Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 12:33 AM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default Crossville Move Official Minutes Summary

Dear Bill Goichberg,

[Note: this has been posted to both rgcp and the Yahoo FIDE-Chess
Group]

Regarding the Crossville move, I thought I would do some extensive fact
checking of the official record. I was honestly surprised by what I
found, and am now very concerned about how this process has been
handled.

This is long post, but it think it's worth pulling together all the
official information surrounding the Crossville move. Any quoting from
the minutes starts and ends with a line of asterisks.

The Crossville move was approved at the June 9, 2003 Executive Board
meeting. The motion to reopen bidding was made without objection (!!)
March 17, 2004. But, it's very interesting to see what happened in
between these two motions, and after.

************************************************** ****
2003 EB Meeting, June 9, 2003

EB 03-27 (McCrary): The Executive Board authorizes the move of the USCF
office to Crossville, Tennessee. The Executive Director is authorized
to execute the necessary arrangements. PASSED 5-1-1; Brady opposed and
Wagner abstaining.

EB 03-28 (McCrary) Previous Board motions regarding moving the USCF
office are rescinded. PASSED 6-0-1, Denker abstaining
************************************************** ****

WRT to my previous comment about the Board of Delegates ratifying the
motions of the EB you said: "They always do, but it's a bit misleading
to suggest that they specifically approved of the selection of
Crossville, they weren't asked. It is fair to say that no motion was
passed reflecting Delegate objection."

If you are referring to the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting, you are
probably correct. But, I think that fact is irrelevant. Let's examine
the record of the 2003 Board of Delegates Meeting which was held in
August of 2003, where the move to Crossville was EXPLICITLY discussed
in great detail. I think the record shows the Board of Delegates were
asked about the move to Crossville and they answered "YES".

The full text is below. My summary is as follows:

1) The minutes of the June 9th, 2003 meeting were distributed to the
delegates. President John McCrary read the motions. He and Harry
Sabine presented information about the planned move to Crossville.

2) The actions of the Executive Board were ratified.

3) The move to Crossville was discussed during President John McCrary's
and VP of Finance Frank Camaratta's reports to the 2003 Board of
Delegates.

4) The delegates were given a one page summary of the capital budget
for the possible move to Crossville. This budget was explained to the
Board of Delegates by Mike Nolan and Frank Camaratta.

5) The 2003 Board of Delegates approved the Crossville move planning
budget.

************************************************** *******
2003 USCF Board of Delegates Meeting, August 2003

Next to be considered was the ratification of the actions of the
Executive Board (EB) since the last Delegates' Meeting. Minutes of a
conference call held on June 9 were handed out to the Delegates and
were added to the actions to be ratified by Harold Winston. President
John McCrary read the motions as well. He and Harry Sabine
presented information about the planned move to Crossville, TN.
Brochures about Crossville and Cumberland County were available to
everyone. President McCrary noted that neither the sale of the building
in New Windsor nor the move have been finalized as yet. Ralph Bowman
and Larry Cohen participated in the discussion after which the motion
passed.

DM03-07 - ADM 03-07 (Harold Winston, IL): The delegates ratify all
actions of the Executive Board appearing in Minutes published in
Executive Board Newsletters and the Delegates' Call, since the
conclusion of the 2002 Delegates' Meeting and the minutes of the
Executive Board conference call of June 9, 2003 that have been
distributed to the USCF Delegates at this meeting. PASSED

President John McCrary's Report

The best scenario is that we complete the sale of the building and the
move to Crossville successfully, reduce costs, establish strong
partnerships with other groups, complete necessary improvements in
office services, and remake the USCF office.

VP of Finance Frank Camarrata's Report

He then explained the financial aspects of the Crossville relocation.
The USCF will be receiving three acres of land in Crossville on the
condition that the building for the USCF office is to be located on
that site. The intent is to use the value of the land as a down payment
on a 15 year loan in an amount sufficient to build the new building and
make the necessary equipment upgrades. Construction of the building
must begin within 12 months from when the USCF receives the deed to the
land. Until the new building is completed the USCF has been offered the
use of a large building (the Dennison building), including maintenance
and utilities, rent free. The cost of the building is estimated at
about $500,000. It is located in an area where the land value is
expected to increase.

FY2004 Budget

Delegates were given a printed report that included both as well as a
one page summary of the capital planning budget for the move to
Crossville, which will be considered separately after the approval of
the budget for operations.

Mike Nolan pointed out that we are already nearly three months in to
this fiscal year and we have already incurred significant expenses. He
and Frank Camaratta then talked about the capital budget for the
possible move to Crossville, which was distributed to the Delegates.

DM03-13 - NDM 03-40 - (Frank Camaratta, AL): Moved, that the planning
budget for the Crossville move be adopted.

PASSED
************************************************** *******

In summary, it is clear to me that a move to Crossville was explicitly
discussed and approved by the 2003 Board of Delegates (assuming certain
conditions were met such as the successful sale of the New Windsor
building).

On March 17, 2004 a motion to reconsider the move passed without
objection. How could something this important, passed by a prior board
and sanctioned by the Board of Delegates, be overturned in this manner,
without any official discussion or explanation AMAZES ME I am very
disappointed to see this.

Please note this motion has a bidding deadline of July 1, 2004. We
will learn later this deadline was moved to September 3, 2004, but
it's not clear to me when and how. It also calls for a relocation
committee to give a report to the 2004 Board of Delegate for
ratification by the Board of Delegates.

NOWHERE in the minutes for the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting can if
find any mention of a report of the relocation committee nor any
sanction by the Board of Delegates of this committee's report which
was to be presented at this meeting.

CLEARLY, the requirements of EB 04-40 were not met. Fortunately, this
was an Executive Board motion and not Board of Delegate motion, so the
next Board probably was in its rights to clean up this (IMHO) mess;
although, that's not totally clear to me given the fact this motion
did receive (in this instance implicit, rather than explicit) Board of
Delegate approval.

We now turn to the March 17, 2004 motion, mentioned near the top of
this posting, where the motion made by the prior Board to move to
Crossville, one explicitly approved by the 2003 USCF Board of
Delegates, was at least partially overturned. It does the following:

1) reopens the bidding for a new location
2) specifies a bidding deadline of July 1, 2004
3) creates a Executive Board Relocation Committee which will evaluate
the move.
3) calls for this relocation committee to present their recommendations
for ratification at the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting

************************************************** **
MARCH 17, 2004

EB 04-40 (Frank Brady) The relocation plans of the USCF are to be
reconsidered. A Relocation Committee to evaluate a move will be
appointed by the EB. Bidding instructions for sites interested in
housing the USCF offices are to be made available by April 15 in a
special delegate mailing and also will be posted on www.uschess.org and
other websites and newsgroups. All bidders must have their bids
finalized by July 1. The relocation committee will present their
recommendations for ratification at the August USCF Delegates meeting.
PASSED Without Objection

EB 04-41 (Frank Brady) The new relocation committee will be chaired by
USCF President, Beatriz Marinello. Other committee members a USCF
Vice President-Finance Tim Hanke; Mike Carr (Southern California) and
GM Ilya Gurevich (New York). Dave Knudson was subsequently added and
accepted the appointment). PASSED Without Objection
************************************************** *******

We now turn to the minutes of the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting. At
this meeting the recommendations of the relocation committee was to be
given forratification by the Board of Delegates. I can find NOWHERE in
the minutes where this happened.

I did find the following in the President's report to the 2004 Board of
Delegates

************************************************** ****************
She described USCF's primary goal this fiscal year as the relocation
of the USCF office. There is a relocation committee in place and a
deadline of 09/03/04 to submit bids.
************************************************** ****************

So 04-40's deadline of July 1, 2004 has now moved to September 3,
2004. How? I have no idea!

There is also a motion that adds new members to the relocation
committee (which was to report at the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting,
but apparently did not.)

************************************************** *************
August 29, 2004: EB 05-05 (Marinello): The USCF Executive Board
authorizes including four additional members to the Relocation
Committee for the purpose of assisting in the evaluation process of the
bids. The four new members will be as follows:
Chairman of the LMA Committee, Leroy Dubeck
Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee. Stan Booz & Jon Haskel
USCF Vice-president Steve Shutt"
PASSED Without Objection
************************************************** *************

I have three questions at this point:

1) what bids, if any, were received by July 1, 2004? (the deadline of
EB motion 04-40)

2) what bids, if any, were received after July 1, 2004 and by September
3, 2004? (the new deadline given by the USCF's President at the 2004
Board of Delegates meeting)

3) What recommendation, if any, did the Relocation Committee give
regarding the move? If they did give a recommendation, when and where
was it made? Is this mentioned anywhere in the official record? Is
so, where please?

The September 23-24 USCF Executive Board meeting was held in
Crossville. IMO, the minutes give a very favorable impression of
Crossville.

The next mention I can find regarding Crossville is the October 17,
2004 Executive Board meeting. Please note that we are now more than a
month past the deadline of September 3, 2004, and more than three
months past the July 1, 2004 deadline of EB motion 04-40.

