they have? A bunch of rich guys. Look at what a
similar group of rich guys did when they took over the real American
Chess Foundation? They put the Manhattan Chess Club out of business,
stopped funding US International tournaments and now seem to be on the
verge of closing down.

This "deal" should not and cannot legally be presented to the
delegates unless they put a specific plan on the table. John McCrary
writes that there is no intention to present the motion as written.
The plan is to modify it during the delegate's meeting in Florida.

This is unacceptable. This deal should be unveiled in advance. We
cannot be railroaded out of existence with a quicky deal made on the
delegate's floor.

Sam Sloan

I am among those who think that a USCF-AF4C merger is almost certainly a good
idea. I am also among those who want to make sure that it is a good idea by
having a few George Mirijanians involved in the process.

Let me list the things that do not impress me in the former USCF
president's posting:

1. The AF4C board has a bunch of rich men on it, and there is this ambient
money kinda flitting around chess;

2. The AF4C might become another USCF;

3. The implication that the AF4C wants to merge or make a deal with the USCF
because its leaders are a bunch of swell guys.

Plenty of rich men have flitted around chess in the past, and one of the
reasons they are rich is that they like ... money. They become involved in
chess because it offers THEM something that their status as businessmen
does not. A cynical thought, yes. An accurate thought, yes.

Another point is that the permanent staff at AF4C will drive relations with
the USCF, just as the permanent staff at Chess in Schools
drove policy there. True enough, the men on the board will set down policy,
but there is always plenty of wiggle room for those in the office to shape what
has been set down. The AF4C staff will obviously want to consume the
USCF staff for the purposes it knows best. To deny this dynamic is to write
dishonestly.

The second point that leaves me underwhelmed is the idea that the AF4C
could simply assume many of the Federation's functions. If that were the case,
then such would have happened by now or would be on the planning boards. The
truth is that John McCrary's rich men have another
characteristic of the breed: they do not throw money at problems because they
fear to look foolish in front of their peers. They hate that kind of thing.
The men running the AF4C understand that there would be a steep and
expensive learning curve, and they want to forego the pain and failures by
merging with the USCF. Which is natural enough.

Point three: a bunch of swell guys just want to help out chess in the
United States, and they are ponying up sweetheart deals. There may actually be
some truth in this point, but the point reeks of our traditional belief in
chess saviours.

One recollects a description of Maurice Wertheim, a chess angel of the 1940s
who was in real terms richer than, quite likely, the entire AF4C board
combined. As Arnold Denker and I wrote of a visit that Wertheim made one
evening to the old Stuyvesant Chess Club, "The Stuyvesant Chess Club was packed
as usual. Yet everyone in the place looked up when we entered. Maurice was
immaculately groomed as always, and most of
the chess players stared at him as if he were the Messiah."

Finally, I am certainly not the only one who will notice the comment that the
Lieberman motion is not meant to be voted on and that there would be
traditional substitutions made. That is classic USCF political practice to
avoid full disclosure well in advance of a Delegates' meeting. It won't do in
this case. I hope the Delegates refuse to consider any merger motion that has
not appeared in full, in plenty of time before the meeting.

So, then, what are the points that impress me in the McCrary posting?

I think one, and it is a point that the former USCF president only
implies. Namely: the AF4C has proven itself to be a new, vital force in U.S.
Chess and that its good works have been several, whilst its bad works have
been, so far as I am aware, nil.

The men behind the AF4C are not Rust Belt relics like many of those in
the USCF; they are new people, by and large, from the Far West. To my mind,
that means a lot. They are vials of the new blood that OMOV is also
starting to inject into the USCF.

The bottom line is that John McCrary has helped to connect the USCF with
one of the most promising chess organizations in the entire world -- an
organization that does, in truth, have men with money behind it; an
organization that has, in truth, done a terrific job with the U.S. Championship
(though I care not for the actual format); an organization that
appears to be on a steep upward trajectory. I think he deserves a lot of
thanks. I think he almost certainly has a strong case to make
before the Delegates.

I just wish that our former USCF president could start to play the
political game according to the rules of chess: making one's moves over the
board in plain sight of supporters and opponents.

