As we near the end of the 2003 election campaign, it is worthwhile to
bring up once again what is perceived as unfairness or favortism issues
regarding USCF. Back in 2001, when I was running for the Board, Bill
Goichberg posted official election results before USCF did in the Board
election. While I don't see anything wrong with Bill or anyone else
announcing election results, once they've been announced officially, it
seems to me that the USCF itself should take steps to insure that it is
the first to publish results on its website, or to in some other way
officially disseminate the information. Given the small number of
candidates, even an e-mail or a phone call would suffice so at least the
candidates themselves don't have to read about how they did from Bill or
someone not directly employed or associated with USCF. This to me is an
obvious courtesy to the people who took the time to run and campaign.
It is a slap in the face, similar to having deaths announced before
family members have been notified, a practice which the media is
discouraged from doing.

When USCF allows Bill or others to jump the gun on official
information, it makes it sound like Bill is privy to things before
anyone else. This gives the impression that a person who is not on the
Board and has nothing officially to do with USCF governance presently is
being funneled information that should come instead from official
channels. Would it have been that difficult for DeFeis or Redman to
shoot me off an e-mail telling me the results? Would have been that
difficult for the ED's secretary to telephone 6 candidates and tell them
what was going on? Would it be that difficult or expensive to even
try? Couldn't at least ONE person on the Board or in the office, post
an official memorandum from USCF to RGCP?

I would like to suggest that USCF appoint someone to serve as official
spokesman and have that person post to RGCP or on the USCF website the
official results of the USCF election. Once this person has spoken,
then Bill, and anyone else should be more than free to post about it on
their own sites, programs or newsletters.

I was personally offended that Bill announced the results. No one
e-mailed me, called me or otherwise attempted to officially inform me of
the results in a prompt manner. This happened last year as well, as
Bill officially informed us that Denker and Wagner were elected long
before USCF ever did. This is wrong in my opinion, and it continues to
make people suspicious of Bill's influence at USCF.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Subject: Will Bill announce election results this year before USCF?

On 13 July 2003 (Recmate) replied in
Message-id:


Bruce, are you serious?

The ballots are PUBLICLY COUNTED. Anyone who is present for the count can go
to a computer and post the results. They can even post who is leading before
the full count is over, though no one has ever done this. Maybe I'll do it
this year! The idea that it takes "influence" to get the results as they
occur
is insane! All you need to do is SHOW UP!

Bill Goichberg


Goichberg is correct. He posted the election results on
http://www.chessnews.org on 8 August 2001 only after they were PUBLICLY
COUNTED. All Draney, a candidate, had to to was to show up at the U.S. Open in
Framingham, Mass., and he would have learned that at the same time that
Goichberg did. To imply that Bill had any "influence" in getting election
results ahead of others is ludicrous.

George Mirijanian

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
As we near the end of the 2003 election campaign, it is worthwhile to
bring up once again what is perceived as unfairness or favortism issues
regarding USCF. Back in 2001, when I was running for the Board, Bill
Goichberg posted official election results before USCF did in the Board
election. While I don't see anything wrong with Bill or anyone else
announcing election results, once they've been announced officially, it
seems to me that the USCF itself should take steps to insure that it is
the first to publish results on its website, or to in some other way
officially disseminate the information. Given the small number of
candidates, even an e-mail or a phone call would suffice so at least the
candidates themselves don't have to read about how they did from Bill or
someone not directly employed or associated with USCF. This to me is an
obvious courtesy to the people who took the time to run and campaign.
It is a slap in the face, similar to having deaths announced before
family members have been notified, a practice which the media is
discouraged from doing.

When USCF allows Bill or others to jump the gun on official
information, it makes it sound like Bill is privy to things before
anyone else. This gives the impression that a person who is not on the
Board and has nothing officially to do with USCF governance presently is
being funneled information that should come instead from official
channels. Would it have been that difficult for DeFeis or Redman to
shoot me off an e-mail telling me the results? Would have been that
difficult for the ED's secretary to telephone 6 candidates and tell them
what was going on? Would it be that difficult or expensive to even
try? Couldn't at least ONE person on the Board or in the office, post
an official memorandum from USCF to RGCP?

I would like to suggest that USCF appoint someone to serve as official
spokesman and have that person post to RGCP or on the USCF website the
official results of the USCF election. Once this person has spoken,
then Bill, and anyone else should be more than free to post about it on
their own sites, programs or newsletters.

