Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 06:09 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,558
Default Should Marinello and Hanke be Permanently Expelled, Barred and Banned from the USCF??

On 4 Aug 2005 13:28:16 -0700, "Bruce" wrote:


As for Sam's desire to expel board members, I always get a good laugh
out of Sam's interpretation of USCF bylaws. My predictions are that
Sam will not finish last, nor will he make it onto the board. Actually
I was hoping that there might be results of the election already posted
here, which is one reason I came to RGCP. This e-mail address no
longer works by the way, but it is the one I've got registered under
years ago. So those who want to keep in touch with me will have to get
my new e-mail address from me.

Best Regards,

Bruce


The election is over. George John finished last, where he belongs.

You seem to think that things are pretty much as before. Not true. The
situation is vastly worse than at any time previous.

Remember how you used to yell and scream about how Don Schultz, USCF
President, spent $90 dollars in USCF funds to take a liimo to the
airport.

What will you say when you learn that Beatriz Marinello paid herself
more than $13,000 in unspecified expenses?

Remember how you used to complain about how the Treasuere was treated?

What will you say when you find out that the current treasurer
disappeared on February 10, six months ago, and nobody sems to know
what he is?

On January 29, 2005, Tim Hanke wrote:

"Now that I have saved the USCF, I'm looking around for something else
to do. This is why I re-joined the National Guard two weeks ago. The
Iraq mess needs to be cleaned up, and I like a challenge."

Since then, he has not been heard from. I feel that the above letter
should have been deemed a letter of resignation. Instead, however, we
have gone for the last six months without any treasurer at all.

What do you think about that?

Sam Sloan

  #2   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 04:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2005
Posts: 236
Default Should Marinello and Hanke be Permanently Expelled, Barred and Banned from the USCF??


Sam Sloan wrote:

The election is over. George John finished last, where he belongs.

You seem to think that things are pretty much as before. Not true. The
situation is vastly worse than at any time previous.

Remember how you used to yell and scream about how Don Schultz, USCF
President, spent $90 dollars in USCF funds to take a liimo to the
airport.


I can see that after 1.5 years that your accuracy and memory have not
improved. I NEVER said anything at all about Don Schultz and limo
services. That was Tom Dorsch and not me.


What will you say when you learn that Beatriz Marinello paid herself
more than $13,000 in unspecified expenses?

Remember how you used to complain about how the Treasuere was treated?

What will you say when you find out that the current treasurer
disappeared on February 10, six months ago, and nobody sems to know
what he is?


Your charges and allegations quite often prove to be unfounded,
exaggerated, untrue or simply wrong. Why would I care about an
organization I'm no longer a member of and haven't been since 2003?



On January 29, 2005, Tim Hanke wrote:

"Now that I have saved the USCF, I'm looking around for something else
to do. This is why I re-joined the National Guard two weeks ago. The
Iraq mess needs to be cleaned up, and I like a challenge."

Since then, he has not been heard from. I feel that the above letter
should have been deemed a letter of resignation. Instead, however, we
have gone for the last six months without any treasurer at all.

What do you think about that?


I think that you are often wrong, often exaggerate or often speak
before you know the facts or that you sometimes make up facts or twist
them to suit your own political agenda. You once reported to all of us
that Peter Leko was dead.

Bruce



Sam Sloan


  #3   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 04:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2005
Posts: 236
Default Should Marinello and Hanke be Permanently Expelled, Barred and Banned from the USCF??

Sam wrote in part:
Sam Sloan wrote:

The election is over. George John finished last, where he belongs


Ironically if those inked ballots you complain about in your other
thread are counted George finishes ahead of you because you are only 5
votes ahead of him and he would get 62 more votes and you would get
only 50 more votes.

I can see that the slate system has become endemic and insures that no
real leadership change over the long haul really occurs at USCF.

If you go long enough everything comes full circle. When I first
started on RGCP, who was in charge of USCF? Why it was Don Schultz and
Bill Goichberg. Who's in charge after all of the turmoil? Don Schultz
and Bill Goichberg.

  #4   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 05:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2005
Posts: 82
Default OMOV Considered In Light of the Recent Election

Bruce wrote:

Bruce,

[SNIP]

I can see that the slate system has become endemic and insures that no
real leadership change over the long haul really occurs at USCF.


IMO, and in hindsight, OMOV is a half-baked system that is in *major*
need of reform. Four of the objections to OMOV were as follows:

1) A highly undesirable, "fringe" candidate might be elected.

2) Someone with high name recognition and/or with easy access to a
significant percentage of the voting members, but relatively unsuitable
to governance would be elected.

3) A very wealthy person might run and spend a large sum of money on
the campaign including mailings to as many Voting Members as possible,
effectively buying a seat on the board.

4) Slates would form, causing inexperienced, relatively unknown
candidates to be elected on the coat tales of one or more politically
strong candidates. One or more highly qualified, but not as
politically strong, candidates on a different slate will lose.

