Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 28th 06, 01:26 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Sam Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies, part 2

Controversy Number Three

The article entitled "Ernest Schlich, April USCF Volunteer of the
Month" says that Ernie came back to the USCF and did emergency work in
the office because after the move to Crossville which entailed firing
almost all the USCF staff in New Windsor and hiring new people in
Crossville, the new staff did not know how to prepare FIDE rating
reports and title applications. And therefore Ernie came back and got
this work caught up and trained new staff how to do it.

However, there is a USCF rule that employees are not allowed to run
for the board. Working in the office, doing office work by bringing
the FIDE work up to date, which was the job Ernie did when he was a
regular full-time employee, certainly appears to constitute
employment. There are good reason for the rule that employees are not
allowed to run for the board and indeed almost all non-profits have
that rule. The board is suppose to be independent of the staff. The
board sets policy. The staff carries it out. If staff members are also
on the board, the board cannot be an independent body.

There are other issues such as if a staff member runs for the board he
will be seen as the official authorized and recommended candidate,
giving him an insurmountable advantage over the other candidates.

At 04:01 PM 4/24/2006 -0500, Bill Hall wrote:

The only thing Ernie
has received is reimbursement of expenses for coming to Crossville to give
training related to his past position with the USCF. I actually have tried
to talk Ernie into letting us pay him and he has refused. Of course, Ernie
has been paid as a TD at national events. Grant has already accurately
disclosed his relationship with the USCF.


Mr. Hall,

I realize that you are new at this and are not familiar with the
history of this situation, but it is absolutely clear that under the
by-laws and the relevant history, Ernest Schlich is NOT allowed to run
for the Executive Board.

For you to say that Mr. Schlich only does a little bit of work for the
USCF is like a woman who says that she is only a little bit pregnant.

Or, a Mike Nolan put it in another email, calling Mr. Schlich a
"volunteer employee" is an oxymoron.

Here are a few provisions of the by-laws:

Section 4: "An employee of the USCF may not be nominated for election
to the Executive Board".

(a) Except where noted below, no Executive Board member or a member of
his immediate family may receive financial compensation from the USCF
for any reason, . . .

(b) No Executive Board member, or a member of his immediate family,
may profit financially from organizing or directing a national
tournament or activity organized or co-organized by the USCF . . .

Here are past examples of how these by-law provisions have been
applied:

1. Frank Camaratta manufactured and sold ornate and fancy
chess sets to the USCF. After he was elected to the board, other board
members complained that he could no longer sell chess sets to the
USCF. As a result, Camaratta was forced to resign.

2. Bill Goichberg used to bid for and organize the US Open
Chess Championship every year. Tom Dorsch got the above provision
passed so as to prevent Bill Goichberg from organizing the US Open
Chess Championship and other USCF events.

I realize that you joined the USCF at a traumatic and difficult time,
a time of flagrant violations of the by-laws. It was absolutely
illegal for Beatriz Marinello to have herself appointed as Chief
Operating Officer while she was on the board and to run the affairs of
the USCF on a day-to-day basis as she did.

It was improper for you to "certify" that an "emergency" existed and
therefore the USCF needed to start building its new building in
Crossville just ten days before the term of office of Beatriz
Marinello ended, when you knew that the newly elected board did not
want that building built.

However, I forgive you because it was obvious that Beatriz was going
to fire you on the spot if you did not sign the document she wanted
you to sign, and every man has the right to defend his job so that he
can support himself and his family.

However, in the current situation, nobody is going to support you. You
are going to twist slowly in the wind if you do not remove Mr. Schlich
as a candidate. I have checked and all the other candidates and all
USCF long time politicos agree that Mr. Schlich cannot be a candidate.
The only person that I know of who supports the right of Mr. Schlich
to run is Grant Perks and Mr. Perks himself is in an ambiguous
situation.

It would not bother me so much if I thought that Mr. Schlich was going
to lose. However, he is just about guaranteed to win because he is the
floor TD at virtually every major USCF event. He also has the article
in the April Chess Life extolling his greatness and his virtue. He
will be seen as the inside and officially approved candidate.

I have been a member of the USCF for 50 years since 1956. I met Mike
Goodall in the 1962 Northern California Championship when he was
registering players for entry into the tournament, so he has been a
member since at least then. I believe that Randy Hough has also been
involved in organized chess since the 1960s. Do we get articles in
Chess Life informing the membership about how great we are? Of course
not. Ernest Schlich is a relative newcomer and suddenly we open up
Chess Life and find an article just about him. Not since John W.
Collins died have I seen an article about one chess organizer.

Another example: When Jim Pechac was running for re-election as the
Official Candidate of the Redman Gang, he was allowed to write an
entire full page article about USCF finances in the Election issue of
the Chess Life. This in addition to his regular candidates statement.
Fortunately, the Redman Gang was extremely unpopular and thus Pechac
was roundly defeated, by a wide margin. However, if he had won there
would have been a tremendous furor over this.

After the election, Tim Redman's Executive Director, George DeFeis,
was fired. What Mr. DeFeis did wrong was he obeyed the orders of the
President, Tim Redman, ignoring the fact that Mr. Redman does not own
the USCF, the members do.

Controversy Number Four

I will save that for the next posting.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old April 28th 06, 08:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies, part 2

Here's a post from the USCF Forums that has not been posted here by Sam
Sloan or Larry Parr. Joshua meant 'petition' instead of 'ballot', of
course.
--
Mike Nolan

I would like to note that I was at the National Junior High Championships
where I did sign Ernie Schlich's ballot. One point i would like to make
is that When the ballot was passed around, it was NOT Ernie doing it. A
few people at the tournament wanted Ernie to run and Ernie said no. They
talked to him some more and he said maybe. Once he said maybe, other
people wrote up the petition and passed it around to get the signatures.
At that point Ernie agreed that he would run after consulting his spouse.
So Ernie did not get the signatures on 'company time' as he was not the
one getting the signatures at all.
_________________
Joshua E Snyder

  #4   Report Post  
Old April 28th 06, 11:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
g4
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies, part 2


"Mike Nolan" wrote in message ...
Here's a post from the USCF Forums that has not been posted here by Sam
Sloan or Larry Parr. Joshua meant 'petition' instead of 'ballot', of
course.
--


Mike:

Are you trying to imply that Sloan and Parr present only part of the story?
That they only present evidence if agrees with their pov, giving the false
impression that they're in the majority when in fact they're in the minority?

Is that what you are saying? Wouldn't presenting only a small part of the
story be ... how shall I put it delicately ... intellectually dishonest of Sloan
and Parr? Would such ethical and intellectual behemoths be capable of
such crassness?


  #5   Report Post  
Old April 29th 06, 12:51 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
samsloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies, part 2

g4 wrote:
"Mike Nolan" wrote in message ...
Here's a post from the USCF Forums that has not been posted here by Sam
Sloan or Larry Parr. Joshua meant 'petition' instead of 'ballot', of
course.
--


Mike:

Are you trying to imply that Sloan and Parr present only part of the story?
That they only present evidence if agrees with their pov, giving the false
impression that they're in the majority when in fact they're in the minority?

Is that what you are saying? Wouldn't presenting only a small part of the
story be ... how shall I put it delicately ... intellectually dishonest of Sloan
and Parr? Would such ethical and intellectual behemoths be capable of
such crassness?


The above posting by Joshua Snyder, reposted here by Mike Nolan, was
first posted by Snyder at Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:41 am

This was three hours after I made the above posting.

Sam Sloan

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
Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 May 1st 06 12:06 PM
Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 May 1st 06 12:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:51 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