First tier guys and gals (Marinello, Goichberg, Shahade) do not spam the
other chess groups.

Any USCF spam appearing on other chess groups comes guaranteed from a loser.


"Gambit" wrote in message
oups.com...
PeteCasso wrote:
Please remove rgcm from the crossposting if you respond, thanks for your
cooperation!

Get a life, net-nanny.

wrote:
Bruce Leverett wrote:
The new Board has not yet even taken office, but I can already see that
it will be business as usual. When one Board member wants to discuss
something with another Board member, his first step is to get his own
POV posted to some newsgroup or listserv. This is, apparently, the
cool way to score points. Beats the hell out of persuasion, doesn't
it?


Why do you assume the open letter was the first communication with
Beatriz regarding this subject? There was a lengthy email exchange
involving her and many others, and her position was unchanged.

Bill Goichberg

My error, for which I apologize.

However, grandstanding is grandstanding, whether it comes first or
somewhat later. Do you think that, for example, the teams that didn't
make it into the USCL should take their case to the newsgroups?

To be fair, let me say that the incoming administration didn't invent
grandstanding. But it leaves me wishing that the USCF Board -- any
USCF Board -- could handle disputes more discreetly. At the risk of
repeating myself: how can I take this discussion of build vs. buy
completely seriously, when I see it in an "open letter"? This isn't
politics, this is juvenile, mickey-mouse, posturing; imitation
politics.

Bruce Leverett


As a reader of RGCP, naturally I am curious about what goes into
decisions like build vs. buy. So I read the "open letter". But I
would have to say that in discussing serious business with the leaders
of chess clubs and other organizations, I myself do not normally
proceed by means of "open letters". It seems like exhibitionism, and
as such, it would discourage people from taking me seriously.

Bruce Leverett

wrote:
AN OPEN LETTER TO BEATRIZ MARINELLO
July 26, 2005
Dear Beatriz:

With slightly over two weeks remaining before the Delegates meet in
Phoenix and the new Executive Board takes office, you have declared
your intention to sign a contract with a builder to construct USCF's
new headquarters in Crossville, and to arrange a mortgage to fund this
construction cost.

The estimated cost of this construction is about $550,000. The real
cost is likely to be more, as such projects frequently run over budget.
There will also be interest charges.

The five signers of this letter will be on the new Executive Board that
takes office August 14, a majority of that seven person Board. None of
us supports moving USCF out of Crossville, but all are concerned that
the Federation is about to commit to spending a great deal of money
without having carefully considered alternatives. Randy Bauer, a
current Board member who you supported for re-election, has expressed
the same concern and suggested that you not sign the construction
contract.

There appear to be appropriately sized office buildings in Crossville
advertised for sale at prices well below what it will cost to construct
this building. Especially if we are able to obtain compensation for
returning or selling the land we currently own, it is possible that
USCF might save a great deal of money by purchasing in Crossville
rather than building. While this is not certain, we do not feel it is
prudent to eliminate this possibility by the immediate signing of a
contract, nor do we understand why such signing is so urgent that it
justifies shutting the Delegates and the new Board out of the process
only about two weeks before the meetings.

Too often in the past, USCF has signed contracts without adequate
consideration and it has cost us money. Maybe the arrangements
currently negotiated are desirable for USCF and maybe not, but analysis
of our options before taking a fateful step is surely appropriate at
this time.

Joel Channing
Bill Goichberg
Don Schultz
Greg Shahade
Robert Tanner

THE ELECTION IS OVER

Randy is a decent guy who has a lot to offer US Chess. Throughout the recent campaign he conducted himself professionally despite being vilified for no good reason other than partisanghip by you and a bunch of cowardly anonymous posters. Randy deserved to be re-elected. The election is over, Larry. Angelo DePalma

Dear Angelo,

I can only go by the public record here at rgcp.

I readily concede that Randy Bauer made himself look worse than he
probably is by being just about the only one among the Board majority
to participate actively here. His active participation speaks well of
him. I understand this point. He gets vilified for speaking out,
whereas others like Steve Shutt and Elizabeth Shaughnessy escape by
taking the less courageous course of keeping silent.

In that sense my attacks are unfair. But my reports were accurate.

