Chess politics - Screw the Delegates

Author

Screw the Delegates

BrotherNehoc

2005-03-11, 9:52 pm

Yes it appears that once again the USCF [either the Director or the
Executive Board] has decided to in essence say screw you to the USCF
Delegates. This has been done by ignoring or violating a Delegate
passed resolution from one of the USCF Annual Meetings.

This previously happended when it took 3-4 years to get online ratings,
when a resolution relating to this was first passed back in 1999 in
Reno.

Now the resolution being broken relates to a resolution passed due to
the 2000 US Open in Minneapolis/St. Paul. At that US Open the Sunday
round was at 2pm in the afternoon. As a result many of the Delegate
motions were sent to the executive board with power to act [or more
likely not act]. Because of this a resolution was passed that no round
of a US Open tournament could impinge on the regular meeting times
[Saturday & Sunday 9am-5pm] of the Annual Delegates Meeting. If you
look in Chess Life the TLA for the 2005 US Open in Phoenix states a
final round at 2pm on Sunday.

This is in violation of the above mentioned Delegates resolution. I
would like to know who at the USCF gave the "OK" for the Phoenix
tournament to have this round at this time. Until I saw this I was
thinking about the possiblity of playing in the 5 day schedule. But,
now I will definitely skip playing in the US Open this year & only
attend the Annual Delegates Meeting.

Lawrence S. Cohen
USCF Delegate from Illinois

BrotherNehoc

2005-03-12, 6:52 am

George John wrote:

quote:

> All,
>
> FYI.
>
> "Delegate Meeting Dates. The Delegates' meeting will be held no later
> than the first full weekend of August. This requirement is in effect
> for all U.S. Opens for which dates had not been set as of August

2000.

quote:

> (2000)
>
> 1. No round of the U.S. Open may be scheduled to conflict with the
> Delegates Meeting. (2001) "
>
> Note: in addition to there being an apparent problem with scheduling

quote:

> round of the US Open against a Board of Delegates meeting, there
> appears to be the further problem of scheduling the Board of

Delegates

quote:

> meeting later than the first weekend of August. The first full

weekend

quote:

> of August is 6-7. The Board of Delegates meeting appears to be

August

quote:

> 13-14. Am I correct?
>
> When was the date for the 2005 US Open set? Who is organizing the

2005

quote:

> US Open, or is the event self-organized? It appears to be
> self-organized since the USCF is taking entries.
>

The date for the 2005 U.S. Open was not set until after September 2001.
You know that the USCF does not plan the US Open site more than 2
years in advance.

quote:

> One way out of part of this, I guess, is to make certain the Board of
> Delegates meeting ends on Sunday before 2:00 p.m. I can find nothing
> in the Bylaws that that states how long the meeting must be.

However,

quote:

> it would be a pity to have to rush the meeting in order to comply

with

quote:

> the motion above. Have I overlooked something?
>

The rushing to end by 2pm on a Sunday [Minneapolis/St. Paul 2000] is
what prompted the motion in the first place!

quote:

> I very much agree with Randy that all motions of the Board of

Delegates

quote:

> should be followed. That is on reason why I have previously called

for

quote:

> a Compliance Committee, composed of volunteers and/or professional
> staff, which *assists* in helping those who must follow these

motions,

quote:

> with the goal of reducing unintended violations.
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John
>
> See:
>

http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/d...nterest_03.html

quote:

> http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/2004delcall.pdf

Hal Terrie

2005-03-12, 5:50 pm

On 9 Mar 2005 20:46:07 -0800, "BrotherNehoc" <ChessNehoc@aol.com>
wrote:

quote:

>However,
>with
>
>The rushing to end by 2pm on a Sunday [Minneapolis/St. Paul 2000] is
>what prompted the motion in the first place!

After some behind the scenes discussions, it seems that the
decision has been made to move the round time back to 7:00 PM. So at
least part of the problem has been resolved. I don't think there's
anything that can be done about the requirement to hold the Delegates
Meeting by the first full weekend in August, though I'd be very amused
to watch the chaos if someone tried to push for enforcement of that.

