|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > January 2005 > So who is running for the Board?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
So who is running for the Board?
|
|
| RMille9601 2005-01-12, 9:45 am |
| I assume Sam is running again. There were some other names mentioned recently I
think. Was the deadline Monday?
I thought I posted something about the 1976 election to this forum but it has
not appeared yet. Maybe the file was to big.
Russell Miller, Chelan WA
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-12, 9:45 am |
| rmille9601@aol.com (RMille9601) writes:
quote:
>I assume Sam is running again. There were some other names mentioned recently I
>think. Was the deadline Monday?
The deadline is January 10th, which is this coming Monday.
By then nomination petitions and the filing fee must have been received
either by the USCF office or by the USCF Secretary, Don Schultz.
I don't know if any nominating petitions have been received yet, but
we should be able to post a list of candidates some time next week.
--
Mike Nolan, Chair, USCF Elections Committee
| |
| Jürgen R. 2005-01-12, 5:46 pm |
| rmille9601@aol.com (RMille9601) wrote:
quote:
>I assume Sam is running again. There were some other names mentioned recently I
>think. Was the deadline Monday?
>I thought I posted something about the 1976 election to this forum but it has
>not appeared yet. Maybe the file was to big.
>
>Russell Miller, Chelan WA
If there are fewer candidates than open seats then Sloan wins by
default - right?
quote:
>
| |
|
|
RMille9601 wrote:
quote:
> I assume Sam is running again. There were some other names mentioned
recently I
quote:
> think. Was the deadline Monday?
> I thought I posted something about the 1976 election to this forum
but it has
quote:
> not appeared yet. Maybe the file was to big.
>
> Russell Miller, Chelan WA
Russell,
I saw the post. Here it is:
Posted here by Russell Miller
INSIDE THE USCF:
CRISIS IN CONFIDENCE? OR TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT?
By John Larkins
CHESS VOICE 1976
(reprinted in NORTHWEST CHESS August 1976)
In the middle of August in Fairfax, Virginia, at the US Open, the US
Chess
federation will hold. its annual meeting. During thp meeting delegates
will
choose among candidates for two important Policy Board posltionsi USCF
Treasurer, and. Policy Board Member-at-Large.
This year the election is no popularity contest. The several candidates
represent greatly di-
vergent points of view, as their campaign literature makes abundantly
clear.
What Is the Current State of the USCF?
"We are in greater debt now than at any timein our history" says Arnold
Denker,
candidate for Member-at-Large. "Do you wonder that I am baffled to find
the
man who guided our fortunes during this debacle still at the helm? ...
The
central issue of this election (is) 'HOW MUCH LONGER CAN WE
SURVIVE WITH THIS KIND OP MANAGEMENT?"'
Fred Cramer, candidate for Treasurer, and probably the man most
responsible for
starting this whole debate, agrees: "The quality of our business
management is
THE major issue of this campaign-, properly so, long overdue. ... On
finance,
the XD (Executive Director) has hypnotized the Policy Board, into doing
nothing."
Cramer formed his own Finance Commitee and issued a lengthy document
detailing
the financial problems caused by
putting the money received by the USCF for Life memberships into the
checking
account and
not investing it in a reserve able to pay for the services due such
members for
the rest of their
lives.
Nothing But Silence
At first there was nothing but silence from the USCF staff. Policy
Board,
Finance Committee, and Accountant. Now, the better part of a year
later, the
Finance Committee has admitted to an estimated liability somewhere in
the
neighborhood of $500,000 to $800.000, But so far the only action taken
is a
vote by the Policy Committee to include
this sum in a footnote to the financial report. (Translation! it will
not be
listed under liabil-
ities. Why? If it were; the USCF might show a negative net worth!)
Excellent Administration
On the other hand, George S. Cunningham, another candidate for
Treasurer,
writes; "I am sorry that some candidates have made Ed Edmundson an
issue in
this election. ... Personally, I have admired the excellent
administration of
Federation affairs when I credit to Edumdson."
Harold J. Winston, a candidate for Treasurer, take middle positions.
Winston
has
nothing to say about whether there is or isn't a financial crisis but
he does
ask for "more
financial information available well in advance of the annual meeting
(since)...Full financial disclosure will keep up trust in USCF no
matter how
difficult
the times may be."
Peacor agrees that more complete and timely
financial information is needed. And he admits that how to handle Life
Memberships "remains a major policy question and problem for the
Federation."
