Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 08:20 AM
Bill Smythe
 
Posts: n/a
Default The candicacies of George John and others

Here are my thoughts as the campaign heats up:

1. Of the nine announced candidates, eight are well qualified.

2. I will vote neither for nor against any candidate based on his or her
stance on the Crossville move. By now, that's a done deal anyway. The only
thing to do now is make it work.

3. I like openness in the awarding of contracts and tournament bids. And I
don't like stupidity in these areas. Over the years, the absence of the
former has often meant the presence of the latter. George John thus becomes
an attractive candidate.

4. On the other hand, too much rigidity can be harmful. If there is a
possible million-dollar deal on the horizon, it might be preferable to bend
deadlines and rules a bit, to see what can be accomplished. In such
situations and others, George John's squeaky-clean approach could get in the
way of common sense.

5. I am slightly disappointed that George John would join a slate, but
because of number 1 above, I am less concerned than I might otherwise be.

6. A few years ago, we desperately needed someone like George John because
of his expertise in computer hardware and software.

7. Now, we have Mike Nolan, so that need is reduced somewhat. There is
even a possibility that friction could develop between George and Mike.

Putting all of the above together, I now find George John's candidacy a
little less attractive than I did a few years ago. Nevertheless, I still
find it attractive enough to earn my support, at least for the time being.

I plan to split my vote, with at least one of my votes going to the slate,
and at least one to the remaining four. At this point I'm not sure whether
my split will be 3-1 or 2-2 or 1-3.

Bill Smythe



  #2   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 12:45 PM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Smythe" wrote in message
news
Here are my thoughts as the campaign heats up:

1. Of the nine announced candidates, eight are well qualified.

2. I will vote neither for nor against any candidate based on his or her
stance on the Crossville move. By now, that's a done deal anyway. The
only
thing to do now is make it work.


This is an important point, and I would be interested in hearing the views
of all candidates on it. Clearly, Sam Sloan, who continues to file and lose
lawsuits against the USCF feels otherwise, but what about other candidates?
We now have a location and staff being trained in Crossville. The community
is supportive, and we have several strong candidates for executive director
who are willing to live and work there. It's time to move on to more
substantial issues.

3. I like openness in the awarding of contracts and tournament bids. And
I
don't like stupidity in these areas. Over the years, the absence of the
former has often meant the presence of the latter. George John thus
becomes
an attractive candidate.


After less than a year on the Board, I've learned of all sorts of stupidity
in the areas of contracts and tournament bids. The organization needs much
better and more formalized internal processes and policies for handling,
awarding, drafting and approving contracts. It needs to maintain better
records, and it needs its executive director to be held responsible and
accountable for maintaining these policies and procedures. We're still
paying for the contractual mistakes of past executive directors.

4. On the other hand, too much rigidity can be harmful. If there is a
possible million-dollar deal on the horizon, it might be preferable to
bend
deadlines and rules a bit, to see what can be accomplished. In such
situations and others, George John's squeaky-clean approach could get in
the
way of common sense.


I was of the opinion (along with Bill Goichberg among the current slate of
candidates) that the USCF should have delayed its decision on the relocation
of its headquarters, because I believed we hadn't received best and final
offers from some of the locations. I still believe that Lindsborg, Kansas'
offer wasn't considered sufficiently and would likely have been improved had
we continued negotiations; it's also possible we would have gotten a long
term, rent-free arrangement in Liberty. That said, I'm starting to come
around to the opinion expressed by others, notably Tom Martinek on this
newsgroup, that the USCF's longer term interests are served by maintaining
open bidding processes with clear guidelines and deadlines and all parties
abiding by them. I suppose there are always exceptions, but they should be
few and far between.

5. I am slightly disappointed that George John would join a slate, but
because of number 1 above, I am less concerned than I might otherwise be.


I think too much is being made of the slate issue, notably by Don Schultz
who, in his typical manner, believes they are a mistake and then proceeds to
endorse one.

In this particular election, we have three members of the current Board
running for re-election. All three of us have worked together on the
current Board, and it makes sense that we would wish to continue some of the
efforts that have helped create some financial stability for the USCF. At
the same time, we recognize that there is a need for additional expertise
in the area of information technology, and that made George John an
attractive addition to the team.

6. A few years ago, we desperately needed someone like George John
because
of his expertise in computer hardware and software.

7. Now, we have Mike Nolan, so that need is reduced somewhat. There is
even a possibility that friction could develop between George and Mike.


I am hopeful that we will continue to work toward a model where the
executive board is responsible for "steering" functions in the USCF, and the
professional staff is responsible for "rowing." In that case, I doubt there
would be friction between George and Mike. Quite frankly, I think Mike
would welcome somebody on the Board with the expertise and experience to
"speak his language." I know that I often don't exactly know what Mike is
talking about and would appreciate a translator.

Randy Bauer


Putting all of the above together, I now find George John's candidacy a
little less attractive than I did a few years ago. Nevertheless, I still
find it attractive enough to earn my support, at least for the time being.

I plan to split my vote, with at least one of my votes going to the slate,
and at least one to the remaining four. At this point I'm not sure
whether
my split will be 3-1 or 2-2 or 1-3.

Bill Smythe



  #3   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 01:30 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Randy Bauer said: I think too much is being made of the slate issue,
notably by Don Schultz who, in his typical manner, believes they are a
mistake and then proceeds to endorse one.

Typical manner? I'll leave that one alone.

For the record, I did not endorse a slate, I endorsed four candidates
and gave reasons why.

