Bruce Leverett wrote:

I consulted the PSCF officers during the previous election cycle and we
decided that the PSCF should not make any official PSCF endorsements
for EB but that individuals could make their personal endorsements. For
example, in the last election Neil Brennen endorsed Praeder and Bauer,
but that was his individual endorsement as Editor of PWP and not a PSCF
endorsement.

I have little or no problem with that. I read Neil's editorial and it
was perfectly clear to me that it was his personal opinion, not an
official PSCF position.

Thank you, Bruce.

jimeade wrote:
StanB wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

I said Joel helped get better terms. When you said his expertise was
evident in the phone conversation, I obviously jumped to the erroneous
conclusion by thinking that was helpful. Sorry for the great leap of
logic.

Glad to see you weren't lying.

And I apologize in advance for this sarcasm. Randy we are fellow
Board members who agree most of the time. We both have faults, Let's
stop taking digs at each other. You can have the last word on this.

Don is very serious about this. I mean, why would he lie.

The question I have is this: Why would Don alter any candidate's
statement? Is this an impartial secretary? Obviously, Don has used
his position to influence the election. Why is this OK?

Jim,

Some believe this type of behavior is an entitlement issue. Entitlement
is the belief that an individual by virtue of his/her position as an
officer is owed certain privileges or latitudes in terms of their
behavior, thus "those rules really don't apply to us". This belief
would permit officers to rationalize and justify to themselves behavior
that is clearly unacceptable and would elsewhere warrant enforcement
action. However, I tend to view this as a simple lack of organizational
enforced accountability. I think the answer to your question can be
best summed up with "He Seen His Opportunities, and He Took 'Em."

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

Bruce Leverett wrote:

[SNIP]

As a rule, however, a disclaimer about representing such-and-such
organization, while still giving the name of that organization, often
doesn't work, because readers just don't get it, or just don't believe
it. I believe that is what the Trust has in mind. It is quite
reasonable for them to fear that the use of their name next to
Tanner's will make it appear that they are "aligned."

I will speculate the US Chess Trust and the USCF may have to be more
careful because the former is a 501(C)(3) and the latter a 501(C)(4).
Perhaps they have a particular need to remain sufficiently "unaligned"
for this reason, given their otherwise close relationship to each
other, having shared, at least some of the time, IIRC, the same
employee or employees.

By contrast and IMO, the PCA and the USCF do not have anywhere close to
the same potential "alignment" issue.

If there is a general problem with officers of 501(C)(3)'s having their
titles used in campaign endorsements, I need to find out about this, as
the Texas Chess Association is a 501(C)(3). If there is a potential
*legal* issue with someone writing "endorsed by George John, Texas
Chess Association President", I need to find out about that please.

The bottom line remains that any endorsements and campaign statements
need to be clear about the recommendations being *personal* and not an
official position of the organization.

[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John

wrote:
ANOTHER BRIGHT SHINING LIE


Now the egregious Mr. Booz is asking whether
these people were contacted when asked for their
endorsements!


Larry,

I believe the question was "Tell me Don, did you contact those folks
and ask for the endorsement?" This should be as simple as either he did
or he did not, rather than if the people were or were not contacted by
just anyone.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

"George John" wrote in message
ups.com...
Bruce Leverett wrote:

[SNIP]

As a rule, however, a disclaimer about representing such-and-such
organization, while still giving the name of that organization, often
doesn't work, because readers just don't get it, or just don't believe
it. I believe that is what the Trust has in mind. It is quite
reasonable for them to fear that the use of their name next to
Tanner's will make it appear that they are "aligned."

I will speculate the US Chess Trust and the USCF may have to be more
careful because the former is a 501(C)(3) and the latter a 501(C)(4).
Perhaps they have a particular need to remain sufficiently "unaligned"
for this reason, given their otherwise close relationship to each
other, having shared, at least some of the time, IIRC, the same
employee or employees.

Not at all. Very common. Think League of Women Vultures...er, Voters.

By contrast and IMO, the PCA and the USCF do not have anywhere close to
the same potential "alignment" issue.

If there is a general problem with officers of 501(C)(3)'s having their
titles used in campaign endorsements, I need to find out about this, as
the Texas Chess Association is a 501(C)(3). If there is a potential
*legal* issue with someone writing "endorsed by George John, Texas
Chess Association President", I need to find out about that please.

Not at all. Very common. Think League of Women Vultures...er, Voters.

The bottom line remains that any endorsements and campaign statements
need to be clear about the recommendations being *personal* and not an
official position of the organization.

The rub comes when there is a call to action. I like Women's Choice is okay,
but vote for Betty Onwheels is not. The LofWVoters is really two
organizations. The 501(c)(3) that sponsors the debates and the PAC that
promotes specific candidates. Donations to one are deductible and to the
other are not. BTW the laws that apply are simply the tax laws and relate to
government elections.