My insight, for the little it may be worth: Merger or a major
partnership is a different kind of affair from the usual smaller games that
get played with the manipulable Delegates. I don't think that politics as
usual will suffice to obtain a majority among the Delegates -- certainly not
after the hideous fate of the Manhattan Chess Club and its library. There
will be tremendous political undertow against any such agreement, and John
McCrary is not going to break the political vessel free of that undertow by
employing the usual methods.

The deal that eventually gets presented to the Delegates must not only
be a good deal (which I believe it will be) but also be seen to be a good deal.

The former USCF president may be figuring that he can razzmatazz this
proposal at a future Delegates' meeting by waving some alluring details before
the Delegates -- a calculation based on past successes using this
method. But merger and significant partnership with a group out in the Far
West will not happen unless the good deal is seen to be a good deal weeks in
advance of a Delegates meeting. Otherwise, the Rust Belt relics will defeat
it.

That's the politics of the issue.

-- Larry Parr

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

At 05:51 AM 8/5/2004 -0400, wrote:

Sam, please note the following: 1) The various possibilities have
been
discussed with the EB at all three of their meetings, from September
through May. I attended the latter two, and Erik Anderson the first
two, of
those.

2)In April, I was asked by the President to Chair a task force of
Past USCF
Presidents to evaluate the whole matter.

3) I presented a report at the May meeting of the input of the Past
presidents. Although there was not a full consensus on all points,
there
was a majority in favor of going back to AF4C with certain specific
proposals. Subsequent to the May meeting, further clarification of
these
suggestions, endorsed by the four Past Presidents who were in Florida
in
June, ( and who were a majority of the six paricipating in the task
force)were conveyed to the EB. All six Past Presidents particating
have
endorsed further negotiations with AF4C, along some lines. There are
many
possibilities for cooperation in a number of areas.

Are you saying that the majority of the past presidents are in favor
of a merger, or merely in favor of cooperation "along some lines"?

4)The EB at its May meeting passed a motion authorizing the President
to
negotiate with AF4C. It was understood that active discussions should
occur
before the Delegates' Meeting. By that time, AF4C had already
indicated a
willingness to look seriously at any counter-proposal USCF might
offer.
They have very recently reaffirmed that willingness. That includes
possible
arangements that do not necessarily involve a merger.

Could you please tell us what the proposal of the American Foundation
for Chess was? So far, you have not even told us that.

5) Despite the motion in May, no contact from the President has
occurred
except a very recent phone call in which apparently little was
discussed.
Other EB members are willing to talk with them on the President's
behalf,
but she has not evidently delegated that task.

Which EB members? How is it that you are talking to them when you are
not even on the EB?

6) Because of point (5) above, it has not been possible to make
further
progress on specifics before the Meeting, as we had hoped. Thus, we
are
left with a substitute motion such as Myron suggests.

All the above is in the Board minutes. Once the Board posts its
meeting
tapes, you can hear the actual discussions at both the January and
May
meetings, as they were both in Open session. I agree with Myron that
this
is not the most appropriate place for this ongoing discussion, and
thus I
may limit my further comments. I have discussed the major ideas of
the
proposals extensively in previous postings on this forum on several
occasions. Regards, John McCrary

This is exactly the problem YOU CREATED when you dispensed with
publishing typed transcripts. You claimed that the USCF would save
money by doing without the transcripts. Now we could lose our entire
organization because of the lack of the transcripts and a disagreement
between you and Don about what was said.

By the way, I am always finishing third in the USCF Elections, but why
is it that the people who finish ahead of me in these elections never
have anything to say about these important issues?

Sam Sloan

(Parrthenon) wrote in message ...

big boring snip

-- Larry Parr

Shouldn't you be busy ruining another magazine somewhere?

Charles
(or uncovering more "Russian chess secrets", har)

Ooooooh! Full disclosure. Whoooosh!

Yes, indeed, I think we can figure on a motion emerging from the workshops,
which along with substitutions on the floor, has been the plan all along.

For those unaware of how these things get done, there is always a reason why a
far-reaching proposal is broached at the last moment -- problems with
stenographers, someone becomes "ill," there is this or that happening in the
office or not happening there, committee correspondence was accidentally ... or
this and that. "Wunnerful, wunnerful!" as Lawrence Welk used to say.

Oddly enough, I will almost certainly favor whatever John McCrary proposes. I
just don't like the way business is being done. I would add that Don Schultz is
likely right: it is counterproductive.

