Did Steve Shutt miss the deadline??

Several interesting facts have come out of this Candidate's
Statementgate Affair.

An e-mail was sent to the candidates setting February 10 as the
deadline for submitting a statement for the April Chess Life. However,
several candidates either did not receive or did not read the email
and therefore missed the deadline.

For that reason, the deadline was extended by one day (because of an
email issue as George John put it) and the candidates were called on
the phone. However, I was unreachable on that day. I was actually
reported to be dead.

I am wondering what other candidates missed the February 10 deadline.
My guess is that Steve Shutt was one of them. Steve Shutt has been
inactive of late. He rarely receives or answers his email and he has
never posted to the Internet chess groups.

The next deadline was March 10. I was informed of that one and
therefore submitted my candidate's statement with more than five
minutes to spare.

I was told that Steve Shutt had missed the March 10 deadline and
therefore his statement would not be published.

Later I was told that Glenn Petersen "found" the statement submitted
by Steve Shutt and he had simply overlooked or misplaced it.

I am betting that this is not what really happened. I suspect that on
March 11, Glenn Petersen realized that Shutt had not submitted his
statement and called his friend Shutt on the phone and Shutt gave it
too him probably over the phone.

Unfortunately, Glenn Petersen collapsed right after this. He has since
had two major heart operations, he is now in intensive care in a
hospital and it is obvious that he cannot and should not be asked to
respond to this question.

However, in view of the Bauer motion of February 27, there is no
longer any flexibility. Unless there is evidence that Steve Shutt
really did submit his statement by March 10, then it must be left out
of Chess Life and an empty box should appear instead.

Who knows the answer to this question? Where is Shutt's original
candidate's statement? Did Glenn Petersen receive it at the Chess Life
office which is still in New Windsor or elsewhere and did it come by
email or postal mail?

Notably, Steve Shutt did not vote on or participate in the February 27
telephone conference call in which the Bauer motion was passed.

http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/eb...conference.php

Is Steve Shutt OK? Is he at the SuperNationals going on today in
Nashville? If he is there, someone should approach him and ask these
questions.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
Did Steve Shutt miss the deadline??

Is Steve Shutt OK? Is he at the SuperNationals going on today in
Nashville? If he is there, someone should approach him and ask these
questions.

yes, he was at the supernationals. phil

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:

[SNIP]

However,
several candidates either did not receive or did not read the email
and therefore missed the deadline.

Is Sam Sloan speculating or does he know this to be a fact?

I can state fact.

On January 11, 2005, USCF Secretary, Don Schultz, sent an e-mail to all
candidates, including Sam Sloan ), that reported
all three deadlines including the February 10, 2005 deadline for the
April issue of Chess Life.

On January 21, 2005, USCF Editor, Glenn Petersen, sent an e-mail to all
candidates, including Sam Sloan ), that reported
deadlines including the February 10, 2005 deadline for the April issue
of Chess Life.

On February 9, 2005, USCF Secretary, Don Schultz, sent an e-mail to all
candidates, including Sam Sloan ), that reported
the deadline for the April issue of Chess Life was extended to February
11, 2005.

I am unaware of any problems with any of the above e-mail messages not
being received. There was a report of an e-mail message, which
included a candidate statement, that was sent on February 6, and was
deleted. That was the reason given for extending the deadline by one
day.

I am wondering what other candidates missed the February 10 deadline.

I am aware of no candidates, other than Sam Sloan, who missed the
February 10 or 11 deadlines.

[SNIP]

However, in view of the Bauer motion of February 27, there is no
longer any flexibility.

This is incorrect. There is flexibility, but that flexibility must be
granted by the Executive Board and not the Secretary, or anyone else.

[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John

On 10 Apr 2005 09:37:16 -0700, "George John"
wrote:


Sam Sloan wrote:


However, in view of the Bauer motion of February 27, there is no
longer any flexibility.

This is incorrect. There is flexibility, but that flexibility must be
granted by the Executive Board and not the Secretary, or anyone else.

[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John

So, in other words, the majority that now comtrols the board can now
extend the deadlines for themselves and their political allies but not
for their political opponents like me!

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
On 10 Apr 2005 09:37:16 -0700, "George John"
wrote:


Sam Sloan wrote:


However, in view of the Bauer motion of February 27, there is no
longer any flexibility.

This is incorrect. There is flexibility, but that flexibility must
be
granted by the Executive Board and not the Secretary, or anyone
else.

[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John

So, in other words, the majority that now comtrols the board can now
extend the deadlines for themselves and their political allies but
not
for their political opponents like me!

I am most certainly not saying this!

First, I would hope politics would not play into any decision to grant
and extension or not. Valid considerations would be the impact on
Chess Life production (which is what Don Schultz did in the case of Sam
Sloan's late, and rejected article), and if the reason given were
reasonable (for example, family medical emergency, death of a relative,
etc.).

Let's speculate on if the decision were purely political, which again,
I hope would never be. Randy Bauer, I think correctly, has already
said he would recuse himself from such a vote. Let's assume Elizabeth
Shaughnessy, and Steve Shutt would, too.

Given Brady has resigned, this leaves Marinello, Hanke, and Schultz.
All three would have to vote in favor of an extension due to the follow
Bylaws requirement:

"The affirmative votes of at least three different Executive Board
members will be required to approve any action, as long as there are at
least four members on the Executive Board."

Sincerely,

George John

"George John" "The affirmative votes of at least three different
Executive Board members will be required to approve any action, as long as
there are at least four members on the Executive Board."

Except that your Board of Executive Scumbags rarely follows any of your own
rules, and regularly ignores all rules and does what ever it wants. After
all, who will hold them accountable? When they violate the rules, so what?
So they violate the rules regularly and use them as a shield when it suits
them.

You are a perfect candidate for that organization of scumbags.