Highlights of the USCF Board Meeting May 19-20, 2007

I am in Denver, CO awaiting a change of planes. I am taking a few
minutes to report some highlights of the meeting just concluded.

Of utmost interest to this group, the Executive Board voted NOT to
accept the resignation of Terry Winchester from the Forum Oversight
Committee and voted NOT to accept the resignation of Grant Perks as
chairman of the Audit Committee. Thus Mr. Winchester and Mr. Perks are
required to hold those positions for the rest of their lives.

Bill Hall presented a budget which showed a loss for ficsal 2007-2008
of $105, 973. Fortunately, Bill Goichberg saved the day by changing
the numbers to report a surplus of $50,027.

At a meeting of the USCF Executive Board on May 19-20 in Stillwater,
Oklahoma, it was reported to the board that Susan Polgar had violated
the trade name rights to two major chess events, by holding the "Susan
Polgar National Open Chess Championship for Girls" and the Susan
Polgar World Open Chess Championship for Girls" in violation of the
rights to hold events by similar namees by the USCF. It was also
reported that Susan Polgar is negotiating to move the Denker
Tournament of High School Champions to Lubock, Texas although she does
not hold the rights to that event.

At a meeting of the USCF Executive Board on May 19-20, 2007 Sloan
advocated an immediate reduction of personell costs of $80,000 but
this was rejected by the board. Sloan did succeed in having a proposed
raise for all employeed of 3.2% cancelled.

Sam Sloan

samsloan writes:
At a meeting of the USCF Executive Board on May 19-20 in Stillwater,
Oklahoma, it was reported to the board that Susan Polgar had violated
the trade name rights to two major chess events, by holding the "Susan
Polgar National Open Chess Championship for Girls" and the Susan
Polgar World Open Chess Championship for Girls" in violation of the
rights to hold events by similar namees by the USCF.

USCF holds rights to Susan Polgar's name?!

It was also reported that Susan Polgar is negotiating to move the
Denker Tournament of High School Champions to Lubock, Texas although
she does not hold the rights to that event.

That sounds logical: if she wants the tournament moved and doesn't
hold the rights to it, of course she'd have to suggest the idea to
whoever has the rights, make proposals and incentive offers, all the
stuff that we call negotiation. If she held the rights rights and
wanted the event moved, she could just move it without having to
negotiate with anyone. So I don't see what point Sam is trying to
make.

At a meeting of the USCF Executive Board on May 19-20, 2007 Sloan
advocated an immediate reduction of personell costs of $80,000 but
this was rejected by the board.

I think this says that Sam wanted to fire Bill Hall without it
occurring to Sam that a replacement for Bill would then be needed.

Originally Posted by jacklemoine

I'll interrupt these attacks on Paul and Susan's
handling of the Denker for a few facts.

1) UTD declined to sponsor scholarships citing that the USCF
disrespected them and violated their agreement. The Denker was left
with no scholarships.

This is absolutely not true. More fabrications by Jack LeMoine.

The UTD Chess Program is now run by Dr. Stallings. Tim Redman is no
longer directly involved. Tim Redman introduced Dr. Stallings to me as
his replacement at the US Amateur Team East Championship in Parsippany
NJ. I had lunch with Dr. Redman at that time. (This was the same event
where I received an award for "Shining Light on the USCF".)

Dr. Stallings met with me and the rest of the board for about one hour
yesterday, May 20. He said that the dropping of the scholarships this
year had nothing to do with unhappiness with the USCF. It was an
internal matter within UTD. He said that the scholarships might be
reinstated next year.

Sam Sloan

If Susan Polgar wants to organize her own tournament in Lubbock, Texas
and call it the "Susan Polgar Tournament of High School Champions" and
award scholarships to Texas Tech University, everybody will applaud.
Nobody will object.

However, what she is trying to do here is taking a long established
tournament, the Denker Tournament of High School Championships,
grabbing it away from the USCF and converting it into a Polgar
tournament.

If Arnold Denker were alive today, he would be appalled. He would
never stand for this.

Similarly, by holding a "Susan Polgar World Open" and a "Susan Polgar
National Open" she is infringing on the real World Open and the real
National Open.

It is feared that next she will be trying to take over the big USCF
scholastic events. For example, she could take the National Elementary
Championship and call it the Susan Polgar National Elementary
Championship.

And, she has not even been elected yet. Imagine what havoc she will
cause if she actually gets elected and is still doing these things?

Sam Sloan

samsloan writes:
However, what she is trying to do here is taking a long established
tournament, the Denker Tournament of High School Championships,
grabbing it away from the USCF and converting it into a Polgar
tournament.

