On the agenda of the USCF's Annual Meeting of the Board of Delegates,
Aug. 14-15, 2004:

NEW BUSINESS
Advance Delegate Motion 04-11 (co-sponsored by Myron and Rachel
Lieberman, delegates at large from Arizona): The Delegates approve the
merger of the USCF with the America's Foundation for Chess with all
necessary Bylaws changes, including in governance. The name of the
final organization shall remain the United States Chess Federation.

This motion is ridiculous and absurd. It should never have been
presented. There is also probably no legal way to accomplish this
"merger".

The AF4C was not even able to honor its contractual committment to
organize the 2004 US Championship. This was the cause of the so-called
"Anna Hahn Crisis".

So far, the AF4C has only organized three US Championships. We still
cannot be sure that it will be able to organize another one.

I doubt that this motion has been legally presented. At the very
minimum, we need to see the balance sheet of AF4C. Does it even have a
balance sheet? Does it have members? What about OMOV?

Sam Sloan

At 11:31 PM 8/3/2004, Sam Sloan wrote:
On the agenda of the USCF's Annual Meeting of the Board of Delegates,
Aug. 14-15, 2004:

NEW BUSINESS
Advance Delegate Motion 04-11 (co-sponsored by Myron and Rachel
Lieberman, delegates at large from Arizona): The Delegates approve the
merger of the USCF with the America's Foundation for Chess with all
necessary Bylaws changes, including in governance. The name of the
final organization shall remain the United States Chess Federation.

This motion is ridiculous and absurd.

Why? Sounds like the best opportunity USCF has had in a long time.

Quite honestly, if the USCF tells AF4C to go to hell, I don't see why AF4C
wouldn't continue some creative work, as it has successfully done already.
It's quite possible AF4C could steal a ton of USCF's thunder, if not its
business.

The AF4C was not even able to honor its contractual committment to
organize the 2004 US Championship. This was the cause of the so-called
"Anna Hahn Crisis".

This is just factually incorrect. In fact, their contractual obligation
(and the USCF Bylaws!) say that the championship only needs to be held
every OTHER year.

They held one in 2003, they are holding one in 2004. End of story. (They
missed a year in 2001, this didn't violate any contractual obligation.)

So far, the AF4C has only organized three US Championships. We still
cannot be sure that it will be able to organize another one.

It's doing one in November-December, despite your irresponsible rumors
claiming the contrary.

It has organized three US Championships better than the USCF ever has.

It has done fund raising better than the USCF ever has.

I doubt that this motion has been legally presented.

Your doubts have no founding in fact.

At the very minimum, we need to see the balance sheet of AF4C.

You must be one of the stupidest and laziest people on this planet. This
information is pretty readily available if you were to do even the
slightest of research.

Here is its 2000 annual report:
http://www.af4c.org/cps/applications...stors_links/1/
AnnualReport_2001.pdf

2001 annual report:
http://www.af4c.org/cps/applications...stors_links/2/
AnnualReport_2002.pdf

2002 annual report:
http://www.af4c.org/cps/applications...stors_links/4/
AF4CFinal.pdf

Does it even have a balance sheet?

See above.

Does it have members? What about OMOV?

Sam Sloan

Who cares, and who cares?

John Fernandez

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

NEW BUSINESS
Advance Delegate Motion 04-11 (co-sponsored by Myron and Rachel
Lieberman, delegates at large from Arizona): The Delegates approve the
merger of the USCF with the America's Foundation for Chess with all
necessary Bylaws changes, including in governance. The name of the
final organization shall remain the United States Chess Federation.

This motion is ridiculous and absurd. It should never have been
presented. There is also probably no legal way to accomplish this
"merger".

I suspect that dear couple just want to get it on the table, out of the
secret meetings and into the open.

The AF4C was not even able to honor its contractual committment to
organize the 2004 US Championship. This was the cause of the so-called
"Anna Hahn Crisis".

So far, the AF4C has only organized three US Championships. We still
cannot be sure that it will be able to organize another one.

Yes.

