Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 07:39 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Britan Lafferty's candidacy

TRANSPARENCY

Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. That's easy
to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
the old boy network.

Mr. Lafferty: the devil is in the details. What will be told
the membership and what will be withheld?

About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
keeping bids sealed or private until opened.

What does that tell all of us?

Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
from the membership.

Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)

Do you REALLY mean transparency? Are you prepared to release
all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
date? Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
the standard established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?

Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
mandates -- in our Federation? Once again, specifics. ADM-64 calls
for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
meeting. They never do so. Should they now be fired immediately for
failing to have done so?

If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
law within the Federation? Why, sir?

Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
publicly demand his immediate firing. If not, why not? And if you
tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?

If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
real questions.

Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
believes in transparency. Prove me wrong, and I will support you. As
for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
higher authority than the PB or the EB. What say you about him? Will
you call for the firing of our FIDE team?

Yours, Larry Parr

  #2   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 08:03 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Britan Lafferty's candidacy

On Jan 1, 2:39*am, " wrote:

* * * * Some specifics. *The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: *can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. *What was the real cost of this building? *What happened to the
funds in the LMA? *


On these items I raised these issues at every meeting of the board I
attended in both open and closed session and was never able to get any
answers, except that I found that a lot of money in the LMA, at least
$50,000, went to Miss Polgar.

Having transcripts of the closed sessions will not help you. Having
transcripts of the open sessions would help except that they refuse to
have the transcripts made.

What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members?


Even Larry Parr should know that private conversations about legal
strategy in pending lawsuits should not be made public.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 10:03 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Britan Lafferty's candidacy

wrote:
TRANSPARENCY

Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. That's easy
to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
the old boy network.

Mr. Lafferty: the devil is in the details. What will be told
the membership and what will be withheld?

About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
keeping bids sealed or private until opened.

What does that tell all of us?

Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
from the membership.

Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)

Do you REALLY mean transparency? Are you prepared to release
all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
date? Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
the standard established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?

Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
mandates -- in our Federation? Once again, specifics. ADM-64 calls
for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
meeting. They never do so. Should they now be fired immediately for
failing to have done so?

If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
law within the Federation? Why, sir?

Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
publicly demand his immediate firing. If not, why not? And if you
tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?

If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
real questions.

Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
believes in transparency. Prove me wrong, and I will support you. As
for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
higher authority than the PB or the EB. What say you about him? Will
you call for the firing of our FIDE team?

Yours, Larry Parr



Try again, Larry. Guilt by association went out of fashion with the
McCarthy brothers, Charley and Joe. I'm not endorsing any of the
current EB members; in fact, I've criticized all of them, as you could
easily have discovered had you bothered to look. (Weren't you a
journalist once?) I said only that Brian Lafferty had no
qualifications whatsoever for the job. If he had been a USCF member
for more than two years, if he had ever organized or directed a
tournament, if he had ever written a chess article -- if he had _any_
qualifications beyond a loud voice and a desire for power -- I might
have come to a different conclusion.

As for closed-session meetings: That's a legitimate point. However,
I'd like to see some documentation from you that "Ninety percent or
more of closed PB meetings ... are attempts to keep facts that ought
by Federation law to be released to the membership, away from the
membership." If this is true, it's clearly bad, but your unsourced
claim is hardly sufficient. Considering that, at present, the two
factions on the Board hate each other like rat poison, I find it a
little far-fetched that _anything_ is being kept secret. One side or
the other is bound to leak it for factional advantage.

Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)


Bunkum. The status of the building has been discussed ad nauseam on
the USCF Forum. There aren't any secrets about it. The LMA money was
spent on operating expenses, as you can easily see from the annual
financials. Bad management, but hardly a conspiracy. Drug testing:
Well, I actually agree with you about that, but how does this relate
to "secret meetings"? I doubt the Board has even thought about this
recently, except perhaps when Sloan was making a pest of himself. And
the issue with the e-mails was not the content, it was the _means_
(quite likely illegal) by which they were obtained.

You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 01:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 324
Default Britan Lafferty's candidacy

On Jan 1, 4:03*am, wrote:


You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.-


If it looks like a nut and sounds like a nut . . . meet Liarry Peanut.

