Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 18th 10, 12:35 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Behind Closed Doors

The USCF board decision to endorse Karpov was held in multiple telephone
conference closed door sessions. In a transparent, open governance
organization about the only matters appropriate for closed meetings are
to discuss litigation matters and personnel matters.

Why was the discussion of this important matter held by the Board in
closed session? IMO, a closed session on this issue is totally
inappropriate and smacks of back room deals. It is my understanding that
Bill Goichberg orchestrated multiple closed conference call meetings
until he obtained the vote he wanted which was NOT the vote he got in
the first closed meeting.

So much for transparency. Shame on every board member who agreed to do
the deal in the back room with the door shut. Shame!!!

If this kind of garbage continues, I hope another organization is formed
to supplant the good old boys and gal in the back room with an open,
member oriented organization. This board, under the defacto presidency
of Bill Goichberg, stinks to high heaven.

Then again, maybe Bill is trying to galvanize support for Sam Sloan and
make a horse race out of the coming board election. :-)
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 18th 10, 01:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Behind Closed Doors

On Apr 17, 7:35*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
The USCF board decision to endorse Karpov was held in multiple telephone
conference closed door sessions. In a transparent, open governance
organization about the only matters appropriate for closed meetings are
to discuss litigation matters and personnel matters.

Why was the discussion of this important matter held by the Board in
closed session? IMO, a closed session on this issue is totally
inappropriate and smacks of back room deals. It is my understanding that
Bill Goichberg orchestrated multiple closed conference call meetings
until he obtained the vote he wanted which was NOT the vote he got in
the first closed meeting.

So much for transparency. Shame on every board member who agreed to do
the deal in the back room with the door shut. Shame!!!

If this kind of garbage continues, I hope another organization is formed
to supplant the good old boys and gal in the back room with an open,
member oriented organization. This board, under the defacto presidency
of Bill Goichberg, stinks to high heaven.

Then again, maybe Bill is trying to galvanize support for Sam Sloan and
make a horse race out of the coming board election. :-)


Good luck Don Quixote, watch out for windmills and weasels.
  #3   Report Post  
Old April 18th 10, 02:24 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2004
Posts: 178
Default Behind Closed Doors

On Apr 17, 7:35*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
The USCF board decision to endorse Karpov was held in multiple telephone
conference closed door sessions. In a transparent, open governance
organization about the only matters appropriate for closed meetings are
to discuss litigation matters and personnel matters.

Why was the discussion of this important matter held by the Board in
closed session? IMO, a closed session on this issue is totally
inappropriate and smacks of back room deals. It is my understanding that
Bill Goichberg orchestrated multiple closed conference call meetings
until he obtained the vote he wanted which was NOT the vote he got in
the first closed meeting.

So much for transparency. Shame on every board member who agreed to do
the deal in the back room with the door shut. Shame!!!

If this kind of garbage continues, I hope another organization is formed
to supplant the good old boys and gal in the back room with an open,
member oriented organization. This board, under the defacto presidency
of Bill Goichberg, stinks to high heaven.

Then again, maybe Bill is trying to galvanize support for Sam Sloan and
make a horse race out of the coming board election. :-)


Possibly a meeting to discuss Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's offer would develop
derogatory information about the controversial Mr. Ilyumzhinov, whom
we have declined to support in the past when he made no offer. Closed
meetings are intended to keep derogatory information out of public
scrutiny.

David Ames
  #4   Report Post  
Old April 18th 10, 07:52 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,170
Default Behind Closed Doors

On 18 Apr, 00:35, MrVidmar wrote:

Why was the discussion of this important matter held by the Board in
closed session? IMO, a closed session on this issue is totally
inappropriate and smacks


Who got smacked?

Then again, maybe Bill is trying to galvanize support for Sam Sloan and
make a horse race out of the coming board election. :-)


Vote Sloan for transparency etc.
  #5   Report Post  
Old April 18th 10, 07:53 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,170
Default Behind Closed Doors

On 18 Apr, 02:24, David Ames wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:35*pm, MrVidmar wrote:



The USCF board decision to endorse Karpov was held in multiple telephone
conference closed door sessions. In a transparent, open governance
organization about the only matters appropriate for closed meetings are
to discuss litigation matters and personnel matters.


