Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 04:48 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Code of Conduct

THE OTHER SHOE DROPS

Thanks go to Wayne Praeder for bringing up correspondence with
the Executive Board re a code of conduct or ethics or conflicts of
interest among Board members.

For myself, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. Which is to
say, rules for members of the USCF, too.

Joel Channing has just made such a proposal, an idea that must be
considered very carefully indeed.

Does one trust a Don Schultz to pass judgement on Jim Eade? Or a
Stan Booz to sit in consideration of any battle in which I might be
involved? Or a Bob Tanner to have power over a Richard Peterson? Or a
Bill Goichberg to pore over the fine points of a case brought against
Tom Dorsch?

I have no objection per se to codes of ethics or rules for
conflicts of interests. The USCF is a social organization, and its
leaders can establish regulations. Those who do not like these regs
can go away or snipe from the outside, just like this writer does over
drug testing.

Here, though, is a great danger with a code for members: the
politicians will enforce it rigorously even as they wink and nod and
smile crookedly among themselves, coming up with ingenious reasons why
A or B does not have a conflict of interest or why this or that
officer, who routinely threatens critics and screams four-letter
imprecations, is really a splendid chap who must not be arraigned for
peccadilloes.

The basic principle guiding both codes must be: the Federation
expects sterling conduct from its officers, and it ignores everything
but the most
indefensible conduct among its members. The code for officers should
be strict; the code for members should be nearly non-existent.

One ploy that future officers might use is the following: if you
don't like the way we stomp on members and excuse our own crimes, then
vote us out. In short, elections become the only effective code of
conduct among officers, which leads to the question: why have a code in
the first place?

All of the preceding does not constitute an argument against
codes per se. What the above does suggest is that there must be
careful drafting indeed of any code or set of rules for officers.

The overall spirit of the code: there must be total transparency
in proceedings. This silly business of ethix committee members keeping
their star chamber proceedings secret won't do. Those serving on any
enforcement body will have to be able to take the heat that will come
from their written and verbal proceedings being totally public.

Without transparency, the proceedings will soon become as crooked
as those of our ethix committee with its unaccountable members.

  #2   Report Post  
Old September 18th 05, 05:59 PM
WPraeder
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
THE OTHER SHOE DROPS

Thanks go to Wayne Praeder for bringing up correspondence with
the Executive Board re a code of conduct or ethics or conflicts of
interest among Board members.

For myself, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. Which is to
say, rules for members of the USCF, too.

Joel Channing has just made such a proposal, an idea that must be
considered very carefully indeed.

Does one trust a Don Schultz to pass judgement on Jim Eade? Or a
Stan Booz to sit in consideration of any battle in which I might be
involved? Or a Bob Tanner to have power over a Richard Peterson? Or a
Bill Goichberg to pore over the fine points of a case brought against
Tom Dorsch?

I have no objection per se to codes of ethics or rules for
conflicts of interests. The USCF is a social organization, and its
leaders can establish regulations. Those who do not like these regs
can go away or snipe from the outside, just like this writer does over
drug testing.

Here, though, is a great danger with a code for members: the
politicians will enforce it rigorously even as they wink and nod and
smile crookedly among themselves, coming up with ingenious reasons why
A or B does not have a conflict of interest or why this or that
officer, who routinely threatens critics and screams four-letter
imprecations, is really a splendid chap who must not be arraigned for
peccadilloes.

The basic principle guiding both codes must be: the Federation
expects sterling conduct from its officers, and it ignores everything
but the most
indefensible conduct among its members. The code for officers should
be strict; the code for members should be nearly non-existent.

One ploy that future officers might use is the following: if you
don't like the way we stomp on members and excuse our own crimes, then
vote us out. In short, elections become the only effective code of
conduct among officers, which leads to the question: why have a code in
the first place?

All of the preceding does not constitute an argument against
codes per se. What the above does suggest is that there must be
careful drafting indeed of any code or set of rules for officers.

The overall spirit of the code: there must be total transparency
in proceedings. This silly business of ethix committee members keeping
their star chamber proceedings secret won't do. Those serving on any
enforcement body will have to be able to take the heat that will come
from their written and verbal proceedings being totally public.

Without transparency, the proceedings will soon become as crooked
as those of our ethix committee with its unaccountable members.


Larry,

As we have been promised I hope we do see a more open chess federation
as well as a board that respects constructive criticism and listens to
advice.

In my view, the organization always has more control over who it
chooses to represent it as opposed to those who join it. I do believe
improving organizational behavior must start at the top. If the
leadership speaks out and will not tolerate inappropriate behavior from
itself or its officials it sends a clear message to the membership.

I would also hope the ethics committee, who must help the organization
regulate such behaviors, is increasingly mindful that their
independence does not remove the need to account for their performance.
The membership accepts their adjudicative independence so long as the
committee functions openly and explains their decisions.

The idea of improved accountability for the organization has been an
anathema to some. As you well know I started on rgcp to help extend the
USCF membership the vote for their executive board and to encourage
these board members and their allies to be more accountable for the use
of our dues. It will take more than name calling, poisoning the well,
fabricating that I have a .uk gay site email address, or claiming that
Wayne Praeder is a false name to curtail my efforts on discussing or
reminding others on these topics.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/account.htm

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 18th 05, 08:17 PM
Catalan
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"WPraeder" wrote in message
oups.com...

Larry,

As we have been promised I hope we do see a more open chess federation
as well as a board that respects constructive criticism and listens to
advice.


