A NEW ERAI

We have entered a new era, which may be called a mid-to
late-transition period from the USCF to the BMCF (Beatriz Marinello
Chess Federation).

First, there is a political mailing from COO and President
Beatriz Marinello, which would have been unimaginable in an earlier
period; and now you have a major candidate attacked at the most
opportune possible minute in Chess Life, even as candidates on a ticket
are praised.

Rather than merely pointing fingers of blame, I think everyone
should recognize that a new kind of politics has taken over the
Federation, which is more effective and, possibly, a mite dirtier than
what obtained hitherto.

If the ticket headed by Randy Bauer (a real-life politician)
is to be defeated, then the opposition will have to employ resources
and work far more energetically than it has been doing. That much is
clear.

Thus far, all of the major surprises have come from the ticket
grouping: 1. The announcement of a formal ticket and a mass mailing;
2. The endorsement letter from Beatriz Marinello, the Federation's
highest-ranking employee, which has established an utterly fascinating
precedent for who-knows-what in the future; and 3. The Booz-Dubeck
article in Chess Life, timed so as not to permit a response by the
opposition.

This new era of politics in the Federation comes down to this:
any abuse of power is okay if it can withstand a test in the courtroom.
This standard meets the calibration of real-world politics.

The new era, then, is the arrival of real-world politics in the
Federation.

I see shock and disorganization on the side of the opposition
to the ticket candidates. The opposition either responds by adopting
real-world political tactics at this point, including possible tough
legal action to force a change in the date of the election, or it will
lose.

If you see no serious attempts to seek an injunction at this
point to stop this election, then you know that the transition to the
BMCF will be complete.

Finally, the opposition must understand that another one or
two further surprises are coming up. It either reacts with great
energy at this point, or it loses.

Randy Bauer wrote:

[SNIP]

[SNIP] Don Schultz
and I agree on having most emails among Board members part of the
BINFO system.

For those who may not be familiar with the BINFO system, I have posted
the details below. SFAIK, this system has not been maintained for many
years, and item #9 (which passed in 2001. See below) has never been
implemented.

I'm wondering how tough it would be for Mike to set up something
relatively simple? Having this Delegate mandated system actually
implemented seems much better than what we currently have which is
Board leaks, postings to rgcp, and candidate Websites.

Best regards,

George John

32. BINFO SYSTEM. In the interest of both history and accountability,
the Board information (BINFO) system should be maintained
and used in the following manner:
1. The Executive Board and Executive Director will place documents
relating to their decisions and discussions in this record
system.
2. An effort will be made to include all relevant documents bearing
on the making of USCF policy and other decisions.
3. At the request of any single Executive Board member or the
Executive Director, a document will be placed in the system.
4. BINFO documents may be classified as confidential, using
strict, documented criteria.
5. Classified BINFO's will be reviewed periodically for
declassification.
This will include but not be limited to documents now in
the system and placed there by previous Boards.
6. Non-classified documents will be supplied to members on
request; a reasonable duplication fee may be charged.
7. Binders of non-classified documents will be maintained at the
USCF office and will be available on request to visiting adult
members to examine while in the office.
8. Updated, descriptive indexes of the BINFO system will be
available on the USCF website in the most expeditious manner
possible, and available in hard copy on request for a reasonable
duplication fee. (2000)
9. Non-confidential BINFOs are to be made available electronically
without cost to any Delegate or Alternate Delegate that asks
to receive them. This is to be done by making them available on
the USCF website in a public area and/or setting up a read-only
mailing list and adding to the list anyone who wants to receive
the BINFO's via e-mail. (2001)

"Randy Bauer" wrote:
.... this is a somewhat different situation, don't you think? Nobody
knew
that these were subject to posting elsewhere, let alone a website for
somebody
running for office against some of the people authoring these emails.
.....

When A sends an email to B, A must be aware that B is thereby empowered to
do whatever he wants with the email. If A doesn't like that, and there is
no agreement between A and B as to confidentiality, A must be prepared to
accept the consequences.

.... Might we wonder about selective choosing of which emails to post?
.....

So what? Those who might be unfairly put in a bad light because of the
selective posting, can always right the situation by a little selective
posting of their own. Or better yet, make all of them public to begin with,
so there can be no sneakiness, and no accusations of sneakiness.

.... much better for all relavent emails to be available to all ....

NOW you've got it.

Bill Smythe

"George John" wrote in message
ups.com...


32. BINFO SYSTEM. In the interest of both history and accountability,
the Board information (BINFO) system should be maintained
and used in the following manner:
1. The Executive Board and Executive Director will place documents
relating to their decisions and discussions in this record
system.
2. An effort will be made to include all relevant documents bearing
on the making of USCF policy and other decisions.
3. At the request of any single Executive Board member or the
Executive Director, a document will be placed in the system.
4. BINFO documents may be classified as confidential, using
strict, documented criteria.
5. Classified BINFO's will be reviewed periodically for
declassification.
This will include but not be limited to documents now in
the system and placed there by previous Boards.
6. Non-classified documents will be supplied to members on
request; a reasonable duplication fee may be charged.
7. Binders of non-classified documents will be maintained at the
USCF office and will be available on request to visiting adult
members to examine while in the office.
8. Updated, descriptive indexes of the BINFO system will be
available on the USCF website in the most expeditious manner
possible, and available in hard copy on request for a reasonable
duplication fee. (2000)
9. Non-confidential BINFOs are to be made available electronically
without cost to any Delegate or Alternate Delegate that asks
to receive them. This is to be done by making them available on
the USCF website in a public area and/or setting up a read-only
mailing list and adding to the list anyone who wants to receive
the BINFO's via e-mail. (2001)


In summary (If I read this correctly), non-classified BINFO should be viewed
as the default expected distribution of all documents related to EB and ED
communication. Electronic distribution, while not established formally,
should be expected via item 9. Request of a single EB member or ED is all
that's required to include a document in BINFO. Only strict, documented
criteria can be used to Classify a document (not merely labelling it as
Classified), and those will be reviewed for declassification.