Randy Bauer
  #5   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 01:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default Britan Lafferty's candidacy

On Jan 1, 8:09*am, Randy Bauer wrote:
On Jan 1, 4:03*am, wrote:



You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.-


If it looks like a nut and sounds like a nut . . . meet Liarry Peanut.

Randy Bauer


I should just like to make the brief comment that what you see above /
is/ the current management style. The ire is merely directed at a
current critic [all critique is assumed to be negative], but the Eye
of Mordor takes in all it views at a personality level, and disparages
them.

Even when the entire world seemed to be aghast at adoption of Fide
Armageddon rules for important finals - and I engaged USCF organizers
and board members on the subject [their replies amounted to 5,000
words], they were still in denial that especially European organisers
writing at Chessbase had described these finishes as demeaning and
degrading to chess.

Therefore, you are left with these personality cliques who are unable
to discuss anything objectively, since it is their policy rather than
their inability to do so.

Now... if this actually worked, if USCF were in any way healthy, and
if such management style was acclaimed to be what members actually
wanted, that would be one thing. But it ain't. This is not the place
to discuss that, since my correspondent has expressed no interest in
doing so, being indifferent to all opinion.

Better to address issues by joining the previous post by John Hillery
who, at least, and to his credit, is prepared to mention a few actual
topics of what would forward us.

Phil Innes
Vermont


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 01:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 55
Default Britan Lafferty's candidacy

On Jan 1, 2:39*am, " wrote:
TRANSPARENCY

Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. *That's easy
to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
the old boy network.

* * * Mr. Lafferty: *the devil is in the details. *What will be told
the membership and what will be withheld?

* * * About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
keeping bids sealed or private until opened.

* * * What does that tell all of us?

* * * *Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
from the membership.

* * * * Some specifics. *The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: *can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. *What was the real cost of this building? *What happened to the
funds in the LMA? *Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? *What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? *(This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)

* * * *Do you REALLY mean transparency? *Are you prepared to release
all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
date? *Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
the standard *established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?

* * * *Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
mandates -- in our Federation? *Once again, specifics. *ADM-64 calls
for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
meeting. *They never do so. *Should they now be fired immediately for
failing to have done so?

* * * *If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
law within the Federation? *Why, sir?

* * * *Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
publicly demand his immediate firing. *If not, why not? *And if you
tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?

* * * *If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
real questions.

* * * *Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
believes in transparency. *Prove me wrong, and I will support you. *As
for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
higher authority than the PB or the EB. *What say you about him? *Will
you call for the firing of our FIDE team?

*Yours, Larry Parr


Larry,

You may find the following of interest to help you measure what
candidates support - http://www.mncn.org/info_principles6.htm .

Regards,
Wayne Praeder
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 01:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Britan Lafferty's candidacy

On Jan 1, 5:03*am, wrote:

Bunkum. The status of the building has been discussed ad nauseam on
the USCF Forum.


That is not the answer to the question. This question came up at every
meeting of the board that I attended and no conclusive answer was ever
provided.

At the Stillwater Meeting on May 17-18, 2007, Bill Hall reported that
he had met with the Mayor of Crossville, J, H. Graham, in response to
our demand at the previous meeting that he do exactly that, and that
the mayor would not agree for us to sell the building. However, he
said that we could "burn it out" over the next 15 years. In other
words, provided that we stayed in Crossville for 15 years, he would
agree to let us sell "our" building.

As I was not satisfied with that answer, I made a motion that I had
also made at other meetings and that I had also said I would do when I
campaigned for election that the USCF retain counsel in Nashville (not
in Crossville) to make a determination and advise us as to our rights
to sell the building should we choose to do so. The other board
members refused to agree because attorneys cost money. Finally Joel
Channing agreed, provided that the attorney would cost no more than
$500. I said OK in that I case I move that the board retain counsel at
a cost of no more than $500. At first Joel Channing seemed to agree
but then he changed his mind and said that $500 was too much to spend
to see what our rights were with respect to a building supposedly
worth $650,000.

So, my motion was voted down 6-1.

So, we still do not know what our rights are with respect to the
building.

