"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have my concerns about some of the decisions that Bill Goichberg has
made and some of the positions he has taken, and I may not vote for him
because of those concerns. On the other hand, I am not persuaded by
the conflict of interest arguments regarding the 2006 US Open decision.
Personally, I thought the arguments in favor of Illinois and the
chosen hotel were pretty strong. I am also less than convinced that
Goichberg would have been concerned about a conflict between the US
Open and the World Open because I see no evidence that the 2002 US Open
had an impact on the 2002 World Open. 2002 attendance exceeded that of
2000, 2001 and 2004. Only 2003 was better.

As an Illinoisian, I may be biased by my delight in having the US Open
return to Chicago, but the reasoning behind the decision seems quite
sound to me.

Vince Hart

As Bill himself has noted, I also thought the Chicago bid quite sound and
strong and supported it while on the Board. I am excited that the US Open
will be returning to the Midwest.

That said, I do think the overall discussion of conflict of interest is
important. However much Bill wishes to dismiss it, it is hard for him to
divorce his view of the USCF from his activity as a professional chess
organizer. Don't get me wrong, I think that activity (over the board play)
is important and vital, and it is what got me into the USCF in the first
place. However, it is not all that the USCF is, and I am uncertain that
Bill can always understand that. I would prefer a Board of disinterested
professionals who understand budgets, management, non profit organiziations,
organizational culture, and the like.

Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer wrote:

As Bill himself has noted, I also thought the Chicago bid quite sound and
strong and supported it while on the Board. I am excited that the US Open
will be returning to the Midwest.

That said, I do think the overall discussion of conflict of interest is
important. However much Bill wishes to dismiss it, it is hard for him to
divorce his view of the USCF from his activity as a professional chess
organizer. Don't get me wrong, I think that activity (over the board play)
is important and vital, and it is what got me into the USCF in the first
place. However, it is not all that the USCF is, and I am uncertain that
Bill can always understand that. I would prefer a Board of disinterested
professionals who understand budgets, management, non profit organiziations,
organizational culture, and the like.

Randy Bauer

I agree on the importance of discussing conflict of interest. I also
agree that Bill suffers from tunnel vision at times. On the other hand
I don't think that tunnel vision is necessarily evidence of
self-dealing. Bill certainly has organizing expertise and it appears
to me that it served the USCF well in the 2006 US Open decision.

Vince Hart

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...


Randy Bauer wrote:

As Bill himself has noted, I also thought the Chicago bid quite sound and
strong and supported it while on the Board. I am excited that the US
Open
will be returning to the Midwest.

That said, I do think the overall discussion of conflict of interest is
important. However much Bill wishes to dismiss it, it is hard for him to
divorce his view of the USCF from his activity as a professional chess
organizer. Don't get me wrong, I think that activity (over the board
play)
is important and vital, and it is what got me into the USCF in the first
place. However, it is not all that the USCF is, and I am uncertain that
Bill can always understand that. I would prefer a Board of disinterested
professionals who understand budgets, management, non profit
organiziations,
organizational culture, and the like.

Randy Bauer

I agree on the importance of discussing conflict of interest. I also
agree that Bill suffers from tunnel vision at times. On the other hand
I don't think that tunnel vision is necessarily evidence of
self-dealing. Bill certainly has organizing expertise and it appears
to me that it served the USCF well in the 2006 US Open decision.

On the 2006 US Open decision, I agree. I supported it as well and like to
think I had a part in bringing it to Chicago.

Randy Bauer

Vince Hart

Vote for the bad guys (and girls)! The sooner the USCF is run into the
ground, the quicker that it can be replaced.

How often are the elections? Sloan says nobody has run since 1999? Elections
are only every six years?

USCF Executive Board elections are normally every two years.
Resignations can result in having them more often, which is why there
was a special election in 2004 which elected Randy Bauer, and Elizabeth
Shaughnessy for one year terms. This election is a "normal" election.

Best regards,

George John

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:07:48 -0400, "Capablanca"
wrote:

How often are the elections? Sloan says nobody has run since 1999? Elections
are only every six years?

That is not what I wrote. I wrote that therew were many good
candidates who ran in 1999, were defeated and never ran again.

There were 17 candidates that year, a star-studded group. Among those
defeated were Arthur Bisguier, Ralph Bowman, Robert Tanner and Tom
Dorsch. Unfortunately, those who were elected turned out to be very
bad. Tim Redman and Doris Barry and Jim Pechac were all especially
bad.

There have been several elections since then.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote:
.... Greg Shahade .... did not even
prepare his own nominating petitions. I gave him some of mine and told
him to white out my name and write in his instead, which he did. ....

I hope you are not accusing Greg of using your petitions AFTER they already
had signatures on them. That would be an extremely serious charge, if
that's what you're saying, and should not be made without ironclad proof.

Bill Smythe

I think your worries are needless Bill. I am sure that Sam has plenty
of nominating petitions that no one ever signed.

Vince Hart

Randy Bauer wrote:

On the 2006 US Open decision, I agree. I supported it as well and like to
think I had a part in bringing it to Chicago.

Randy Bauer

I hope I can show my gratitude by buying you a beer when you are in
town next summer without violating any ethical standards.

Vince Hart