I was personally offended that Bill announced the results. No one
e-mailed me, called me or otherwise attempted to officially inform me of
the results in a prompt manner. This happened last year as well, as
Bill officially informed us that Denker and Wagner were elected long
before USCF ever did. This is wrong in my opinion, and it continues to
make people suspicious of Bill's influence at USCF.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Bruce,

Seems like a symbolism over substance type of issue. Let Bill G have his
glory. We get the news, the USCF doesn't have the money and staff to upkeep
the website, well maybe that's Bill G's fault, and he should do penance for
us by giving us some timely news.

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

Here's a link to the USCF website "current news" page-

http://www.uschess.org/clife/current/

Let's hope that Bill or anyone else can get those election results out
faster than what is (not yet) posted on the "current news"!

"Jane Adams" writes:

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
Seems like a symbolism over substance type of issue. ...

Yup - that's Bruce for you.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/

Miriling wrote:

Subject: Will Bill announce election results this year before USCF?

On 13 July 2003 (Recmate) replied in
Message-id:


Bruce, are you serious?

The ballots are PUBLICLY COUNTED. Anyone who is present for the count can go
to a computer and post the results. They can even post who is leading before
the full count is over, though no one has ever done this. Maybe I'll do it
this year! The idea that it takes "influence" to get the results as they
occur
is insane! All you need to do is SHOW UP!

Bill Goichberg


Goichberg is correct. He posted the election results on
http://www.chessnews.org on 8 August 2001 only after they were PUBLICLY
COUNTED. All Draney, a candidate, had to to was to show up at the U.S. Open in
Framingham, Mass., and he would have learned that at the same time that
Goichberg did. To imply that Bill had any "influence" in getting election
results ahead of others is ludicrous.

George Mirijanian




Let me just go over this one more time. Although it sounds like I'm
blasting Bill (which I probably am for a multitude of these
informational issues), I'm really angry at USCF's lack of simple
courtesy when it comes to making things a level playing field.

Why can USCF not:
a) Make 6 or 7 phone calls to the candidates immediately after
the count is completed?
b) Have an official spokesman announce the results by e-mailing
the 6 or 7 candidates so they hear it from USCF first?
c) Have our own website get information up quickly?
d) Have someone, in USCF,(one of the many anonymice out there)
officially
post to rgcp.

To claim that they're too busy to have anybody do this very simple
thing is another example about how stuff Bill does is always spun.
This does not even begin to answer the questions about why Bill finds
out about secret Board dealings before anyone else, why Bill frequently
gets away with demanding TLA changes for his events at the last minute
after deadlines have passed, why Bill gets official financial
information and posts it to his own website before USCF informs anyone
else, or why Bill knows who gets hired, who gets fired and the inside
scoop on the reasons why when everyone else sits in the darkness?

Best Regards,

Bruce

On 14 Jul 2003 10:17:09 -0500, Bruce Draney wrote:

Miriling wrote:

Subject: Will Bill announce election results this year before USCF?

On 13 July 2003 (Recmate) replied in
Message-id:


Bruce, are you serious?

The ballots are PUBLICLY COUNTED. Anyone who is present for the count can go
to a computer and post the results. They can even post who is leading before
the full count is over, though no one has ever done this. Maybe I'll do it
this year! The idea that it takes "influence" to get the results as they
occur
is insane! All you need to do is SHOW UP!

Bill Goichberg


Goichberg is correct. He posted the election results on
http://www.chessnews.org on 8 August 2001 only after they were PUBLICLY
COUNTED. All Draney, a candidate, had to to was to show up at the U.S. Open in
Framingham, Mass., and he would have learned that at the same time that
Goichberg did. To imply that Bill had any "influence" in getting election
results ahead of others is ludicrous.

George Mirijanian




Let me just go over this one more time. Although it sounds like I'm
blasting Bill (which I probably am for a multitude of these
informational issues), I'm really angry at USCF's lack of simple
courtesy when it comes to making things a level playing field.

Why can USCF not:
a) Make 6 or 7 phone calls to the candidates immediately after
the count is completed?
b) Have an official spokesman announce the results by e-mailing
the 6 or 7 candidates so they hear it from USCF first?
c) Have our own website get information up quickly?
d) Have someone, in USCF,(one of the many anonymice out there)
officially
post to rgcp.

Bruce is crazy as a loon, as usual.

