|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > January 2005 > Odd CL Editor Search Situation (was: Re: Kalev Pehme fired
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 |
Odd CL Editor Search Situation (was: Re: Kalev Pehme fired
|
|
| Petrel 2005-01-27, 12:28 pm |
|
"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050126212521.13899.00000222@mb-m19.news.cs.com...
quote:
> Mechanics' Institute Chess Club Newsletter # 228
>
> 4) USCF
>
> Kalev Pehme was recently fired as editor of Chess Life by a 5-2 vote of
> the
> USCF Executive Board (Marinello, Hanke, Shutt, Shaughnessy and Bauer voted
> to
> fire Pehme, Schultz and Brady against). Glenn Peterson has been named
> acting
> editor. The USCF was in the process of conducting a search for a new
> editor but
> it now appears this may be delayed until after the Executive Board
> elections in
> August.
OK, here's what I don't understand about this (of course nothing is more
predictable than incomprehensibility in the USCF), although I have a guess.
In the first place, I don't know what "recently" means here. Does it mean
"at the December board meeting"? Earlier? Later? Anyway, the USCF was not
merely "in the process of conducting a search for a new editor", it ought to
have been just about at the end of the process. The position has been
advertised for months and the deadline for applications was January 1.
So when I first heard that Pehme was out, I naturally thought that "this
just means that they have found a permanent* editor and are terminating the
interim arrangement with Pehme." But according to the Mechanics Institute
reporter, Peterson is now a NEW interim editor, and the search will
apparently be ongoing through next August, or be closed and later reopened!
But why???? If the EB majority wanted Pehme out, why didn't they just
conclude the selection process on schedule and pick the best candidate,
other than Pehme, on their short list?
Well, here is my guess. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. My
guess is that the reason is that they didn't have anybody on their short
list, either because:
(a) Nobody whom they considered acceptable applied for the position, or
(b) Some people whom they considered acceptable applied for the position,
but withdrew the applications on discovering the obscure but relevant fact
that the new position will be in Crossville, TN.
Discovering themselves with no candidates for the position, except, perhaps,
Pehme himself, who, for one reason or another, they didn't want to put up
with for any longer, they scrambled for a new interim Editor and talked
Peterson into it. That's my guess, anyway. Obviously it is based on the
assumption that the MI story is accurate.
In any case, they clearly haven't figured out exactly what to do next,
since, if you go to the uschess.org website, you see that, although the LINK
to the job search .pdf file has been updated (it used to mention the ED,
Scholastics Director, and "Publications Editor", whereas now it mentions
only the ED and the "Editor of Chess Life", it still sends you to that same
old November ad in CL with the same old January 1 deadline. So if you look
at the link, you think the search is ongoing, but if you go to the .pdf
file, you think it has already concluded!! Think how odd this is. Somebody
went to the trouble of updating the text of the link so that the viewer of
the page would know that we are still looking for an ED AND an editor but
NOT for a Scholastics Director. However, NOBODY has gone to the trouble of
updating the deadlines on the .pdf file, either through disorganization or
because they have no consensus on what the new deadline should be, so of
course the effect is that no applications will be produced, so in fact we
are not really conducting a search at all, but the casual viewer of the page
will be misled into thinking that the situation is in hand and we are
conducting a job search. Which, come to think of it, may be precisely the
intended effect.
Aside from the interesting aspects of this particular bit of business (is
reopening the deadline for a job search anything like reopening the deadline
for contract bids, btw? :-) he asked just to make trouble), the worrisome
thing is this: if the editor search came up dry, either because nobody put
any work into it or because of the secrecy surrounding the move, then what
if the ED search comes up dry also for the same reasons? I hope I'm right
about the EB majority having a candidate in the wings! :-)
petrel
* In the hopes of satisfying the concerns of Neil Brennen, I hereby inform
the readers that the word "permanent" in this sentence does not mean
everlasting or eternal in the metaphysical sense, which would imply an
immortal editor and (even less likely perhaps) an immortal USCF, but should
be understood as referring to those occupants of a position with that
lessened degree of impermanence that we associate with people who are not
"Acting Editors" or "Interim Editors" but simply "Editors" during whose
tenure a job search for their replacement is not being conducted.
| |
| Spam Scone 2005-01-27, 12:28 pm |
|
Petrel wrote:
quote:
>
> OK, here's what I don't understand about this (of course nothing is
more
quote:
> predictable than incomprehensibility in the USCF), although I have a
guess.