Maybe she will do a better job with it than the USelessCF has done.

If Arnold Denker were alive today, he would be appalled. He would
never stand for this.

Then again maybe he would applaud.

Similarly, by holding a "Susan Polgar World Open" and a "Susan Polgar
National Open" she is infringing on the real World Open and the real
National Open.

What does that have to do with the USCF? The existing (chess) World
Open is a CCA event. Of course there's also a golf World Open and
a squash World Open, so why not a Susan Polgar World Open?

It is feared that next she will be trying to take over the big USCF
scholastic events. For example, she could take the National Elementary
Championship and call it the Susan Polgar National Elementary
Championship.

Sounds like a good plan.

And, she has not even been elected yet. Imagine what havoc she will
cause if she actually gets elected and is still doing these things?

I don't understand why she's even running. She's in a perfect
position to kick the USCF's ass from the outside and pretty much
replace it, so she should just do that instead of getting herself
tangled up with USCF's paralyzing bureaucracy.

On May 21, 9:16 pm, samsloan wrote:
If Susan Polgar wants to organize her own tournament in Lubbock, Texas
and call it the "Susan Polgar Tournament of High School Champions" and
award scholarships to Texas Tech University, everybody will applaud.
Nobody will object.

However, what she is trying to do here is taking a long established
tournament, the Denker Tournament of High School Championships,
grabbing it away from the USCF and converting it into a Polgar
tournament.

Sam I do not follow your leaps in logic. She was asked by members of
the Denker family to do this so as to associate it more closely with
SPICE.




If Arnold Denker were alive today, he would be appalled. He would
never stand for this.

Maybe, maybe not. I think his family is better suited to know what was
on his mind.


Similarly, by holding a "Susan Polgar World Open" and a "Susan Polgar
National Open" she is infringing on the real World Open and the real
National Open.


No.



It is feared that next she will be trying to take over the big USCF
scholastic events. For example, she could take the National Elementary
Championship and call it the Susan Polgar National Elementary
Championship.

Who fears it Sam?


And, she has not even been elected yet. Imagine what havoc she will
cause if she actually gets elected and is still doing these things?

Sam Sloan

Yeah? Something might actually get done and that would make others
really look bad,wouldn't it?
Rob

Originally Posted by rfeditor

2) Leaving aside the merits of the Denker proposal
(a complicated question, clearly too complicated for Sam), there is
some reason to believe that it was initiated by the Denker
Committee chairman. Is Sam prepared to take on a more formidable
opponent, like the Scholastic Council?

John Hillary

The Denker Committee Chairman was appointed by the USCF Board, which
includes me.

We can replace him any time we want and possibly will replace him,
unless this matter is straightened out.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...
If Susan Polgar wants to organize her own tournament in Lubbock, Texas
and call it the "Susan Polgar Tournament of High School Champions" and
award scholarships to Texas Tech University, everybody will applaud.
Nobody will object.

However, what she is trying to do here is taking a long established
tournament, the Denker Tournament of High School Championships,
grabbing it away from the USCF and converting it into a Polgar
tournament.

If Arnold Denker were alive today, he would be appalled. He would
never stand for this.

O, ARNOLD, I HARDLY KNEW YE

Good Grief! I didn't know Arnold /very/ well, but he liked to write to me,
quite often out of the blue and with his own volunteered emphasis, so I
think I knew him /enough/.

What he would want, as far as I can measure, is for some chess to be played,
and since in this instance the issues are

(a) the Denker name is not to removed or changed
(b) that the best location for continuation of the Denker is at issue, and
(c) the Denker approached Paul Truong to investigate location, not the other
way around
(d) that USCF has itself [!] claimed to 'own' the Denker [!] while
(e) failing to fund it so that other than rich kids can attend, and
(f) can't match other offers that would /substantially/ fund the Denker so
that
(g) the best young players could take part

Well... I think I have a fair sense of what Arnold would like with his own
bequest to the nation!

And clearly, what anyone would like is not always achieveable, but the art
of business management is the ability to negotiate the real world of the
possible - here are the options:-

Here we seem to have two levels of possibility; a better than current one,
matched against a theoretical and declining one.

---

A GOOD DEBATE?

The rest of this is about ownership and control, and chess-as-property, not
an address to what benefits the kids or public exposure to the game - which
many people think is why USCF was established. On that topic, not a word!

It would be fair to compare the two - and that at least would provide a good
debate.

The fiddle-faddle argument about names is brought to you by the same outfit
who allied the Berry name to the national championship ~ that, apparently,
is not any issue, even though the national championship is still
scandalously underfunded - how IRONIC that funding Scholastic levels
championships with the Denker and the Polgar - with AS MUCH - money should
be resented!

