|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > January 2005 > Potential Issues in the EB Election
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 |
Potential Issues in the EB Election
|
|
| petrelet@sbcglobal.net 2005-01-14, 5:46 pm |
| Some people are already handicapping the EB election and predicting
winners and losers. I don't think I can do that at this stage. Any of
the nine might win, depending on what happens in the six months between
now and the election. By "what happens" I mean not only what actually
happens to the USCF, but also how the campaign develops. The six
coming months are pretty unpredictable, not only in terms of the
obvious crises but also in terms of the events that we don't yet see
coming at all. (Six months ago, how many of you would have predicted
the Crossville move?)
Here are some thoughts about the issues we can see coming though:
1. The Crossville move
It depends on how things look in April or May. If everything looks
peachy keen, we are nicely nestled into our temporary HQ, games are
getting rated, CL is being produced, then of course it will -
justifiably - be seen as a vindication of the policies of the current
board majority. If, however, things are a royal mess, then it will
clearly be bad for them, which will mean that the tone of the election
could get very nasty on all sides. If things are bad enough, then
there may be enough of a throw-the-rascals-out sentiment that
incumbents, Bill, friends of Bill, and friends of Don will ALL get hurt
by it. In this scenario, Sloan has a real chance.
II. Goichberg and Schultz
Goichberg himself is an issue for a significant bloc in the USCF. The
head of the Finance Committee does not speak only for himself when he
writes that getting away from Bill's influence is sufficient
justification for moving to Tennessee, and President Marinello's belief
that Bill wants to take over the USCF himself is shared by others. The
name "Don Schultz" is similarly anathema to a lot of people. This
means that being tagged as a "Friend of Bill" or a "Friend of Don" (as
Channing and Tanner will be) is going to be a disadvantage in some
quarters.
This will all come out in a lot of partisan wrangling over the record
of the Goichberg ED-ship. If the Crossville move has not gone well,
there will be an attempt to make out that he sabotaged it. The
financials that come out over the next six months are going to be very
important and hotly debated. If they are very good, is this to the
credit of the Board or of Bill? If they are bad, is this because of
the Board's bad policies or of Bill's mismanagement? The head of the
Finance Committee, for example, has repeatedly attempted to blame Bill
personally for the fact that there is no current contract between the
USCF and the ICC, though he has not adduced any evidence for this. It
has already been alleged here that the $25,000 payment to Bill
constitutes theft by Bill; you would think that it would be hard to
make a partisan issue out of this, considering that the EB voted for it
unanimously and that the Reds are in the minority, but I bet that the
USCF pols are up to the challenge.
III. Scholastics
I don't know that it has really come to the fore yet, but the USCF is
faced with a lot of choices about priorities and mission, and the
scholastic side is at the forefront of this. Marinello, Shutt, and
O'Shaughnessy have a scholastic base. Are the scholastic organizers
going to succeed in keeping the revenues of scholastic events for
themselves, running the USCF mainly for their own benefit, and
whittling down the services to adult OTB players? Or are the OTB
organizers going to succeed in milking the scholastic events as a cash
cow for themselves? That of course is the crass way to put it :-) But
as long as the chess pie is not growing in size, there is the potential
for conflicts of interest over recipe issues and slicing issues.
IV. Mission issues generally
There are a host of opinions on this, but if the financials are lousy
and the Crossville move is a disaster they may not come out. For years
now we have been lurching about making this move and that, because
"IT'S A CRISIS!! WE HAVE TO!!". If and when we get out of crisis mode
for a moment, there may be an opportunity to discuss some of these
matters. Therefore, one possible development is that the Crossville
move will work, and the financials will look good, which will be good
for the incumbents, and then there will be a debate over mission issues
which might cause one or more of the incumbents to lose anyway.
V. Voter mobilization
With the turnout as low as we have had it, the fact is that any
candidate who has good name-recognition or can mobilize a significant
voting bloc has a decent chance of winning no matter how bad his or her
positions on the issues are. This is not good for Tanner and Channing.
It certainly favors Shahade. (In fact I consider Shahade unbeatable
unless he goes nuts between now and June. This is my only prediction.)
It mostly favors Goichberg although he has "high negatives". It
favors the scholastics. It favors John because he is the elected head
of his state association and is a previous candidate. On the other
hand, all of this depends on how strong people's networks "on the
ground" actually are.
- - - - -
Who do I favor? I don't have any endorsements yet. I wouldn't rule
out an endorsement for anyone, except Sloan. I would have to oppose
Sloan under all circumstances, for the following limited reasons: (a)
his whole good guys/bad guys approach is completely unsuited to
organizational governance, and (b) I couldn't support anyone who made
the kind of bigoted lesbian-baiting and immigrant-baiting attacks on
anyone, for ANY reason, that he has made on Marinello.
petrel
| |
|
|
Larry Tapper wrote:
quote:
> Petrel writes:
>
> P> Who do I favor? I don't have any endorsements yet. I wouldn't rule
> out an endorsement for anyone, except Sloan. I would have to oppose
> Sloan under all circumstances, for the following limited reasons: (a)
> his whole good guys/bad guys approach is completely unsuited to
> organizational governance, and (b) I couldn't support anyone who made
> the kind of bigoted lesbian-baiting and immigrant-baiting attacks on
> anyone, for ANY reason, that he has made on Marinello.
>
> Petrel,
>
> Right. In the past I've doubted whether my voting was worth the
trouble
quote:
> of getting the 37c stamp (or was it two) and odd-sized envelope
> together, but this time I'll be sure to vote, if only to bulk up the
> non-Sloan totals. The smear campaign against Marinello strikes me as
> the worst thing I've seen in rgcp.
>
> Larry T.
