Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 05:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

Mike Neitman was circulating petitions at the US Open in Dallas, so he
is definitely running.

I have already collected enough signatures but I will collect some
more before I send them in, so I am running too.

Petitions are being circulated by others on behalf of Bill Goichberg
and Jim Berry and I assume that they are authorized.

Nobody here has addressed the big issue: The decision at the Dallas
Meeting to make Chess Life optional for the members. Anybody in favor
of that should be strongly opposed, in my opinion.

I think that Goichberg will have a tougher time getting elected.
Goichberg has not been a good president in my opinion and the current
litigation is a direct and forseeable consequence of the bad decisions
Goichberg made.

Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer. However, do
not worry as he will not be running again.

Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does. I
understand that Chuck Unruh is thinking about running too.

As for good candidates, look back at previous elections and some of
the losers. Arthur Bisguier would have been an excellent board member
but he ran and lost. Ralph Bowman would have been a great board member
but he lost too when he ran,

Of course, the dynamics of the situation is affected by two certain
people who are on the board. For example, if they are still on the
board and have not been thrown off by that time, I will have to
support Goichberg for re-election even though I do not think he has
been a good president.

Susan is actively trying to recruit candidates to run on her slate. As
least two well known chess personalities have told her that they are
not willing to run on her slate. That does not necessarily mean that
they are not running. It just means that they are not running on her
slate.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 06:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

samsloan wrote:
Mike Neitman was circulating petitions at the US Open in Dallas, so he
is definitely running.

I have already collected enough signatures but I will collect some
more before I send them in, so I am running too.

Petitions are being circulated by others on behalf of Bill Goichberg
and Jim Berry and I assume that they are authorized.

Nobody here has addressed the big issue: The decision at the Dallas
Meeting to make Chess Life optional for the members. Anybody in favor
of that should be strongly opposed, in my opinion.

I think that Goichberg will have a tougher time getting elected.
Goichberg has not been a good president in my opinion and the current
litigation is a direct and forseeable consequence of the bad decisions
Goichberg made.

Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer. However, do
not worry as he will not be running again.

Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does. I
understand that Chuck Unruh is thinking about running too.

As for good candidates, look back at previous elections and some of
the losers. Arthur Bisguier would have been an excellent board member
but he ran and lost. Ralph Bowman would have been a great board member
but he lost too when he ran,

Of course, the dynamics of the situation is affected by two certain
people who are on the board. For example, if they are still on the
board and have not been thrown off by that time, I will have to
support Goichberg for re-election even though I do not think he has
been a good president.

Susan is actively trying to recruit candidates to run on her slate. As
least two well known chess personalities have told her that they are
not willing to run on her slate. That does not necessarily mean that
they are not running. It just means that they are not running on her
slate.

Sam Sloan


Sam, I really hope you sit this election out At present, you are a
distraction that we don't need. Another year perhaps, but not now.
  #3   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 06:43 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

samsloan wrote:
Mike Neitman was circulating petitions at the US Open in Dallas, so he
is definitely running.

I have already collected enough signatures but I will collect some
more before I send them in, so I am running too.

Petitions are being circulated by others on behalf of Bill Goichberg
and Jim Berry and I assume that they are authorized.

Nobody here has addressed the big issue: The decision at the Dallas
Meeting to make Chess Life optional for the members. Anybody in favor
of that should be strongly opposed, in my opinion.

I think that Goichberg will have a tougher time getting elected.
Goichberg has not been a good president in my opinion and the current
litigation is a direct and forseeable consequence of the bad decisions
Goichberg made.

Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer. However, do
not worry as he will not be running again.

Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does. I
understand that Chuck Unruh is thinking about running too.

As for good candidates, look back at previous elections and some of
the losers. Arthur Bisguier would have been an excellent board member
but he ran and lost. Ralph Bowman would have been a great board member
but he lost too when he ran,

Of course, the dynamics of the situation is affected by two certain
people who are on the board. For example, if they are still on the
board and have not been thrown off by that time, I will have to
support Goichberg for re-election even though I do not think he has
been a good president.

