Bill Goichberg goes shopping and buys a Chess Federation by Andrew Zito

or CRISIS IN THE USCF: REVIEW OF THE JULY 2005 USCF Vote

This most recent vote to elect new members of the USCF Executive Board
exemplifies systemic weaknesses of the USCF leadership. The latest board elected to
lead the United States Chess Federation is unrepresentative of the USCF
membership.

The final vote tally represents the votes cast by approx 5180 USCF members,
who voted for up to four candidates to the executive board each, which means
that over

93% of the members could not or did not vote and that those elected were
elected by less than 3500 USCF members.

The entire chess establishment in the US is under the dominance of
commercially based sectors of the US, not the US, nor US chess players.
This most recent vote as many of the past votes typified the divided nature
of USCF where the membership was treated in the typical "politician" manner
as election time drew near they were played for their votes and interest.

Hi "Joey Patzer" you are voting for me aren't you?
You know them "bums" will destroy the "USCF"!
"Dues are too high!" (for regular members)
"Dues are too low!" (For scholastic members)
"We need to run things on sound business principles!"
(Is this the USCF or General Motors?)
Kiss Kiss come on hurry up make a move "Lets make a deal!"
Hey "Monty Hall" you are Bobby Dudley! "Bill Wall"
"Negron" who are you really?
The USCF is not a business! Can't you get it?

The United States Chess Federation will never approach the level of the
Soviet and Yugoslav Chess Federations even with all their fancy technology
and money.

Good I should say for they don't deserve it do they! Or should I say too bad
so as to maintain the Cold War Line (actually true intelligence would be
forced to admit the superiority of Soviet Chess and that Bobby Fischer was
merely a fluke perhaps the USCF should do so also or does it maintain a
party line?).

At Present the USCF can't even approach the fledgling chess federation of
the People's Republic of China (which is rapidly expanding I understand and
already has millions of members since weestern chess was reintroduced) and
exemplifies the systemic problem with US social structures. US social
institutions seem to have accepted the notion that membership means a member
merely sends in money and has no real influence in the organization as if
the member should be the passive consumer of services.

The heyday of US social organizations has past where preachers must be TV
evangelists,

fraternal association are subscriber based fund raising mechanisms, and
religious organizations are for profit publishers discussed as not for
profit corporations. Capitalism based in money and power, unbridled and all
corrupting subverts the altruistic nature of any thing it touchs that does
not conform to the latest model of profit in vogue.

The USCF membership in that less than 10% of the eligible members voted
demonstrated the unmoving nature of any of the USCF factions' leadership and
that membership's disinterest in the personal ambitions at play and all
their schemes and hair brain schemes.

Bill Goichberg, aka Mr. Chess Tournament in representing the apex of the US
chess tournament world has taken over a position on the USCF EB with
sufficient conditions that will put him on the spot to improve the
functioning and performance by the USCF.

If he does not succeed I predicate that soon again the USCF some time in the
future may have to merge with the Internet Chess Club merely to survive
(though the ICC would not be as inclined due to pure corporate structure,
membership in ICC merely means subscriber). There is no end to the crisis
that started some time back with the so called Redman faction, and the
insane slanders, libels, and innuendoes, are sure to continue.

Sam Sloan the insider and perennial phony malcontent rank and file most
probably will run again the next time around so as to siphon off votes of
any real opposition in that he caters to the status quo in diffusing
opposition.

Sam Sloan being the demagogue he is (this is the 5th. or 6th.Time he has run
for the EB merely garner only 1064?) though he does not represent the rank
and file opposition nor does those elected or who ran.

I directly call Sam Sloan a demagogue because

ONCE AGAIN SAM SLOAN EXPOSES HIMSELF IN ANOTHER USCF INTRIGUE

Sam Sloan seems once again to have slandered, libeled, defamed, or merely
maligned yet again another U.S.C.F. member (albeit USCF President Beatriz
Marinello) for which we must take issue with his actions.

Why doesn't Beatriz sue the unprincipled Sam Sloan well one perhaps he doesn't
have any thing worth suing as he hops from once apartment to another (with
wife and family in tow and seemingly lives off his wife's earnings as she is
employed in the accounting field and he seemingly is not).

How can Sam Sloan do it once again? How can Sam Sloan once again take
liberties with his loose use of language he directs at others and involving
their reputations?

Is it possible that he has no positive reputation to speak of, nor securable
resources for someone to attach in legal suit? There are many pro-se
litigants and "jail house lawyers" (such as he) that make frivolous
arguments when they shouldn't.

On the basis of his quoted posting to this group we must distance ourselves
for what once again shows the dual or multiple facets of Mr. Sam H. Sloan's
perpetual strange use of language, and analysis of the issues. Mr. Sam H.
Sloan generally does not use the same language as everyone else does in fact
it seems he creatively invents terminology intentionally to malicious malign
those he opposes.

In writing of the "drugs" he accuses "Beatriz Marinello USCF President" of
advocating, if we are to follow the links provided we find out those alleged
"drugs" are nutritionally based and as such not governed by the United
States Food and Drug Administration, as they are not officially classified
as "drugs" but nutritionally based.

