Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 1st 04, 02:10 PM
Sam Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??

I am in the process of changing my mind about OMOV. For many years, I
was one of the strongest supporters of OMOV, which means One Member
One Vote. OMOV was long opposed by the stalwarts and insiders in the
USCF. They feared that under OMOV somebody like Larry Parr would be
elected.

The reason OMOV finally passed was the widespread revulsion of the
action of Tim Redman while he was president. Redman was only president
for one year, from August 2000 to August 2001, but in that one year he
nearly destroyed the USCF.

The Redman presidency was the last straw for the old system. It was
not only problems with Redman. There had been problems with the
Schultz Board, with the Barry Board, with the Dlugy Board, and with
the Winston Board. But, after one year of Redman, even long time
opponents of OMOV were ready to vote in favor of it, and it passed
overwhelmingly in Framingham, 2001.

Now, however, I am no longer so sure about OMOV. Nobody predicted what
would happen. What has happened is that the much-feared Larry Parr has
not run. Instead a bunch of people nobody ever heard of who have never
attended a USCF meeting and presumably know very little about the USCF
are running. What has happened is that a well financed outside group
could come in and take over and do a lot of harm (but also possibly a
lot of good) to the federation.

So, I will be thinking about this. I will be wondering whether or not
we should go back to the old system. This new election features five
candidates who have never attended a USCF meeting and it is guaranteed
that at least one of them will be elected. Is this a good thing or a
bad thing?

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 1st 04, 06:22 PM
David
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??



"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
snip

So, I will be thinking about this. I will be wondering whether or not
we should go back to the old system. This new election features five
candidates who have never attended a USCF meeting and it is guaranteed
that at least one of them will be elected. Is this a good thing or a
bad thing?


How is the candidate slate associated with OMOV?

David


--
without the block


  #3   Report Post  
Old April 1st 04, 07:20 PM
Angelo DePalma
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??


Voting matters if you have only quality people to choose from. If you have
less than 100% qualified, ethical, honest people running the contest always
degenerates to the lowest denominator. And when you have only jerks it
doesn't matter. So you could say voting is a futile activity.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
I am in the process of changing my mind about OMOV. For many years, I
was one of the strongest supporters of OMOV, which means One Member
One Vote. OMOV was long opposed by the stalwarts and insiders in the
USCF. They feared that under OMOV somebody like Larry Parr would be
elected.

The reason OMOV finally passed was the widespread revulsion of the
action of Tim Redman while he was president. Redman was only president
for one year, from August 2000 to August 2001, but in that one year he
nearly destroyed the USCF.

The Redman presidency was the last straw for the old system. It was
not only problems with Redman. There had been problems with the
Schultz Board, with the Barry Board, with the Dlugy Board, and with
the Winston Board. But, after one year of Redman, even long time
opponents of OMOV were ready to vote in favor of it, and it passed
overwhelmingly in Framingham, 2001.

Now, however, I am no longer so sure about OMOV. Nobody predicted what
would happen. What has happened is that the much-feared Larry Parr has
not run. Instead a bunch of people nobody ever heard of who have never
attended a USCF meeting and presumably know very little about the USCF
are running. What has happened is that a well financed outside group
could come in and take over and do a lot of harm (but also possibly a
lot of good) to the federation.

So, I will be thinking about this. I will be wondering whether or not
we should go back to the old system. This new election features five
candidates who have never attended a USCF meeting and it is guaranteed
that at least one of them will be elected. Is this a good thing or a
bad thing?

Sam Sloan



  #4   Report Post  
Old April 1st 04, 07:35 PM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??

"Angelo DePalma" writes:

Voting matters if you have only quality people to choose from. If you have
less than 100% qualified, ethical, honest people running the contest always
degenerates to the lowest denominator. And when you have only jerks it
doesn't matter. So you could say voting is a futile activity.


Your comments could apply to many (some might say most) elections,
not just to the USCF. Although I haven't missed voting in a local,
state or national in many years, I seldom see any names on the ballot
that I'm excited about voting for. (In fact, the more I know about
the individuals, the less excited I generally am about their candidacy.)

Several years ago Steve Doyle commented at the Delegates Meeting that
the people who were there were the same people he'd seen year after year.

If five out of six of the candidates are (relative) newcomers to USCF
governance, it appears that OMOV has had some impact on Steve's concerns.
--
Mike Nolan
  #5   Report Post  
Old April 1st 04, 10:33 PM
Angelo DePalma
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??


My comments apply to everything, everywhere, at all times. Or haven't you
noticed?

Q: What's the king of instruments?
A: Organ


"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"Angelo DePalma" writes:

Voting matters if you have only quality people to choose from. If you

have
less than 100% qualified, ethical, honest people running the contest

always
degenerates to the lowest denominator. And when you have only jerks it
doesn't matter. So you could say voting is a futile activity.


Your comments could apply to many (some might say most) elections,
not just to the USCF. Although I haven't missed voting in a local,
state or national in many years, I seldom see any names on the ballot
that I'm excited about voting for. (In fact, the more I know about
the individuals, the less excited I generally am about their candidacy.)

Several years ago Steve Doyle commented at the Delegates Meeting that
the people who were there were the same people he'd seen year after year.

If five out of six of the candidates are (relative) newcomers to USCF
governance, it appears that OMOV has had some impact on Steve's concerns.
--
Mike Nolan





  #6   Report Post  
Old April 1st 04, 11:54 PM
Matt Nemmers
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
I am in the process of changing my mind about OMOV. For many years, I
was one of the strongest supporters of OMOV, which means One Member
One Vote. OMOV was long opposed by the stalwarts and insiders in the
USCF. They feared that under OMOV somebody like Larry Parr would be
elected.