But he sees no need for major changes: "The first step of problem
solution,
recognizing the problem,
is already under way, and corrective programs and
plans are being discussed and implemented."
How Did We Get in this Fickle?
Is the USCF really in trouble? Or is this just a case of malcontents
blowing
:;=B7"-'' steam? Is there a true crisis of confidence in Federation
leadership? Or is it all a
tempest in a teapot? Some of the financial issues are quite complicated
and
reasonable men could well take opposite views of them. But other things
are
quite clear.
For many years the USCF was a small, slow-growing organization. Then,
in 1969,
came the great Fischer boom and in three years the membership tripled!
At the
time It seemed to make sense for the Federation to take on some unusual
expenses: computerization, new headquarters, new programs. But just as
these
policies were going into effect, Fischer dropped out of chess, and the
membership started to decline sharply-cutting off the supply
of funds to pay for them.
On top of this, apparently no one had thought through the need to
reserve money
to pay for services owed to Life Members or how the problem becomes
considerably more pressing when there are wide fluctuations in
membership.
A Change in_the Power Structure
There were organizational problems as well, The small full-time staff
had to
decentralize its authority and take into account the increasing deinand
of some
of the more active members for a voice
in the affairs of the Federation, The result was a change in the power
structure-taking authority away from the previously all-powerful
Executive
Director and allocating it to-an elected committee, the Policy Board.
Anecdotal evidence, and reading between the lines of the Policy Board
Newsletters, suggests that the transition has not gone smoothly. The
Executive Director still has his hand on the tiller and is in no hurry
to let
go. One sign of
this is the difficulty the Policy Board is having in getting from him
enough
information to have a full picture of the Federation's current status.
Crisis in confidence? Or tempest In a teapot?
The coming elections hinge on this issue.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-01-14, 5:46 pm |
| On 08 Jan 2005 05:25:39 GMT, rmille9601@aol.com (RMille9601) wrote:
quote:
>I assume Sam is running again. There were some other names mentioned recently I
>think. Was the deadline Monday?
>I thought I posted something about the 1976 election to this forum but it has
>not appeared yet. Maybe the file was to big.
>
>Russell Miller, Chelan WA
>
There are two slates. One is known as "The Good Guys".
The other is known as "The Bad Guys".
You will never guess which one I favor.
Just to give you a hint, George John has raised his ugly head again
and has once again joined The Bad Guys.
Both slates are weak. I have thought of forming my own slate, which
would win, but if I did it I would kill my own chances, because they
would all beat me.
Sam Sloan
| |
| George John 2005-01-15, 12:46 am |
|
"RMille9601" <rmille9601@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050108002539.23235.00003002@mb-m03.aol.com...
-snip-
quote:
> Was the deadline Monday?
The filing deadline is Monday, January 10. The Bylaws posted to the USCF
Website at http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/Bylaws.php gives an incorrect
date of April 1 as well as an incorrect number of required signatures (100
when the correct number is 30). It also omits the $250 filing fee, and the
requirement for a signed statement that the candidate will serve if elected.
What I find even more interesting is that the 100 signature requirement and
April 1 deadline has never existed. The orginal motion passed in 2001 had
the same 30 signature requirement and a January 15 deadline. The $250
filing fee has always been a requirement, too.
The most accurate information I have been able to find is
http://www.uschess.org/EBNominations.pdf
and in the Proceedings of the 2004 USCF Annual fond at Meetings
http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/p...-withbudget.pdf
Look for DM04-21 - ADM 04-14
-snip-
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-15, 12:46 am |
| "George John" <george@neosoft.com> writes:
quote:
>The most accurate information I have been able to find is
>http://www.uschess.org/EBNominations.pdf
The call for nominations in the November issue of Chess Life also
specified the correct number of signatures and the amount of the
filing fee.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| StanB 2005-01-15, 12:46 am |
|
"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:vYjEd.20108$q4.13716@fe1.texas.rr.com...
quote:
> What I find even more interesting is that the 100 signature requirement
> and April 1 deadline has never existed. The orginal motion passed in 2001
> had the same 30 signature requirement and a January 15 deadline. The $250
> filing fee has always been a requirement, too.
Bill put this up to discourage people like you.
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-15, 12:46 am |
| "George John" <george@neosoft.com> writes:
quote:
>Clearly, the USCF needs to do a
>better job getting their posted Bylaws up-to-date more quickly.
If you get elected you can make that a Board task. :-)
That's why we posted the correct requirements on the website and published
it in the magazine.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| George John 2005-01-15, 12:46 am |
|
"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:vYjEd.20108$q4.13716@fe1.texas.rr.com...