A motion was made to delay the decision (one that was originally
approved by the USCF Executive Board more than a year earlier, and was
EXPLICITLY approved by the 2003 Board of Delegates) to move for two
weeks. It failed. And, in my opinion IT SHOULD HAVE FAILED. A motion
to move to Crossville passed (AGAIN!!).

IMO, the reopening of the bidding should have never happened. There is
nothing in the record that I can find that explains why the Board
reopened the bidding.

Why was the bidding reopened? There must have been a COMPELLING
reason. What was it, and where can I find it discussed in the official
record please?

Again, I find the overturning WITHOUT OBJECTION (no official
discussion) of a process set into motion by a prior board's motion,
one explicitly ratified by the 2003 Board of Delegates, simply amazing.
I'm very much hoping I'm missing something here, because I am very
concerned by how this process has been handled.

Best regards,

George John

USCF Delegate, Texas

************************************************** ************

EB 05-14 (Brady and Schultz): Considering the AF4C Foundation has
requested we delay our decision for two weeks and that AF4C has
demonstrated good faith in the past by relieving USCF of the burden of
our having to fund an annual US championship thus saving us a hundred
plus thousand dollars annually, that when we failed to merge
with AF4C we told them we still wanted to find ways to work with them,
and that AF4C has stated they will know in two weeks whether they will
buy the Liberty, NY building and as a result offer us free office space
for five years with an option to buy at the end of that period,
considering all this, we delay our relocation decision for two weeks.
FAILED 3-4 In favor: Bauer, Brady and Schultz; Opposed: Marinello,
Hanke, Shutt and Shaughnessy

EB 05-15 (Hanke): The USCF will move its national office to Crossville,
Tennessee in accordance with the previous Executive Board vote in 2003.
Negotiations with the Crossville bank and the architect will begin as
soon as possible. USCF will complete its
move into the free interim office space in Crossville by March 31,
2005. PASSED

4-1-2 In favor: Marinello, Hanke, Shutt and Shaughnessy; Opposed
Brady; Abstain: Bauer and Schultz.
************************************************** ***************

  #2   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 06:31 AM
Tom Klem
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don't worry George, the plan has been all along to delay whatever the
delegates and the other board members want, until a location next to Bill
Goichberg's house can be acquired.

sheesh

IS delay, foot dragging, obfuscation, lying ... excuse me ... any of these
sound familiar to you George?


--
Tom Klem

"If they say, 'It ain't about sex ... it's about sex', if they say, 'It's
not about the money ... it's about the money'"
---The Honorable Senator Dale Bumpers, Senate Impeachment trial of Bill
Clinton.


"George John" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dear Bill Goichberg,

[Note: this has been posted to both rgcp and the Yahoo FIDE-Chess
Group]

Regarding the Crossville move, I thought I would do some extensive fact
checking of the official record. I was honestly surprised by what I
found, and am now very concerned about how this process has been
handled.

This is long post, but it think it's worth pulling together all the
official information surrounding the Crossville move. Any quoting from
the minutes starts and ends with a line of asterisks.

The Crossville move was approved at the June 9, 2003 Executive Board
meeting. The motion to reopen bidding was made without objection (!!)
March 17, 2004. But, it's very interesting to see what happened in
between these two motions, and after.

************************************************** ****
2003 EB Meeting, June 9, 2003

EB 03-27 (McCrary): The Executive Board authorizes the move of the USCF
office to Crossville, Tennessee. The Executive Director is authorized
to execute the necessary arrangements. PASSED 5-1-1; Brady opposed and
Wagner abstaining.

EB 03-28 (McCrary) Previous Board motions regarding moving the USCF
office are rescinded. PASSED 6-0-1, Denker abstaining
************************************************** ****

WRT to my previous comment about the Board of Delegates ratifying the
motions of the EB you said: "They always do, but it's a bit misleading
to suggest that they specifically approved of the selection of
Crossville, they weren't asked. It is fair to say that no motion was
passed reflecting Delegate objection."

If you are referring to the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting, you are
probably correct. But, I think that fact is irrelevant. Let's examine
the record of the 2003 Board of Delegates Meeting which was held in
August of 2003, where the move to Crossville was EXPLICITLY discussed
in great detail. I think the record shows the Board of Delegates were
asked about the move to Crossville and they answered "YES".

The full text is below. My summary is as follows:

1) The minutes of the June 9th, 2003 meeting were distributed to the
delegates. President John McCrary read the motions. He and Harry
Sabine presented information about the planned move to Crossville.

2) The actions of the Executive Board were ratified.

3) The move to Crossville was discussed during President John McCrary's
and VP of Finance Frank Camaratta's reports to the 2003 Board of
Delegates.

4) The delegates were given a one page summary of the capital budget
for the possible move to Crossville. This budget was explained to the
Board of Delegates by Mike Nolan and Frank Camaratta.

5) The 2003 Board of Delegates approved the Crossville move planning
budget.

************************************************** *******
2003 USCF Board of Delegates Meeting, August 2003

Next to be considered was the ratification of the actions of the
Executive Board (EB) since the last Delegates' Meeting. Minutes of a
conference call held on June 9 were handed out to the Delegates and
were added to the actions to be ratified by Harold Winston. President
John McCrary read the motions as well. He and Harry Sabine
presented information about the planned move to Crossville, TN.
Brochures about Crossville and Cumberland County were available to
everyone. President McCrary noted that neither the sale of the building
in New Windsor nor the move have been finalized as yet. Ralph Bowman
and Larry Cohen participated in the discussion after which the motion
passed.

DM03-07 - ADM 03-07 (Harold Winston, IL): The delegates ratify all
actions of the Executive Board appearing in Minutes published in
Executive Board Newsletters and the Delegates' Call, since the
conclusion of the 2002 Delegates' Meeting and the minutes of the
Executive Board conference call of June 9, 2003 that have been
distributed to the USCF Delegates at this meeting. PASSED

President John McCrary's Report

The best scenario is that we complete the sale of the building and the
move to Crossville successfully, reduce costs, establish strong
partnerships with other groups, complete necessary improvements in
office services, and remake the USCF office.

VP of Finance Frank Camarrata's Report

He then explained the financial aspects of the Crossville relocation.
The USCF will be receiving three acres of land in Crossville on the
condition that the building for the USCF office is to be located on
that site. The intent is to use the value of the land as a down payment
on a 15 year loan in an amount sufficient to build the new building and
make the necessary equipment upgrades. Construction of the building
must begin within 12 months from when the USCF receives the deed to the
land. Until the new building is completed the USCF has been offered the
use of a large building (the Dennison building), including maintenance
and utilities, rent free. The cost of the building is estimated at
about $500,000. It is located in an area where the land value is
expected to increase.

FY2004 Budget

Delegates were given a printed report that included both as well as a
one page summary of the capital planning budget for the move to
Crossville, which will be considered separately after the approval of
the budget for operations.

Mike Nolan pointed out that we are already nearly three months in to
this fiscal year and we have already incurred significant expenses. He
and Frank Camaratta then talked about the capital budget for the
possible move to Crossville, which was distributed to the Delegates.

DM03-13 - NDM 03-40 - (Frank Camaratta, AL): Moved, that the planning
budget for the Crossville move be adopted.

PASSED
************************************************** *******

In summary, it is clear to me that a move to Crossville was explicitly
discussed and approved by the 2003 Board of Delegates (assuming certain
conditions were met such as the successful sale of the New Windsor
building).

On March 17, 2004 a motion to reconsider the move passed without
objection. How could something this important, passed by a prior board
and sanctioned by the Board of Delegates, be overturned in this manner,
without any official discussion or explanation AMAZES ME I am very
disappointed to see this.

Please note this motion has a bidding deadline of July 1, 2004. We
will learn later this deadline was moved to September 3, 2004, but
it's not clear to me when and how. It also calls for a relocation
committee to give a report to the 2004 Board of Delegate for
ratification by the Board of Delegates.

NOWHERE in the minutes for the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting can if
find any mention of a report of the relocation committee nor any
sanction by the Board of Delegates of this committee's report which
was to be presented at this meeting.

CLEARLY, the requirements of EB 04-40 were not met. Fortunately, this
was an Executive Board motion and not Board of Delegate motion, so the
next Board probably was in its rights to clean up this (IMHO) mess;
although, that's not totally clear to me given the fact this motion
did receive (in this instance implicit, rather than explicit) Board of
Delegate approval.

We now turn to the March 17, 2004 motion, mentioned near the top of
this posting, where the motion made by the prior Board to move to
Crossville, one explicitly approved by the 2003 USCF Board of
Delegates, was at least partially overturned. It does the following:

1) reopens the bidding for a new location
2) specifies a bidding deadline of July 1, 2004
3) creates a Executive Board Relocation Committee which will evaluate
the move.
3) calls for this relocation committee to present their recommendations
for ratification at the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting

************************************************** **
MARCH 17, 2004

EB 04-40 (Frank Brady) The relocation plans of the USCF are to be
reconsidered. A Relocation Committee to evaluate a move will be
appointed by the EB. Bidding instructions for sites interested in
housing the USCF offices are to be made available by April 15 in a
special delegate mailing and also will be posted on www.uschess.org and
other websites and newsgroups. All bidders must have their bids
finalized by July 1. The relocation committee will present their
recommendations for ratification at the August USCF Delegates meeting.
PASSED Without Objection

EB 04-41 (Frank Brady) The new relocation committee will be chaired by
USCF President, Beatriz Marinello. Other committee members a USCF
Vice President-Finance Tim Hanke; Mike Carr (Southern California) and
GM Ilya Gurevich (New York). Dave Knudson was subsequently added and
accepted the appointment). PASSED Without Objection
************************************************** *******

We now turn to the minutes of the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting. At
this meeting the recommendations of the relocation committee was to be
given forratification by the Board of Delegates. I can find NOWHERE in
the minutes where this happened.

