Not very nice to do, even to Sam.

TIme to leave rgcp and move to a moderated board? Moderation need not
equal censorship, just some sort of system in which ownership of posts
is verified.

" writes:

TIme to leave rgcp and move to a moderated board? Moderation need not
equal censorship, just some sort of system in which ownership of posts
is verified.

There are a few web forums for chess, including the USCF Forums, though
at present the topics there are pretty much restricted to tournament
organization, tournament direction and chess club organization.

Having password-controlled posting (an impossibility for rgcp and a
near-impossibility in an e-mail based list) generally makes it more clear
which posts are from which posters, even if done under a pseudonym.
Cracking the password system or finding other ways around it is still
possible, but usually not worth the effort.

An interesting idea is beginning to surface within the Internet planning
community, using groups or communities as means of authenticating identities.
That will probably mean establishing your REAL identity within that group,
even if that leads to a pseudonymous 'verified' identity. But it may
mean I could trust that items claiming to be coming from, say, the
'Masked Bishop' are in fact coming from that verified identity, because
of the group authentication.
--
Mike Nolan

Getting back to the topic of the post--namely the financial losses for
USCF under the Schultz-Goichberg Board of 1997-1999, I do not see
anyone disagreeing with the sudited numbers for the losses that USCF
Operations suffered--which totaled $716,925. Not an impressive record
for Bill Goichberg to run for another term on the Executive Board. Dr.
Dubeck

LWDubeck wrote:

Getting back to the topic of the post--namely the financial losses for
USCF under the Schultz-Goichberg Board of 1997-1999, I do not see
anyone disagreeing with the sudited numbers for the losses that USCF
Operations suffered--which totaled $716,925. Not an impressive record
for Bill Goichberg to run for another term on the Executive Board. Dr.
Dubeck

I hardly think the boards of 2000-2003 were much better. I have no idea
if they lost more or less money, but they certainly lost a lot of money
that led to a dramatic downsizing of the USCF.

Of course the downsizing of the USCF seems to have been a good thing.
Our costs are lower now and I haven't seen services negatively affected.
Obviously the USCF was too big, although I certainly feel for the
people that lost their jobs.

---
Douglas L Stewart

President, Mississippi Chess Association
http://www.mcachess.org

Douglas L Stewart writes:

Of course the downsizing of the USCF seems to have been a good thing.
Our costs are lower now and I haven't seen services negatively affected.

Yes, services were affected. The USCF's processing time for rating
reports went from about 2 1/2 weeks in the spring of 2003 to nearly
6 weeks in late 2004, a lot more errors were made in entering events and
checking events for problems became virtually non-existent. Memberships
were also running about 15-20 days behind for a large part of 2004.

The USCF missed several deadlines for submitting events to FIDE and
I've heard reports of several FIDE titles that were applied for late.

I also think the cutbacks in the publications department had an impact on
the production qualities of Chess Life (more typos, etc.), and four months
after moving most of the offices to TN there are still forms that haven't
been updated to reflect the new address and PDF's of those old forms are
still on the website.
--
Mike Nolan

LWDubeck Jun 26, 7:30 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: "LWDubeck" - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Jun 2005 16:30:20 -0700
Local: Sun,Jun 26 2005 7:30 pm
Subject: Why did Marinello and Shaughnessy make a deal with Natrol?

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Getting back to the topic of the post--namely the financial losses for
USCF under the Schultz-Goichberg Board of 1997-1999, I do not see
anyone disagreeing with the sudited numbers for the losses that USCF
Operations suffered--which totaled $716,925. Not an impressive record
for Bill Goichberg to run for another term on the Executive Board. Dr.
Dubeck

"Not an impressive record"? But why would anyone judge by 1997-1999
when I was one member
of a seven member Board, and ignore 2004 and late 2003 when I was in
charge of the office? I made no decisions in 1997-1999, but a great
many decisions in 2003-2004 as Office Manager and Executive Director.

To mention just one project I worked on as ED (see www.checkmate.us for
more), USCF had lost 11,794 full adult members in the 10 years ending
2/29/04, an average of 1179 per year. I then started the Activity
Means Members program, initiated a $38 promotional membership for new
and long expired members, and improved our expiration mailings (much
greater frequency, better written). And in the 12 months beginning
3/1/04, USCF did not lose any more full adults and actually gained 47,
and full adult plus economy adult declined by only 446 compared to 3445
in the previous 14 months.

I was also one member of a seven member Board in 1989-1992, when USCF
did well, but haven't claimed credit for this as I disagree that an
individual on a Board has a "record" identical to that of the whole
Board.

Also, your claim that the 1997-1999 Board lost $238,000 in fiscal 1997
is very misleading, as all this money and more was lost in the early
part of the fiscal year under the previous Board; in addition the new
Board inherited a large severance payment due to the former ED.

Bill Goichberg

I guess everything is relative. I also was referring to the level of
services after the dust cleared. Obviously there were some bumps in the
road when it happened. Depending on your type of interaction with USCF
there were some differences. If you were some group that used to get
funding to go to an Olympiad for instance I'm sure it was a big change
to you. I'm also sure if you were working there it wasn't a lot of fun.