Overall, I read his behavior differently than you do: I see it as more
carefully calibrated politically and opportunistic, taking both sides
of an issue rather than a genuine attempt at inspecting issues. But it
didn't help him because he lacked a political base (which is why
Shaughnessy pulled more votes than he) and, more importantly, because
there was a juggernaut that flattened him and his confreres.

In any event, I let you and the rest of rgcp know what was happening
weeks before Mr. Bauer and the others chose to tell you. I can't
consider his behavior as honest.

Bruce Leverett wrote:
wrote:
Bruce Leverett wrote:
The new Board has not yet even taken office, but I can already see that
it will be business as usual. When one Board member wants to discuss
something with another Board member, his first step is to get his own
POV posted to some newsgroup or listserv. This is, apparently, the
cool way to score points. Beats the hell out of persuasion, doesn't
it?


Why do you assume the open letter was the first communication with
Beatriz regarding this subject? There was a lengthy email exchange
involving her and many others, and her position was unchanged.

Bill Goichberg

My error, for which I apologize.

However, grandstanding is grandstanding, whether it comes first or
somewhat later. Do you think that, for example, the teams that didn't
make it into the USCL should take their case to the newsgroups?

To be fair, let me say that the incoming administration didn't invent
grandstanding. But it leaves me wishing that the USCF Board -- any
USCF Board -- could handle disputes more discreetly. At the risk of
repeating myself: how can I take this discussion of build vs. buy
completely seriously, when I see it in an "open letter"? This isn't
politics, this is juvenile, mickey-mouse, posturing; imitation
politics.

Bruce Leverett


The "Open Letter" was emailed to various people after the signers
concluded that attempts to persuade Beatriz to leave the matter to the
delegates and new Board had failed. We hope that state/local leaders,
delegates, and members express support for our position, and that this
will cause Beatriz to reconsider her determination to sign the contract
during her remaining two weeks as President. I believe an appeal to
the membership of this type is part of the democratic process, but you
seem to suggest that it is important to keep the members in the dark
until an irrevocable decision is made.

Bill Goichberg



As a reader of RGCP, naturally I am curious about what goes into
decisions like build vs. buy. So I read the "open letter". But I
would have to say that in discussing serious business with the leaders
of chess clubs and other organizations, I myself do not normally
proceed by means of "open letters". It seems like exhibitionism, and
as such, it would discourage people from taking me seriously.

Bruce Leverett

wrote:
AN OPEN LETTER TO BEATRIZ MARINELLO
July 26, 2005
Dear Beatriz:

With slightly over two weeks remaining before the Delegates meet in
Phoenix and the new Executive Board takes office, you have declared
your intention to sign a contract with a builder to construct USCF's
new headquarters in Crossville, and to arrange a mortgage to fund this
construction cost.

The estimated cost of this construction is about $550,000. The real
cost is likely to be more, as such projects frequently run over budget.
There will also be interest charges.

The five signers of this letter will be on the new Executive Board that
takes office August 14, a majority of that seven person Board. None of
us supports moving USCF out of Crossville, but all are concerned that
the Federation is about to commit to spending a great deal of money
without having carefully considered alternatives. Randy Bauer, a
current Board member who you supported for re-election, has expressed
the same concern and suggested that you not sign the construction
contract.

There appear to be appropriately sized office buildings in Crossville
advertised for sale at prices well below what it will cost to construct
this building. Especially if we are able to obtain compensation for
returning or selling the land we currently own, it is possible that
USCF might save a great deal of money by purchasing in Crossville
rather than building. While this is not certain, we do not feel it is
prudent to eliminate this possibility by the immediate signing of a
contract, nor do we understand why such signing is so urgent that it
justifies shutting the Delegates and the new Board out of the process
only about two weeks before the meetings.

Too often in the past, USCF has signed contracts without adequate
consideration and it has cost us money. Maybe the arrangements
currently negotiated are desirable for USCF and maybe not, but analysis
of our options before taking a fateful step is surely appropriate at
this time.

Joel Channing
Bill Goichberg
Don Schultz
Greg Shahade
Robert Tanner

"We hope that state/local leaders, delegates, and members express
support for our position, and that this will cause Beatriz to
reconsider her determination to sign the contract." Bill Goichberg

Shocking news!

What's in it for her? She should resign in disgrace.

This stubborn woman has done enough damage. She must be stopped before
she completely wrecks the USCF. The incoming board MUST make it clear
they will not honor any contract this lame duck signs in her remaining
term as president.