The reason OMOV finally passed was the widespread revulsion of the
action of Tim Redman while he was president. Redman was only president
for one year, from August 2000 to August 2001, but in that one year he
nearly destroyed the USCF.

The Redman presidency was the last straw for the old system. It was
not only problems with Redman. There had been problems with the
Schultz Board, with the Barry Board, with the Dlugy Board, and with
the Winston Board. But, after one year of Redman, even long time
opponents of OMOV were ready to vote in favor of it, and it passed
overwhelmingly in Framingham, 2001.

Now, however, I am no longer so sure about OMOV. Nobody predicted what
would happen. What has happened is that the much-feared Larry Parr has
not run. Instead a bunch of people nobody ever heard of who have never
attended a USCF meeting and presumably know very little about the USCF
are running. What has happened is that a well financed outside group
could come in and take over and do a lot of harm (but also possibly a
lot of good) to the federation.

So, I will be thinking about this. I will be wondering whether or not
we should go back to the old system. This new election features five
candidates who have never attended a USCF meeting and it is guaranteed
that at least one of them will be elected. Is this a good thing or a
bad thing?

Sam Sloan


The reason Sloan is changing his mind is because he knows people know him
and what he's all about, and because of this he knows he'll never, ever have
a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. At least with the old
system he could still try and schmooze the few people who make those
choices -- although even then, Sloan getting elected to anything is a long
shot.

The "fact" that these candidates have never attended a USCF meeting has
nothing to do with their qualifications as a candidate and is, without a
doubt, a good thing. Just because someone goes to meetings doesn't mean
they're qualified -- and Sloan is a prime example of that.

Regards,

Matt


  #7   Report Post  
Old April 2nd 04, 01:23 AM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
I am in the process of changing my mind about OMOV. For many years, I
was one of the strongest supporters of OMOV, which means One Member
One Vote. OMOV was long opposed by the stalwarts and insiders in the
USCF. They feared that under OMOV somebody like Larry Parr would be
elected.


(SNIP)

Now, however, I am no longer so sure about OMOV. Nobody predicted what
would happen. What has happened is that the much-feared Larry Parr has
not run. Instead a bunch of people nobody ever heard of who have never
attended a USCF meeting and presumably know very little about the USCF
are running. What has happened is that a well financed outside group
could come in and take over and do a lot of harm (but also possibly a
lot of good) to the federation.

So, I will be thinking about this. I will be wondering whether or not
we should go back to the old system. This new election features five
candidates who have never attended a USCF meeting and it is guaranteed
that at least one of them will be elected. Is this a good thing or a
bad thing?

Sam Sloan


Let's see, we've got a candidate (Praeder) who is very skilled in management
in the non-profit world as well as having done lots of work on the OMOV
effort; another (Shaughnessy) who heads one of the larger chess
organizations in the country; another (Huff) who is president of a hospital
corporation and a scholastic organizer; another (Bauer) who directs a $9
billion annual budget and serves on the USCF Finance and Audit Committees.
I do not know Mr. Korenman. I know enough of Sam Sloan to suggest he is far
less qualified -- Board meeting attendance notwithstanding -- than a
majority of the other candidates.

I think it's a good slate of candidates. Perhaps these "new faces" can
inject some new ideas and leave behind some of the political baggage that
has created fractiousness on past Executive Boards.

Randy Bauer
I am a candidate for the Executive Board of the USCF


  #8   Report Post  
Old April 2nd 04, 02:10 AM
HAASpittle
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??

"I think it's a good slate of candidates. Perhaps these "new faces" can
inject some new ideas and leave behind some of the political baggage that
has created fractiousness on past Executive Boards." (Randy Bauer)
==============
New ideas, huh? What could they possibly do with a little chess monastery
in the basement?

Haas
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 2nd 04, 09:28 AM
Jürgen R.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??



The reason Sloan is changing his mind is because he knows people know him
and what he's all about, and because of this he knows he'll never, ever have
a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.


Don't underestimate the vindictive vote at this point - anybody
interested in harming the USCF can now do so by voting for Sloan.

The vast majority will not know anything about the slimeball, but some
will vaguely recognize the name; this is worth quite a few votes.

At least with the old
system he could still try and schmooze the few people who make those
choices -- although even then, Sloan getting elected to anything is a long
shot.

The "fact" that these candidates have never attended a USCF meeting has
nothing to do with their qualifications as a candidate and is, without a
doubt, a good thing. Just because someone goes to meetings doesn't mean
they're qualified -- and Sloan is a prime example of that.

Regards,

Matt



  #10   Report Post  
Old April 2nd 04, 02:17 PM
Chessdon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Changing my mind about OMOV ??

The "fact" that these candidates have never attended a USCF meeting has
nothing to do with their qualifications as a candidate and is, without a
doubt, a good thing.


I disagree. Having attended USCF meetings is an asset.

Having said that, I think, based on their qualifications as presented here, we
have a fine slate of candidates!

I am anxious to hear what they have to say.

Don Schultz

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
Keene's "Duels of the Mind: The Twelve Best Games of Chess" Gregory Topov rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 17 January 21st 04 08:00 PM
USCF changing cover dates of Chess Life Miriling rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 January 7th 04 04:39 AM
OMOV election: 1822 ballots Recmate rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 14 August 26th 03 06:47 AM
Defining a successful OMOV election. Bruce Draney rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 July 17th 03 02:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 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