-snip-
quote:
> What I find even more interesting is that the 100 signature requirement
> and April 1 deadline has never existed. The orginal motion passed in 2001
> had the same 30 signature requirement and a January 15 deadline. The $250
> filing fee has always been a requirement, too.
It seems I was wrong. The 100 signature requirement and April 1 deadline
did exist. I must have stepped out to the bathroom when these motions (see
below) came up under New Business at the same meeting.
So, the good news is only the $250 filing fee was missing from the Bylaws up
until the 2004 meeting which changed the 100 requirement back to 30 and the
filing date from April 1 to January 10. Clearly, the USCF needs to do a
better job getting their posted Bylaws up-to-date more quickly. I hope no
one that wants to run for the Executive Board is busy gathering 100
signatures and turns them after January 10 and before April 1!
Best regards,
George
NEW BUSINESS
NOMINATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE BOARD - ADM01-87, which makes part time employees
of USCF ineligible for Executive Board positions and describes the
requirements for nomination, was considered next. Harold Winston indicated
the Bylaws Workshop was in favor and offered an amendment, which was
accepted to change "elected member on the Executive Board" to "elected
member of the Executive Board". Rich Jackson offered an amendment, which was
accepted, to change "30 or more" to "100 or more". Tim Just called the
question and the motion passed.
DM01-64 ADM 01-87 - Doris Barry (NJ/AZ) - Article VI Section 4 Replace
language with the following: A USCF member shall be eligible for nomination
to an elected office of the Executive Board upon submitting to the secretary
by April 1, of an election year, his or her own valid petition containing
the signatures of 100 or more voting members. Each candidate will submit his
or her petition with no more than one candidate per petition. Candidates are
required to make a statement of intent to serve, if elected by, signing
their own petition or submitting a statement of intent and willingness to
serve if elected. No employee of the USCF is eligible to serve on the
Executive Board. (Eliminate "full- time") PASSED AS AMENDED
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-15, 12:46 am |
| "George John" <george@neosoft.com> writes:
quote:
>The USCF needs a standard process in place where the posted Bylaws are
>updated in a timely manner on the USCF Website. This has been a continuing
>problem.
The office has never had the responsibility for updating the Bylaws or
updating the list of delegate mandates, producing the minutes, etc.
Those are things that a professional staff should do, not volunteers!
Make the Secretary the ED, or keep it as an elected volunteer office
but delegate all the work to the office with oversight by the Secretary.
We don't ask our VP of Finance to prepare the audit workpapers, do we?
Every time I suggest the office do things like that I get told how BAD
that idea is because it will politicize the office.
:Pause for laughter to die down:
Regarding the website in general:
Call up the USCF home page and compare it with the cover of any recent
Chess Life. Do they look like they came from the same organization?
What is needed is a new website, and in fact that was the recommendation
of the Bylaws workshop in LA in 2003. No money has been budgeted for
that.
A new website requires a redesign, which requires outside talent. (I'm
happy to do the database engine to drive a new website, because it ties
in with a lot of internal database functions, but I'm NOT a graphical
design person!)
Ideally a web redesign should be done in parallel with a redesign of
the magazine, so that they relate to each other. No money has been
budgeted for that either.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| George John 2005-01-15, 6:47 am |
|
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:crt6i2$na7$1@gw.tssi.com...
quote:
> "George John" <george@neosoft.com> writes:
-snip-
Mike,
quote:
> The office has never had the responsibility for updating the Bylaws or
> updating the list of delegate mandates, producing the minutes, etc.
> Those are things that a professional staff should do, not volunteers!
I agree that professional staff should do this subject to review by the
appropriate parties. In the case of updating the Bylaws, the Bylaws
Committee would do the review. In the case of publishing the minutes, the
Secretary would be on point for handling the review.
quote:
> Make the Secretary the ED, or keep it as an elected volunteer office
> but delegate all the work to the office with oversight by the Secretary.
> We don't ask our VP of Finance to prepare the audit workpapers, do we?
>
> Every time I suggest the office do things like that I get told how BAD
> that idea is because it will politicize the office.
There is nothing political about updating Bylaws on a Website.
Minutes are more sensitive, but as long as there is some transcription of
the meeting that anyone can access, any work product of the office is
subject to wide review, and I think they would make a good faith effort to
faithfully produce minutes that accurate reflect any meeting.
