A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Advance Delegate Motion 03-31



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 18th 03, 05:31 AM
Miriling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Advance Delegate Motion 03-31

One of the advance delegate motions to be voted on this August at the USCF
Delegates Meeting in Los Angeles is ADM 03-31, submitted by Mike Nolan of
Nebraska and Bill Goichberg of New York, on behalf of the Election Procedures
Committee. This motion modifies the USCF bylaws to include the following in
Article VI (Executive Board). An important part of the motion is the following:
"...The Executive Board shall, by January 15th of an election year for a
regular Executive Board election, choose a date on which ballot counting shall
be performed, which date is to be no earlier than the 20th of July and no later
than the Wednesday prior to the annual meeting of the Board of
Delegates...Ballots shall be authenticated by use of voting membership
information to be provided with or printed on the ballots. All properly
authenticated ballots that have been received by the date designated for
counting the ballots shall be counted..."
Key language is that ballot counting shall be no earlier than the 20th of July
and no later than the Wednesday prior to the annual meeting. Also, all properly
authenticated ballots received by the date set for the ballot count shall be
counted.
This is a departure from this year's election, which was covered in Section 5
of Article VI, albeit with a different date set for the return of the ballots.
The current wording had that "ballots to be returned no later than July 5...so
that the ballots can be counted no later than July 20."
A postmark of July 7 was set for the return of ballots this year, which
resulted in about 60 ballots being invalidated because of the late postmark. A
postmark requirement was not covered in the bylaws.
ADM 03-31 is a big improvement on the existing bylaw, since the return of the
ballots has nothing to do with a postmark but more correctly deals with a date
set for the return of the ballots based on the date of the ballot count.

George Mirijanian
  #2  
Old July 18th 03, 10:40 AM
RMille9601
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Advance Delegate Motion 03-31

Good write up on the issue.

Guess the 60 ballots that won't be counted would not have made any difference
in the election.

A full report from election people should be interesting. How many postage due
there were. Did all the ballots get a post mark? Can people find out if their
vote was received?
Will be interesting to get some reasons why people did not vote. I tried to get
the word out.

Appears to me that in 2005 a 5,000 piece mailing might get some one elected. I
suppose some one or group welling to spend that much money and effort might be
good for the federation.

Russell Miller, Chelan WA
  #3  
Old July 18th 03, 05:13 PM
Miriling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Advance Delegate Motion 03-31

Subject: Advance Delegate Motion 03-31

On 18 July 2003 "Tim Hanke" replied in
Message-id: [email protected]


Here's something to think about: the problem of making cost-effective travel
arrangements for newly elected Board members who don't find out till the
last minute that they have been elected. For example, I have to scramble now
to get plane tickets to L.A. for a flight leaving in little over two weeks.

(Note: Two days after the election results were posted here, I still have
not heard anything official from USCF Secretary Bob Smith or the USCF
National Office, so even now it's not possible for me to make my
arrangements.)

If the above ADM were adopted, newly elected Board members would have to
purchase astronomically expensive plane tickets. They might not even be able
to get time off work at such short notice.

Just a couple of practical thoughts.

Tim Hanke


Tim, here are my thoughts on the issue you raise:

Anyone who runs for the USCF Executive Board who bases his travel to the USCF
Delegates Meeting on whether he wins or not should not be running for the
board. Candidates, if they are serious about supporting or serving the
federation, should be attending the annual meeting regardless of whether they
win or lose. Candidates know more than a year in advance where the next annual
meeting is going to be held. They don't have to wait until they find out
whether they have won or not to make "cost-effective travel arrangements."
Individuals who say that they will only attend the annual meeting if they win
the election are, in my opinion, not serious candidates. They should not be
running for the EB.

Just my thoughts.

George Mirijanian







  #5  
Old July 18th 03, 05:55 PM
Tim Hanke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Advance Delegate Motion 03-31

"Miriling" wrote ...

