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

The membership has spoken



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 21st 03, 09:31 AM
Jane Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The membership has spoken

Honorable members of the executive board, delegates, general and humble life
members, lend me an ear,

The membership has spoken. The election is over. Let's get behind the new
board and help them with revenue ideas to save the Federation.

Let the honeymoon begin. No negative comments about anything from anyone for
one full year. Just give the board support and great new ideas to help grow
the chess population to what it once was. If after a year, the numbers are
still heading south, let the boos begin.

And please, can someone please mention to Sam Sloan, that a sore loser is
sure to continue in that category with every statement. Sour grapes are not
what makes good wine. Everybody knows it.

Give peace a chance.

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


  #2  
Old July 21st 03, 11:13 AM
Jane Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The membership has spoken


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:31:08 -0700, "Jane Adams"
wrote:

Honorable members of the executive board, delegates, general and humble

life
members, lend me an ear,

The membership has spoken. The election is over. Let's get behind the new
board and help them with revenue ideas to save the Federation.

Let the honeymoon begin. No negative comments about anything from anyone

for
one full year. Just give the board support and great new ideas to help

grow
the chess population to what it once was. If after a year, the numbers

are
still heading south, let the boos begin.

And please, can someone please mention to Sam Sloan, that a sore loser is
sure to continue in that category with every statement. Sour grapes are

not
what makes good wine. Everybody knows it.

Give peace a chance.

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


For those few of you who do not know, Jane Adams is a pseudonym for
Tom Klem.

Also, for those who have not been paying attention, I did not start
this discussion; Tim Hanke did.

In a series of postings, Tim Hanke complained bitterly that he still
had not received his airplane ticket to Los Angeles and his expenses
had not yet been paid. He was waiting to hear from Bob Smith about
this, he said.

After 4 or 5 postings by Tim Hanke on this subject, several posters
jumped in to inform Mr. Hanke that he was not entitled to have his
expenses paid because he is a volunteer.

Sam Sloan


Dear Sam,

In Asia we have a saying: "If it looks like a yak, smells like a yak, and
walks like a yak" Calm down, post less here, try and reinvent yourself. I
voted for you, and so did a whole lot of other dummies. Jim Eade is working
on a book about it. USCF Politics for Dummies. It'll be a big hit.

Take a deep breath.

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


  #4  
Old July 22nd 03, 12:13 AM
StanB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The membership has spoken


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Of course, you like Tim Hanke have never attended a USCF meeting, so
for that reason you do not understand these basic points.


Wait until Tim finds out that board members often bring rotten tomatoes,
eggs, and dead cats to the meeting.

StanB


  #5  
Old July 22nd 03, 12:13 AM
John Fernandez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The membership has spoken

No, Sam, this is wrong. The USCF pays the EB memebers reasonable
expenses when they travel to EB meetings. I checked with the USCF on
this very subject before running for the EB, as I am not willing to
foot the bill for these types of things.

Regards,
Mike Petersen


I happen to think that a person who wants to run for the best interests of the
USCF, but is not willing to spend the money to do so on a volunteer board
shouldn't be on it.

John Fernandez
  #7  
Old July 22nd 03, 05:40 AM
Oreo Knight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The membership has spoken

(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:31:08 -0700, "Jane Adams"
wrote:

Honorable members of the executive board, delegates, general and humble life
members, lend me an ear,

The membership has spoken. The election is over. Let's get behind the new
board and help them with revenue ideas to save the Federation.

Let the honeymoon begin. No negative comments about anything from anyone for
one full year. Just give the board support and great new ideas to help grow
the chess population to what it once was. If after a year, the numbers are
still heading south, let the boos begin.

And please, can someone please mention to Sam Sloan, that a sore loser is
sure to continue in that category with every statement. Sour grapes are not
what makes good wine. Everybody knows it.

Give peace a chance.

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

For those few of you who do not know, Jane Adams is a pseudonym for
Tom Klem.

Also, for those who have not been paying attention, I did not start
this discussion; Tim Hanke did.

In a series of postings, Tim Hanke complained bitterly that he still
had not received his airplane ticket to Los Angeles and his expenses
had not yet been paid. He was waiting to hear from Bob Smith about
this, he said.

After 4 or 5 postings by Tim Hanke on this subject, several posters
jumped in to inform Mr. Hanke that he was not entitled to have his
expenses paid because he is a volunteer.

Sam Sloan


Blow it out your ass Ismail.
  #8  
Old July 22nd 03, 05:53 AM
PBusw13724
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The membership has spoken

John Fernandez wrote:

I happen to think that a person who wants to run for the best interests of
the
USCF, but is not willing to spend the money to do so on a volunteer board
shouldn't be on it.