I did find the following in the President's report to the 2004 Board of
Delegates

************************************************** ****************
She described USCF's primary goal this fiscal year as the relocation
of the USCF office. There is a relocation committee in place and a
deadline of 09/03/04 to submit bids.
************************************************** ****************

So 04-40's deadline of July 1, 2004 has now moved to September 3,
2004. How? I have no idea!

There is also a motion that adds new members to the relocation
committee (which was to report at the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting,
but apparently did not.)

************************************************** *************
August 29, 2004: EB 05-05 (Marinello): The USCF Executive Board
authorizes including four additional members to the Relocation
Committee for the purpose of assisting in the evaluation process of the
bids. The four new members will be as follows:
Chairman of the LMA Committee, Leroy Dubeck
Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee. Stan Booz & Jon Haskel
USCF Vice-president Steve Shutt"
PASSED Without Objection
************************************************** *************

I have three questions at this point:

1) what bids, if any, were received by July 1, 2004? (the deadline of
EB motion 04-40)

2) what bids, if any, were received after July 1, 2004 and by September
3, 2004? (the new deadline given by the USCF's President at the 2004
Board of Delegates meeting)

3) What recommendation, if any, did the Relocation Committee give
regarding the move? If they did give a recommendation, when and where
was it made? Is this mentioned anywhere in the official record? Is
so, where please?

The September 23-24 USCF Executive Board meeting was held in
Crossville. IMO, the minutes give a very favorable impression of
Crossville.

The next mention I can find regarding Crossville is the October 17,
2004 Executive Board meeting. Please note that we are now more than a
month past the deadline of September 3, 2004, and more than three
months past the July 1, 2004 deadline of EB motion 04-40.

A motion was made to delay the decision (one that was originally
approved by the USCF Executive Board more than a year earlier, and was
EXPLICITLY approved by the 2003 Board of Delegates) to move for two
weeks. It failed. And, in my opinion IT SHOULD HAVE FAILED. A motion
to move to Crossville passed (AGAIN!!).

IMO, the reopening of the bidding should have never happened. There is
nothing in the record that I can find that explains why the Board
reopened the bidding.

Why was the bidding reopened? There must have been a COMPELLING
reason. What was it, and where can I find it discussed in the official
record please?

Again, I find the overturning WITHOUT OBJECTION (no official
discussion) of a process set into motion by a prior board's motion,
one explicitly ratified by the 2003 Board of Delegates, simply amazing.
I'm very much hoping I'm missing something here, because I am very
concerned by how this process has been handled.

Best regards,

George John

USCF Delegate, Texas

************************************************** ************

EB 05-14 (Brady and Schultz): Considering the AF4C Foundation has
requested we delay our decision for two weeks and that AF4C has
demonstrated good faith in the past by relieving USCF of the burden of
our having to fund an annual US championship thus saving us a hundred
plus thousand dollars annually, that when we failed to merge
with AF4C we told them we still wanted to find ways to work with them,
and that AF4C has stated they will know in two weeks whether they will
buy the Liberty, NY building and as a result offer us free office space
for five years with an option to buy at the end of that period,
considering all this, we delay our relocation decision for two weeks.
FAILED 3-4 In favor: Bauer, Brady and Schultz; Opposed: Marinello,
Hanke, Shutt and Shaughnessy

EB 05-15 (Hanke): The USCF will move its national office to Crossville,
Tennessee in accordance with the previous Executive Board vote in 2003.
Negotiations with the Crossville bank and the architect will begin as
soon as possible. USCF will complete its
move into the free interim office space in Crossville by March 31,
2005. PASSED

4-1-2 In favor: Marinello, Hanke, Shutt and Shaughnessy; Opposed
Brady; Abstain: Bauer and Schultz.
************************************************** ***************



  #3   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 07:35 AM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

All,

FYI, this discussion has continued between me and Bill Goichberg on the
Yahoo FIDE-Chess group. If anyone asks me to do so, I will copy and
paste from that forum to here. Based on what Bill has posted there, my
concerns are even greater than before.

Best regards,

George John

  #4   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 11:11 AM
Spam Scone
 
Posts: n/a
Default


George John wrote:
All,

FYI, this discussion has continued between me and Bill Goichberg on

the
Yahoo FIDE-Chess group. If anyone asks me to do so, I will copy and
paste from that forum to here. Based on what Bill has posted there,

my
concerns are even greater than before.

Best regards,

George John


Please post it here, George.

  #5   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 03:42 PM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

THE NEXT USCF ELECTION

Dear George John,

It's a pity that you support the move to Cross-to-Bear.

My understanding is that there was no budget at the time the vote was taken to
move there. The idea was and remains not to cost out elements in advance but to
improvise as one goes along. They are only now costing out different elements
of the move AFTER the vote and refuse to post the numbers because won't be much
left in the kitty after all is said and done.

I have no objection to improvisation. Quite the reverse. But cost out as best
you can before you make such a decision.

The move to Crossville will prove to be the Mississippization of U.S. chess.
How Steve Doyle and Leroy Dubeck could favor this awful decision to abandon the
center of chess -- the real world of chess -- for a place like Crossville is
ALMOST beyond me.

You say a commitment was made, but that is being argued right now by both sides
parsing the meaning of Delelgate resolutions. I'm not sure a commitment that
rises to a moral level was made, but I agree the Crossville folks had reason
to imagine the USCF would be burying its future in the Cumberland Gap.

I find myself in the hideous position of agreeing with nearly every word
written by Bill Goichberg except on the subject of conflict of interest, which
I feel he must address more adequately than he has hitherto. IT WOULD ALSO BE
SMART POLITICS ON BILL'S PART TO WORK OUT A STRONG, BINDING PUBLIC POSITION
BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS IT WILL BE AN ISSUE THAT YOUR SIDE WILL USE TO CRUCIFY
HIM, IF POSSIBLE.

The truth is that the decline of the Federation is almost entirely related to
rampant personal agendas among people calling themselves "volunteers." Everyone
is guilty.

Therefore, conflict of interest is paramount in my scale of values, and I could
not support Bill Goichberg unless he accepts the idea that it is ultimately at
the bottom of the crisis.

On the other hand, how can I support anyone favoring the effective destruction
of the USCF by moving to Crossville? Yipes! I might just end up supporting Joel
Channing and Sam Sloan, who at least will let us all know what is going on
behind closed doors.

POLITICAL HANDICAPPING: I suspect that Elizabeth Shaughnessy is finished
politically. Frankly George, I don't see you making it either.

The strongest candidates in term of electoral possibilites on your slate are
probably Steve Shutt and Randy Bauer, one of whom is likely to win. The
strongest on the opposing slate are likely Bill Goichberg. Joel Channing and
Greg Shahade, who will win the fresh air and pleasant young man vote. Bob
Tanner, who is pro-drug testing in deed if not in words, must be opposed on the
Goichberg slate.

Steve Doyle, who undoubtedly is siding with the move to Crossville because he
wants to be with the winners and remain in FIDE, has committed what is probably
a political blunder. I agree that Dr. Dubeck could reasonably be expected to
shepherd through your ticket or slate in the days before OMOV, but I think Bill
will simply prove too strong because of the huge number of players who regard
him highly and will pull in the other members of the slate.

This could be a 5,000-plus voter election. One tends to forget that back
in 1993,
when I worked to defeat Bill Goichberg, that Denis Barry, a strong candidate,
barely won even within the limited franchise of the delegates and voting
members.

Where will I ultimately stand? With the Goichberg slate (except for Tanner)
IF the issue of conflict of interest is addressed unmistakably. If not, then it
will be Channing, Sloan and anyone else who comes out in favor of the USCF
publicly announcing and acting that it will not accept or abide by FIDE's drug
testing regime by sending a letter to the FIDE nations announcing that the USCF
formally rejects drug testing and will not abide by FIDE's regulations. Sam
Sloan is the only one with the guts to do it. This declaration will create a
crisis because FIDE cannot officially permit a Federation to remain a member
that flagrantly rejects its regulations.

Larry Evans noted in SUSAN POLGAR VS. FIDE (see worldchessnetwork.com on
1/24/05): "In 2004 Susan led the USA women's team to a silver medal. She was
the individual high-scorer on board one, and then was singled out for a
humiliating 'random' dope test which she dared not refuse on pain of having her
team's result erased. Thus FIDE made the USCF eat crow for publicly taking a
stand against dope testing."