Fortunately for the USCF, IMO, the nightmare scenario of #1 above did
not occur. That's the good news. The bad news, IMO, is #2, #3, and #4
may have all occurred.

I will end this post here to see if there what comments follow. I do
want this discussion to continue with how OMOV can be changed, assuming
there is agreement that it should be changed, to deal with the above
and other issues. Comments are welcomed.

Note: I have changed the subject to reflect the shift in discussion.

Best regards,

George John

  #5   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 05:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,558
Default Should Marinello and Hanke be Permanently Expelled, Barred and Banned from the USCF??

On 5 Aug 2005 08:49:53 -0700, "Bruce" wrote:

Sam wrote in part:
Sam Sloan wrote:

The election is over. George John finished last, where he belongs


Ironically if those inked ballots you complain about in your other
thread are counted George finishes ahead of you because you are only 5
votes ahead of him and he would get 62 more votes and you would get
only 50 more votes.


Bruce, you have reverted to you old form, which is that you have
everything ass-backwards.

I beat George John by 5 votes after the provisional ballots were
included.

If the provisional ballots are excluded, I beat him by 17 votes, or 12
votes more.

By the way, I am NOT questioning the ballot count. I accept the
results of the election. I was wondering whether the order of finish
might change. It is now clear that regardless of whether or not the
provisional ballots are counted, the standings are unchanged.

Sam Sloan


  #6   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 06:17 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,558
Default OMOV Considered In Light of the Recent Election

On 5 Aug 2005 09:41:57 -0700, "George John"
wrote:

Bruce wrote:

Bruce,

[SNIP]

I can see that the slate system has become endemic and insures that no
real leadership change over the long haul really occurs at USCF.


IMO, and in hindsight, OMOV is a half-baked system that is in *major*
need of reform. Four of the objections to OMOV were as follows:

1) A highly undesirable, "fringe" candidate might be elected.

2) Someone with high name recognition and/or with easy access to a
significant percentage of the voting members, but relatively unsuitable
to governance would be elected.

3) A very wealthy person might run and spend a large sum of money on
the campaign including mailings to as many Voting Members as possible,
effectively buying a seat on the board.

4) Slates would form, causing inexperienced, relatively unknown
candidates to be elected on the coat tales of one or more politically
strong candidates. One or more highly qualified, but not as
politically strong, candidates on a different slate will lose.

Fortunately for the USCF, IMO, the nightmare scenario of #1 above did
not occur. That's the good news. The bad news, IMO, is #2, #3, and #4
may have all occurred.

I will end this post here to see if there what comments follow. I do
want this discussion to continue with how OMOV can be changed, assuming
there is agreement that it should be changed, to deal with the above
and other issues. Comments are welcomed.

Note: I have changed the subject to reflect the shift in discussion.

Best regards,

George John


I happen to agree with George John that serious problems have emerged.
I think we have to consider going back to the old system.

However, George John is wrong above. The nightmare scenario of #1
above did occur. Tim Hanke was clearly a very far out on the fringe
candidate. His camplain platform advocated the complete break-up and
end of the USCF as we know it. He advocated expelling all scholastic
members, withdrawing from FIDE and stopping the publication of Chess
Life Magazine, among other things.

Hanke got elected because many voters confused his name with Hanken,
the well known chess journalist.

Under the old system, Tim Hanke, Elizabeth Shaughnessy and Randy Bauer
would never have been elected because none of them had attended
meetings or participated in chess governance in the past. As it turned
out, all three were elected and all three turned out to be very bad
board members.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 06:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2005
Posts: 82
Default OMOV Considered In Light of the Recent Election

Sam Sloan wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 09:41:57 -0700, "George John"
wrote:


[SNIP]

I think we have to consider going back to the old system.


I do NOT want to go back to the old system. What I do want is
meaningful reform of the current one; although, the devil may be in the
details of how to do that.

I'm hoping to see some good posts here on this subject. I'm
intentionally refraining from offering my suggestions; although, I
certainly do have some ideas on how to possibly improve OMOV,
especially how to help level the playing field to offset the advantage
of high name recognition, those with deep pockets, and slates.

We need to consider if there are any fair and reasonable ways to filter
the candidates better. I find this one a tough issue. For example,
some advocate prohibiting anyone with an adult felony conviction from
running or being a board member. I see merits to both sides, and am
wrestling with how to vote on this one.

"ADM 05-18 [SNIP]): A convicted felon may not serve on the Executive
Board of the U.S. Chess Federation. If an individual is elected to the
Board and it is later found that he or she is a convicted felon, that
person shall be removed from the Board and the person achieving the
highest number of votes but not elected in the election in which the
felon was chosen for the Board shall become a Board member in his/her
place. Rationale: We live in an era in which "due diligence" - a
scrupulous examination of an organization or individual with which or
whom one proposes some partnership is scrutinized using search engines
such as Google - is a normal practice. The Federation cannot be
exposed to the potential embarrassment of having a felon on its
Executive Board."