Here it comes, folks. The Petrel Pronouncement.
quote:
> In the first place, I don't know what "recently" means here. Does it
mean
quote:
> "at the December board meeting"? Earlier? Later? Anyway, the USCF
was not
quote:
> merely "in the process of conducting a search for a new editor", it
ought to
quote:
> have been just about at the end of the process. The position has
been
quote:
> advertised for months and the deadline for applications was January
1.
A deadline that can be altered at any time.
quote:
> So when I first heard that Pehme was out, I naturally thought that
"this
quote:
> just means that they have found a permanent* editor and are
terminating the
quote:
> interim arrangement with Pehme." But according to the Mechanics
Institute
quote:
> reporter, Peterson is now a NEW interim editor, and the search will
> apparently be ongoing through next August, or be closed and later
reopened!
quote:
> But why???? If the EB majority wanted Pehme out, why didn't they
just
quote:
> conclude the selection process on schedule and pick the best
candidate,
quote:
> other than Pehme, on their short list?
>
> Well, here is my guess. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm
wrong.
At the cost of being flamed with a prissy parting shot, as you did with
me at the end of this email.
My
quote:
> guess is that the reason is that they didn't have anybody on their
short
quote:
> list, either because:
> (a) Nobody whom they considered acceptable applied for the position,
or
quote:
> (b) Some people whom they considered acceptable applied for the
position,
quote:
> but withdrew the applications on discovering the obscure but relevant
fact
quote:
> that the new position will be in Crossville, TN.
On Planet Petrel, do people routinely apply for jobs without any
knowledge of where they will be working?
Working in Crossville may be a factor (although Kurzdorfer managed to
work from his home when he was CL editor), but there is a third option:
(c) The "search" USCF conducted was the usual New Windsor
merry-go-round, AKA chess politicians seeking their own kind.
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-27, 5:48 pm |
| "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8N_Jd.23575$by5.20244@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> "Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20050126212521.13899.00000222@mb-m19.news.cs.com...
>
> OK, here's what I don't understand about this (of course nothing is more
> predictable than incomprehensibility in the USCF), although I have a
> guess.
>
> In the first place, I don't know what "recently" means here. Does it mean
> "at the December board meeting"? Earlier? Later? Anyway, the USCF was
> not merely "in the process of conducting a search for a new editor", it
> ought to have been just about at the end of the process. The position has
> been advertised for months and the deadline for applications was January
> 1.
>
> So when I first heard that Pehme was out, I naturally thought that "this
> just means that they have found a permanent* editor and are terminating
> the interim arrangement with Pehme." But according to the Mechanics
> Institute reporter, Peterson is now a NEW interim editor, and the search
> will apparently be ongoing through next August, or be closed and later
> reopened! But why???? If the EB majority wanted Pehme out, why didn't
> they just conclude the selection process on schedule and pick the best
> candidate, other than Pehme, on their short list?
>
> Well, here is my guess. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. My
> guess is that the reason is that they didn't have anybody on their short
> list, either because:
> (a) Nobody whom they considered acceptable applied for the position, or
> (b) Some people whom they considered acceptable applied for the position,
> but withdrew the applications on discovering the obscure but relevant fact
> that the new position will be in Crossville, TN.
>
> Discovering themselves with no candidates for the position, except,
> perhaps, Pehme himself, who, for one reason or another, they didn't want
> to put up with for any longer, they scrambled for a new interim Editor and
> talked Peterson into it. That's my guess, anyway. Obviously it is based
> on the assumption that the MI story is accurate.