I disagree so fundamentally with Mr Fernandez on this that it demands reply.

To follow Mr Fernandez's view would rule out from service anyone who had time
energy and initiative to devote to the USCF, but who simply could not afford
the expense involved. I simply cannot see why you would do that - surely it
would reduce the pool of quality volunteers available to you?

In England the British Chess Federation reimburses the reasonable expenses of
those who attend its Management Board. I attend that Board once in a while: I
have the right but not the duty to attend, and so I go when there are
particular Agenda items on which I can contribute constructively to the
discussion. I certainly claim my expenses - no profit, just what has been
spent. My view is simple: I'm giving up a significant chunk of my free time
in volunteering, I see no reason why I should give up my money too - this is
volunteer work, not sponsorship or charitable giving. And if my expenses were
not reimbursed I would not attend, and the occasional benefit of my years in
chess administration would be lost to the organisation.

It really seems so simple, and I am surprised that Mr Fernandez sees it
differently.


  #9  
Old July 22nd 03, 07:19 AM
Sam Sloan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The membership has spoken

On 22 Jul 2003 04:53:08 GMT, (PBusw13724) wrote:

John Fernandez wrote:

I happen to think that a person who wants to run for the best interests of
the
USCF, but is not willing to spend the money to do so on a volunteer board
shouldn't be on it.


I disagree so fundamentally with Mr Fernandez on this that it demands reply.

To follow Mr Fernandez's view would rule out from service anyone who had time
energy and initiative to devote to the USCF, but who simply could not afford
the expense involved. I simply cannot see why you would do that - surely it
would reduce the pool of quality volunteers available to you?

In England the British Chess Federation reimburses the reasonable expenses of
those who attend its Management Board. I attend that Board once in a while: I
have the right but not the duty to attend, and so I go when there are
particular Agenda items on which I can contribute constructively to the
discussion. I certainly claim my expenses - no profit, just what has been
spent. My view is simple: I'm giving up a significant chunk of my free time
in volunteering, I see no reason why I should give up my money too - this is
volunteer work, not sponsorship or charitable giving. And if my expenses were
not reimbursed I would not attend, and the occasional benefit of my years in
chess administration would be lost to the organisation.

It really seems so simple, and I am surprised that Mr Fernandez sees it
differently.


Thank you for your posting, which is very informative.

However, England is a small country. You can drive from one side of
the country to the other in a few hours.

The USA is a vast country. Mr. Hanke wants his airplane ticket from
Boston to Los Angeles, just about the longest distance across the
Continental United States, to be paid for by the USCF, plus he wants
his hotel bills and meals for a week to be paid for by the USCF.

These items combined will cost the USCF about $1500, money which the
federation does not have.

How would the British Chess Federation consider such a request?

When Tom Dorsch was Treasurer, Don Schultz, the President, took a limo
to the airport for a flight to Russia, paid $40, and requested
reimbursement from the USCF. Tom Dorsch made a stink about this $40,
which was debated for months on this newsgroup. I do not know whether
the $40 was reimbursed or not.

Now, Tim Hanke, who was just elected last Wednesday but has not taken
office yet, wants the USCF to lay out $1500.

Do you still think that this is proper?

Sam Sloan
  #10  
Old July 22nd 03, 07:45 AM
PBusw13724
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The membership has spoken

Sam Sloan wrote:

Now, Tim Hanke, who was just elected last Wednesday but has not taken
office yet, wants the USCF to lay out $1500.

Do you still think that this is proper?


In the particular case you refer to, I do not know - I do not know the moment
when Mr Hanke takes up office, nor the exact purpose of his attendance, and so
I cannot comment. My posting responded to a statement of broad policy by Mr
Fernandez. But in principle you pay what it takes to ensure your volunteers are
not significantly out of pocket for expenses necessarily incurred in that
voluntary work, and of course you apply proper financial controls to prevent
abuse. If that is a significant sum you manage the financial problem as best
you can by proper planning and budgeting, rather than erode the principle.

Paul Buswell
 




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
TD Question regarding USCF policy Ivan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 29 June 7th 04 04:39 PM
USCF memberships Ivan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 45 March 9th 04 10:37 PM
Free USCF membership for TDs Ivan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 4 September 22nd 03 02:04 AM
Where to find Spoken Annotation Fight Cancer rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 2 August 13th 03 12:37 AM
Making USCF membership more attractive RSHaas rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 25 July 20th 03 05:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 AM.


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.