Susan is actively trying to recruit candidates to run on her slate. As
least two well known chess personalities have told her that they are
not willing to run on her slate. That does not necessarily mean that
they are not running. It just means that they are not running on her
slate.

Sam Sloan


Thai is of interest from the USCF Issues Forum today:

Post: #119402 by texasrob on Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:24 pm

Richard:
I agree we need to know where we are at in a timely manner, and that
starts with a business plan, a solid realistic budget, and new revenue
streams.
I think the vacuum that would be created by everyone stepping down is no
longer an option; we have too many open law suits going, so our exposure
will still be there. I think a number of the board will be caught with
their hands in the cookie jar, from both sides.
I would like us to get some solid new blood on the board, with ample
discussion time on the forums to vet the candidates. I’m not sure how a
for profit company will give our members better services or results, if
anything it would give us less say.
I disagree that scholastic chess should be separated, or that it will
not convert to regular adult memberships. I think we have just done a
poor job on retaining scholastic members. I agree that paying for the
privilege of playing a few rated games with little chance of financial
reward is not enough to retain members, so we need to make our
tournaments more, like golf or bowling. This is where we need the
additional revenue streams for the federation to bolster our local and
state prize funds.
Promoting chess does work, it is just hard and time consuming, and is
individually driven. We need the National organization to be able to
provide material and support to the local individuals, so they do not
burn out, and let the fruit wither on the vine.
I would hope our potential candidates will address the points you have
brought up.
Robert Sturgeon
Secretary - Texas Chess Association
Alternate Delegate - Texas
Please note: Nothing I post here represents the opinions of anyone but
myself
Post: #119442 by hmb on Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:29 am
-------------------------------------------------------------------

texasrob wrote:
I think a number of the board will be caught with their hands in the
cookie jar, from both sides.

*Hal Bogner responds:*
Rob - While I agree with many of your statements, I must ask you to
speak further to this particular one.

The issues raised in USCF's lawsuit against Sue Polgar in San Francisco,
and the issues which can be seen by reading the June 2007 bankruptcy
filing by Paul Truong in New York, both involve alleged criminal acts.
In both cases, government authorities have acknowledged that criminal
investigations are in progress.

There is not a single other EB member about whom any such issue exists.
The lawsuit in Texas by Sue Polgar (and, tellingly, not also on behalf
of her husband, Paul Truong) is devoid of any actual specific
allegations against any of the EB members or other USCF members (such as
myself), and if Texas had a SLAPP law, would be actionable on that basis.

Regarding suggestions that "good people" should run for election this
spring, it should be noted that four good people who ran in recent
years, and who are currently serving, are all being sued for $25
million, and each of them has to concern himself with the possibility of
an adverse ruling, and/or years of stress, negative publicity, expense,
and so on. The prospect of being added to such a lawsuit is likely quite
daunting for anyone not yet sued, and limiting candidates to those who
are already being sued may end up being the result.

So yes, Rob - please do call for "making things better". But please also
address the facts on the ground in terms of the current climate, and do
not keep suggesting that everyone on every side are somehow all morally,
ethically, or functionally "equivalent".
Hal Bogner

  #4   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 07:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:32:37 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:


Sam, I really hope you sit this election out At present, you are a
distraction that we don't need. Another year perhaps, but not now.


I agree.

Sam, you will provide a rallying point for any slate that Polgar and
Truong come up with -- they won't have to talk issues or defend their
own past behavior - they'll just beat on the contents of your website,
on past statements you have made, and this will play big with all the
scholastic parent-members who aren't up on everything that's happened
in the last few years.
  #5   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 08:21 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 37
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

On Dec 9, 1:42*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:32:37 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

Sam, I really hope you sit this election out *At present, you are a
distraction that we don't need. *Another year perhaps, but not now.


I agree. *

Sam, you will provide a rallying point for any slate that Polgar and
Truong come up with -- they won't have to talk issues or defend their
own past behavior - they'll just beat on the contents of your website,
on past statements you have made, *and this will play big with all the
scholastic parent-members who aren't up on everything that's happened
in the last few years.