Sam Sloan in effect called for an end to corruption in the USCF as such we
think he should start his with the corrupt nature of his speech and writing.

Andrew Zito
P.O.Box 1615
Altoona, Pa 16603

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/chess_travel
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/USCF-RNF
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/USCFRNF
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...-International
http://zito.biz
http://templeofreason.org
https://www.zito.biz/ssl
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
universally copyrighted 2005 Andrew Zito

wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't notice the final national vote totals anywhere, so here they
are. Will post a regional breakdown at www.checkmate.us as soon as I
can.

Bill Goichberg 3941
Greg Shahade 3694
Joel Channing 3358
Robert Tanner 3179
Elizabeth Shaughnessy 1638
Randy Bauer 1591
Steve Shutt 1194
Sam Sloan 1064
George John 1059

Bill Goichberg

93% of the members could not or did not vote and that those elected
were elected by less than 3500 USCF members.

As opposed to 99% a few years ago.

"X-file" writes:

The USCF membership in that less than 10% of the eligible members voted=20
demonstrated the unmoving nature of any of the USCF factions' leadership =
and=20
that membership's disinterest in the personal ambitions at play and all=20
their schemes and hair brain schemes.

Actually, there were around 5500 valid ballots received and counted from
the 39,705 members who were sent a ballot. (Members under 16 or those not
residing in the USA are not voting members.)

That means that nearly 14% of of those eligible to vote did so. I've
been involved in a number of membership organizations, it is seldom the
case that over 10% of the membership votes.
--
Mike Nolan

Mike Nolan wrote:
"X-file" writes:

The USCF membership in that less than 10% of the eligible members voted=20
demonstrated the unmoving nature of any of the USCF factions' leadership =
and=20
that membership's disinterest in the personal ambitions at play and all=20
their schemes and hair brain schemes.

Actually, there were around 5500 valid ballots received and counted from
the 39,705 members who were sent a ballot. (Members under 16 or those not
residing in the USA are not voting members.)

That means that nearly 14% of of those eligible to vote did so. I've
been involved in a number of membership organizations, it is seldom the
case that over 10% of the membership votes.
--
Mike Nolan

Other than one or two coherent sentences, it's amazing anyone could
glean anything from our illustrious illiterate, Andrew Sterigou.
"Pretentious display of bombastic vocabulary with obvious assistance
from a Thesaurus" is a phrase that often springs to mind when reading
his posts.

Mike,

First, thanks for helping out with the counting!

Any idea please about what percentage of total valid ballots came from
special mailing?

Roughly how many ballots from "Chess Life" were returned with no return
address?

Do you have an opinion about the ADM (see below) which requires (I
think) electronic ("Internet") voting (note: the USCF Bylaws already
allows for the *option* of electronic voting)?

Best regards,

George John

************************
ADM 05-27 (Don Schultz, FL): The delegates instruct the Executive Board
to study Internet Voting and develop a procedure that will result in
Internet voting for EB members commencing with the 2007 elections.

"George John" writes:

Any idea please about what percentage of total valid ballots came from
special mailing?

I don't have the exact numbers of ballots received or counted. Peter
Tamburo or Bill Hall should have that data.

Here's what we sent out:

Chess Life: 36,971
May Supplemental: 853
2nd Ballot Mailing: 38,272
June Supplemental: 401
------
Total Members 39,705

Bill says we received just over 6,000 ballots. The exact count was hard
to determine prior to the actual counting, because when we opened the
ballots there were several that had more than one ballot in them. I
think we were off by a few compared to the auditor's count on envelopes,
but they also sent us 2 envelopes that weren't ours.

Judging by the sizes of the stacks, the number of Chess Life ballots
counted outnumbered the number of special mailing ballots by a bit,
probably something like a 6-5 ratio.

I think there were 75-100 ballots received from the two supplemental mailings
(those who joined in May and those who joined in June.)

Roughly how many ballots from "Chess Life" were returned with no return
address?

That data I do have.

There were 75 ballots that were blank or where the member had covered up the
identifying information. There were also 10 spoiled ballots (voted for 5
or more individuals) and 6 that were too damaged to count, either because
the member information was missing or the ballot section was incomplete.

3 were returned marked as 'deceased'. I don't know how many were returned
marked as 'undeliverable' by the post office, but it was a fairly large
stack, probably several hundred.

There were 440 duplicated ballots received. (We counted the Chess Life
ballot in most cases, though in one or two cases the Chess Life ballot was
too damaged to be countable so we counted the other one.)

Do you have an opinion about the ADM (see below) which requires (I
think) electronic ("Internet") voting (note: the USCF Bylaws already
allows for the *option* of electronic voting)?

ADM 05-27 (Don Schultz, FL): The delegates instruct the Executive Board
to study Internet Voting and develop a procedure that will result in
Internet voting for EB members commencing with the 2007 elections.