If she proceeds, a thorough investigation should be launched into her
financial shenanigans with Xville attorney Harry Sabine. Criminal
charges should not be ruled out.

I disagree only on the point of why Randy lost.

Perhaps the way to explain is first by mentioning the obvious, that Bill
Goichberg won because of his huge name recognition and what is an apparently
overwhelmingly positive view of him by the membership. Bill has made more
chess players happy than any mere chess politician. The "juggernaut" you
mention was mostly Bill.

There is simply no other explanation for how the other three gentlemen,
qualified and able as they may be, trounced sitting board members as they
did.


wrote in message
ups.com...
THE ELECTION IS OVER

Randy is a decent guy who has a lot to offer US Chess. Throughout the
recent campaign he conducted himself professionally despite being vilified
for no good reason other than partisanghip by you and a bunch of cowardly
anonymous posters. Randy deserved to be re-elected. The election is over,
Larry. Angelo DePalma

Dear Angelo,

I can only go by the public record here at rgcp.

I readily concede that Randy Bauer made himself look worse than he
probably is by being just about the only one among the Board majority
to participate actively here. His active participation speaks well of
him. I understand this point. He gets vilified for speaking out,
whereas others like Steve Shutt and Elizabeth Shaughnessy escape by
taking the less courageous course of keeping silent.

In that sense my attacks are unfair. But my reports were accurate.

Overall, I read his behavior differently than you do: I see it as more
carefully calibrated politically and opportunistic, taking both sides
of an issue rather than a genuine attempt at inspecting issues. But it
didn't help him because he lacked a political base (which is why
Shaughnessy pulled more votes than he) and, more importantly, because
there was a juggernaut that flattened him and his confreres.

In any event, I let you and the rest of rgcp know what was happening
weeks before Mr. Bauer and the others chose to tell you. I can't
consider his behavior as honest.

wrote:

Bill,

[SNIP]

We hope that state/local leaders,
delegates, and members express support for our position, and that this
will cause Beatriz to reconsider her determination to sign the contract
during her remaining two weeks as President.

How can one support *any* position without adequate information?!

The starting point is what agreements have *already* been entered into
with the community of Crossville and others? The signing of the
contract you object to may simply be the last step of a fait accompli.

In general, I would like to offer the follow recommendations to future
administrations.

1) Use an open contract system. In general, contracts with third
parties should be posted to the USCF Website. This is a membership
based organization with voting rights. Any member, who has an
interest, should be given reasonable opportunities to learn what is
going on with their organization with easy access to information.

2) Any major decision should be supported by a published (posted to the
Web) "white paper" which justifies the action.

3) All major contracts should include a termination clause.

4) The USCF should strive to honor its agreements. If it must go back
on its word it should do so in a professional and ethical manner.
Backing out of agreements should *never* be done for political or
personal reasons, and should only be done when the reasons are
compelling.

I hope all who will be asked to make decisions will have the necessary
information made available to them, and will not be asked to make
decisions based on personalities and the word of others alone.

Best regards,

George John

FYI,

Here's some information (see below) about the construction schedule
from the 2005 Delegates Call. I have no information about if the USCF
is ahead, behind, or on time with any of these milestones.

Best regards,

George John

U.S. CHESS FEDERATION REVISED PROJECT TIMELINE

May 27, 2005 DESIGN PHASE BEGIN COMPLETE

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE 05/26/05 06/17/05

PROBABLE OPINION OF CONST. COST 06/20/05 06/27/05

OWNER REVIEW MEETING & APPROVAL (The Week of 06/27/05) Exact Day TBD

RELEASE PROJECT FOR BIDDING 07/01/05

RECEIVE CONSTRUCTION BIDS 07/26/05

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SIGNED (The First Week of August)

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION (The Second Week of August)

6 MONTHS - CONSTRUCTION 02/15/06

MOVE-IN DATE 02/17/06

wrote:
Bruce Leverett wrote:
wrote:
Bruce Leverett wrote:
The new Board has not yet even taken office, but I can already see that
it will be business as usual. When one Board member wants to discuss
something with another Board member, his first step is to get his own
POV posted to some newsgroup or listserv. This is, apparently, the
cool way to score points. Beats the hell out of persuasion, doesn't
it?


Why do you assume the open letter was the first communication with
Beatriz regarding this subject? There was a lengthy email exchange
involving her and many others, and her position was unchanged.

