Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 30th 08, 12:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Does Donna Alarie Have a Point?

From the USCF Issues Forum this morning:
by DACP on Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:55 pm #121707

Brian Mottershead wrote:
The Delegates consensus supposedly was that the matter be resolved in
the courts. Now that the EB has actually taken a step that would bring
about a resolution in the court, it seems that "in the courts" was fine
only so long as it meant that the USCF and various individuals were on
the defensive in a lawsuit filed by Polgar for $25 million in damages.

That lawsuit was not going to bring the issues of Truong and Polgar's
misconduct before a court that could do anything about them. All that
could happen in that case was the Polgar would win and the USCF and many
individuals would be ruined.

And the issue in the San Francisco case is a side-issue, too. It does
not bring the core issues before a court. Admittedly this case is one
that could have dire consequences for Polgar and Gregory Alexander,
especially Alexander.

But as soon as the EB goes into a court where they can actually resolve
the question of Polgar and Truong's fitness to serve on the Executive
Board, and address the issues raised by the "Fake Sam Sloan", it turns
out that "letting this play out in the courts" does not cover that. The
Delegates should have been "consulted" somehow. Defend against $25
million lawsuit: OK. Go on the offense and bring the reasons for Polgar
and Truong's removal before a court, that is not apparently what the
Delegates meant by "let the courts decide it". The EB should have
consulted the Delegates again.

This does not pass the smell test. I'm not surprised at Nibbelin, of
course. I never believed for a second that he was only waiting for more
evidence before calling for Truong to resign. But I must say I wonder
what is going on with Donna these days.
**************************************


Brian,

I find it fascinating that you were not in Texas and have not talked to
anywhere near as many delegates as I have in recent months or even days
and yet somehow seem to know what happened there.

The issue for the delegates then and now is that USCF has a history of
ugly politics especially when control of the USCF by a "slate" is at
stake. There have been plenty of lawsuits in the past including ones
filed by Mr. Sloan. To many of the delegates in Texas, this was a deja
vu of the Crossville move days and when Mr. Gruenberg stood up and said
that he now had reasonable doubt, one could visibly feel the shift in
the delegates' seats. The delegates wanted the courts to decide whether
or not Mr. Truong had committed any wrongdoing. That was the sentiment
at the meeting and it was the sentiment after the meeting and to many it
is the sentiment now.

Also, in the minds of many delegates, even if they "didn't care" whether
Mr. Truong left the board, they absolutely did not want to see Ms.
Polgar go because many of them feel that she brings a positive image to
chess. Neither you nor I have to agree with that impression, but it is
the image that many chessplayers have of her. A whole lot of members of
USCF know nothing of the governance issues and only know what they see
of her blog, her simuls, her books, tapes, and how she interacts in
promoting scholastics chess. When she stated that if Paul goes, she
goes, the recall was dead.

In the end, the delegates felt that Mr. Sloan's and Mr. Parker's
lawsuits would probably end up being dismissed just as countless other
ones have been and that although this whole issue was a disaster, USCF
has been here before and would survive. When Ms. Polgar filed her
counter-suit, many saw that as a defense reaction and it gave credence
to the concept that this is a political war between two factions
fighting for control of USCF. Many don't blame her for filing the
lawsuit but would have preferred that she had left USCF out of it. The
bottom line is that delegates did not want to ruin someone's livelihood
by removing him/her/them from the Executive Board and then find out
later that a "mistake" had been made and they were guilty of nothing.

Nothing has changed since that time except that more lawsuits, claims,
and counter-claims have been generated. As of this date, all I have seen
is dismissed lawsuits. I haven't seen a single one get to the deposition
stage but perhaps you know something I don't.

It's not that I question the need to go to an IL court to seek removal,
it's the timing of it. It's been called to my attention that the legal
fees initiated for this law firm were paid back in September. So, what's
been going on in October, November, December that this lawsuit seeking
removal could not have been filed previously?

And you're right. The sentiment of the delegates was not to remove Mr.
Truong, never mind Ms. Polgar. Here we have a board with an obvious 4/2
lockdown and 4 members seek to remove 2 members and somehow people don't
think this has to pass a smell test? The delegates and the members
aren't likely to be all that supportive of this action unless there has
been something substantial to occur to show why it was necessary to take
the action. Allegations without a court decision to back them up aren't
likely going to be enough.