I have mixed emotions on this, and I was the one who wanted the optional
language put in the Bylaws!

The cost of putting the ballot in Chess Life appears to be $12-$15,000.
(That's still the estimate I got from Jamie 2 years ago, I haven't seen the
detailed bills for the June 2005 issue to see how much that one cost.)

I believe that the cost of the special mailing was in the same general
ballpark as the mailing in Chess Life, somewhere in the $14,000 region.
(Bill Hall has the exact figures for that one.)

I don't know exactly how much the two supplemental mailings cost, I would
guess somewhere around $750.

I don't know yet how much it cost in staff time, meeting room rental, supplies
and travel expenses to count the ballots.

Based on contacts I've had from companies who either manage internet
elections or provide software for that purpose, it appears that SECURE
electronic voting is going to be more expensive than voting by mail,
possibly by as much as an additional $15-$20,000 per year. And we will
would still need the ability to send out paper ballots to members who
aren't Internet-enabled. (Illinois law appears to require that.)
--
Mike Nolan

WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR

That means that nearly 14% of of those eligible to vote did so. I've
been involved in a number of membership organizations, it is seldom the
case that over 10% of the membership votes. Mike Nolan

I fully expect a Sam Sloan resurgence in the next election. My
main man was hurt by having his initial statement deleted from the
magazine by the stinkers.

Two candidates that I had hoped to see elected -- Sam, for his
positive characteristics and capacities to make a serious impact;
George John, as a form of Board balance -- finished next to last and
last, respectively.

The tale of this election is nothing more or less than some
mighty long coattails and good financing. People wanted Bill
Goichberg, and his ticket had the funds to get out its message.

End of story.

wrote:
WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR

I fully expect a Sam Sloan resurgence in the next election. My
main man was hurt by having his initial statement deleted from the
magazine by the stinkers.

I seriously doubt it was Sloan's initial statement being deleted from
Chess Life that hurt him with the voters. Except that maybe it showed
that if he couldn't even respond to a simple deadline in a timely
manner, how could he be expected to be responsible in bigger ventures.

Two candidates that I had hoped to see elected -- Sam, for his
positive characteristics and capacities to make a serious impact;

Positive characteristics, eh? Name five.

George John, as a form of Board balance

George would have been an excellent board member.

The tale of this election is nothing more or less than some
mighty long coattails and good financing. People wanted Bill
Goichberg, and his ticket had the funds to get out its message.

End of story.

My feelings exactly. Money talks -- bull**** runs the marathon.

Your tone of sarcasm is noted and as one may ask they might ask "Was your
sarcasm a sign you have gone or not gone to therapy recently?"

"FiFiela" wrote in message
ups.com...
93% of the members could not or did not vote and that those elected
were elected by less than 3500 USCF members.

As opposed to 99% a few years ago.

Andrew Zito
P.O.Box 1615
Altoona, Pa 16603

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/chess_travel
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/USCF-RNF
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/USCFRNF
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...-International
http://zito.biz
http://templeofreason.org
https://www.zito.biz/ssl
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
universally copyrighted 2005 Andrew Zito

Thank You first of all for once again misquoting me as one can not expect
you to
properly quote matters nor to state them. Nor generally can we expect
anything more than your biased
one-sided optimistic approach in favor of the status quo you and the Sam
Sloans of this world spin the numbers for (we can wonder how it benefit$$$
you!).

The truth of the matter is that the recent "victorious candidiates for the
US chess federation received LESS VOTES THAN 5% OF THE TOTAL MEMBERSHIP
APPROVE THEM (if not please sue me or give your mouth and pen a rest) even
though you insist on treating foreign and currently under 16 year members as
second class citizen chattel for the benefit of the privileged group elite
group of commercial profiteers you shamefully vocally represent.

The fact that many groups do just as badly does not mean any of them do well
and that:
the Turnout "demonstrated the unmoving nature of any of the USCF factions'
leadership"
Nor because you're "been involved in a number of membership organizations"
does that qualify you as any sort of expert so as to be qualified to say on
face value "that nearly 14% of of those eligible to vote did so. *** and
"it is seldom the case that over 10% of the membership votes" when you again
provide nothing else except unqualified conjecture.


Andrew Zito
P.O.Box 1615
Altoona, Pa 16603

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/chess_travel
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/USCF-RNF
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/USCFRNF
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...-International
http://zito.biz
http://templeofreason.org
https://www.zito.biz/ssl
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
universally copyrighted 2005 Andrew Zito

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"X-file" writes:

The USCF membership in that less than 10% of the eligible members voted=20
demonstrated the unmoving nature of any of the USCF factions' leadership =
and=20
that membership's disinterest in the personal ambitions at play and all=20
their schemes and hair brain schemes.

Actually, there were around 5500 valid ballots received and counted from
the 39,705 members who were sent a ballot. (Members under 16 or those not
residing in the USA are not voting members.)

That means that nearly 14% of of those eligible to vote did so. I've
been involved in a number of membership organizations, it is seldom the
case that over 10% of the membership votes.
--
Mike Nolan