There aren't any secrets about it. The LMA money was
spent on operating expenses, as you can easily see from the annual
financials. Bad management, but hardly a conspiracy.


Not so fast. For example, I discovered an unauthorized payment of
$13,356.36 to Susan Polgar made in November 2003 while Bill Goichberg
was executive director that neither the president nor the 2003 board
had known about or would have agreed with had they known about it.
There was then and still are no documents supporting this payment of
$13,358.36. Bill Goichberg still blames this on a low level clerk
named Linda even though Goichberg signed the check. That was the
biggest single check Goichberg ever signed while he was Executive
Director, so he certainly should have noticed it.

Any documentation supporting that payment would have been on the
laptop computer that Paul and Susan stole from the USCF''s offices on
August 20, 2003. Goichberg still has not taken appropriate measures to
get that laptop computer back.

This is only a small part of a much bigger problem. In every year for
the years 1999-2003 which was when most of the $2 million was lost,
the delegates passed a budget calling for a surplus. Also, the
financial statements for the end of each of those years showed a minor
but affordable loss.

Nevertheless, by the end of 2003 it was discovered that the $2 million
1999 that had been in the Oberweiss Fund according to the 1999
financial statements was completely gone and missing by 2003, only
four years later.

Saying that it was due to "operating losses" does not answer the
question. What operating losses, when, where and why?

Why cannot we find out the answer to these questions?

We have recently learned that Frank Niro had the bad habit of playing
in extremely high stakes poker games in Foxwoods Casino where, he
reports on his website, a player lost $37,000 in a single hand of
poker in a game in which Frank Niro was playing. Was any of the USCF's
$2 million lost in high stakes poker games? We would like to know.

Drug testing:
Well, I actually agree with you about that, but how does this relate
to "secret meetings"? I doubt the Board has even thought about this
recently, except perhaps when Sloan was making a pest of himself.


When John Hillary said that I was "making a pest of himself", he
refers to the fact that when I was on the board for one year I
regularly reported to the outside world what had happened in the
closed sessions, even though they had been closed.

In fact, during my one year on the board there was never a discussion
in closed session of either of the two issues that are legitimate
closed session items, namely litigation and personnel issues.
Litigation never came up because there was no litigation involving the
USCF while I was on the board.

Personnel costs and issues never came up because we never were able to
get even a list of all the people working for the USCF and what their
job duties were. Bill Hall refused to provide that information even
though I persistently asked for it, which is one of the reasons why
John Hillery says that I was "making a pest of myself".

To this day we still do not know how many people are working for the
USCF and how many consultants there are. Saying "look it up in Chess
Life" is not the answer, because Chess Life does not answer this
question.

So, perhaps the board can answer the questions now: How many employees
and contractors does the USCF have? Do you know the answer to this
question? (I doubt that the board knows, even today.) If you do know,
why cannot you tell us, the dues paying members?

Sam Sloan
  #8   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 02:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Brian Lafferty's candidacy

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 130)

As for closed-session meetings: That's a legitimate point. However,

I'd like to see some documentation from you that "Ninety percent or
more of closed PB meetings ... are attempts to keep facts that ought
by Federation law to be released to the membership, away from the
membership." If this is true, it's clearly bad, but your unsourced
claim is hardly sufficient. -- John Hillery, editor of the Chess
Journalists of America newsletter


BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: SECRECY AND CLOSED SESSIONS

EVANS: Let me ask you about some of your frustrations. For example,
during president Steven Doyleís administration you were denied access
to certain documents when you tried to procure expense records or
phone bills of fellow board members.

ALBURT: It is part of this overall hysteria over secrecy. They try to
keep a tight lid on things while pretending everything is open and
above board. They feel insecure when people criticize their policies.
Before the Renaissance Group there were no real critics, just
different cliques like themselves fighting for power. But nobody ever
challenged the system the way the Friends of the USCF did by pushing
for one-member-one-vote. In the past chess politicians attacked each
other for trivial things, not fundamental changes. The board senses
that they lack real legitimacy because the 350 or so voters are to a
great extent handpicked by their cronies in various states. [Today
regular members can vote for candidates who run for office and
publish statements in Chess Life.]