When a presidential election is held, does the government announce who
won, or does NBC, ABC and CBS announce it?

Does NBC, CBS and ABC call the candidates first and tell them who won,
or does it tell us, the people, first?

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:

Bruce is crazy as a loon, as usual.


I disagree - mr Draney is simply asking for a simple courtesy, simply and
quickly achieved, which wouldn't stop others reporting.

Paul Buswell

Sam Sloan wrote:

On 14 Jul 2003 10:17:09 -0500, Bruce Draney wrote:

Miriling wrote:

Subject: Will Bill announce election results this year before USCF?

On 13 July 2003 (Recmate) replied in
Message-id:


Bruce, are you serious?

The ballots are PUBLICLY COUNTED. Anyone who is present for the count can go
to a computer and post the results. They can even post who is leading before
the full count is over, though no one has ever done this. Maybe I'll do it
this year! The idea that it takes "influence" to get the results as they
occur
is insane! All you need to do is SHOW UP!

Bill Goichberg


Goichberg is correct. He posted the election results on
http://www.chessnews.org on 8 August 2001 only after they were PUBLICLY
COUNTED. All Draney, a candidate, had to to was to show up at the U.S. Open in
Framingham, Mass., and he would have learned that at the same time that
Goichberg did. To imply that Bill had any "influence" in getting election
results ahead of others is ludicrous.

George Mirijanian




Let me just go over this one more time. Although it sounds like I'm
blasting Bill (which I probably am for a multitude of these
informational issues), I'm really angry at USCF's lack of simple
courtesy when it comes to making things a level playing field.

Why can USCF not:
a) Make 6 or 7 phone calls to the candidates immediately after
the count is completed?
b) Have an official spokesman announce the results by e-mailing
the 6 or 7 candidates so they hear it from USCF first?
c) Have our own website get information up quickly?
d) Have someone, in USCF,(one of the many anonymice out there)
officially
post to rgcp.

Bruce is crazy as a loon, as usual.

When a presidential election is held, does the government announce who
won, or does NBC, ABC and CBS announce it?

Does NBC, CBS and ABC call the candidates first and tell them who won,
or does it tell us, the people, first?

Sam Sloan

It's always worth a good laugh when Sam calls me crazy as a loon.
His analogy ranks right up there with some of the stupidest analogies
ever put forth by Eric Johnson. All I have asked is that the USCF
announce highly important events relating to politics, finance and
personnel or at least make an attempt to privately contact the people
involved in these events prior to letting Bill scoop everyone.

For many, many years, it is well known that Bill who lives in close
proximity to the New Windsor office, is constantly using his influence
to delay publication of Chess Life because some TLA of his is wrong, or
otherwise meddling or interfering with the normal operations of USCF.

Because of his stature and importance the folks in the office have to
cater to his whims, although privately they grumble about how much
trouble he causes for them in extra work and hassles.

This is bad enough, but Bill also gets funneled information before
anyone else does, relating to personnel, to finances, to membership data
and even the results of political elections get reported by Bill before
the USCF bothers to tell anyone. Bill has his own website. It is more
up to date with official information about the goings on at USCF than
USCF's website is. This is a national embarrassment of course, but the
more troubling aspect about it, is that everyone defends these
arrangements and spins it to make it sound like criticizing such insider
arrangements is sacrilege.

I'll ask the question one more time for Bill:
Have you ever knowingly asked the office to delay publication of Chess
Life because one or more of your TLA's was not correct?
Do you believe that this is your right?
Do you believe that other organizers less prominent than yourself
should be allowed to hold up the publication of Chess Life because of
their TLA's?

Do you believe that the USCF does a good, fair, adequate or poor job of
promptly and properly disseminating important information to the
members?

Do you feel that you are entitled to know about and be allowed to react
to important political, financial and statistical information before
anyone else in USCF does?


Best Regards,

Bruce

PBusw13724 wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:

Bruce is crazy as a loon, as usual.


I disagree - mr Draney is simply asking for a simple courtesy, simply and
quickly achieved, which wouldn't stop others reporting.

Paul Buswell

Mr. Buswell has hit the nail precisely on the head. Since USCF has
repeatedly shown its total contempt for adult regular chess players
however, it is not too surprising that many of the defenders of the
status quo at USCF get all huffy when anyone dares to suggest that Bill
shouldn't be the first one telling people what's going on.

Best Regards,

Bruce