I also agree with both Brian and Mike,
Sam, why don't you really concentrate on being a volunteer and
supporter of the USCF instead of seeking a leadership role.
Be the watchdog - serve and make productive contributions to the
game.
Also agree that as long as your website content is anything above G
rated, the USCF would be better off without the distraction of your
involvement in leadership. That doesn't mean you can't be a
contributing and significant member.

Mark


  #6   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 08:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 324
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

On Dec 9, 11:59*am, samsloan wrote:

Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer.

Sam Sloan


Being called the worst board member by Sam Sloan is like being called
ugly by a frog.

Randy Bauer

  #7   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 09:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 782
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

I agree that Sam should not run, but that is extremely unlikely to
affect his decision. On the other hand, I would love to see many of
the posters her run - Mike Murray would be right up there in my book.

Jerry Spinrad

On Dec 9, 2:21*pm, marknibb wrote:
On Dec 9, 1:42*pm, Mike Murray wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:32:37 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:


Sam, I really hope you sit this election out *At present, you are a
distraction that we don't need. *Another year perhaps, but not now.


I agree. *


Sam, you will provide a rallying point for any slate that Polgar and
Truong come up with -- they won't have to talk issues or defend their
own past behavior - they'll just beat on the contents of your website,
on past statements you have made, *and this will play big with all the
scholastic parent-members who aren't up on everything that's happened
in the last few years.


I also agree with both Brian and Mike,
Sam, why don't you really concentrate on being a volunteer and
supporter of the USCF instead of seeking a leadership role.
Be the watchdog - *serve and make productive contributions to the
game.
Also agree that as long as your website content is anything above G
rated, *the USCF would be better off without the distraction of your
involvement in leadership. *That doesn't mean you can't be a
contributing and significant member.

Mark


  #8   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 09:17 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 18
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

I don't think Sam S. should run either.

Russell Miller, Camas WA
  #9   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 09:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

On Dec 9, 1:32*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:

Sam, I really hope you sit this election out *At present, you are a
distraction that we don't need. *Another year perhaps, but not now.


I disagree.

Right now the USCF is losing an average of $250,000 per year. This has
been the case for the past decade EXCEPT FOR the one year that I was
on the board. In that one year it showed a small profit.

This was at least in part because of me making a big issue over the
continuing losses, and my watch doggery over the financial matters.

Also, for every year in recent years the USCF membership has gone down
EXCEPT FOR the one year that I was on the board. I certainly cannot
take all the credit for the increase in membership while I was on the
board, but I deserve some of the credit.

While I was on the board, I made specific suggestions at every meeting
about how to increase revenues and cut expenses. None of the other
board members made any specific proposals on how to accomplish these
things.

Since I was voted off the board, all discussion has stopped regarding
how to get the USCF back into the Black. Instead,,discussion centers
on the various wars that are going on. Although Truong and Polgar are
the main guilty parties, it must be remembered that Goichberg put them
there. In every issue of Chess Life during the first two years that
Goichberg was USCF President, a picture of Susan Polgar appeared, even
though she had accomplished almost nothing worthy of a picture. In the
approximately 13 years since she came to America she has never played
in the US Championship or the US Woman's Championship. She has
represented the US in exactly one event, the 1996 World Chess
Olympiad, and then she said that she would never play again unless her
list of demands were met. She also demanded to be paid $50,000 for
"training" the Woman's Olympiad team and then demanded another $20,000
for playing plus she demanded about $5,000 for expired and worthless
chess calenders and thousands more for her books and a bunch of other
stuff that the USCF had to trash or sell at a loss.

Goichberg knew all about this, as this had been going on since 2002,
yet every issue of Chess Life proclaimed her to be a "Gold Patron",
although she has never paid any money for anything at all to the USCF.
Goichberg also knew that Polgar and Truong had stolen the USCF's
laptop computer on August 20, 2003.