EVANS: But isnít such secrecy extraordinary in a not-for-profit, tax-
exempt organization charged with promoting chess in America?

ALBURT: The board certainly keeps a lot of things secret that they
shouldnít. I was denied access to many documents. And when president
Harold Winston came in, he tightened the secrecy despite his pledge to
run an open administration. He regarded critics as enemies and tried
to hide things from them.

EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but
had to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its
newsletter. Isnít the board spending more and more time in closed
session anyway?

ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind donít
belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse
to say nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes
they knock people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence
or shut up.

EVANS: So didnít they become more careful around you?

ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared
togetheróthe feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better.
When someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed
ranks and deeloped a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become one
of the oys as soon as they were elected.

EVANS: Can you give an example?

ALBURT: The change in David Saponara was dramatic. At first he
strongly opposed the boardís austerity budget. But after they talked
to him in Boston [1988] he did an abrupt about face. What the board
did was, in my opinion, technically wrong. They called an unofficial
session from which I was excluded where they made deals and persuaded
Saponara to change his mind.

EVANS: Thereís an old saying in politics that to get along you have to
go along. Werenít you tempted to do this?

ALBURT: I felt a great temptation to be more conciliatory. You see,
after all, they are not evil people. Personally many of them are very
nice. When youíre in the same room and spend a lot of time together,
exchange jokes and try to solve problems, you develop a sort of
camaraderie. Itís natural. But I had to remind myself that although we
were friendly, the things they were doing in secret were plainly
wrong. The system which existed, a system of secrecy, could be easily
abused. It certainly invited corruption.

EVANS: Board member Harry Sabine said all that the reformers would
accomplish by trying to open things up is to force the board into
doing more things behind closed doors.

ALBURT: Okay. It just shows their type of mentality. A siege
mentality.

EVANS: I was under the impression that the board only had the right to
go into closed session to discuss things like sealed bids or legal and
personnel matters.

ALBURT: They do many other things that should be discussed openly. For
instance, they went into closed session to discuss candidates to
replace Don Schultz as FIDE delegate. They argued it was necessary
because otherwise they could not say nasty things about other
candidates in public, like so-and-so is a drunk. My position was that
if someone wanted to say something derogatory, they could stop briefly
to go into closed session.

EVANS: But doesnít much of this information get out anyway?

ALBURT: Of course. They leak information all the time to their
friends. For instance, when executive director Gerard Dullea was given
authority to fire Larry Parr as editor in closed session, it was
supposed to be a deep dark secret. But when I came out of the meeting
I was met by Jerry Hanken who told me how sorry he was, that if only
he had been elected instead of Sabine such a dreadful thing never
would have happened. Probably some board member broke the news to him
on the way to the bathroom.

EVANS: Why should there be such a need to classify information? Chess
is not the Pentagon.

ALBURT: The board is playing with its power. I can hardly ever recall
when any justification was given for going into closed session. Often
they just wanted to bad-mouth people not being considered for jobs.
Especially people who were my friends, but even some I didnít know.
When I challenged them and asked for proof, they said they were merely
speaking their piece and giving their opinion.

EVANS: But, Lev, you say these are decent people. Decent people donít
do these things.

ALBURT: I agree. But people are not all black and white. I think the
problem is they created an artificial environment. It creates a
bankrupt mentality. It creates a sense of belonging to an exclusive
club. They feel they can do almost anything, and that others are
beneath themóeven grandmasters. But when Ed Labate sued them, they
immediately retreated. So what I am saying is that they are not evil
people, they are not bad people. But the system is so bad that even
normal people are encouraged to act wrongly.



wrote:
wrote:
TRANSPARENCY

Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. That's easy
to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
the old boy network.

Mr. Lafferty: the devil is in the details. What will be told
the membership and what will be withheld?

About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
keeping bids sealed or private until opened.

What does that tell all of us?

Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
from the membership.

Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)

Do you REALLY mean transparency? Are you prepared to release
all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
date? Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
the standard established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?

Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
mandates -- in our Federation? Once again, specifics. ADM-64 calls
for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
meeting. They never do so. Should they now be fired immediately for
failing to have done so?