And you wonder what is going on with me these days. It's simple. I
accept the reality that the delegates wanted to see a finding of guilt
in some court somewhere before taking a drastic step of seeking removal
of a board member. They don't like the precedent being set here...that a
block of EB members can shut out other EB members and then remove those
members - especially during an election year.

The political ramifications here are also obvious. Publicity that USCF
is seeking direct removal of two EB members two weeks prior to
nomination deadline...how will that affect anyone that Ms. Polgar and
Mr. Truong seek to encourage to join the board? What if their supporters
are elected and they are removed? Then they can be the next 2 members
sitting on the board being shut out?

Oh, and are you also asking why I took an interest into the "fake Joe
Lux" and "fake Dylan McClain" posts on RGCP? It's because IF there was
any question about the reports which were provided by experts that came
from the recall group I led, I wanted solid answers - no matter how
unpleasant that truth might be. As of now, however, I don't see where
those posts accomplish anything other than muddy waters which show that
someone can go to the Jersey City Library or the NY Times and make posts
under a different name. Still, I was willing to listen to others who
"thought" that faking it might be a possibility.

My position hasn't changed for some time. I believe that Mr. Truong
should leave the EB - now more than ever before. If there was a court
finding of guilt, I wouldn't hesitate to start another recall petition
because at that point I believe the delegates would pass it. However, do
I believe that if a special meeting were called now that the delegates
would pass a motion to remove him? Probably not. I really don't think
they would...I think they'd want him to have his day in court. And I
personally have to believe that's probably why we now see an action in
an IL court instead of a motion to initiate a recall petition or a
special meeting.

There's no mistaking this for what it is. The filing in IL goes around
the delegates and the sales pitch is that they don't meet again until
August. Just more reinforcement as to why our system of governance does
not work.
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
DACP

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

Ms. Alarie has raised the issue with me previously regarding whether or
not the USCF EB is empowered to bring suit in Illinois to remove an EB
member for cause. Her argument was that only the Delegates as directors
could make that decision and take action. Counsel in Illinois has
clearly advised to judge from the language of the complaint that her
position is incorrect on the law. As Mr. Mottershead points out, the law
is on the side of the EB in commencing this action. As to the timing,
Ms. Alarie again has it completely wrong.

I can state without qualification that this EB did not commence this
action without a great deal of sober consideration. I am told by the ED
that this EB did not commence the Illinois action until it was certain
that it had all the facts necessary to make a powerful, cogent case for
the court to decide. If anything, the timing of this action was
delayed by the filing and progression of Polgar's bad faith, frivolous
action in Texas.

Ms. Alarie is, IMO, being completely disingenuous when she states that
the delegates wanted to see a court finding of guilt before taking
removal action. NOWHERE, was that issue voted on by the Delegates. If
Ms. Alarie has taken a survey of delegates in Dallas as to what she
claims they wanted, please put the survey results in fromt of us.
Contrary to what Ms. Alarie apparently believes, she does NOT speak for
all or even some of the delegates. The delegates speak by voting. They
are in no way bound by Ms. Alarie's views and interpretations of events
and politics.

As to the Fake Joe Lux and fake Dylan McClain posts, Ms. Alarie appears
to have been suckered again by the smoke an mirrors emanating from
Chicago.

To conclude, if anyone is playing at politics at the expense of letting
the truth be known and having people like Polgar and Truong held
accountable for their destructive actions and political gamesmanship, it
appears to be Ms. Alarie and her friends in the Truong/Polgar camp. I
am appalled by Ms. Alarie's loss, IMMHO, of her moral compass in this
matter. As a board member of the Massacuhsetts Chess Association, I
would hope that she would resign her post as a USCF Delegaate from
Massachusetts. Absent that, I will inquire of the MACA parlimentarian
whether or not it is possible to remove or recall her as our delegate.
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 30th 08, 01:17 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Does Donna Alarie Have a Point?

No. Donna Alarie does not have a point.

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
Brian P Lafferty and Donna Alarie are planning to milk money from the USCF [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 May 17th 07 02:06 PM
Brian P Lafferty and Donna Alarie are planning to milk money from the USCF [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 May 17th 07 02:06 PM
Brian P Lafferty and Donna Alarie are planning to milk money from the USCF [email protected] rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 May 17th 07 12:19 AM
Brian P Lafferty and Donna Alarie are planning to milk money from the USCF [email protected] rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 May 17th 07 12:19 AM
Brian P Lafferty and Donna Alarie are planning to milk money from the USCF [email protected] alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 May 17th 07 12:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 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