I think our reliance on volunteer secretaries has resulted in inferior
communication with our membership. Using professional staff in the worker
bee roles makes sense to me.
quote:
>
> :Pause for laughter to die down:
No laughter here.
quote:
>
> Regarding the website in general:
>
> Call up the USCF home page and compare it with the cover of any recent
> Chess Life. Do they look like they came from the same organization?
Certainly not.
While I agree a esthetic upgrade would be great, I would be delighted if the
USCF Website were simply reorganized to make it easier to find content and a
search mechanism is added. Why is there no search capability (ignoring MSA
of course)?
quote:
> What is needed is a new website, and in fact that was the recommendation
> of the Bylaws workshop in LA in 2003. No money has been budgeted for
> that.
>
> A new website requires a redesign, which requires outside talent. (I'm
> happy to do the database engine to drive a new website, because it ties
> in with a lot of internal database functions, but I'm NOT a graphical
> design person!)
It would be very unrealistic to expect you to do that.
quote:
> Ideally a web redesign should be done in parallel with a redesign of
> the magazine, so that they relate to each other. No money has been
> budgeted for that either.
Is the USCF doing ANY capital expenditure budgeting? One of the first USCF
shocks I had was when I learned that major software upgrades were being paid
out of cash flow and were never budgeted.
Best regards,
George
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-15, 6:47 am |
| "George John" <george@neosoft.com> writes:
quote:
>Minutes are more sensitive,
Nonsense. I spent two years on the Lincoln school board, a politically
charged environment that makes the USCF look like kindergarten. Yet
the minutes were meticulously prepared by the Superintendent's office,
were always ready about a week after a meeting, and I never heard a
single complaint from anyone, including our biggest critics, that they
were biased. (BTW, the Superintendent also held the title of Secretary
of the corporation.)
quote:
>Is the USCF doing ANY capital expenditure budgeting? One of the first USCF
>shocks I had was when I learned that major software upgrades were being paid
>out of cash flow and were never budgeted.
You're confusing 'long term planning' with 'cash flow management', methinks.
(Not that the USCF is know for doing either well.)
Not capitalizing some large expenditures is not all that unusual in a
not-for-profit environment, because there aren't many tax advantages to
exploit, so not much need for depreciation or investment tax credits.
And there is something positive to be said about pay-as-you-go, at least
it doesn't burden the next administration with huge bills when they chuck
out some project favored by their predecessors.
In charitable not-for-profits, those sort of things are often paid for
with a targeted fund-raising campaign. (A good friend of mine is a
minister, he says that in divinity school they had to practice their
'pay for the new roof' sermon.)
The USCF's budgeting process in general is abysmal. I've seen budgets
'balanced' on the floor of the Delegates meeting by increasing sales to
match 'planned' expenses. The 2002 dues increases weren't so much scripted
as they were penciled together on the floor of the Delegates Meeting,
with Harold Winston trying to scribble the changes on his flipchart.
(And the 1997 $5 'commission' on the economy scholastic membership was
a result of poor planning and political incompetence and cost the USCF
somewhere around a quarter of a million dollars over the next 2 1/2 years.)
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| Fifiela 2005-01-15, 6:47 am |
| <<<<(And the 1997 $5 'commission' on the economy scholastic membership was
a result of poor planning and political incompetence and cost the USCF
somewhere around a quarter of a million dollars over the next 2 1/2 years.)>>>>
Gawd but I loved that one...Made USCF membership with 4 or 6 mags free to us
Kiddie Herders......Bring it back pleeeeeeeeeeeassssssse.
| |
| George John 2005-01-15, 6:47 am |
|
Mike Nolan wrote:
quote:
> "George John" <george@neosoft.com> writes:
>
>
> Nonsense.
Mike,
I guess we will need to agree to disagree on this point. The updating
of Bylaws on the USCF Website should be a simple, straightforward
process. The creation of minutes involves editing and that's where
issues can arrise.
quote:
> I spent two years on the Lincoln school board, a politically
> charged environment that makes the USCF look like kindergarten. Yet
> the minutes were meticulously prepared by the Superintendent's
office,
quote:
> were always ready about a week after a meeting, and I never heard a
> single complaint from anyone, including our biggest critics, that
they
quote:
> were biased. (BTW, the Superintendent also held the title of
Secretary
quote:
> of the corporation.)