The ACP and most grandmasters are on the verge of revolt because of this
very issue. GM Nigel Short wrote recently in Britain's SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: "The
only thing one must never do, God forbid, is to refuse to submit to the
humiliation of a drug test. For that, you will be punished no matter what. Of
course, caffeine - that evil substance - does improve concentration, but so
does having a good night's sleep. Perhaps napping should be banned as well."

__________________________________________________ ______________
"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.


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 07:23 PM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Will do, probably no later than the end of the day.
Best regards,

George John

  #7   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 08:19 PM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Parrthenon wrote:

Larry,

[SNIP]

My understanding is that there was no budget at the time the vote was

taken to move there.

That depends upon which vote you are talking about. A distinct
Crossville move capital budget was given to the 2003 Board of
Delegates, which they approved. I assume you are talking about the
motion passed by a subsequent Board in October, 2004.

I have no objection to improvisation. Quite the reverse. But cost out

as best
you can before you make such a decision.


Absolutely! Which is what was done in 2003, right? I do not know if
the EB used this budget in their deliberations in October, 2004 or not,
but they should have, or an updated version.

[SNIP]

The move to Crossville will prove to be the Mississippization of U.S.

chess.
How Steve Doyle and Leroy Dubeck could favor this awful decision to

abandon the
center of chess -- the real world of chess -- for a place like

Crossville is
ALMOST beyond me.


The decision to move to Crossville was made by the McCrary Board in
June, 2003, explicitly presented to the 2003 Board of Delegates in
August, and was approved by them. The move has been backed by two very
different USCF Executive Boards and the Board of Delegates.

The USCF posted a press release about the move in 2003. Please see
United States Chess Federation Announces Relocation at
http://www.uschess.org/news/press/uspr0320.html

You say a commitment was made, but that is being argued right now by

both sides parsing the meaning of Delelgate resolutions.

I can't see how the Executive Board motion, passed at the June, 2003
meeting and approved in August by the 2003 USCF Board of Delegates,
could be much clearer. I quote:

"EB 03-27 (McCrary): The Executive Board authorizes the move of the
USCF office to Crossville, Tennessee. The Executive Director is
authorized to execute the necessary arrangements."


I'm not sure a commitment that
rises to a moral level was made, but I agree the Crossville folks

had reason
to imagine the USCF would be burying its future in the Cumberland

Gap.

Reasonable people may differ on the morals of this, but I strongly
believe that USCF should honor its publicly made commitment to the
community of Crossville if it can reasonably do so. Failing to do so
may gravely injure the reputation of the USCF.

[SNIP]

The truth is that the decline of the Federation is almost entirely

related to
rampant personal agendas among people calling themselves

"volunteers." Everyone is guilty.

Therefore, conflict of interest is paramount in my scale of values,

and I could not support Bill Goichberg unless he accepts the idea
that it is ultimately at the bottom of the crisis.

I don't know if EVERYONE is guilty, but I do strongly agree with you
about what a major problem conflict of interest has been for the USCF.
It's why I tend to NOT favor candidates who make a substantial amount
of their income on chess.


On the other hand, how can I support anyone favoring the effective

destruction of the USCF by moving to Crossville? Yipes!

If you can provide conclusive proof that the move to Crossville will
destroy the USCF, I will withdraw my support for the move. Clearly,
it's not in the best interests of Crossville for the USCF to be
destroyed. They want their businesses to succeed. So, if you and
others can prove that the move will destroy the USCF, they will
probably gladly let us out provided we reimburse them for their
trouble.

What is your proof please?

I might just end up supporting Joel
Channing and Sam Sloan, who at least will let us all know what is

going on
behind closed doors.


Which could get us into huge legal and other trouble. I believe in
open governance, but not 100% open. That said, the Board should go
into closed session only when absolutely necessary.
[SNIP, election predictions]

Best regards,

George John

  #8   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 10:32 PM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

All,

As requested, I reposting messages from a discussion between Bill
Goichberg and me on the Yahoo FIDE-Chess group. The following if
Bill's reply to my initial posting.

Best regards,

George John
************************************************** **********************

From [email protected] Wed Jan 26 21:50:12 2005


In a message dated 1/26/2005 4:41:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Bill,

[Note: this has been posted to both rgcp and the Yahoo FIDE-Chess
Group]

Regarding the Crossville move, I thought I would do some extensive
fact checking of the official record. I was honestly surprised by
what I found, and am now very concerned about how this process has
been handled.

This is long post, but it think it's worth pulling together all the
official information surrounding the Crossville move. Any quoting
from the minutes starts and ends with a line of asterisks.

The Crossville move was approved at the June 9, 2003 Executive Board
meeting. The motion to reopen bidding was made without objection
(!!) March 17, 2004. But, it's very interesting to see what
happened in between these two motions, and after.

************************************************** ****
2003 EB Meeting, June 9, 2003

EB 03-27 (McCrary): The Executive Board authorizes the move of the
USCF office to Crossville, Tennessee. The Executive Director is
authorized to execute the necessary arrangements. PASSED 5-1-1;
Brady opposed and Wagner abstaining.

EB 03-28 (McCrary) Previous Board motions regarding moving the USCF
office are rescinded. PASSED 6-0-1, Denker abstaining
************************************************** ****

WRT to my previous comment about the Board of Delegates ratifying
the motions of the EB you said: "They always do, but it's a bit
misleading to suggest that they specifically approved of the
selection of Crossville, they weren't asked. It is fair to say that
no motion was passed reflecting Delegate objection."

If you are referring to the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting, you are
probably correct. But, I think that fact is irrelevant. Let's
examine the record of the 2003 Board of Delegates Meeting which was
held in August of 2003, where the move to Crossville was EXPLICITLY
discussed in great detail. I think the record shows the Board of
Delegates were asked about the move to Crossville and they
answered "YES".

The full text is below. My summary is as follows:

1) The minutes of the June 9th, 2003 meeting were distributed to the
delegates. President John McCrary read the motions. He and Harry
Sabine presented information about the planned move to Crossville.

2) The actions of the Executive Board were ratified.

3) The move to Crossville was discussed during President John
McCrary's and VP of Finance Frank Camaratta's reports to the 2003
Board of Delegates.

4) The delegates were given a one page summary of the capital budget
for the possible move to Crossville. This budget was explained to
the Board of Delegates by Mike Nolan and Frank Camaratta.

5) The 2003 Board of Delegates approved the Crossville move planning
budget.



Interesting. This does strengthen the argument that the Delegates
accepted the move there, but it does not create a binding mandate that
the Board could not overrule.

I attended the LMA workshop in Los Angeles, and recall that after the
then recent revelations that USCF had lost a lot of money in the past
fiscal year, many people expressed doubt regarding whether USCF could
afford the move. Al Lawrence led a discussion which looked at move
costs and I believe concluded that we could probably pay for the move,
but would have virtually no money left, either in our operating account
or the LMA.


************************************************** *******
2003 USCF Board of Delegates Meeting, August 2003

Next to be considered was the ratification of the actions of the
Executive Board (EB) since the last Delegates' Meeting. Minutes of a
conference call held on June 9 were handed out to the Delegates and
were added to the actions to be ratified by Harold Winston.
President John McCrary read the motions as well. He and Harry Sabine
presented information about the planned move to Crossville, TN.
Brochures about Crossville and Cumberland County were available to
everyone. President McCrary noted that neither the sale of the
building in New Windsor nor the move have been finalized as yet.
Ralph Bowman and Larry Cohen participated in the discussion after
which the motion passed.

DM03-07 - ADM 03-07 (Harold Winston, IL): The delegates ratify all
actions of the Executive Board appearing in Minutes published in
Executive Board Newsletters and the Delegates' Call, since the
conclusion of the 2002 Delegates' Meeting and the minutes of the
Executive Board conference call of June 9, 2003 that have been
distributed to the USCF Delegates at this meeting. PASSED

President John McCrary's Report

The best scenario is that we complete the sale of the building and
the move to Crossville successfully, reduce costs, establish strong
partnerships with other groups, complete necessary improvements in
office services, and remake the USCF office.

VP of Finance Frank Camarrata's Report

He then explained the financial aspects of the Crossville
relocation. The USCF will be receiving three acres of land in
Crossville on the condition that the building for the USCF office is
to be located on that site. The intent is to use the value of the
land as a down payment on a 15 year loan in an amount sufficient to
build the new building and make the necessary equipment upgrades.
Construction of the building must begin within 12 months from when
the USCF receives the deed to the land. Until the new building is
completed the USCF has been offered the use of a large building (the
Dennison building), including maintenance and utilities, rent free.
The cost of the building is estimated at about $500,000. It is
located in an area where the land value is expected to increase.



From what I have been told by several who are familiar with

construction costs, the real cost often ends up being much more than
the estimated cost, sometimes double.


FY2004 Budget

Delegates were given a printed report that included both as well as
a one page summary of the capital planning budget for the move to
Crossville, which will be considered separately after the approval
of the budget for operations.

Mike Nolan pointed out that we are already nearly three months in to
this fiscal year and we have already incurred significant expenses.
He and Frank Camaratta then talked about the capital budget for the
possible move to Crossville, which was distributed to the Delegates.

DM03-13 - NDM 03-40 - (Frank Camaratta, AL): Moved, that the
planning budget for the Crossville move be adopted.