Tim, here are my thoughts on the issue you raise:
Anyone who runs for the USCF Executive Board who bases his travel to the

USCF
Delegates Meeting on whether he wins or not should not be running for the
board. Candidates, if they are serious about supporting or serving the
federation, should be attending the annual meeting regardless of whether

they
win or lose. Candidates know more than a year in advance where the next

annual
meeting is going to be held. They don't have to wait until they find out
whether they have won or not to make "cost-effective travel arrangements."
Individuals who say that they will only attend the annual meeting if they

win
the election are, in my opinion, not serious candidates. They should not

be
running for the EB.

Just my thoughts.

George Mirijanian


George,

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion.

But if I hadn't been elected, I would certainly not be using my hard-earned
summer vacation to travel across the continent to L.A., without my family,
at my own expense. I mean, let's be realistic. I'm only going to this thing
if I have a role to play.

Tim Hanke


  #6  
Old July 18th 03, 06:11 PM
Mike Nolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Advance Delegate Motion 03-31

"Tim Hanke" writes:

If the above ADM were adopted, newly elected Board members would have to
purchase astronomically expensive plane tickets. They might not even be able
to get time off work at such short notice.


Your point is quite valid, Tim. However, let me address a few issues.

First, the date range I suggested is more historical than critical and
is still linked, as is the entire election schedule, to our now outdated
practice of counting the votes at the US Open and probably geared towards
'insider' candidates as well, or at least those who frequently serve as
Delegates. OMOV probably needs a different schedule, that may be one
of the key lessons to learn this first time around.

Second, our ADM was drafted without knowing how many votes we would receive.
If we received around 1800 votes this year, it is prudent to plan for 2500
or more in 2005. Thus we probably need to allow MORE time for counting
rather than less.

Third, there is no reason that a completely different schedule could not be
proposed, such as one which results in counting the votes in early June.
(And such an amendment would be germaine, as the issue of timing is the
substance here.)

In fact, perhaps we should look at the process of when we seat new Board
members as well. There will be yet another 'lame duck' meeting of the
Executive Board in August, I don't know that those meetings are a productive
use of Board member time and USCF resources. Such a change would likely
have political consequences to consider, though.

We have a unique situation (at least for us) this year. Instead of having
only about 4 days, the new Board has nearly three weeks to get itself
organized, though much of that organizational work will have to be done
via phone or e-mail. Having even more time in 2005 might improve the
process by which that Board becomes prepared to assume the duties of office.

Finally, I have another ADM which deals with the issue of electronic voting,
which could greatly increase voter turnout while also simplifying the
authentication and counting processes when it is time to count the votes,
and could impact the schedule-building process as well.
--
Mike Nolan
  #8  
Old July 18th 03, 06:22 PM
Mike Nolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Advance Delegate Motion 03-31

Kevin L. Bachler writes:

I don't understand why a postmark isn't preferable.


Here are three reasons NOT to mandate a postmark, there are probably others:

1. Not every piece of mail gets a legible postmark. If the postmark is
unreadable or missing, do we assume it was mailed on time?

2. When something gets postmarked is not entirely in the hands of the voter.
The reason we changed the 'return date' from July 5th to July 7th this
year is that July 5th is a Saturday after a National Holiday. Not all
post offices were open or processing mail under their normal schedule.

Something deposited in a mailbox on the 5th, which in many people's
minds would meet the return deadline requirement, would likely not
have been postmarked until the next business day, which was the 7th.

3. There are delivery services other than the United States Postal Service,
they do not provide 'postmarks' of any kind, though they can provide
proof of acceptance or proof of delivery information.
--
Mike Nolan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who has success playing Black in the French Def, Advance variation? raylopez99 rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 8 December 8th 03 08:11 PM
Advance French with 3...Ne7! LeModernCaveman rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 20 October 17th 03 01:34 AM
Please analyse this ... Thanks in advance. Monster Ace rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 7 August 5th 03 09:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.