Why was the discussion of this important matter held by the Board in
closed session? IMO, a closed session on this issue is totally
inappropriate and smacks of back room deals. It is my understanding that
Bill Goichberg orchestrated multiple closed conference call meetings
until he obtained the vote he wanted which was NOT the vote he got in
the first closed meeting.


So much for transparency. Shame on every board member who agreed to do
the deal in the back room with the door shut. Shame!!!


If this kind of garbage continues, I hope another organization is formed
to supplant the good old boys and gal in the back room with an open,
member oriented organization. This board, under the defacto presidency
of Bill Goichberg, stinks to high heaven.


Then again, maybe Bill is trying to galvanize support for Sam Sloan and
make a horse race out of the coming board election. :-)


Possibly a meeting to discuss Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's offer would develop
derogatory information about the controversial Mr. Ilyumzhinov, whom
we have declined to support in the past when he made no offer. *Closed
meetings are intended to keep derogatory information out of public
scrutiny.

David Ames


Also, if someone is going to be smacked, as the OP says, then you
would want to do that in private.


  #6   Report Post  
Old April 18th 10, 03:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Behind Closed Doors

On Apr 17, 9:24*pm, David Ames wrote:

. *Closed meetings are intended to keep derogatory information out of public
scrutiny. David Ames-


They are also quite useful for stopping the sun shining in on strange
bed fellows.
  #7   Report Post  
Old April 18th 10, 03:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Behind Closed Doors

Offramp wrote:
On 18 Apr, 00:35, MrVidmar wrote:

Why was the discussion of this important matter held by the Board in
closed session? IMO, a closed session on this issue is totally
inappropriate and smacks


Who got smacked?

:-)



Then again, maybe Bill is trying to galvanize support for Sam Sloan and
make a horse race out of the coming board election. :-)


Vote Sloan for transparency etc.


Don't be too surprised if Sam does better than many think he will.
  #8   Report Post  
Old April 18th 10, 03:28 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Behind Closed Doors

Offramp wrote:
On 18 Apr, 02:24, David Ames wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:35 pm, MrVidmar wrote:



The USCF board decision to endorse Karpov was held in multiple telephone
conference closed door sessions. In a transparent, open governance
organization about the only matters appropriate for closed meetings are
to discuss litigation matters and personnel matters.
Why was the discussion of this important matter held by the Board in
closed session? IMO, a closed session on this issue is totally
inappropriate and smacks of back room deals. It is my understanding that
Bill Goichberg orchestrated multiple closed conference call meetings
until he obtained the vote he wanted which was NOT the vote he got in
the first closed meeting.
So much for transparency. Shame on every board member who agreed to do
the deal in the back room with the door shut. Shame!!!
If this kind of garbage continues, I hope another organization is formed
to supplant the good old boys and gal in the back room with an open,
member oriented organization. This board, under the defacto presidency
of Bill Goichberg, stinks to high heaven.
Then again, maybe Bill is trying to galvanize support for Sam Sloan and
make a horse race out of the coming board election. :-)

Possibly a meeting to discuss Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's offer would develop
derogatory information about the controversial Mr. Ilyumzhinov, whom
we have declined to support in the past when he made no offer. Closed
meetings are intended to keep derogatory information out of public
scrutiny.

David Ames


Also, if someone is going to be smacked, as the OP says, then you
would want to do that in private.


Reminds me of a civil service disciplinary case I heard in the early
1990s in which the worker was charged with smacking his supervisor in
the side of the head. He testified that he did it because he wanted to
make sure the supervisor was listening to him. Smack.
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 18th 10, 07:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Behind Closed Doors

None wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, David Ames wrote:

. Closed meetings are intended to keep derogatory information out of public
scrutiny. David Ames-


They are also quite useful for stopping the sun shining in on strange
bed fellows.


Indeed.

This is such an unnecessary and dumb thing for the board to have done.
All they had to do was make a recording of their meetings, hold off on
an endorsement vote until they could ask for and receive input from the
general membership and then make their decision at another open meeting.
But no, they did it in the back room after waiting to hear from the
latest line of money men. Sad and very, very dumb. But, not at all
surprising from a historical perspective. Back room culture is very
difficult to change.
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USCF secrecy and closed sessions [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 18 January 13th 09 01:45 PM
USCF secrecy and closed sessions [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 18 January 13th 09 01:45 PM
Britan Lafferty's candidacy [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 88 January 6th 09 01:21 AM
Britan Lafferty's candidacy [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 88 January 6th 09 01:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 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