If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
law within the Federation? Why, sir?

Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
publicly demand his immediate firing. If not, why not? And if you
tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?

If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
real questions.

Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
believes in transparency. Prove me wrong, and I will support you. As
for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
higher authority than the PB or the EB. What say you about him? Will
you call for the firing of our FIDE team?

Yours, Larry Parr



Try again, Larry. Guilt by association went out of fashion with the
McCarthy brothers, Charley and Joe. I'm not endorsing any of the
current EB members; in fact, I've criticized all of them, as you could
easily have discovered had you bothered to look. (Weren't you a
journalist once?) I said only that Brian Lafferty had no
qualifications whatsoever for the job. If he had been a USCF member
for more than two years, if he had ever organized or directed a
tournament, if he had ever written a chess article -- if he had _any_
qualifications beyond a loud voice and a desire for power -- I might
have come to a different conclusion.

As for closed-session meetings: That's a legitimate point. However,
I'd like to see some documentation from you that "Ninety percent or
more of closed PB meetings ... are attempts to keep facts that ought
by Federation law to be released to the membership, away from the
membership." If this is true, it's clearly bad, but your unsourced
claim is hardly sufficient. Considering that, at present, the two
factions on the Board hate each other like rat poison, I find it a
little far-fetched that _anything_ is being kept secret. One side or
the other is bound to leak it for factional advantage.

Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)


Bunkum. The status of the building has been discussed ad nauseam on
the USCF Forum. There aren't any secrets about it. The LMA money was
spent on operating expenses, as you can easily see from the annual
financials. Bad management, but hardly a conspiracy. Drug testing:
Well, I actually agree with you about that, but how does this relate
to "secret meetings"? I doubt the Board has even thought about this
recently, except perhaps when Sloan was making a pest of himself. And
the issue with the e-mails was not the content, it was the _means_
(quite likely illegal) by which they were obtained.

You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.

  #9   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 02:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default Britan Lafferty's candidacy

On Jan 1, 5:03*am, wrote:
wrote:
TRANSPARENCY


Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. *That's easy
to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
the old boy network.


* * * Mr. Lafferty: *the devil is in the details. *What will be told
the membership and what will be withheld?


* * * About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
keeping bids sealed or private until opened.


* * * What does that tell all of us?


* * * *Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
from the membership.


I do not comment on current cases - legal ones - but I note in passing
that in the past year, is it 2 meetings that kept 'board' resolutions
away from other board members?!!

The other members were not even permitted to express a minority
opinion since apparently a quorum had decided an issue and proceeded
with it. Then came the dissent of 2 minority members who thought they
could not be associated with that decision - but who were then
censured by the rest of the board for even stating what the [secret]
issue actually was!

This is so very Soviet, no?

* * * * Some specifics. *The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: *can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. *What was the real cost of this building? *What happened to the
funds in the LMA? *Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? *What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? *(This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)


There is a tide-mark! Very few people writing here will agree with
Larry Parr since while they like 'transparency' in some abstract or
intellectualized sense, it all very much depends on who should be
transparent. IE - since the beginning of the lawsuits Susan Polgar has
asked for transparency, challenged the rest of the board on
transparency.

They have simply not acted transparently.

Neither is their any ground-swell in this newsgroup to support
transparency. But there is elsewhere - Chessville's Christmas card
went to 10x as many people as write here in chess.misc and
chess.politics, and many of these people are active journalists chess
teachers and so on. They, I would say almost all of them, would
support such ideas as Larry Parr proposes - even further, even unto
the means by which such transparency should be achieved being not the
determination of the executive board!


* * * *Do you REALLY mean transparency? *Are you prepared to release
all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
date? *Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
the standard *established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?


These comments will be critized as naive - but OTOH, the /results/ of
such lack of transparency and comportment with delegate wishes is USCF
today. It is not an active conspiracy, it is a passive one based on
executive arrogance that they need not accord, nor share what they do.

* * * *Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
mandates -- in our Federation? *Once again, specifics. *ADM-64 calls
for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
meeting. *They never do so. *Should they now be fired immediately for
failing to have done so?


* * * *If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
law within the Federation? *Why, sir?