Comments are welcomed.

[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John

  #8   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 09:40 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 17
Default OMOV Considered In Light of the Recent Election

I should have thought this to be an obvious requirement for an
Executive Board member.
shrug
zdrakec

  #9   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 09:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2004
Posts: 35
Default OMOV Considered In Light of the Recent Election


George John wrote:
Bruce Draney wrote:

I can see that the slate system has become endemic and insures that no
real leadership change over the long haul really occurs at USCF.


It seems to me that this election highlighted the risk of "slate"
politics. One announced "slate" was created, and all its candidates
were defeated. What if the four candidates had not created a slate? I
can't say without exit polling, of course. But I suspect that they
would not have been so soundly defeated; several of them may even have
been elected.

What was the purpose of forming a slate? Maybe George can speak
frankly about this now that the election is over. I was under the
impression, from reading hypothetical discussions of political science
in this forum, that the idea was to keep out one or more highly
undesirable candidates. Suppose that X is highly undesirable, but the
other 8 candidates are all just fine. Voters may split their support
for the other 8 evenly, with X getting extra votes because of "name
recognition" (notoriety). To avoid this, 4 candidates band together to
try to beat X. Or maybe X and Y. Whatever. Who was the enemy, or who
were the enemies?

My guess would be that this backfired. Voters noticed that Mr. Name
Recognition, Goichberg, was not in the "slate", and they smelled
partisan maneuvering, so they rejected the whole slate. I don't even
know if Goichberg was the intended "X". But that's why I suspect that,
if there had been no "slate", the four members of the slate would have
fared much better.

So, Bruce D., I would say that when the next election rolls around,
candidates will think twice before trying to form a slate.

This is all a learning experience for me. I have to add that I voted
for the whole "slate". Such a supporter of lost causes I am.

IMO, and in hindsight, OMOV is a half-baked system that is in *major*
need of reform. Four of the objections to OMOV were as follows:

1) A highly undesirable, "fringe" candidate might be elected.

2) Someone with high name recognition and/or with easy access to a
significant percentage of the voting members, but relatively unsuitable
to governance would be elected.

3) A very wealthy person might run and spend a large sum of money on
the campaign including mailings to as many Voting Members as possible,
effectively buying a seat on the board.

4) Slates would form, causing inexperienced, relatively unknown
candidates to be elected on the coat tales of one or more politically
strong candidates. One or more highly qualified, but not as
politically strong, candidates on a different slate will lose.

Fortunately for the USCF, IMO, the nightmare scenario of #1 above did
not occur. That's the good news. The bad news, IMO, is #2, #3, and #4
may have all occurred.


Well it's pretty easy to guess whose names George has in mind for his
scenarios #2 and #3. However I don't endorse his use of the pharse
"relatively unsuitable to governance" to describe any of the four who
were elected. I didn't vote for 'em, but I am ready to get behind 'em.
Also, I believe it's unnecessarily derogatory to suggest that one of
them "bought" a seat on the board. He spent money on a campaign,
that's all. That's not unheard of. Moreover, it's far from obvious to
me that his campaign spending had a decisive effect on the outcome.

Moreover, it looks to me like #4 definitely did not occur. There was
only one slate, and it got busted.

I will end this post here to see if there what comments follow. I do
want this discussion to continue with how OMOV can be changed, assuming
there is agreement that it should be changed, to deal with the above
and other issues. Comments are welcomed.


Months ago, I posted some messages to this forum expressing alarm at
the possibility that a completely unsuitable candidate, Sloan, would
get elected. I thought that his chances were better under OMOV than
they had been with a smaller, but better informed, electorate.

The outcome of the election suggests that I might have saved my
worrying. So perhaps even a large, semi-informed, electorate can
distinguish the unsuitable candidates, at least if they're that bad. I
don't know. I'm still not convinced that OMOV is better than, or even
just as good as, the old system, but it worked all right this time.

Bruce Leverett

  #10   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 10:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2005
Posts: 236
Default OMOV Considered In Light of the Recent Election

Having been out of the loop for over a year and a half my impression
when I talked to Mike a couple weeks ago in Lincoln was that Don, Bill,
and his guys who won had spent thousands of dollars campaigning as a
group. Maybe I got that wrong. When I ran in 2001, there was a slate
of four that easily won featuring Steve S., Frank Brady, and the two
others whose names escape me because it's been over 4 years. Don
Schultz told me over a drink that they had spent huge amounts of money
to win and I realized at that point that there wasn't a chance in hell
I could have ever gotten elected as an independent candidate regardless
of whether my ideas were popular or not.

Just because a group of candidates don't CALL themselves a "slate"
doesn't mean they AREN'T one. )

Hey Bruce, good to see you're still around by the way. Hope all is
going well.

Bruce

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017