(Larry Tapper) writes:

Can anyone tell us _why_ AF4C wants to merge with the USCF? Have they
written a proposal outlining the mutual benefits of such a merger?

What puzzles me, given the meager information to be found here so far,
is not why the USCF should agree to the merger, but why AF4C needs or
wants it.

When the idea was first proposed, it seemed to me to be kind of a
last-ditch effort to save the USCF. The belt-tightening in the last
year probably makes that less necessary.

Whether that makes such a merger more or less likely down the road
depends on many factors, but I think it does take the pressure off
in terms of it being less of a marriage of convenience and more a
joining of equals.

BTW, I for one would be delighted if someone like George Mirijanian was
one of those who was asked to be involved in further negotiations. George
is a stickler for details, and we need a few of those around.
--
Mike Nolan

What puzzles me, given the meager information to be found here so far, is not
why the USCF should agree to the merger, but why AF4C needs or wants it. --
Larry T.

This statement by former USCF president John McCrary on another newsgroup
sheds more light on this matter.

"There has never been any intention of presenting the motion as written.
Rather, the idea was to allow more specific negotiations, so that a aubstitute
can be presented on the floor. This is a common method where
Bylaws issues may be involved.

AF4C is by far the richest group ever to approach USCF. One of their members is
worth $750,000,000 according to published sources, and is among America's 400
richest men. I understand that he is not their richest Board member. Since
2001, they have been planning a national program of chess growth. I have worked
with them to try to persuade that unifying their efforts with USCF's, under the
USCF banner, is best for US chess.

They are willing to consider everything from a full merger ( into USCF, with
AF4C disappearing) to smaller arrangements such as sharing scholastic
resources. They are willing to make compromises, such as accepting minority
representation on a Board with elected USCF reprsentatives (as I was told
yesterday) along with all sorts of safeguards. They are extremely wealthy
philanthropists who have absolutely no need to make money from chess.

They have also offered up to $1,000,000 to USCF. However, they do request that
any arrangement have assurances that a real growth plan can be put into place
and achieved consistently. That is an extremely reasonable request for any
large donor to make.

They also have staff respources already in place that USCF does not have. The
current Board hopes to pay an ED and to hire a scholastic Director, but as soon
as they start adding such staff their major thrust ( staff-cutting) will
quickly erode. AF4C would be willing to share activities with their staff
already in place, with USCF staff.

However, the current EB has conducted no negotiations on any arrangement this
summer. Thus, there will be nothing to present the Delegates except a motion to
create negotiations for the future.

I have done my best to bring the richest group of sponsors USCF has ever seen
to us, with huge donations offerred. I have worked with them in bringing about
various compromises to address member concerns. It is entirely up to USCF
whether it is interested from this point forward.

AF4C recently arranged Merrill-Lynch sponsorship for a single scholastic
tournament with 1100 kids. More such events and sponsorship are planned. I hope
that AF4C will have an interest in selling USCF memberships at those events,
but if USCF will not even talk to them as a courtesy, that could
become questionable.

Mr. Fernandez is correct that AF4C has the financial resources to duplicate all
of USCF's services overnight. There is a huge potential new market of milions
of new players in the US that USCF cannot meaningfully. address If USCF is not
interested, then I hope AF4C will try to capture that huge new market for the
good of US chess as whole."

-- John McCrary

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

I have seen US Championship websites done by AF4C and they were great. I am
talking about the present one.
The links to their reports did not work for me.

Russell Miller, Chelan WA

"Parrthenon" wrote in message
...


AF4C recently arranged Merrill-Lynch sponsorship for a single scholastic
tournament with 1100 kids. More such events and sponsorship are planned. I
hope
that AF4C will have an interest in selling USCF memberships at those
events,
but if USCF will not even talk to them as a courtesy, that could
become questionable.

Attendance at the Washington Elementaries was actually 1000. I didn't
notice any mention of USCF memberships being for sale. Washington
ratings were used for eligibility and pairing purposes.