DOUBLE STANDARD

The issue with the Channing campaign message is it (unknowingly) violated the rules of the US Trust. The issue with the Marinello message was she signed her title to the message, but may not have made it sufficiently clear her message was hers alone and was not meant to represent an official position of the USCF Executive Board and/or the USCF. While I think and hope most would know the message was personal, some may not. It's best not to take chances here. George John

George John's little trick is to equate Joel
Channing mentioning his position on the Chess Trust
with Beatriz Marinello, the highest ranking Federation
employee, sending out a letter of endorsement for the
incumbents running for office.

One notices how Mrs. Marinello's defenders shift
ground. You will recollect how they tried to argue
that she might no longer be in the office, but then
the woman herself gave May 31 as her final day. So,
then, we had the COO of the USCF who is getting
moolah from the USCF, sending out a letter of
endorsement of those who gave her the moolah.

In the case of Joel Channing, you have him
listing a set of affiliations in his life.

The two are in no sense comparable.

George John wrote:
Tom,

I just want to make certain there is no misunderstanding what I think
the issue is. With regard to the use of official titles in campaign
statements, the person with the title should make if clear the
communication is a personal one, and not one that represents a
deliberative body or an organization.


George,

In my view a current officer represents the USCF when dealing with USCF
matters regardless of whether they attach their official title or not.
Nonetheless, I also believe people should not use official titles from
an organization except when they are representing it. Further, I think
it would represent a possible conflict of interest for any office staff
member/contractor (volunteer or employed) to make a personal public
statement concerning 1) any board member or board candidate; and/or 2)
any policy or position established by the board.

However, opinions are a dime a dozen. Ultimately it does not matter
what people think or believe as it's what rules (charter, bylaws,
special, standing, parliamentary, etc) the organization has adopted
that should count.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

Larry,

Very honestly, no "trick" or rhetorical manipulation was intended.

The use of the Trust's name in Channing's piece was a clear, but
unintended violation (allegedly done by his campaign manager, who added
the offending information). In the Marinello piece there was no
violation of any written USCF policy SFAIK; although, it was certainly
not a governance "best practice". As to which was the greater
violation, YMMV. Marinello's letter was to a limited audience.
Channing's campaign article was potentially seen by all "Chess
Life" readers.

Honestly, I don't see either issue as one to become particularly
stirred up about. We have much more significant issues to consider,
and wish we would do so.

FWIW, I never sign my Texas Chess Association President title to any
written information unless I am conducting official TCA business. All
my campaign pieces do NOT have my TCA President title attached to my
signature.

Best regards,

George John

Don Schultz has written to the me that he was authorized by candidate
Channing to add the endorsements to his Chess Life Article. This raises
two questions. The first is the "neutrality" of Sceretary Schultz to
oversee the election.
The second issue is that this places the responsibility for violating
the agreed upon Chess Trust Board election regulations squarely on
Schultz's candidate Channing. If he indeed gave Schultz carte blanche
to add material to his Chess Life articles in both the May and June
issues, then of course Channing is responsible for their content and
for the violation of the Chess Trust rules that he had previously
agreed to. These same rules prevented other candidates from getting
endorsements from members of the Chess Trust using their Chess Trust
affiliations. Those endorsements would have been quite informative to
the public to show who on the Trust supported which candidates (how
many fellow Trustees support Channing, for example). . But we followed
the agreement even though it will likely cost our candidates some
votes. Schultz and Channing did not. Dr. Leroy Dubeck

"LWDubeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Don Schultz has written to the me that he was authorized by candidate
Channing to add the endorsements to his Chess Life Article. This raises
two questions. The first is the "neutrality" of Sceretary Schultz to
oversee the election.
The second issue is that this places the responsibility for violating
the agreed upon Chess Trust Board election regulations squarely on
Schultz's candidate Channing. If he indeed gave Schultz carte blanche
to add material to his Chess Life articles in both the May and June
issues, then of course Channing is responsible for their content and
for the violation of the Chess Trust rules that he had previously
agreed to. These same rules prevented other candidates from getting
endorsements from members of the Chess Trust using their Chess Trust
affiliations. Those endorsements would have been quite informative to
the public to show who on the Trust supported which candidates (how
many fellow Trustees support Channing, for example). . But we followed
the agreement even though it will likely cost our candidates some
votes. Schultz and Channing did not. Dr. Leroy Dubeck

Now it becomes revealed why Don didn't want to answer my simple questions.
Apparently, Don beat the bushes for those endorsements. Why would he bother?
As we all know, Don is obsessed with power. He fully expects Joel to carry
his water. Much like Frank Brady did. He is convinced Joel is a dope and a
buffoon that will do what ever Donny asks him to do. Anything to rub elbows
with chess personas.