PASSED
************************************************** *******

In summary, it is clear to me that a move to Crossville was
explicitly discussed and approved by the 2003 Board of Delegates
(assuming certain conditions were met such as the successful sale of
the New Windsor building).

On March 17, 2004 a motion to reconsider the move passed without
objection. How could something this important, passed by a prior
board and sanctioned by the Board of Delegates, be overturned in
this manner, without any official discussion or explanation AMAZES
ME I am very disappointed to see this.



The current Board has not made passing motions to reflect its thinking
a priority. They opposed Crossville from the start, largely because of
its location, but according to the Crossville people, this fact was not
communicated to them. Beatriz says that she told Sabine this, but I am
not sure when this happened.


Please note this motion has a bidding deadline of July 1, 2004. We
will learn later this deadline was moved to September 3, 2004, but
it's not clear to me when and how. It also calls for a relocation
committee to give a report to the 2004 Board of Delegate for
ratification by the Board of Delegates.

NOWHERE in the minutes for the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting can
if find any mention of a report of the relocation committee nor any
sanction by the Board of Delegates of this committee's report which
was to be presented at this meeting.



The Board made its decision for Crossville on Oct 17 without calling
for a Committee vote. Three members of the Committee had already sent
emails to the Board supporting Erik Anderson's request for a two week
delay to speak to Alan Gerry.

When the Relocation Committee was first appointed, Beatriz and possibly
other Board members pledged to abide by its decision regarding where to
move, which in my opinion would have given the Committee too much
power. In the end, not only was its decision not supported, but it was
bypassed! At least one Committee member I spoke to is quite resentful
about this.


CLEARLY, the requirements of EB 04-40 were not met. Fortunately,
this was an Executive Board motion and not Board of Delegate motion,
so the next Board probably was in its rights to clean up this
(IMHO) mess; although, that's not totally clear to me given the fact
this motion did receive (in this instance implicit, rather than
explicit) Board of Delegate approval.

We now turn to the March 17, 2004 motion, mentioned near the top of
this posting, where the motion made by the prior Board to move to
Crossville, one explicitly approved by the 2003 USCF Board of
Delegates, was at least partially overturned. It does the
following:

1) reopens the bidding for a new location
2) specifies a bidding deadline of July 1, 2004
3) creates a Executive Board Relocation Committee which will
evaluate the move.
3) calls for this relocation committee to present their
recommendations for ratification at the 2004 Board of Delegates
meeting

************************************************** **
MARCH 17, 2004

EB 04-40 (Frank Brady) The relocation plans of the USCF are to be
reconsidered. A Relocation Committee to evaluate a move will be
appointed by the EB. Bidding instructions for sites interested in
housing the USCF offices are to be made available by April 15 in a
special delegate mailing and also will be posted on www.uschess.org
and other websites and newsgroups. All bidders must have their bids
finalized by July 1. The relocation committee will present their
recommendations for ratification at the August USCF Delegates
meeting. PASSED Without Objection



Strangely, the Board appears to have forgotten about everything in this
motion after the first two sentences. I am not sure that was even aware
of the rest of it until well after April 15. No bidding instructions,
special delegate mailing, or relocation posts were ever discussed, and
no July 1 deadline ever mentioned again.


EB 04-41 (Frank Brady) The new relocation committee will be chaired
by USCF President, Beatriz Marinello. Other committee members a
USCF Vice President-Finance Tim Hanke; Mike Carr (Southern
California) and GM Ilya Gurevich (New York). Dave Knudson was
subsequently added and accepted the appointment). PASSED Without
Objection



This one, on the other hand was quickly implemented, with some fanfare
about what a wonderful committee it would be; Beatriz seemed to believe
that the committee would avoid a political situation in which competing
groups would lobby the Board.

To fill in your timeline with some more info, about June the Crossville
Chamber of Commerce and Mayor's Office saw the call for bids on our
website and were upset, saying USCF hadn't told them we had changed our
mind. Beatriz then said that she had told Sabine. I spoke to both
Sabine and to Beth of the C of C, and both suggested that USCF owed it
to Crossville to at least show up and discuss in person why the move
was off.

They wanted the Board to meet there, which at that time was out of the
question and supported probably only by Shutt. They then suggested that
the President and ED come to Crossville to talk. Beatriz and I were
willing, but on the day I was going to buy my plane tickets for a visit
July 11-12, she changed her mind, fearing the visit would only
encourage them into thinking they had a chance, which they did not. I
thought that we owed them a visit.

After that we received the threatening letter from the Crossville city
attorney, and our attorney said that we were not legally obligated to
move, only to reimburse Crossville for expenses they reasonably
incurred in reliance of our vote to move.

************************************************** *******

We now turn to the minutes of the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting.
At this meeting the recommendations of the relocation committee was
to be given forratification by the Board of Delegates. I can find
NOWHERE in the minutes where this happened.



I doubt that any Board member was still aware that the Board voted for
this to happen.


I did find the following in the President's report to the 2004 Board
of Delegates

************************************************** ****************
She described USCF's primary goal this fiscal year as the relocation
of the USCF office. There is a relocation committee in place and a
deadline of 09/03/04 to submit bids.
************************************************** ****************

So 04-40's deadline of July 1, 2004 has now moved to September 3,
2004. How? I have no idea!



Was the new deadline established at a conference call? I'm not sure. It
may have been a Presidential decision.


There is also a motion that adds new members to the relocation
committee (which was to report at the 2004 Board of Delegates
meeting, but apparently did not.)

************************************************** *************
August 29, 2004: EB 05-05 (Marinello): The USCF Executive Board
authorizes including four additional members to the Relocation
Committee for the purpose of assisting in the evaluation process of
the bids. The four new members will be as follows:
Chairman of the LMA Committee, Leroy Dubeck
Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee. Stan Booz &Jon Haskel
USCF Vice-president Steve Shutt"
PASSED Without Objection
************************************************** *************

I have three questions at this point:

1) what bids, if any, were received by July 1, 2004? (the deadline
of EB motion 04-40)



None. The July 1 deadline was never announced except in the minutes.


2) what bids, if any, were received after July 1, 2004 and by
September 3, 2004? (the new deadline given by the USCF's President
at the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting)



If I remember them all, Lindsborg, Rochester, Grapevine, Ellenville,
Louisville, Campbell Hall.

We received nothing from Crossville; they relied on their previous year
bid, and showed us a different temporary building when we were there
Sept 23-24.

Palm Beach Gardens asked for more time, so the deadline was extended to
Oct 10. This proved insufficient time for them and they didn't bid, but
I used that time to find the Liberty Bid.


3) What recommendation, if any, did the Relocation Committee give
regarding the move? If they did give a recommendation, when and
where was it made? Is this mentioned anywhere in the official
record? Is so, where please?


The chair didn't ask them to vote, so they didn't.


The September 23-24 USCF Executive Board meeting was held in
Crossville. IMO, the minutes give a very favorable impression of
Crossville.



Most Board members seemed impressed and surprised by the wonderful
hospitality of the Crossville people. I was impressed but not
surprised, and suspect that if the Board had gone to Lindsborg they
would have been treated the same way.


The next mention I can find regarding Crossville is the October 17,
2004 Executive Board meeting. Please note that we are now more than
a month past the deadline of September 3, 2004, and more than three
months past the July 1, 2004 deadline of EB motion 04-40.



It may not show in the minutes, but at the Crossville meeting, the
Board decided to make its decision on relocation by Nov 1. This is
important, because when Erik Anderson then said he needed until Oct 31
to make a proposal, he was refused.


A motion was made to delay the decision (one that was originally
approved by the USCF Executive Board more than a year earlier, and
was EXPLICITLY approved by the 2003 Board of Delegates) to move for
two weeks. It failed. And, in my opinion IT SHOULD HAVE FAILED. A
motion to move to Crossville passed (AGAIN!!).



It was outrageous that the motion failed, that the Board insulted our
best sponsor, that the Board didn't care to wait two weeks to hear what
a billionaire working with that sponsor might offer. This was probably
the most crucial vote in the history of the USCF, and making the best
decision for the Federation was far more important than supporting the
principle that we had to go to Crossville because we voted to go there
the previous year.


IMO, the reopening of the bidding should have never happened. There
is nothing in the record that I can find that explains why the Board
reopened the bidding.

Why was the bidding reopened? There must have been a COMPELLING
reason. What was it, and where can I find it discussed in the
official record please?



I don't believe the Board ever put anything on record, and they
certainly should have. Probably the closest you can find to anything
official is the ED report: "Most on the current Board appear to feel
the Crossville location is too isolated."


Again, I find the overturning WITHOUT OBJECTION (no official
discussion) of a process set into motion by a prior board's motion,
one explicitly ratified by the 2003 Board of Delegates, simply
amazing. I'm very much hoping I'm missing something here, because I
am very concerned by how this process has been handled.