But to your average State Affiliate they were just all minor bumps in
the road. Obviously in a State my size the late reporting of ratings
and title norms to FIDE wasn't a big deal since we don't have any of
those anyway. Even a late USCF rating report or two isn't the end of
the world and Chess Life differences seemed minor and were compensated
for well by the interesting retro covers.

I never really heard much in the way of complaints about late ratings or
late membership cards here although I know these problems existed.

For the chatter on these groups I've gathered problems with the contents
of our website seem to be more of an issue of planning, organization,
and ownership rather than staffing levels although like almost any other
problem in the world it's probably something you can throw money at.

-Douglas

Mike Nolan wrote:

Douglas L Stewart writes:


Of course the downsizing of the USCF seems to have been a good thing.
Our costs are lower now and I haven't seen services negatively affected.


Yes, services were affected. The USCF's processing time for rating
reports went from about 2 1/2 weeks in the spring of 2003 to nearly
6 weeks in late 2004, a lot more errors were made in entering events and
checking events for problems became virtually non-existent. Memberships
were also running about 15-20 days behind for a large part of 2004.

The USCF missed several deadlines for submitting events to FIDE and
I've heard reports of several FIDE titles that were applied for late.

I also think the cutbacks in the publications department had an impact on
the production qualities of Chess Life (more typos, etc.), and four months
after moving most of the offices to TN there are still forms that haven't
been updated to reflect the new address and PDF's of those old forms are
still on the website.
--
Mike Nolan

LWDubeck wrote:
Getting back to the topic of the post--namely the financial losses for
USCF under the Schultz-Goichberg Board of 1997-1999, I do not see
anyone disagreeing with the sudited numbers for the losses that USCF
Operations suffered--which totaled $716,925. Not an impressive record
for Bill Goichberg to run for another term on the Executive Board. Dr.
Dubeck


Leroy,

More is needed to properly measure organizational performance than just
looking at financials. However, the USCF has institutionalized the idea
of taking credit for what goes well on ones watch and placing blame
elsewhere for poor performance. Even improper behavior is rationalized
for the good of the organization. When nonprofit directors accept
little personal accountability, activities other than governance of the
organization may get more of their attention, particularly when those
other activities have built-in rewards (e.g., self-dealing, conflict of
interest).

It is a common principle that by the articles of incorporation required
of all nonprofit organizations, the board is held responsible for the
organization. The board as a whole, and its individual members, are
answerable for all that the organization does, and how it does it. The
board therefore is the locus of accountability.

Candidates are running for the Executive Board not Executive Director.
That being said, past board performance and behavior is a good
predictor of future performance and behavior.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://www.snpo.org/samples/V180613.pdf
http://www.foundationnews.org/CME/ar...=2459&issueID=

WPraeder Jun 27, 5:37 am show options


LWDubeck wrote:
Getting back to the topic of the post--namely the financial losses for
USCF under the Schultz-Goichberg Board of 1997-1999, I do not see
anyone disagreeing with the sudited numbers for the losses that USCF
Operations suffered--which totaled $716,925. Not an impressive record
for Bill Goichberg to run for another term on the Executive Board. Dr.
Dubeck


Leroy,

More is needed to properly measure organizational performance than just
looking at financials. However, the USCF has institutionalized the idea
of taking credit for what goes well on ones watch and placing blame
elsewhere for poor performance. Even improper behavior is rationalized
for the good of the organization. When nonprofit directors accept
little personal accountability, activities other than governance of the

organization may get more of their attention, particularly when those
other activities have built-in rewards (e.g., self-dealing, conflict of
interest).


It is a common principle that by the articles of incorporation required
of all nonprofit organizations, the board is held responsible for the
organization. The board as a whole, and its individual members, are
answerable for all that the organization does, and how it does it. The

board therefore is the locus of accountability.


Candidates are running for the Executive Board not Executive Director.
That being said, past board performance and behavior is a good
predictor of future performance and behavior.


Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://www.snpo.org/samples/V1?80613.pdf
http://www.foundationnews.org/?CME/a...2459&issueI?D=

It is fair to assign me part of the responsibility for 1997-1998 and
1998-1999, but not the entire blame. USCF did well while I was on the
Board in 1989-1990, 1990-1991, 1991-1992 and 1996-1997. Yes, the
latter year there was a large loss overall, but all of it and more
occurred in the first part of the fiscal year, before I was on the
Board; there was a surplus during my Board service in that fiscal year
and it came despite difficult conditions.

As for the argument that it is irrelevant that USCF showed a large
surplus 11/03-12/04 while I was Office Manager and Executive Director,
this seems rather bizarre, as it is far more difficult to run the
office than to be a Board member. An average ED is likely qualified to
be a good Board member, but an average Board member is unlikely to make
an adequate ED.

Bill Goichberg

Why? Does Douchebeck hate Bill & Don so much that he's willing to
endorse bulldyke scumbags to get back at them? Gee, I wonder if the
reward = US Open in NJ AGAIN?

Let's have the US Open in Crossville, TN.

Bill, you're too good for the board. Drop out of the race and run your
CCA. You can't have both.

We can let Shahade turn the USCF into the WPT.

Everyone should vote for me four times. Even Bill Brock will vote for
me after I kicked his ass in Chicago. He loves me now.

S(p)am Sloan