>
> In any case, they clearly haven't figured out exactly what to do next,
> since, if you go to the uschess.org website, you see that, although the
> LINK to the job search .pdf file has been updated (it used to mention the
> ED, Scholastics Director, and "Publications Editor", whereas now it
> mentions only the ED and the "Editor of Chess Life", it still sends you to
> that same old November ad in CL with the same old January 1 deadline. So
> if you look at the link, you think the search is ongoing, but if you go to
> the .pdf file, you think it has already concluded!! Think how odd this
> is. Somebody went to the trouble of updating the text of the link so that
> the viewer of the page would know that we are still looking for an ED AND
> an editor but NOT for a Scholastics Director. However, NOBODY has gone to
> the trouble of updating the deadlines on the .pdf file, either through
> disorganization or because they have no consensus on what the new deadline
> should be, so of course the effect is that no applications will be
> produced, so in fact we are not really conducting a search at all, but the
> casual viewer of the page will be misled into thinking that the situation
> is in hand and we are conducting a job search. Which, come to think of it,
> may be precisely the intended effect.
>
> Aside from the interesting aspects of this particular bit of business (is
> reopening the deadline for a job search anything like reopening the
> deadline for contract bids, btw? :-) he asked just to make trouble), the
> worrisome thing is this: if the editor search came up dry, either because
> nobody put any work into it or because of the secrecy surrounding the
> move, then what if the ED search comes up dry also for the same reasons?
> I hope I'm right about the EB majority having a candidate in the wings!
> :-)
>
> petrel
>
> * In the hopes of satisfying the concerns of Neil Brennen, I hereby inform
> the readers that the word "permanent" in this sentence does not mean
> everlasting or eternal in the metaphysical sense, which would imply an
> immortal editor and (even less likely perhaps) an immortal USCF, but
> should be understood as referring to those occupants of a position with
> that lessened degree of impermanence that we associate with people who are
> not "Acting Editors" or "Interim Editors" but simply "Editors" during
> whose tenure a job search for their replacement is not being conducted.
Petrel,
You are falling into the rgcp trap of imagining much more complexity in
affairs than really exists. :-)
The USCF is currently moving, which is an expensive process. For some time
now we have been paying two individuals, Kalev Pehme and Glenn Petersen, to
do various aspects of the editor's job. Glenn has been working in the office
three days a week; Kalev has been working at home. We need someone in the
office; we don't want to pay two salaries. So we have expanded Glenn's
schedule, and expended Kalev's schedule (so to speak). This will save us
about $15,000 over six months. We have nothing against Kalev. We even voted
him an extra month's salary, which we were not obligated to do, because he
is a good guy who stepped in when we had a need.
As for hiring a new editor, we have several good candidates. Since the
editor reports to the board, and four of the seven board seats are up for
election this year, we decided it would make sense if we let the new board
pick the editor.
Tim Hanke
| |
| petrelet@sbcglobal.net 2005-01-27, 5:48 pm |
|
Tim Hanke wrote:
quote:
> Petrel,
>
> You are falling into the rgcp trap of imagining much more complexity
in
quote:
> affairs than really exists. :-)
Maybe. The website doesn't help resolve this complexity.
[...]
quote:
> As for hiring a new editor, we have several good candidates. Since
the
quote:
> editor reports to the board, and four of the seven board seats are up
for
quote:
> election this year, we decided it would make sense if we let the new
board
quote:
> pick the editor.
So tell me, Tim, is the Editor search still open, as the website says,
or will you make your choice from among the "several good candidates"
who made the Jan. 1 deadline? (If it's not open, can the website be
fixed, please?)
And, by the same reasoning, will the appointment of the new ED also
wait until the election of the new board?
p>
| |
| David Ames 2005-01-27, 9:47 pm |
|
Petrel wrote:
[on-topic discussion snipped]
quote:
> * In the hopes of satisfying the concerns of Neil Brennen, I hereby
inform
quote:
> the readers that the word "permanent" in this sentence does not mean
> everlasting or eternal in the metaphysical sense, which would imply
an
quote:
> immortal editor and (even less likely perhaps) an immortal USCF, but
should
quote:
> be understood as referring to those occupants of a position with that
quote:
> lessened degree of impermanence that we associate with people who are
not
quote:
> "Acting Editors" or "Interim Editors" but simply "Editors" during
whose
quote:
> tenure a job search for their replacement is not being conducted.
When our church sought a new minister, we were informed of the
difference between the *interim* minister and the *settled* minister.
David Ames
|
| |
|
|