More open? Since the new saviors have come in the silence has been
deafening. They still haven't posted all those contracts Larry was whining
about before the election.



  #4   Report Post  
Old September 18th 05, 10:19 PM
Duncan Oxley
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Catalan" wrote in message
...


"WPraeder" wrote in message
oups.com...

Larry,

As we have been promised I hope we do see a more open chess federation
as well as a board that respects constructive criticism and listens to
advice.


More open? Since the new saviors have come in the silence has been
deafening. They still haven't posted all those contracts Larry was whining
about before the election.


Back to "business as usual"?

Duncan


  #5   Report Post  
Old September 19th 05, 01:50 AM
Sam Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:17:28 -0400, "Catalan" wrote:


More open? Since the new saviors have come in the silence has been
deafening. They still haven't posted all those contracts Larry was whining
about before the election.


The problem with this is that Harry Sabine informed us at the first
meeting of the new board on August 14, 2005 that there are no such
contracts. There was nothing in writing. There was only an "implied
contract."

Sam Sloan


  #6   Report Post  
Old September 19th 05, 01:55 AM
Sam Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 18 Sep 2005 09:59:25 -0700, "WPraeder" wrote:


It will take more than name calling, poisoning the well, claiming that
Wayne Praeder is a false name to curtail my efforts on discussing or
reminding others on these topics.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/account.htm


You could easily end all speculation on this matter simply by telling
us what your real name is or providing some evidence that your real
name is Wayne Praeder. A street address and telephone number would
help.

I see no reason why they should respond to you at all, as long as you
persist in using a fake name.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old September 19th 05, 03:14 AM
Catalan
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

More open? Since the new saviors have come in the silence has been
deafening. They still haven't posted all those contracts Larry was whining
about before the election.


The problem with this is that Harry Sabine informed us at the first
meeting of the new board on August 14, 2005 that there are no such
contracts. There was nothing in writing. There was only an "implied
contract."


From: "chessdon"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Vote for the Chess Success Team NOT
Date: 14 Jul 2005 16:37:23 -0700

Dr. Leroy Dubeck urges you to vote for the success team because he
claims Don Schultz's administration lost a lot of money. Whether true
or not that simply is not relevant. Below are some relevant reasons why
you should vote for: Joel Channing, Bill Goichberg, Robert Tanner and
Greg Shahade.

(1) You will see a more open chess federation. It is time to
reinstitute the BINFO procedures and have USCF Executive Board
exchanged emails included. It is time for Board members to routinely
report on the US Web site their view of the state of the USCF, what is
planned and the rationale behind what has been done.

(2) You will see a "Retreat Week" to meet with the leaders of US
chess, use of professional facillator(s) resulting in a Grand Plan for
the future evolution of chess in our country.

(3) You will see a Board that resists the temptation to micro manage
staff.

(4) You will see a board composed of members of mixed talents from a
highly successful businessman; a youthful, energetic International
Master; the imaginative and most successful tournament organizer of all
time; and a scholastic leader who also works well with the chess
professional, chess teachers, students, and members of the
international chess.

(5) You will see a Board that respects constructive criticism and
listens to good advice.

(6) You will see real success.

Don Schultz,
Former USCF President




  #8   Report Post  
Old September 19th 05, 03:36 AM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Catalan" writes:

(1) You will see a more open chess federation. It is time to
reinstitute the BINFO procedures and have USCF Executive Board
exchanged emails included. It is time for Board members to routinely
report on the US Web site their view of the state of the USCF, what is
planned and the rationale behind what has been done.


A new BINFO system which will make BINFO'd items available on the web
is being designed and should be available in October.

See the USCF Forums for more details and the URL for the sample pages.
--
Mike Nolan
  #9   Report Post  
Old September 19th 05, 01:28 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

DEAFENING SILENCE

More open? Since the new saviors have come in the silence has been

deafening. They still haven't posted all those contracts Larry was
whining
about before the election. -- Stan Booz (Catalan)

It's true. We have been rocking on rgcp while governance has
been quieter recently than monks in cloisters. Board members have
burrowed into holes
like moles, and we will have to pull them out by the hind legs. They
will not like that because moles like their holes. Which is perfectly
understandable from
the viewpoint of the mole.

However, the new officers were just elected in August. Maybe they
deserve a honeymoon before the badgering intensifies.

Here's the problem: I am having a good time right now with NM
Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated but self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO
weather-prediction
computer. He will be begging off soon enough as we move from entry to
entry in the Oxford Companion. He will denounce me as a liar unworthy
of his time, just as he explains that although he is 2300+ he will not
take the time to thrash
1900-rated Sam Sloan because he does not condescend to breathe the same
air.
At which point, our conversation will be over. He will bow out, as
usual.

That's the polemical trajectory. We are still on the upward
curve, but we will reach the apex about the time we begin looking at
the Levenfish and Botvinnik entries in the Companion. There will
follow another three or so entries (stuff on other Soviet GMs, Fischer
at Curacao and the like) on the downward trajectory, whereupon NM
Kingston will once again announce that he has better things to do with
his time than argue with someone like me who is a proven liar.

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
Code of Conduct [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 11 September 20th 05 11:28 PM
News reports on what is hopefully Fischer's impending release banana rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 5 March 24th 05 06:18 PM
News reports on what is hopefully Fischer's impending release banana rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 6 March 24th 05 06:18 PM
banned from icc 2100USCF rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 68 March 24th 04 05:05 PM
banned from icc 2100USCF rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 73 March 24th 04 05:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 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