In short, unless communication is in the strictly documented domain of
Classified, Board Members and ED should expect their communications to be
published. They should expect all of it to be documented, and even
Classified material should be expected to become declassified at a future
date. No one can just slap CLASSIFIED on an email, rather the content must
fall within the strictly documented domain.

Is that about the scope of it?

David

--
without the block

Does Beatriz Marinello think it is
appropriate for Chess Life to be
used to attack a candidate during
an election without giving the
candidate an opportunity to respond?

David wrote:
"George John" wrote in message
ups.com...

[SNIP]

David,

In summary (If I read this correctly), non-classified BINFO should be
viewed
as the default expected distribution of all documents related to EB
and ED
communication. Electronic distribution, while not established
formally,
should be expected via item 9. Request of a single EB member or ED
is all
that's required to include a document in BINFO. Only strict,
documented
criteria can be used to Classify a document (not merely labelling it
as
Classified), and those will be reviewed for declassification.

In short, unless communication is in the strictly documented domain
of
Classified, Board Members and ED should expect their communications
to be
published. They should expect all of it to be documented, and even
Classified material should be expected to become declassified at a
future
date. No one can just slap CLASSIFIED on an email, rather the
content must
fall within the strictly documented domain.

Is that about the scope of it?

I think one point needs to be emphasized. Board correspondence must be
explicitly put into the BINFO system. It does not go into it
automatically (although possibly it should. Doing so might
considerably improve the 'quality' of correspondence among board
members if they knew that everything they wrote might be made public).

You are correct that the use of the confidential BINFO area is
restricted, and items in that system might become declassified (I
assume because the confidentiality was time sensitive). Some items
must remain classified.

The BINFO system is one very good way to facilitate transparent
governance. It is well regulated, and provides fair access by all.
In sharp contrast, Board members selectively leaking information, and
current or past employees, such as past Executive Directors, posting
Board correspondence to their personal Websites is not the right way,
IMO, to achieve this goal.

The problem with lack of transparency is it creates an incentive to
leak private information, and use it as a political club in campaigns.
If this information is made public in a timely and systematic manner,
the incentive mostly disappears.

Best regards,

George John

I think you're a flaming hypocrite, if you
think Bill's was OK, and the Booz/Dubeck
artcile wasn't.

_
Was Bill's article, in any sense, an attack
on a current candidate? Did the timing of
Bill's article allow adequate opportunity
for a response from any candidate who
felt attacked? Was the Booz/Dubeck
article, in any sense, an attack on a
current candidate? Did the timing of
the Booz/Dubeck article allow adequate
opportunity for a response from any
candidate who felt attacked?

Of course it's fair!

Married John McArthur for green card - dumped him
Kissed Niro's ass for favorable position and to be elected to the
board - dumped him
Kissed Chess Don's ass to be president - dumped him
Kissed Korenman's ass to get Karpov's help - dumped him
****ed her off - You're fired!

Now forming an alliance to Dubeck, Doyle, Redman, Khodarkovsky, Eade,
etc.

See a pattern here?

The president was seeking the ED position. She denied and lied about
it. When that leaked out, she then became the COO while holding the
position of president. See an conflict of interest? Of course not!

Everything is just peachy. The BMCF rules

I'll vote for Robert Tanner, George John, Randy Bauer and Joel
Channing.

"The truth will set you free"

Wouldn't you agree that the article
was, at least in part, a response
to ... Bill's exit message in Chess
Life. When I read it it, I knew that
it couldn't possibly be true.

_
Was Bill's exit message fairly described?

"At the end of December 2004,
our operating account now has
enough to pay our bills with
about $250,000 left over." - Bill
Goichberg (February 2005 issue
of Chess Life)

"... the statement ... that as of
December 31 we had a $250,000
profit (exclusive of the sale of the
building) ..." - Stanley N. Booz
and Dr. Leroy Dubeck (May 2005
issue of Chess Life)

Was Bill's exit message fairly described?

"At the end of December 2004,
our operating account now has
enough to pay our bills with
about $250,000 left over." - Bill
Goichberg (February 2005 issue
of Chess Life)

"... the statement ... that as of
December 31 we had a $250,000
profit (exclusive of the sale of the
building) ..." - Stanley N. Booz
and Dr. Leroy Dubeck (May 2005
issue of Chess Life)

You missed the sentence from the Feb 2005 CL directly before your
quote:

"When I began as Office Manager in November of 2003, USCF owed about
$400,000 more than we had in the bank, and faced constant pressure from
creditors."

So the claim made was that from 11/03 to 12/04 the USCF went from
-$400,000 to +$250,000 or a "profit" of $650,000.

In addition, later in that article concerning B&E outsourcing:

"Most of the first year's sales income is not due until April, so is
not yet reflected in our financial reports"

which seems to suggest that additional "profits" would eventually be
attributed to this period.

In one sense the quote from the May issue may not be entirely correct.
Since the sale of the building and the income associated from that was
not mentioned anywhere in the Feb article, they were very generous in
not stating the February claim as $650,000 rather than just $250,000.

- Tom Martinak