Some adult tournaments here do have scholastic sections. In those,
WA and USCF memberships are usually offered but not required.
Based on what I've seen and reports of others, the organizers have
a lot to learn about running scholastic tournaments. But I don't fault
them for trying.

http://whsca.org/ratings.html

For those interested above is the website where Washington Scholastic Ratings
can be found. USCF ID numbers appear to have been entered in August 2003. OF
you got from DK posting that only 20 players in the about 8000 person data file
had USCF ratings you would be wrong. I don't own the latest EXCEL software so I
can only look at the rating file not sort it so to give you exact numbers would
be a pain. But I can assure you that many many more than 20 players in the file
have USCF ID numbers and ratings. File even has expiration date. Maybe DK ment
that only 20 players ratings were changed last August. I don't know about that.

Russell Miller, Chelan WA

On 04 Aug 2004 10:56:43 GMT, eepmeep (John
Fernandez) wrote:

At 11:31 PM 8/3/2004, Sam Sloan wrote:
On the agenda of the USCF's Annual Meeting of the Board of Delegates,
Aug. 14-15, 2004:

NEW BUSINESS
Advance Delegate Motion 04-11 (co-sponsored by Myron and Rachel
Lieberman, delegates at large from Arizona): The Delegates approve the
merger of the USCF with the America's Foundation for Chess with all
necessary Bylaws changes, including in governance. The name of the
final organization shall remain the United States Chess Federation.

This motion is ridiculous and absurd.

Why? Sounds like the best opportunity USCF has had in a long time.


Does it have members? What about OMOV?

Sam Sloan

Who cares, and who cares?

John Fernandez


The fact that John Fernandez thinks that this proposed merger is "the
best opportunity USCF has had in a long time" shows that he has very
poor judgment, which we already knew, and no business sense at all.

Former USCF President John McCrary writes: "They are willing to make
compromises, such as accepting minority representation on a Board with
elected USCF reprsentatives (as I was told yesterday) along with all
sorts of safeguards."

Their willingness to accept "minority representation" by elected USCF
"representatives" is mighty white of them. We have an organization of
more than 90,000 members and high name recognition, with a 65 year
history. What do they have? A bunch of rich guys. Look at what a
similar group of rich guys did when they took over the real American
Chess Foundation? They put the Manhattan Chess Club out of business,
stopped funding US International tournaments and now seem to be on the
verge of closing down.

This "deal" should not and cannot legally be presented to the
delegates unless they put a specific plan on the table. John McCrary
writes that there is no intention to present the motion as written.
The plan is to modify it during the delegate's meeting in Florida.

This is unacceptable. This deal should be unveiled in advance. We
cannot be railroaded out of existence with a quicky deal made on the
delegate's floor.

Sam Sloan

"RMille9601" wrote in message
...
http://whsca.org/ratings.html

For those interested above is the website where Washington Scholastic
Ratings
can be found. USCF ID numbers appear to have been entered in August 2003.
OF
you got from DK posting that only 20 players in the about 8000 person data
file
had USCF ratings you would be wrong. I don't own the latest EXCEL software
so I
can only look at the rating file not sort it so to give you exact numbers
would
be a pain. But I can assure you that many many more than 20 players in the
file
have USCF ID numbers and ratings. File even has expiration date. Maybe DK
ment
that only 20 players ratings were changed last August. I don't know about
that.

Russell Miller, Chelan WA

Actually what I said was very clearly stated.

I said that 20 players had the USCF rating as their basis in
the WA system, and also played games in the WA system.
There were another ~100 whose ratings were updated and
*hadn't* played in the WA system in the last year.

22% of the total (close to 2000) have a USCF rating (though only
8% non-provisional), but it didn't meet the conditions to update the
Washington rating. It really isn't that complicated.

I don't know the historical reason for the update process but it is
mathematically invalid. (There is no reason why two distinct pools
rated by different formulae should have the same ratings) My guess
is that it is a remnant from a transition period many years ago
combined with some pro-USCF sentiment. But the bottom line is
that games played in the system are rated in the system and there
is no reliance on USCF ratings. The update process is a rarely
used political manipulation to encourage/reward those who do
play USCF events. I have no problem with that but you seem
to want to use it to mischaracterize the system as a whole.