This is nothing to do with Mr. Berry as a sponsor, nor is it any criticism
of him. Why should other sponsors of chess not have their names attached to
events? They do everywhere else in the world, even unto Aeroflot. Though
sometimes the name is second to the title... this is all a red herring! A
shoal of 'em!

---

When such spectacularly spun commentary emerges, without any real
comparision to what USCF can provide, what we can sensily debate is a
COMPARISON. And as with issues of public decency of expression, we can do
that on the basis of Who Benefits or Who is Affronted - which is to say
about the Denker - which is better from the perspective of the...

PARTICIPANTS RIGHTS

If USCF politicos cannot compete at this level of dialog and management
praxis to promote the best foundation for the future of chess in this
country as vested in its young players, they should give it up!

But resenting people who can do better is nothing other than whining about
something lost and for which the nation no longer invests its confidence in
USCF. That 'vote' already seems in, and people have voted with their feet,
and walked away from the mess of control-intrigues which continue,
apparently indifferent to what further us.

Phil Innes

Similarly, by holding a "Susan Polgar World Open" and a "Susan Polgar
National Open" she is infringing on the real World Open and the real
National Open.

It is feared that next she will be trying to take over the big USCF
scholastic events. For example, she could take the National Elementary
Championship and call it the Susan Polgar National Elementary
Championship.

And, she has not even been elected yet. Imagine what havoc she will
cause if she actually gets elected and is still doing these things?

Sam Sloan

On May 22, 3:47 am, samsloan wrote:

Originally Posted by rfeditor

2) Leaving aside the merits of the Denker proposal
(a complicated question, clearly too complicated for Sam), there is
some reason to believe that it was initiated by the Denker
Committee chairman. Is Sam prepared to take on a more formidable
opponent, like the Scholastic Council?

John Hillary

The Denker Committee Chairman was appointed by the USCF Board, which
includes me.

We can replace him any time we want and possibly will replace him,
unless this matter is straightened out.

Sam Sloan

Who is the organizer for the US Open?

PROPERTIES DISCUSSED

Good post, Gerry (you lurker, you!)

You have it 99 percent right -- all except that "free entry to the US
Open" part. There is small stipend to each player for completing the
event (which I suppose might equal the EFs of prior US Opens, when the EF
was under $100).

If I were a player in the Denker...why would I want to go to a separate
location...when I could lobby my folks to take me to a much larger chess
festival (US Open)?
Your post lays out some really good points:

1. The Denker event was always conceived as being part of the US Open

2. It has been held that way for 2 decades and is cost-effective.

What it was, and what it is now, is very open to question and comparison!
And cost-effective means, of course, for USCF, not the players.

3. It is undeniably a USCF property -- as administered by USCF under
Arnold's guiding hand prior to his passing

There is no gain for USCF to allow the event to be separated from the US
Open..and I say that as someone who used to attend to the details of the
event.

PERCENTAGES, COMPARED

And there you have it! The subject is completely divorced from its
organisational function. Not a single word from either Gerry Dullea, to whom
Eric Johnson is praising, or the Delegate himself, on what best supports the
chess player.

100% of these messages are about what is best for USCF.

0% of comments have considered why the Denker want to investigate anything!

From my vantage point, this is another example of a weak USCF board
allowing committees to have too much power in the system. Yes, committees
are good for attending to details. But without a strong hand over
them...you get the sense that eventually the longstanding committee chairs
think they have complete say over their areas.

WHO'S RANTING?

Eric, Mr. Marketing, Johnson has now subscribed an investigation to
'complete say'. You would almost think that it was Eric and Gerry here who
wanted 'complete say', no? As if they had absolutely no curiosity why an
investigation is taking place, and somehow investigations of the quality of
the Denker = complete control.

Someone on the board needs to alert the Denker committee that this
"exploratory move" is not in the best interests of the USCF (owner of the
property)...and that this is true regardless of how much time and money
others have invested in the property up to now.

QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEM

I agree that someone on the board needs to alert Denker committee to these
opinions.

There is absolutely no way that Arnold could have joined this discussion
without taking the perspective of the chess player into account - and
indeed - is that not the central issue here?

Who is even going to look at it?

Some people think that if you do own things, then there is a concommitant
level of responsibility that goes with it. If there /is/ a current problem,
who is going to 'own' that? )))

WE OWN IT!

The quality of the experience of the players is in question for everyone
except USCF right-or-wrong we-own-it, types, which is so infamous a form of
argument, it does not deserve response, since the WELFARE of those taking
part is not owned as a topic even worth noting!

Something is wrong, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Johnson?

Phil Innes
Vermont

ECJ