Again, I doubt Larry Parr will receive support for rule of law issues
from these newsgroups. People have trouble admitting that even
lawsuits should be decided in court here.


* * * *Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
publicly demand his immediate firing. *If not, why not? *And if you
tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?


* * * *If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
real questions.


I have interviewed more wannabe and actual board members than anyone
ever has, and at far greater length than others have. I certainly
agree with Larry Parr that real questions need answering, and not
position statements and other such proclamations broadcast tot he air.

What is interesting in such interviews is to note what candidates
skip, or answer elusively.


* * * *Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
believes in transparency. *Prove me wrong, and I will support you. *As
for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
higher authority than the PB or the EB. *What say you about him? *Will
you call for the firing of our FIDE team?


*Yours, Larry Parr


Try again, Larry. Guilt by association went out of fashion with the
McCarthy brothers, Charley and Joe. I'm not endorsing any of the
current EB members; in fact, I've criticized all of them, as you could
easily have discovered had you bothered to look. (Weren't you a
journalist once?)


Clarify that comment a bit John, beyond the reaction to what Larry
Parr said. When I read your comment above about no endorsement I
immediately thought that this may not be a commentary on any
individual - are you making a systemic criticism? Is it the corporate
culture which is the matter, one in which no possible candidate can be
imagined to be of much more use than any other candidate?

I said only that Brian Lafferty had no
qualifications whatsoever for the job. If he had been a USCF member
for more than two years, if he had ever organized or directed a
tournament, if he had ever written a chess article -- if he had _any_
qualifications beyond a loud voice and a desire for power -- I might
have come to a different conclusion.


In will seem massively paradoxical to Brian Lafferty himself, that I
would offer you a contrary view - and actually to support non-chess
permeated people being on the board of USCF. Most national NFA's
deliberately seek people outside their own realm to further their
scope. While of course this is not an endorsement of Mr. Lafferty,
neither is it an inhibition to his candidacy that would sway my
opinion very much. Other things might, but we have not yet discussed
what those are - and to honor this thread, largely about transparency,
which is to say, about official secrets, even lying, let us reserve
our conversation on what c haracter we seek in candidate board
members, as well as nominating the vital functions they should
perform, for another thread.


As for closed-session meetings: That's a legitimate point. However,
I'd like to see some documentation from you that "Ninety percent or
more of closed PB meetings ... are attempts to keep facts that ought
by Federation law to be released to the membership, away from the
membership."


Surely that is a clear request, but just as surely an ironical one?
How can, except by word of mouth, records of secrets be quantified,
since the secret items are not available to ordinary review?

If this is true, it's clearly bad, but your unsourced
claim is hardly sufficient. Considering that, at present, the two
factions on the Board hate each other like rat poison, I find it a
little far-fetched that _anything_ is being kept secret. One side or
the other is bound to leak it for factional advantage.


Likely a truism, but I think this is but the minor key in which this
issue is written. The dominant cord is the fact of secrecy and
'parties' themselves, and both these are raised to higher level than
content! That content, BTW, being the matter USCF is created to
pursue. Therefore such as in the old SU, everything becomes
propaganda, and no /objective/ reporting by non-insiders relieves the
situation.

Since you, Larry Parr and I, all hack; and since we each obtain a
disinterested relationship with USCF [no financial or other tangible
benefits] and since no others such as we even bother to attend on USCF
[apart from MIG] then how should any unspun reporting be achieved?
When things have to be leaked to you, then how should the necessity to
leak be reported?

The relationship of USCF with any independent parties is unhealthy,
and predominantly because of the massive secrecy surrounding it, its
committees, officers, board members, and resolutions.

As I responded to Randy Bauer earlier today, USCF actively shuns any
view contrary or critical to its own, including asking it if they fell
anything about the whole world condemning them for their policies [see
Armageddon example]. USCF in 5000 words or response [which I didn't
publish] both denied that such criticism was 'real' and simply
justified themselves while dismissing the views of others.

The issue for reporters is not therefore one of liking any matter or
not - since USCF do not like any reporting that is not some sort of
Press Release propaganda - it is one of being a conduit between one's
readers and the chess public.