Bill Goichberg

My error, for which I apologize.

However, grandstanding is grandstanding, whether it comes first or
somewhat later. Do you think that, for example, the teams that didn't
make it into the USCL should take their case to the newsgroups?

To be fair, let me say that the incoming administration didn't invent
grandstanding. But it leaves me wishing that the USCF Board -- any
USCF Board -- could handle disputes more discreetly. At the risk of
repeating myself: how can I take this discussion of build vs. buy
completely seriously, when I see it in an "open letter"? This isn't
politics, this is juvenile, mickey-mouse, posturing; imitation
politics.

Bruce Leverett


The "Open Letter" was emailed to various people after the signers
concluded that attempts to persuade Beatriz to leave the matter to the
delegates and new Board had failed. We hope that state/local leaders,
delegates, and members express support for our position, and that this
will cause Beatriz to reconsider her determination to sign the contract
during her remaining two weeks as President. I believe an appeal to
the membership of this type is part of the democratic process, but you
seem to suggest that it is important to keep the members in the dark
until an irrevocable decision is made.

Bill Goichberg

I am one of those "state/local leaders", and this scenario, in which we
arise and tell Beatriz how to run the Federation, seems rather bizarre
to me.

But that's enough of me scolding you about this. I really wish the new
Board the best of luck. I only hope that in the coming year or two,
whenever there's a serious dispute, the losers don't write an "open
letter", and have it posted to RGCP.

Bruce Leverett


As a reader of RGCP, naturally I am curious about what goes into
decisions like build vs. buy. So I read the "open letter". But I
would have to say that in discussing serious business with the leaders
of chess clubs and other organizations, I myself do not normally
proceed by means of "open letters". It seems like exhibitionism, and
as such, it would discourage people from taking me seriously.

Bruce Leverett

wrote:
AN OPEN LETTER TO BEATRIZ MARINELLO
July 26, 2005
Dear Beatriz:

With slightly over two weeks remaining before the Delegates meet in
Phoenix and the new Executive Board takes office, you have declared
your intention to sign a contract with a builder to construct USCF's
new headquarters in Crossville, and to arrange a mortgage to fund this
construction cost.

The estimated cost of this construction is about $550,000. The real
cost is likely to be more, as such projects frequently run over budget.
There will also be interest charges.

The five signers of this letter will be on the new Executive Board that
takes office August 14, a majority of that seven person Board. None of
us supports moving USCF out of Crossville, but all are concerned that
the Federation is about to commit to spending a great deal of money
without having carefully considered alternatives. Randy Bauer, a
current Board member who you supported for re-election, has expressed
the same concern and suggested that you not sign the construction
contract.

There appear to be appropriately sized office buildings in Crossville
advertised for sale at prices well below what it will cost to construct
this building. Especially if we are able to obtain compensation for
returning or selling the land we currently own, it is possible that
USCF might save a great deal of money by purchasing in Crossville
rather than building. While this is not certain, we do not feel it is
prudent to eliminate this possibility by the immediate signing of a
contract, nor do we understand why such signing is so urgent that it
justifies shutting the Delegates and the new Board out of the process
only about two weeks before the meetings.

Too often in the past, USCF has signed contracts without adequate
consideration and it has cost us money. Maybe the arrangements
currently negotiated are desirable for USCF and maybe not, but analysis
of our options before taking a fateful step is surely appropriate at
this time.

Joel Channing
Bill Goichberg
Don Schultz
Greg Shahade
Robert Tanner

WHEN DIPLOMACY FAILS

Grandstanding is grandstanding...When one Board member wants to
discuss something with another Board member, his first step is to get
his own POV posted to some newsgroup or listserv. This is, apparently,
the cool way to score points. Beats the hell out of persuasion, doesn't
it? Bruce Leverett

This is wacky.

If Bill Goichberg and four other board members speak the truth, then
the obvious point behind "grandstanding" is to put pressure on Beatriz
Marinello not to commit the Federation to a major contract when her
entire team has been overwhelmingly repudiated in easily the most
participatory election in USCF history.

What's wrong with an Open Letter when private diplomacy has
failed, though there is not much to be said for private diplomacy, in
truth?

Contrary to Mr. Leverett, most of the problems that bedevil this
Federation are the result of far too much secrecy and not nearly enough
sunshine.