Goichberg even secretly paid her $13,358.36 in October 2003 thereby
disobeying the direct order of the USCF V-P of Finance who told
Goichberg "Don't pay them a penny", and then Goichberg blamed this
unauthorized payment on a low level clerk named Linda, until I proved
that Goichberg had signed the check. This happened just two months
after the USCF had been forced to lay-off 17 employees because it
could not make payroll.

Why did Goichberg do all these things, even though he knew the fragile
condition of the USCF? He did it to use Polgar and Truong to attack
me, Sam Sloan. It is a complete mystery to me why he wanted to attack
me, because I have been a supporter of his for more than 40 years, but
nevertheless the fact is that he did. It is clear that Goichberg knew
all along that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. Even after the
Mottershead Report became public, Goichberg continued to support
Polgar and Truong against me until February 2008 when the USCF's
attorney, Proskauer Rose, said that he could no longer represent
Polgar and Truong due to their non-cooperation.

If you will do the math you will realize that one of the main reasons
that the USCF loses money year after year is because of all the money
that has been paid to Polgar and Truong.

Now, Goichberg is keeping Tim Sawmiller as moderator of the USCF
Issues Forum because it is Sawmiller who blocks my postings from
appearing there, including this one.

Now, back to finances: What we need to do is expand scholastic chess
because that is where the USCF has been growing and has the potential
to grow further. Until now the USCF's involvement in scholastic chess
has been passive. The kiddies send in their money and the USCF cashes
their checks. There is absolutely no promotion of scholastic chess.
Have you ever seen any publicity or a news announcement regarding a
scholastic event? Do not you find it remarkable that sometimes more
than 4,000 (four thousand) ,kids show up for a scholastic chess
tournament that the USCF has never advertised or done anything to
promote? Think of how many more kids would come if they knew about
these events.

I raised this issue at every meeting I attended of the board. What did
Goichberg say in response? He claimed that I had "stolen" the idea and
that it was "already being done". Yet, since I left the board not one
word has been spoken by any of the remaining board members about
promoting scholastic chess.

Goichberg's idea to cut expenses is to cut Chess Life and Chess Life
for Kids magazines. This has to be the worst idea imaginable. The
magazines are the only benefit that most members get. What we need to
do it cut unnecesssary expenses, including staff. But first, before
cutting staff, we need to find out how much staff we have. When I was
on the board, I repeatedly asked one simple question: How many
employees do we have and what do they do? I was never able to get the
answer to that one simple question. I wonder if anybody knows the
answer. My best guess is that the USCF has between 23 and 28 employees
plus contractors. What is amazing is that the number of employees has
increased since the move to Crossville, in spite of the substantial
savings that should be realized due to automation, with the
memberships, rating services and Chess Life production outsourced or
online.

By the way, during my one year on the board, Goichberg refused to
schedule a board meeting in the Crossville Office even though I and
all of the other board members requested it. Goichberg did not want me
to see the Crossville Office because it would show how ridiculous the
USCF's operations there have become.

Now you say above that having me on the board would be a
"distraction". I am proud to be called a distraction if I am
distracting attention away from the money losing games the board
members keep playing and I am helping the USCF return to a profitable
business operation, as it was before the Goichberg group took over.

I have been a member of the USCF since 1956 and I want it to stay in
business. I wonder if I am the only one left who wants this
organization to survive.

Sam Sloan
  #10   Report Post  
Old December 9th 08, 10:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Prospective Candidates for USCF Election

On Dec 9, 3:50*pm, Randy Bauer wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:59*am, samsloan wrote:



Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer.


Sam Sloan


Being called the worst board member by Sam Sloan is like being called
ugly by a frog.

Randy Bauer


Since you seem to disagree, can you name one thing, JUST ONE THING, of
a positive nature that Joel Channing accomplished during his nearly
three years on the board.

Sam Sloan
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 Issues Forum: "New York Times" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:52 PM
Evidence of Election Fraud Grows in México : wen.kroy rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 3rd 06 05:44 PM
Election Petitions issue Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 April 20th 06 07:40 PM
Proposed Candidate's Statement for June Chess Life - Please Comment Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 49 April 17th 05 06:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:08 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