We 3 at least should take this aspect seriously, since this is
naturally our own role in association with USCF, and one which others
cannot share - they have no public to correspond with.

You admit some similar orientation to what I have written above?

* * * * Some specifics. *The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: *can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. *What was the real cost of this building? *What happened to the
funds in the LMA? *Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? *What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? *(This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)


Bunkum. The status of the building has been discussed ad nauseam on
the USCF Forum. There aren't any secrets about it. The LMA money was
spent on operating expenses, as you can easily see from the annual
financials. Bad management, but hardly a conspiracy.


Well - strictly speaking John Hillery is correct in terms of active
conspiracy. Yet I think there is a tad more to the issue than that,
and one must consider the passive stance which resulted in such a
situation coming about. After all, the fairies didn't do it, and
'management' is there to actually steer the ship. If it neglects to
look at the compass... and finds itself in ice, then the Titanic level
of potential disaster can't really be shuffled off, can it?

In that sense the bad management is to tacitly allow things to go on
which collectively conspire to disaster.


Drug testing:
Well, I actually agree with you about that, but how does this relate
to "secret meetings"? I doubt the Board has even thought about this
recently, except perhaps when Sloan was making a pest of himself. And
the issue with the e-mails was not the content, it was the _means_
(quite likely illegal) by which they were obtained.


What actually can be legitimately secret in an NFA which has public
benefit in its mission statement? If we abandon USCF as an NFA, and
throw away the mission statement, then it could act as it wishes, and
then the means of communication can be protected.

If the content of the message is disreputable in terms of individuals
conspiring against others, is it actually honorable to uphold the
means by which that is achieved? But that is merely another issue
resulting from secrecy. The issue does not work in favor of one party
or another - but is a systemic one - and in a closed and habitually
secret culture, is a massive and seemingly bottomless can of worms.

You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.


Well, there are such things as conspiracies of silence, as well as
more active machinations. But your dismissal of the issue John, though
I sense it is intended to be cautionary of too sweeping an attitude,
is somewhat over the top, since quite legitimate conspiracies, active
and passive, should not be overlooked.

What any board candidate should be asked at this point is not if they
are for transparency, but how they will achieve it? If, as in recent
cases, the leaking of a board resolution results in a lawsuit against
the leaking board member - how will any means of being transparent
realistically come about?

What if you doubt the ethical nature of a quorum of board members?
What will you do? Should you speak?

Can USCF employ its own lawyers to get after you if you do?

I am not looking for theoretical answers here; these issues have
already arisen this past year. They are likely unanswerable questions
by any candidate board member, since the overwhelming factor is the
current corporate culture which will not even openly declare a
discussion on its own modus operandi - which is a mighty strange and
suspicious may to go on.

It is unlikely thereby that any candidate makes much difference from a
personality level while such massive inhibition is the norm.

Phil Innes
Vermont
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 03:14 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Britan Lafferty's candidacy

wrote:
TRANSPARENCY

Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. That's easy
to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
the old boy network.

Mr. Lafferty: the devil is in the details. What will be told
the membership and what will be withheld?

About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
keeping bids sealed or private until opened.

What does that tell all of us?

Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
from the membership.

Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)

Do you REALLY mean transparency? Are you prepared to release
all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
date? Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
the standard established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?

Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
mandates -- in our Federation? Once again, specifics. ADM-64 calls
for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
meeting. They never do so. Should they now be fired immediately for
failing to have done so?

If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
law within the Federation? Why, sir?

Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
publicly demand his immediate firing. If not, why not? And if you
tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?

If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
real questions.

Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
believes in transparency. Prove me wrong, and I will support you. As
for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
higher authority than the PB or the EB. What say you about him? Will
you call for the firing of our FIDE team?

Yours, Larry Parr

Good and legitimate questions. I will answer them here and on my blog
once I've had a cup or two or three of coffee. Happy New Year to all!
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
Nolan challenges Brian P Lafferty's trustworthiness samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 July 23rd 07 06:07 AM
Brian P Lafferty's credibility is being challenged samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 July 23rd 07 06:02 AM
WIM Beatrice Marinello Candidacy Questions Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 33 January 9th 05 12:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 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