I do say the slate idea of the four is a bad idea but I meant strictly
in the political context, Just my opinion.

Don Schultz

  #4   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 01:39 PM
Tom Klem
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If it walks like a duck... it's a slate Don. Or was that accounts
receivable?

snicker


--
Tom Klem

"Trust no one, Mr Mulder!"
---Xfiles movie, The well groomed man

wrote in message
oups.com...
Randy Bauer said: I think too much is being made of the slate issue,
notably by Don Schultz who, in his typical manner, believes they are a
mistake and then proceeds to endorse one.

Typical manner? I'll leave that one alone.

For the record, I did not endorse a slate, I endorsed four candidates
and gave reasons why.

I do say the slate idea of the four is a bad idea but I meant strictly
in the political context, Just my opinion.

Don Schultz



  #5   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 01:44 PM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
Randy Bauer said: I think too much is being made of the slate issue,
notably by Don Schultz who, in his typical manner, believes they are a
mistake and then proceeds to endorse one.

Typical manner? I'll leave that one alone.

For the record, I did not endorse a slate, I endorsed four candidates
and gave reasons why.


Ok, for the record, I am not endorsing a slate, I am endorsing four
candidates and I gave the reasons why in my previous post.

Randy Bauer

I do say the slate idea of the four is a bad idea but I meant strictly
in the political context, Just my opinion.

Don Schultz





  #6   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 02:00 PM
Bill Smythe
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Randy Bauer" wrote:
Ok, for the record, I am not endorsing a slate, I am endorsing four
candidates and I gave the reasons why in my previous post.


Well, but the four candidates refer to themselves as a slate, as can be seen
from http://www.USChessSuccess.com which was contributed to by all four of
these candidates. (George John made us aware of this website in an earlier
post.)

Bill Smythe

(Spelling of "candidacies" corrected in the thread title -- sorry about
that. Anybody else who contributes to this thread, please feel free to do
the same.)



  #7   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 02:32 PM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Smythe" wrote in message
...
"Randy Bauer" wrote:
Ok, for the record, I am not endorsing a slate, I am endorsing four
candidates and I gave the reasons why in my previous post.


Well, but the four candidates refer to themselves as a slate, as can be
seen
from http://www.USChessSuccess.com which was contributed to by all four of
these candidates. (George John made us aware of this website in an
earlier
post.)

Bill Smythe

(Spelling of "candidacies" corrected in the thread title -- sorry about
that. Anybody else who contributes to this thread, please feel free to do
the same.)

My point was that Don's claim is simple semantics. Call his choices
whatever you wish, none of them are part of the "other slate."

Don is free to do as he wishes, of course, but he endorses none of the three
current Board members with whom he serves. Personally, if re-elected I
doubt I would oppose current Board members who are running for re-election
absent some grave defect or deriliction of duty on their part. It doesn't
help the Board to work together in the remaining months before the election,
and if current Board members are re-elected, there will likely be at least
some lingering resentment.

Randy Bauer


  #8   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 02:43 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

SLATES

In this particular election, we have three members of the current
Board running for re-election. All three of us have worked together...
Randy Bauer

For once I agree with Mr. Bauer.

All three incumbents running for re-election have worked well
together IN PLUGGING 'LEAKS' (Mr. Bauer's word) and IN SUPPRESSING
INFORMATION.

If you want more of the same, by all means vote for them.

  #9   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 04:25 PM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Smythe" writes:

7. Now, we have Mike Nolan, so that need is reduced somewhat. There is
even a possibility that friction could develop between George and Mike.


Not very likely, and not likely to be much of a problem, since by August
my work should be done anyhow. George was the chair of the MIS committee
for two years and is someone I have bounced quite a few ideas off during
the course of this project.
--
Mike Nolan

  #10   Report Post  
Old March 5th 05, 06:29 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s51...

"Bill Smythe" wrote in message
...
"Randy Bauer" wrote:
Ok, for the record, I am not endorsing a slate, I am endorsing four
candidates and I gave the reasons why in my previous post.


Well, but the four candidates refer to themselves as a slate, as can be
seen
from http://www.USChessSuccess.com which was contributed to by all four
of
these candidates. (George John made us aware of this website in an
earlier
post.)

Bill Smythe

(Spelling of "candidacies" corrected in the thread title -- sorry about
that. Anybody else who contributes to this thread, please feel free to
do
the same.)

My point was that Don's claim is simple semantics. Call his choices
whatever you wish, none of them are part of the "other slate."


Isn't he endorsing 4 candidates who have differences from the existing
'slate' or 'party'? They may not all be of one mind, but independently have
other views.

Don is free to do as he wishes, of course, but he endorses none of the
three current Board members with whom he serves. Personally, if
re-elected I doubt I would oppose current Board members who are running
for re-election absent some grave defect or deriliction of duty on their
part.


sniff

It doesn't help the Board to work together in the remaining months before
the election, and if current Board members are re-elected, there will
likely be at least some lingering resentment.


We should all go to the dogs happy?

Sam Sloan raised 29 -good- questions why we might not be. He also raised a
few bad ones. But overall, his list is simply more detailed than other's
have expressed.

The overall view out here, Randy, is not that the current board are
containing their comments because it will increase board efficiency, but
because it will destroy their credability if they share information about
current goings-on.

This is no minor matter of confidence, it is a radical departure for the
organisation into secrecy and suspected befuddlement, and even worse; that
an amount of self-serving is in place.

Happy-talk is grotesquely out of place.

Phil Innes


Randy Bauer



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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 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