-- Hal Terrie

George John

2005-03-12, 5:50 pm

BrotherNehoc wrote:

[SNIP]

quote:

> The date for the 2005 U.S. Open was not set until after September

2001.

Thank you for confirming this.

quote:

> You know that the USCF does not plan the US Open site more than 2
> years in advance.

This is true, but I thought I should check to see if an exception had
been made.

[SNIP]

quote:

> The rushing to end by 2pm on a Sunday [Minneapolis/St. Paul 2000] is
> what prompted the motion in the first place!

It's a good motion, one which reasonable steps should be taken to
follow.

The USCF Website does have a "Bidding Brochure" (see:
http://www.uschess.org/tds/BIDEVNT.rtf) which is a good thing. IMO, a
not so good thing is the section for the US Open does not include any
mention of the two items already discussed. IMO, they should be added.
I have quoted from them below.

The Compliance Committee, which I have previously called for, would
assist in helping make more certain that pages like this would be
updated to conform to Board of Delegate motions. IMHO, too many balls
are currently being dropped. These two motions have been on the books
since 2000, and 2001, and in my estimation should have already been
included in this material.

Best regards,

George John

***************************************************

"Special Guidelines for the USCF Convention
The USCF Convention is held each year in conjunction with the U.S.
Open. Organizers who intend to bid on a future U.S. Open must be aware
of the following special requirements.
Delegates Meeting (2 days): Requires set-up for 140 people, classroom
style, with a head table for the USCF governance officers. Microphones
and audiovisual equipment are needed. Light refreshments should be
available.

Executive Board Meetings (3 days): Requires a small room with
auditorium style setup for 50 people, plus a center table for the USCF
governance officers. Light refreshments should be available.

Ballot Count (1 day): Requires a small room with auditorium style
seating for 100 people, with a head table and microphone.

Workshops (3 days): The first several days of the USCF Convention
feature numerous workshops and committee meetings (approx. 20 in all).
These meetings are held 3-4 at a time, each with auditorium style
seating for 50 people.

President's Reception (1 day): Held on the evening of the first Friday
of the U.S. Open. Seating is restaurant style (no tableware) for 100
people.

Annual Awards Banquet (1 day): Held on the first day of the Delegates
Meeting. Seating is buffet style for approx. 100 people. A platform and
podium with microphone should be available.

Scholastic Reception (1 day): Casual reception for approx. 100 people.
Light refreshments.

Denker Reception (1 day): Casual reception for approx. 50 people.
Light refreshments."

Best regards,

George John

Randy Bauer

2005-03-14, 3:49 am

In article <jsnn21d9p51aq988qbfai8l5qn34jeo81t@4ax.com>, Hal Terrie says...

quote:

>
>On 6 Mar 2005 19:51:17 -0800, "BrotherNehoc" <ChessNehoc@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I sponsored that
>motion (ADM 01-89). I have e-mailed USCF Events Manager Diane Reese
>and the Executive Board, informing them of their "error" and asking
>what they plan to do to correct it.
>
> You might want to hold off on cancelling your plans to attend
>the tournament, as they may do the right thing and change the round
>time.
>
> -- Hal Terrie

Hal, did you email the Executive Board? I haven't seen anything, but I too am
sending this around to the USCF office for comment. I wasn't aware of your
resolution but certainly want to abide by it.

Randy Bauer

Hal Terrie

2005-03-14, 3:49 am

On 7 Mar 2005 07:07:47 -0800, Randy Bauer <Randy_member@newsguy.com>
wrote:

[SNIP]

quote:

>
>Hal, did you email the Executive Board? I haven't seen anything, but I too am
>sending this around to the USCF office for comment. I wasn't aware of your
>resolution but certainly want to abide by it.
>
>Randy Bauer

I did e-mail the Executive Board but just realized that I used
an old group address I created before you and Elizabeth were elected.
So neither of you received it. I have now corrected that by forwarding
to each of you the entire chain of e-mails which has since developed.
The response so far has not been encouraging.

-- Hal Terrie