If you look into other matters, you may find a rather disorganized
process there as well. Two examples that annoyed me:

In the three days prior to the Delegates meeting, I asked Beatriz
repeatedly to meet with the Board to discuss my proposals to lower dues
and other issues, but was always turned down. I had emailed the Board
many times about the dues, presenting many statistics, and most seemed
favorable to my ideas, but Beatriz was unsure. It would have been very
desirable to have a good discussion and try to arrive at a united
position to recommend to the Delegates, but she could never find the
time. I brought the matter up at the Finance Workshop, and we got a lot
of input, followed by a meeting involving Hanke, Shutt, Nolan and
myself which made revisions along the lines suggested. Then at the
Delegates meeting came the big surprise, Beatriz and Bauer spoke out
against lowering the dues and the Delegates referred the matter to the
Board, pointing out that we could use promotional memberships to lower
the dues. After the meetings I emailed the Board suggesting a
compromise, that we lower dues half as much as my previous suggestion.
They didn't want to talk about it and I had to give up.

This is also probably the first Board ever to exclude the ED from most
discussions regarding when and where the next Board meeting would be.
Their September meeting was held on the only weekend that was a problem
for me over an eight week period, but they had already held their
secret scheduling meeting and I was told the date wouldn't change. It
was very inconvenient for me and my family, but I squeezed in the
meeting. But when they scheduled a December meeting for an impossible
date without asking me, that was too much and I didn't attend.

Bill Goichberg


Best regards,

George John

USCF Delegate, Texas

************************************************** ************

EB 05-14 (Brady and Schultz): Considering the AF4C Foundation has
requested we delay our decision for two weeks and that AF4C has
demonstrated good faith in the past by relieving USCF of the burden
of our having to fund an annual US championship thus saving us a
hundred plus thousand dollars annually, that when we failed to merge
with AF4C we told them we still wanted to find ways to work with
them, and that AF4C has stated they will know in two weeks whether
they will buy the Liberty, NY building and as a result offer us free
office space for five years with an option to buy at the end of that
period, considering all this, we delay our relocation decision for
two weeks. FAILED 3-4 In favor: Bauer, Brady and Schultz; Opposed:
Marinello, Hanke, Shutt and Shaughnessy

EB 05-15 (Hanke): The USCF will move its national office to
Crossville, Tennessee in accordance with the previous Executive
Board vote in 2003. Negotiations with the Crossville bank and the
architect will begin as soon as possible. USCF will complete its
move into the free interim office space in Crossville by March 31,
2005. PASSED

4-1-2 In favor: Marinello, Hanke, Shutt and Shaughnessy; Opposed
Brady; Abstain: Bauer and Schultz.
************************************************** ***************

[SNIP]

  #9   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 10:43 PM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

All,

This is my reply to Bill Goichberg taken from the Yahoo FIDE-Chess
group.

Best regards,

George John
************************************************** **********************

From: "George John" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:18 am
Subject: [fide-chess] Crossville Move Official Minutes Summary

Bill,

Interesting. This does strengthen the argument that the Delegates

accepted the move there, but it does not create a binding mandate that
the Board could not overrule.


To recap once again:

"EB 03-27 (McCrary): The Executive Board authorizes the move of the
USCF office to Crossville, Tennessee. The Executive Director is
authorized to execute the necessary arrangements. PASSED 5-1-1; Brady
opposed and Wagner abstaining."


This motion was explicitly given to the 2003 Board of Delegates for
their approval, and they approved it. They voted in favor of a capital
budget to move to Crossville.

Unless it could be conclusively demonstrated that the move to
Crossville would be a disaster, I can not see how a future Board could
overturn the will of a prior Board's motion that had also been
approved by the Board of Delegates. Only a later Board of Delegates
body could do that, and I would strongly recommend against doing such a
thing unless again the move could be reasonably demonstrated to be
fatally flawed.

[SNIP]

The current Board has not made passing motions to reflect its thinking

a priority.

They opposed Crossville from the start, largely because of its

location, but according to the Crossville people, this fact was not
communicated to them. Beatriz says that she told Sabine this, but I

am not sure when this happened.

Remember where we talked about Board B replacing Board A's plan with
their own, and Board C replacing Board B's plan with their own? We
simply need to stop doing that?!

Board A (McCrary's) passed a motion to move to Crossville which was
explicitly discussed and approved by the 2003 Board of Delegates along
with a move capital budget plan.

Unless there were a genuine emergency, Board B (Beatriz's) had
insufficiently justification, IMHO, to overturn this prior motion.
Even if the USCF's lawyer and the Bylaws Committee said that they
were technically allowed to do so (were they consulted?), it was
definitely NOT the right thing to do IMHO. I'm very disappointed to
learn of this, especially how it was done (objections procedure).

The Board made its decision for Crossville on Oct 17 without calling

for a Committee vote. Three members of the Committee had already sent
emails to the Board supporting Erik Anderson's request for a two week
delay to speak to Alan Gerry.

When the Relocation Committee was first appointed, Beatriz and

possibly other Board members pledged to abide by its decision regarding
where to move, which in my opinion would have given the Committee too

much power. In the end, not only was its decision not supported, but
it was bypassed! At least one Committee member I spoke to is quite
resentful about this.

Bill, please review motion (04-40) again. The motion had a bidding
deadline of July 1, 2004. The Relocation Committee was to report to
the 2004 Board of Delegates, and their recommendation was to be
approved (or not) by the 2004 Board of Delegates.

I found no record of any of this actually happening in the minutes, and
I think you have just confirmed that it did not happen. I find all of
this greatly disappointing. To summarize once again:

1) The deadline of July 1, 2004 was ignored and reset (when and
how?) to September 3, 2004

2) The Relocation Committee, which was to give its recommendation
to the 2004 Board of Delegates, never gave its report.

3) The 2004 Board of Delegates (obviously) did not review and
approve the Relocation Committee's report (which didn't exist)

And, now you are telling me that the Relocation Committee never
published a report?!! This story is going from bad to worse.

BTW, on what date was the Liberty plan proposed. Certainly, it was
after the July 1, 2004 deadline, yes? Was it after the extended
September 3, 2004 deadline, too?

[SNIP]

Strangely, the Board appears to have forgotten about everything in

this motion after the first two sentences. I am not sure that was even
aware of the rest of it until well after April 15. No bidding

instructions, special delegate mailing, or relocation posts were ever
discussed, and no July 1 deadline ever mentioned again.

Isn't that amazing?!! That's the danger of passing something by
Objections Procedure.

BTW, the intent of this procedure was to handle mundane motions. The
decision to defy the will of a past Board and Board of Delegates is NOT
mundane IMO. I am GREATLY disappointed in Frank Brady for offering a
motion in this manner, and I am GREATLY disappointed in a Board that
allowed such a motion to pass without any formal discussion.

[SNIPPED the motion that named the members of the Relocation Committee]

This one, on the other hand was quickly implemented, with some fanfare

about what a wonderful committee it would be; Beatriz seemed to
believe that the committee would avoid a political situation in which

competing groups would lobby the Board.

And, just to confirm what you have already said, this committee never
presented a report or a recommendation?

To fill in your timeline with some more info, about June the

Crossville Chamber of Commerce and Mayor's Office saw the call for bids
on our website and were upset, saying USCF hadn't told them we had
changed our mind. Beatriz then said that she had told Sabine. I spoke
to both Sabine and to Beth of the C of C, and both suggested that USCF
owed it to Crossville to at least show up and discuss in person why the
move was off.


I can fully understand why the folks in Crossville were upset. I'm
upset, too. I'm very disappointed with our leadership right now.
Fortunately, they finally did the right thing (I hope for the right
reasons), and voted (again) in favor of Crossville, undoing the harm of
a poor motion (04-40) and a poor process which should have never
happened to begin with IMO.

[SNIP]

We now turn to the minutes of the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting.
At this meeting the recommendations of the relocation committee was
to be given forratification by the Board of Delegates. I can find
NOWHERE in the minutes where this happened.


I doubt that any Board member was still aware that the Board voted for

this to happen.

Again, if true, I find this to be ABSOLUTELY AMAZING.

[SNIP]

Was the new deadline established at a conference call? I'm not sure.

It may have been a Presidential decision.

Where are the minutes of the conference call? Can the President, on
her own, modify a Board motion?! I definitely think the answer is no.


1) what bids, if any, were received by July 1, 2004? (the deadline
of EB motion 04-40)


None. The July 1 deadline was never announced except in the minutes.


At this point the Crossville move should have stood. No further bids
came in before the motion's deadline.

2) what bids, if any, were received after July 1, 2004 and by
September 3, 2004? (the new deadline given by the USCF's President
at the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting)


If I remember them all, Lindsborg, Rochester, Grapevine, Ellenville,

Louisville, Campbell Hall.

I'm curious, were any of the above obviously better than Crossville?

Note: I see that Liberty is not on your list. I conclude it came in
after the September 3, 2004 deadline. Therefore, it should have never
been considered unless none of the bids submitted before the deadline
were satisfactory.

We received nothing from Crossville; they relied on their previous

year bid, and showed us a different temporary building when we were
there Sept 23-24.

To require Crossville to submit a bid again would have added insult to
injury.

Palm Beach Gardens asked for more time, so the deadline was extended

to Oct 10. This proved insufficient time for them and they didn't
bid, but I used that time to find the Liberty Bid.


The deadline was extended AGAIN?! OMG. This just keeps getting worse
and worse.