E-MAIL FROM BEATRIZ MARINELLO TO JOHN McCRARY submitted to another newsgroup by
Sam Sloan. Date: 8/5/2004 4:40:31 PM Pacific Standard Time

John,

Let's get the facts straight and summarize this situation until now.

1) This proposal was created after conversations between you and Erik Anderson
prior to the 2003 US Open. Until then, your assumption was that the USCF was
fine financially.

In light of the events that became public at the 2003 US Open: The USCF losing
over a $350,000, almost a $300,000 deficit in the first quater of the 2003-2004
fiscal year, resignation of Frank Niro and election of new officers. You
advised the Executive Board about a possible partnership with AFFC. I was
immediately open to continue the exploratory conversations.

2) You resigned from the Executive Board claiming that the stress of the job
was too much.

3) I spoke with Erik Anderson several times and invited him to make a
presentation at the September Executive Board meeting. For the beginning, I
though something positive will develop from the discussions specially in the
area of scholastic chess, which seems to be the main focus of the American
Foundation for Chess in addition to organizing the US Chess Championships.

4) The merge proposal was replace for another proposal aiming to take over
scholastic chess. This idea was endorsed by the Scholastic Council and later
on a face to face meeting was scheduled in Santa Monica, California.

At this meeting Erik Anderson and Bill Goichberg began negotiations and got
into more details.

5) A follow up meeting was scheduled in NJ in conjunction with the Amateur
Team east. Erik Anderson canceled his participation in the meeting, I still
went to NJ since I already have bough my airlines ticket.

6) A month later, the Executive Board was informed by Yasser Seirawan the
scholastic proposal was not good "his exact words," Therefore, will be
withdrawn a replace for the merge proposal once again.

7) A this moment, the Executive Board only had five members since Frank
Camaratta also resigned from the board. Therefore, I though that was best to
get some help.

A Committee formed by six passed USCF Presidents: Leroy Dubeck, Harold Winston.
Tim Redman, Bob Smith, Steven Doyle and John McCrary was appointed to evaluate
the proposal and provide a recommendation to the Executive Board.

John McCrary was the Chairman of this Committee. A writing report supposed to
be presented to the Executive Board at the May meeting.

8) At the May Meeting, we found out that Myron Lieberman submitted a motion in
the advance agenda for the Delegates Meeting requesting authorization for a
merger between USCF and the AFFC. No writing report was submitted.

Here is when I said to you for the first time that was highly inappropriate to
introduce this motion with no details and endorsement from the Passed
Presidents Committee. This was clearly a tactic to force a situation, when
you did not even had a final report from the Committee.

Two Passed Presidents were against the proposal: Leroy Dubeck and Steven Doyle;
Two in favor Bob Smith and John McCrary and two take the position of continuing
the discussions with Erik Anderson and develop a different proposal.

9) In a private e-mail exchanges between the Executive Board and the PP
Committee, I asked you once again to withdrawn the Lieberman motion.
Otherwise, I will not continue with conversations with the AFFC.

Your reply was to copy Yasser Seirawan and made me look bad. Another several
e-mail
exchanges continued. A couple of week ago, I called Erik Anderson, he sent a
e-mail saying that he traveling extensively until September. Then, we have a
couple of other e-mails exchanges.

10) As most people, I see the value of bringing strong and wealthy supporters
of chess into the USCF. I really hope something good come out this, but I
must say that your forceful way of handling this process is lacking
transparency and objectivity. This is all about trying to recuperate your
personal image and credibility in the chess community.

All I am asking is to withdrawn the motion! Introducing this motion without
details and endorsements form the PP Committee nor the Executive Board is
irresponsible and premature.

Beatriz Marinello
USCF President

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

I am always finishing third in the USCF Elections, but why
is it that the people who finish ahead of me in these elections never
have anything to say about these important issues?

Because Sam, despite all their promises to the contrary, they are
do-nothings like everyone else. That's why I voted for you, pal...I figured
you may be eccentric, but at least you've got guts.

"Compuserve Chucky" wrote in message
om...

Charles
(or uncovering more "Russian chess secrets", har)

Actually, I rather enjoyed that series. Both volumes.

Regards,

Matt