Larry,
You are most correct.
Rob
| |
|
|
"Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105558959.588599.48220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Right. In the past I've doubted whether my voting was worth the trouble
> of getting the 37c stamp (or was it two) and odd-sized envelope
> together, but this time I'll be sure to vote, if only to bulk up the
> non-Sloan totals. The smear campaign against Marinello strikes me as
> the worst thing I've seen in rgcp.
For those who wonder who was behind it, know that it was Brady and Schultz.
Bill, for all his failings, did not leak stuff to Sam. If you found it
beneath contempt, remember that when Don makes his endorsements.
| |
| Petrel 2005-01-15, 6:47 am |
|
"StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
news:hJidnbBKL-Q_L3jcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105558959.588599.48220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> For those who wonder who was behind it, know that it was Brady and
> Schultz.
Just so we are all on the same page, Stan, are you stating for the record
that Brady and Schultz specifically commissioned Sloan to attack Marinello
on the basis of her nationality and alleged sexual orientation? This is a
defamatory statement, but of course truth is a defense. You can produce
evidence of this?
p>
| |
|
|
"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mojFd.13953$_X7.13776@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> Just so we are all on the same page, Stan, are you stating for the record
> that Brady and Schultz specifically commissioned Sloan to attack Marinello
> on the basis of her nationality and alleged sexual orientation? This is a
> defamatory statement, but of course truth is a defense. You can produce
> evidence of this?
I can verify that they gave gasoline to Sam to throw on the fire.
Commissioned? More like manipulated. Give Sam some gas and you know he'll
have to fire it up.
| |
| Parrthenon 2005-01-15, 6:47 am |
|
<III. Scholastics
I don't know that it has really come to the fore yet, but the USCF is faced
with a lot of choices about priorities and mission, and the scholastic side is
at the forefront of this. Marinello, Shutt, and O'Shaughnessy have a scholastic
base. Are the scholastic organizers going to succeed in keeping the revenues of
scholastic events for themselves, running the USCF mainly for their own
benefit, and whittling down the services to adult OTB players? Or are the OTB
organizers going to succeed in milking the scholastic events as a cash cow for
themselves? That of course is the crass way to put it :-) But as long as the
chess pie is not growing in size, there is the potential for conflicts of
interest over recipe issues and slicing issues. >-- Petrel
For another look at this looming issue, see THE SCHOLASTIC BOOM on 1/10/05 at
worldchessnetwork.com
http://www.tentonhammer.com/gamezon...hod=LoadPage&Re
sourceCode=WCNNewsStory&NewsItemCode=EvansOnChess_050110&NewsCategoryCode=
EvansOnChess&SessionToken=
________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.
| |
| Petrel 2005-01-15, 6:47 am |
|
"StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
news:FLudncpDmL8HQ3jcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:mojFd.13953$_X7.13776@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> I can verify that they gave gasoline to Sam to throw on the fire.
> Commissioned? More like manipulated. Give Sam some gas and you know he'll
> have to fire it up.
Well, that's pretty vague, Stan, considering that you want us to vote
against anyone endorsed by Schultz as if they were all responsible for
Sloan's lesbian-baiting. I can't tell whether you are saying that Schultz
and Brady told Sam what the EB majority was planning to do about the move,
appointing Marinello to a position of executive authority, etc., on the one
hand, or whether you are saying that Schultz and Brady fed Sloan material
about Marinello's personal life, on the other hand.
p>
| |
|
|
"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mojFd.13953$_X7.13776@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> Just so we are all on the same page, Stan, are you stating for the record
> that Brady and Schultz specifically commissioned Sloan to attack Marinello
> on the basis of her nationality and alleged sexual orientation? This is a
> defamatory statement, but of course truth is a defense. You can produce
> evidence of this?
I can verify that they gave gasoline to Sam to throw on the fire.
Commissioned? More like manipulated. Give Sam some gas and you know he'll
have to fire it up.
| |
| Larry Tapper 2005-01-19, 12:46 am |
|
Petrel writes:
P> Who do I favor? I don't have any endorsements yet. I wouldn't rule
out an endorsement for anyone, except Sloan. I would have to oppose
Sloan under all circumstances, for the following limited reasons: (a)
his whole good guys/bad guys approach is completely unsuited to
organizational governance, and (b) I couldn't support anyone who made
the kind of bigoted lesbian-baiting and immigrant-baiting attacks on
anyone, for ANY reason, that he has made on Marinello.
Petrel,
Right. In the past I've doubted whether my voting was worth the trouble
of getting the 37c stamp (or was it two) and odd-sized envelope
together, but this time I'll be sure to vote, if only to bulk up the
non-Sloan totals. The smear campaign against Marinello strikes me as
the worst thing I've seen in rgcp.
Larry T.
| |
|
|
Larry Tapper wrote:
quote:
> Petrel writes:
>
> P> Who do I favor? I don't have any endorsements yet. I wouldn't rule
> out an endorsement for anyone, except Sloan. I would have to oppose
> Sloan under all circumstances, for the following limited reasons: (a)
> his whole good guys/bad guys approach is completely unsuited to
> organizational governance, and (b) I couldn't support anyone who made
> the kind of bigoted lesbian-baiting and immigrant-baiting attacks on
> anyone, for ANY reason, that he has made on Marinello.
>
> Petrel,
>
> Right. In the past I've doubted whether my voting was worth the
trouble
quote:
> of getting the 37c stamp (or was it two) and odd-sized envelope
> together, but this time I'll be sure to vote, if only to bulk up the
> non-Sloan totals. The smear campaign against Marinello strikes me as
> the worst thing I've seen in rgcp.
>
> Larry T.
Larry,
You are most correct.
Rob
|
| |
|
|