3) What recommendation, if any, did the Relocation Committee give
regarding the move? If they did give a recommendation, when and
where was it made? Is this mentioned anywhere in the official
record? Is so, where please?


The chair didn't ask them to vote, so they didn't.


Bill, when did you rejoin this Board in your role as Executive
Director? I'm not trying to single you out for blame, but don't
you feel at least partially responsible for this botched process?
I'm simply stunned that this was allowed to happen (forgetting about
04-40) by a Board of 5-7 members and possibly an Executive Director.
It makes me wonder what was really going on, but I won't go there at
this time.

Most Board members seemed impressed and surprised by the wonderful

hospitality of the Crossville people. I was impressed but not
surprised, and suspect that if the Board had gone to Lindsborg they

would have been treated the same way.

I'm surprised given how we treated this community. It's yet
another reason why we should move there. They forgave, now I need to.

It may not show in the minutes, but at the Crossville meeting, the

Board decided to make its decision on relocation by Nov 1. This is
important, because when Erik Anderson then said he needed until Oct 31

to make a proposal, he was refused.

It does not show. October 31 would have been the third extension of
the original deadline of July 1, 2004. It's understandable that
after having extended the deadline twice the Board would finally say
no. Note: they should have said no to the Brady motion (04-40), and
this mess would have been avoided. They should have said no to
extending the deadline from July 1 to September 3. They should have
said no to extending the deadline from September 3 to October 10. Do
deadlines have ANY meaning for our leadership?!

A motion was made to delay the decision (one that was originally
approved by the USCF Executive Board more than a year earlier, and
was EXPLICITLY approved by the 2003 Board of Delegates) to move for
two weeks. It failed. And, in my opinion IT SHOULD HAVE FAILED. A
motion to move to Crossville passed (AGAIN!!).


It was outrageous that the motion failed, that the Board insulted our

best sponsor, that the Board didn't care to wait two weeks to hear what
a billionaire working with that sponsor might offer. This was
probably the most crucial vote in the history of the USCF, and making
the best decision for the Federation was far more important than
supporting the principle that we had to go to Crossville because we
voted to go there the previous year.

Bill, with all due respect, I find the whole process beginning with
Brady's 04-40 motion to be outrageous. A past Board motion, which
was approved by the Board of Delegates, was overturned using the
objections procedure process. That motion in turn was ignored. The
Relocation Committee was ignored. Deadlines were repeatedly ignored.
I apologize in advance for being so blunt, but your single-minded focus
on the rejection of the Liberty plan strikes me as tunnel-visioned.
Then again, my focus on honoring commitments and doing the right thing
might be viewed by some as the same. I will leave that to others to
decide.

Certainly, we should not knowingly insult a good sponsor, but isn't
the community of Crossville our sponsor as well? Didn't we insult
them? Fortunately, they seem to have forgiven us, and we corrected our
wrong against them. Perhaps our good sponsor will forgive us for
insulting him (assuming we did insult him), too.

Finally, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the subject. I
think honoring our commitment to move to Crossville was the right thing
to do. You think otherwise. I think we should leave it at that for
now. I do appreciate your discussing this with me.
[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John

  #10   Report Post  
Old January 27th 05, 11:54 PM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

All,

This is Bill Goichberg's reply to me. This one was a pain to reformat
as plain text. I hope I did okay making it clear who said what. If
you have any questions, please feel free to ask. The lines with no or
an even number of "" symbols are supposed to be Bill's. The ones with
an odd number are supposed to be mine.

Best regards,

George John
************************************************** ************************
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:08 am
Subject: [fide-chess] Crossville Move Official Minutes Summary

In a message dated 1/26/2005 11:24:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:

Subj: [fide-chess] Crossville Move Official Minutes Summary
Date: 1/26/2005 11:24:02 PM Pacific Standard Time


Bill,


Interesting. This does strengthen the argument that the Delegates
accepted the move there, but it does not create a binding mandate

that
the Board could not overrule.


To recap once again:

"03-27 (McCrary): The Executive Board authorizes the move of the USCF

office to Crossville, Tennessee. The Executive Director is authorized
to execute the necessary arrangements. PASSED 5-1-1; Brady opposed and
Wagner abstaining.

This motion was explicitly given to the 2003 Board of Delegates for

their
approval, and they approved it. They voted in favor of a capital

budget
to move to Crossville.


The Delegates didn't approve the motion, they recognized that the Board
had the right to make it. Likewise at the 2004 annual meeting the
Delegates recognized that the Board had the right to do the things it
did in 2003-4 as well, and those things included reopening the bidding
and setting up a new bid deadline of Sept 3.

The Delegates are very accommodating on relocation. They think it's a
Board matter, and wherever the Board moves, they will agree the Board
has the right to move there.

Regarding the vote for a capital budget, I don't think budgeting for
something requires you to do it. Frequently there are expenses in
USCF's budget that the Board decides not to spend. So the delegate
vote was not a binding mandate, the Board had a right to reopen the
bidding.

Unless it could be conclusively demonstrated that the move to

Crossville
would be a disaster, I can not see how a future Board could overturn

the
will of a prior Board's motion that had also been approved by the

Board
of Delegates. Only a later Board of Delegates body could do that,

and I
would strongly recommend against doing such a thing unless again the
move could be reasonably demonstrated to be fatally flawed.


Legally, I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The Delegates didn't approve
the move to Crossville. They said that the Board had the right to move
there, but the following year they said that the Board had the right to
not move there. The may have budgeted for the move, but the Board is
not required to spend budgeted funds.

[SNIP]



The current Board has not made passing motions to reflect its

thinking a
priority.

They opposed Crossville from the start, largely because of its

location,
but according to the Crossville people, this fact was not

communicated
to them. Beatriz says that she told Sabine this, but I am not sure

when this happened.

Remember where we talked about Board B replacing Board A's plan with
their own, and Board C replacing Board B's plan with their own? We
simply need to stop doing that?!

Board A (McCrary's) passed a motion to move to Crossville which was
explicitly discussed and approved by the 2003
Board of Delegates along with a move capital budget plan.

Unless there were a genuine emergency, Board B (Beatriz's) had
insufficiently justification, IMHO, to overturn this prior motion.

Even
if the USCF's lawyer and the Bylaws Committee said that they were
technically allowed to do so (were they consulted?), it was definitely


NOT the right thing to do IMHO. I'm very disappointed to learn of

this,
especially how it was done (objections procedure).


One thing I agree with, objections procedure was intended for
relatively trivial and noncontroversial issues, and this Board has
misused it. They passed a nutty motion in April by objections
procedure to slash payroll to an impossibly low level; luckily Beatriz
was empowered to authorize more money, but not before I wasted a lot of
time trying to figure out how in the world we were going to function.
Recently they tried to fire the Editor by objections procedure, but
there was objection so they had to hold a conference call. I also
didn't think it was right to add four members to the relocation
committee a few days before the Sept 3 bidding deadline after the rest
of them had been having discussions for months, and that too was done
by objections procedure.

The Board made its decision for Crossville on Oct 17 without calling

for
a Committee vote. Three members of the Committee had already
sent emails to the Board supporting Erik Anderson's request for a two


week delay to speak to Alan Gerry.


When the Relocation Committee was first appointed, Beatriz and

possibly
other Board members pledged to abide by its decision regarding
where to move, which in my opinion would have given the Committee too


much power. In the end, not only was its decision not supported,
but it was bypassed! At least one Committee member I spoke to is

quite
resentful about this.


Bill, please review motion (04-40) again. The motion had a bidding
deadline of July 1, 2004. The Relocation Committee was to report to

the
2004 Board of Delegates, and their recommendation was to be approved

(or
not) by the 2004 Board of Delegates.


I know what it says, I'm telling you it was, except for the appointment
of the Relocation Committee, totally ignored.

I found no record of any of this actually happening in the minutes,

and I
think you have just confirmed that it did not happen. I find all of

this greatly disappointing. To summarize once again:


1) The deadline of July 1, 2004 was ignored and reset (when and how?)

to
September 3, 2004


True, don't remember how.

2) The Relocation Committee, which was to give its recommendation to

the
2004 Board of Delegates, never gave its report.


True.

3) The 2004 Board of Delegates (obviously) did not review and approve

the
Relocation Committee's report (which didn't exist)


True.

And, now you are telling me that the Relocation Committee never

published
a report?!! This story is going from bad to worse.


The committee chair never called for a vote.

BTW, on what date was the Liberty plan proposed. Certainly, it was

after
the July 1, 2004 deadline, yes? Was it after the extended September

3, 2004 deadline, too?

I already said that it was.

[SNIP]


Strangely, the Board appears to have forgotten about everything in

this
motion after the first two sentences. I am not sure that was even
aware of the rest of it until well after April 15. No bidding
instructions, special delegate mailing, or relocation posts were ever


discussed, and
no July 1 deadline ever mentioned again.


Isn't that amazing?!! That's the danger of passing something by
Objections Procedure.


Good point.

BTW, the intent of this procedure was to handle mundane motions.

The
decision to defy the will of a past Board and
Board of Delegates is NOT mundane IMO. I am GREATLY disappointed in


Frank Brady for offering a motion in this manner, and I am GREATLY
disappointed in a Board that allowed such a motion to pass without

any formal discussion.