When I said it's more sensitive, I did not mean to suggest that it can
not be done well by professional staff. I'm glad to hear the Lincoln
school board had good success with using professional staff to prepare
minutes. I hope the USCF will try to do the same.
quote:
>
first USCF[vbcol=seagreen]
being paid[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You're confusing 'long term planning' with 'cash flow management',
methinks.
quote:
> (Not that the USCF is know for doing either well.)
I believe I am NOT confusing the two. Cash flow management is making
certain there is enough money to pay the bills as they are due,
balancing the lean months with good ones, maintaining an adequate line
of short-term credit, etc. Capital expenditure planning involves the
purchase of any asset that is expected to benefit an organization for
more than a year. A computer software upgrade is a good example.
If an organization doesn't plan for these expenses they tend to not get
them done at all, or they get done in a crisis/panic mode, spending
more than otherwise necessary with a lot more problems.
quote:
>
> Not capitalizing some large expenditures is not all that unusual in a
quote:
> not-for-profit environment, because there aren't many tax advantages
to
quote:
> exploit, so not much need for depreciation or investment tax credits.
It's not a question of tax advantages IMO. It's a question of the
leadership recognizing the importance of capital assets to an
organization, and including the purchase of those assets in the
planning process!
quote:
> And there is something positive to be said about pay-as-you-go, at
least
quote:
> it doesn't burden the next administration with huge bills when they
chuck
quote:
> out some project favored by their predecessors.
Two wrongs don't make a right, Mike.
quote:
> In charitable not-for-profits, those sort of things are often paid
for
quote:
> with a targeted fund-raising campaign. (A good friend of mine is a
> minister, he says that in divinity school they had to practice their
> 'pay for the new roof' sermon.)
In that case the capital expense plan would call for funding from
outside sources. If the USCF was so totally strapped for cash that
they couldn't fund basic software upgrades, they could have attempted
an ear-marked fundraising drive, asking for donations specifically
marked for that project.
However, even that wasn't necessary. Back when there was money in the
LMA, operations could have asked the LMA for a productivity loan, and
the LMA would have probably granted the request.
quote:
>
> The USCF's budgeting process in general is abysmal.
Agreed!
quote:
> I've seen budgets
> 'balanced' on the floor of the Delegates meeting by increasing sales
to
quote:
> match 'planned' expenses. The 2002 dues increases weren't so much
scripted
quote:
> as they were penciled together on the floor of the Delegates Meeting,
> with Harold Winston trying to scribble the changes on his flipchart.
quote:
> (And the 1997 $5 'commission' on the economy scholastic membership
was
quote:
> a result of poor planning and political incompetence and cost the
USCF
quote:
> somewhere around a quarter of a million dollars over the next 2 1/2
years.)
The key here is for the Executive Director, in consultation with the
Finance and other EB advisory committees, MUST present a coherent, and
complete financial budget to the Board of Delegates. If she does not,
it will open Pandora's Box for BOD tinkering and micro management of
the worst sort.
Best regards,
George
| |
|
|
"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:MGIEd.1264$WZ1.285@fe2.texas.rr.com...
quote:
> Is the USCF doing ANY capital expenditure budgeting? One of the first
> USCF shocks I had was when I learned that major software upgrades were
> being paid out of cash flow and were never budgeted.
The USCF has no idea what a budget is for or when it should be prepared. It
has no idea what the category costs really are. They sit around and say gee
whiz, I bet our revenue will be xxx next year. then they guess what our
costs will be. That's the budget. Incidentally, assets are always paid out
of cash flow or with notes irregardless of whether it's budgeted. IBM and GE
do the same thing.
| |
|
|
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:crvo36$bma$1@gw.tssi.com...
quote:
> "George John" <george@neosoft.com> writes:
>
>
> Nonsense. I spent two years on the Lincoln school board, a politically
> charged environment that makes the USCF look like kindergarten. Yet
> the minutes were meticulously prepared by the Superintendent's office,
> were always ready about a week after a meeting, and I never heard a
> single complaint from anyone, including our biggest critics, that they
> were biased. (BTW, the Superintendent also held the title of Secretary
> of the corporation.)
Minutes should be prepared by an employee. If for no reason then they won't
get done otherwise. Minutes are always approved in a subsquent meeting.
Having an employee prepare them helps take the politics out of the
recording.
quote:
> The USCF's budgeting process in general is abysmal. I've seen budgets
> 'balanced' on the floor of the Delegates meeting by increasing sales to
> match 'planned' expenses.
All budgets are revenue driven. Management gets their pet projects in by
increasing the revenue projection.
|
| |
|
|