[SNIPPED the motion that named the members of the Relocation

Committee]

This one, on the other hand was quickly implemented, with some

fanfare
about what a wonderful committee it would be; Beatriz seemed to
believe that the committee would avoid a political situation in which
competing groups would lobby the Board.


And, just to confirm what you have already said, this committee never
presented a report or a recommendation?


Yes, I said that. The committee chair (Beatriz) never called for a
vote, and I never heard any discussion about anyone writing a report.
This was the committee that was supposed to make the decision that the
Board would uphold, so when they weren't even asked to vote, it's hard
to conceive of a report.

To fill in your timeline with some more info, about June the Crossville
Chamber of Commerce and Mayor's Office saw the call for bids on our
website and were upset, saying USCF hadn't told them we had changed our
mind. Beatriz then said that she had told Sabine. I spoke to both
Sabine and to Beth of the C of C, and both suggested that USCF owed it
to Crossville to at least show up and discuss in person why the move
was off.

I can fully understand why the folks in Crossville were upset. I'm
upset, too. I'm very disappointed with our leadership right now.
Fortunately, they finally did the right thing (I hope for the right
reasons), and voted (again) in favor of Crossville, undoing the harm

of a poor motion (04-40) and a poor process which should have never
happened
to begin with IMO.


[SNIP]


We now turn to the minutes of the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting.
At this meeting the recommendations of the relocation committee was
to be given for ratification by the Board of Delegates. I can find
NOWHERE in the minutes where this happened.


I doubt that any Board member was still aware that the Board voted

for
this to happen.


Again, if true, I find this to be ABSOLUTELY AMAZING.


[SNIP]


Was the new deadline established at a conference call?


I'm not sure. It may have been a Presidential decision.


Where are the minutes of the conference call? Can the President, on

her
own, modify a Board motion?! I definitely think the answer is no.


I don't know if it happened in this case, but this President has done
other things without consulting the Board, like telling Diane Reese to
send me a contract to sign placing the 2006 US Open in Cherry Hill.

1) what bids, if any, were received by July 1, 2004? (the deadline
of EB motion 04-40)


None. The July 1 deadline was never announced except in the minutes.


At this point the Crossville move should have stood. No further

bids
came in before the motion's deadline.


2) what bids, if any, were received after July 1, 2004 and by
September 3, 2004? (the new deadline given by the USCF's President
at the 2004 Board of Delegates meeting)


If I remember them all, Lindsborg, Rochester, Grapevine, Ellenville,
Louisville, Campbell Hall.


I'm curious, were any of the above obviously better than Crossville?


In my opinion, Lindsborg was better. The bid was similar to
Crossville, except instead of $500,000-plus for a building, the
building was free, with possible $100,000 renovation cost.

Note: I see that Liberty is not on your list. I conclude it came in
after the September 3, 2004 deadline. Therefore, it should have never
been considered unless none of the bids submitted before the deadline
were satisfactory.


Except the Board properly wasn't using the "we stand on principle and
cut off our nose to spite our face" rigid deadline method. It's
foolish to be inflexible when a lot of money is at stake.

We received nothing from Crossville; they relied on their previous

year
bid, and showed us a different temporary building when we were there
Sept 23-24.


To require Crossville to submit a bid again would have added insult to


injury.


Palm Beach Gardens asked for more time, so the deadline was extended

to Oct 10. This proved insufficient time for them and they didn't
bid, but I used that time to find the Liberty Bid.


The deadline was extended AGAIN?! OMG. This just keeps getting worse


and worse.


I totally disagree with your line of reasoning. With so much at stake
the deadline should be a weapon to be used for our benefit, not a
double-edged sword that compels us to stop the process when it looks
like a great bid may come in.

3) What recommendation, if any, did the Relocation Committee give
regarding the move? If they did give a recommendation, when and
where was it made? Is this mentioned anywhere in the official
record? Is so, where please?


The chair didn't ask them to vote, so they didn't.


Bill, when did you rejoin this Board in your role as Executive

Director?
I'm not trying to single you out for blame, but don't you feel at

least
partially responsible for this botched process? I'm simply stunned

that
this was allowed to happen (forgetting about 04-40) by a Board of 5-7
members and possibly an Executive Director. It makes me wonder what

was really going on, but I won't go there at this time.

Yes, I should have noticed that 04-40 did more than just appoint a
committee. But the Board was in charge of relocation, it may be that I
noticed it and waited for instructions that never came, I don't
remember. I don't like to make excuses, but it was a VERY busy year
with one hot issue after another involving the Board, in addition to
all the things an ED usually does, and unlike some recent EDs, when my
phone rang I always picked it up.

Most Board members seemed impressed and surprised by the wonderful
hospitality of the Crossville people. I was impressed but not
surprised, and suspect that if the Board had gone to Lindsborg they
would have been treated the same way.


I'm surprised given how we treated this community. It's yet another

reason why we should move there. They forgave, now I need to.

It may not show in the minutes, but at the Crossville meeting, the

Board
decided to make its decision on relocation by Nov 1. This is

important,
because when Erik Anderson then said he needed until Oct 31 to make a


proposal, he was refused.


It does not show. October 31 would have been the third extension of

the
original deadline of July 1, 2004. It's understandable that after

having
extended the deadline twice the Board would finally say no. Note:

they
should have said no to the Brady motion (04-40), and this mess would

have
been avoided. They should have said no to extending the deadline from


July 1 to September 3. They should have said no to extending the
deadline from September 3 to October 10. Do deadlines have ANY

meaning
for our leadership?!


The July 1 was a total screwup. The other extensions were justified by
the prospects of it making a big difference in USCF's financial
picture. Haste makes waste when bidders are trying to improve their
offers. Nothing was to be gained by approving Crossville Oct 17 rather
than Nov 1.

A motion was made to delay the decision (one that was originally
approved by the USCF Executive Board more than a year earlier, and
was EXPLICITLY approved by the 2003 Board of Delegates) to move for
two weeks. It failed. And, in my opinion IT SHOULD HAVE FAILED. A


motion to move to Crossville passed (AGAIN!!).



It was outrageous that the motion failed, that the Board insulted our


best sponsor, that the Board didn't care to wait two weeks to hear

what
a billionaire working with that sponsor might offer. This was

probably
the most crucial vote in the history of the USCF, and making the best


decision for the Federation was far more important than supporting

the
principle that we had to go to Crossville because we voted to go

there
the previous year.


Bill, with all due respect, I find the whole process beginning with
Brady's 04-40 motion to be outrageous. A past Board motion, which was


approved by the Board of Delegates, was overturned using the

objections
procedure process. That motion in turn was ignored. The Relocation
Committee was ignored. Deadlines were repeatedly ignored.


Well, we agree so far.

I apologize in advance for being so blunt, but your single-minded

focus
on the rejection of the Liberty plan strikes me as tunnel-visioned.


Lindsborg and Palm Beach Gardens were not treated appropriately,
either. The deadline you set is for your benefit, not to be used
against you. If you run a tournament and the first round starts at 11
and entries close at 10, do you tell the people who come at 10:15
"forget it?" Maybe you do, but I don't think too many TDs act like
that. The deadline gives you the RIGHT, but not the OBLIGATION, to say
that the entry is too late.

Then again, my focus on honoring commitments and doing the right thing


might be viewed by some as the same. I will leave that to others to
decide.


I am not bothered by the extending of deadlines if done wisely. Of
course, if you just extend forever and ever with little hope of a
better bid, that is absurd. But with a Sept 3 deadline, there was no
urgency for a final vote just six weeks later. The original plan was to
have the Relocation Commitee visit numerous sites (at their own
expense!) and report; somehow this became the Board visits one place,
the people are friendly, and it's over. You need to use your judgment,
to maximize your possibilities, and the Board's judgment was poor.

On the other hand, I too am disturbed that the Board changed its mind
on Crossville, and the previous Board on Palm Beach Gardens before
that. We shouldn't have been so quick to approve these offers when
they really did not enjoy overwhelming support within USCF's
leadership. The right place to move to is the one that makes an offer
so good that it removes all controversy.

Certainly, we should not knowingly insult a good sponsor, but isn't

the
community of Crossville our sponsor as well? Didn't we insult them?
Fortunately, they seem to have forgiven us, and we corrected our wrong


against them. Perhaps our good sponsor will forgive us for insulting

him
(assuming we did insult him), too.


I don't know what he thinks about his offer being rejected, but how do
you expect him to react to "We can't have Erik Anderson as our
landlord, he will control the Federation."

Bill Goichberg

Finally, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the subject. I
think honoring our commitment to move to Crossville was the right

thing
to do. You think otherwise. I think we should leave it at that for
now. I do appreciate your discussing this with me.

[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reply to Affidavit of Leroy Dubeck Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 22 March 29th 05 04:44 PM
Reply to Affidavit of Leroy Dubeck Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 51 March 29th 05 04:44 PM
The political status of the Crossville move Petrel rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 17 March 20th 05 10:03 PM
Goichberg's Relocation Report Parrthenon rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 113 March 20th 05 09:39 PM
History of the Move to Crossville Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 October 24th 04 04:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 PM.

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