|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > March 2005 > Back to the Future
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 |
Back to the Future
|
|
| Chess One 2005-03-15, 5:54 pm |
| > How can one represent a national chess organization if one alienates just
quote:
> about everyone? All GMs are bad. All GMs are primadonnas. All chess
> promoters
> are bad. All kids are bad. Everyone is bad unless one goes along with
> some
> scheme. And if by chance the USCF makes a mistake, attack dogs will be
> sent
> after somebody to cover up the problems. Welcome to US Chess 2005!
I see that your correspondnet made his own reply denying all the above,
while not actually managing to appreciate ANY category of actual chess
players. Not in that response, nor ever previously.
The attack dogs seem to be content at the moment to only attack those people
who question current financial goings on. I learn to my interest that I have
become a hemi-semi-endorsed anti-semite according to several writers; Larry
Parr is no less a Dirt Farmer for trying to unearth how the money is being
spent; and a mysterious and unavowed group of newcomer-anons have written
500 posts at rgcp citing all the crimes of someone else - not that that
could also be related to money matters, could it? <g>
Matters of financial accountability are dismissed as being too 'boring' to
answer.
Something much more important than physical location has recently gone
south.
What would actually be an interesting conversation is to address the Future
of Chess, and what USCF see their own role in it as being.
Perhaps then we can overcome a tendency to over-personalise matters, and
evaluate a few ideas about what furthers us as a diverse group of people,
engaged in a relatively obscure game.
I have been requesting that strategic level conversation long before any
move-issues arose, but it too, is an official secret.
Phil Innes
| |
|
| There's nothing new with this tactic. I hope the next group of
candidates will be better.
CS
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-03-15, 5:54 pm |
| We still have not been shown the detailed cost
estimates for the move to Cross-to-Bear.
Every conceivable ploy has been tried to
divert this question. Sam's daughter had a dirty
diaper, and this writer was a dirty farmer. Too, not
a member. Later, this writer was on or off his meds,
drunk or too sober. Randy Bauer tossed out a cost
estimate as though it were the estimates that MEMBERS
here had asked to see. They were not. They did not
include legal expenses, the $60,000 in annualized
"expenses" going to USCF President Beatriz Marinello,
and more than likely they also did not include the
loss on the new building in Cross-to-Bear (it may
reach close to $150,000)and payments to the New York
unemployment fund. There may be other expenses not
included, too.
The final ploy before silence descended was
to try traditional happy talk. Randy Bauer began
chattering about future ideas with allies, the idea
being to stop discussion of the cost estimates of the
move to Cross-to-Bear.
MR. BAUER LOSES TRACK OF HIS LIES
Mr. Bauer defended omitting legal expenses from his
estimates of the move to Cross-to-Bear because there
would have been greater such expenses if the move had
not occurred. THAT IS THE CLAIM HE MADE HERE A FEW
DAYS AGO. Yet in October 2004, he claimed that the
move was not being made under legal coercion of any
kind. There was such a splendid sense of safety that
Board members had not discussed a major legal letter
from a Tennessee lawyer for "weeks."
Mr. Bauer lost track of his lies. When you
are telling a string of falsehoods and trying out
ploys to stop MEMBERS from obtaining the facts, the
toughest thing in the world is to keep your story
straight over a period of months.
It is easy to keep the truth straight, but
when you are inventing reality and then arguing about
it daily for several weeks, contradictions always
creep in. Eventually, you simply tell two
diametrically opposed versions of the same story,
which is what Mr. Bauer did.
HARRY SABINE AND PHIL ELMORE
The Board refuses to tell MEMBERS whether County
Commissioner Harry Sabine and Cross-to-Bear architect
Phil Elmore are friends. Did Mr. Sabine introduce Mr.
Elmore to Federation officials?
This writer broke the story that Phil Elmore
was to receive $60,000 to design a building originally
thought to cost $300,000 to $350,000.
The Executive Board kept the contract
provisions secret from the membership, as well it
might. After this dirt farmer broke the story, people
like Mr. Bauer began howling about moles and,
simultaneously, assuring everyone that the contract
would be renegotiated, saving the Federation several
thousand dollars.
The official version amounted to: a bunch of
ferciously honest guys such as Mr. Bauer or Mrs.
Marinello failed to mention the dirty contract because
they were either busy with other things or too
overworked as faithful "volunteers" or, as it might
have been, picking their noses. But they MEANT to
tell you over a period of months. It was just that
the nosepicking gave this writer time to break the
story instead.
Did Mr. Sabine know about the contract
provisions? Did he keep his Tennessee trap shut to
aid a friend and to stab the Federation in the
financial back? Did he approve the first contract,
the big one for the 60Gs? Did he approve the second
contract, if it has been renegotiated and agreed upon?
Is approving a contract of a friend, if such
happened, ethical?
COST OF THE BUILDING
Before undertaking the move to Cross-to-Bear, did our
best and brightest obtain an estimate for putting up a
new structure? If so, where is that estimate? What
is the name of the contractor?
Is it possible that these people would move to
Cross-to-Bear without a contractor and no estimate
yet available that is official?
According to Board members the cost of the
building has ballooned from an original estimate of
between $300,000 to $350,000 to what is now conceded
to be $550,000, resulting in at least a $35,000 loss,
given that the New Windsor buiding was sold for
$515,000. But one source states that the $550,000
figure will GROW LARGER, possibly up to $650,000.
If the Federation ever proves able to build
the planned structure, it will be less than half the
size of the old building in New Windsor and cost
considerably more.
CASH CRUNCH COMING UP?
Readers will recollect that a few months back this
writer predicted that there would be a large writedown
on the Federation's performance over the past year,
which proved correct. I also predicted that Beatriz
Marinello would NOT resign as president unless she
were appointed executive director. That, too, was
correct. (She now receives $60,000 in annualized
"expenses" as an interim chief operating officer.)
Finally, I predicted that one of the reasons for
rushing the move to Cross-to-Bear was to create a fait
accompli because a cash crunch was coming.
Has it yet arrived? Is or will the Federation
be dipping into funds derived from the sale of the New
Windsor building?
If so, will the end result be the loss of a
large building and the land that it stood on in
exchange for renting an office in a church building
located in the middle of nowhere?
Will there be an announcement that
construction of the new building will be delayed?
| |
| Chess One 2005-03-15, 5:54 pm |
| I am sorry to have to respond to my own post - but the subject was only
indirectly the current financial hooliganism and associated shenanigans, but
an invitation to address a much need subject:-
quote:
> What would actually be an interesting conversation is to address the
> Future of Chess, and what USCF see their own role in it as being.
Given that substantial disagreement exists on how current money is being
deployed, [and certainly there are many threads here which already note
those issues and lack of suitable communications about them], where is the
discussion about WHAT any and all financial expenditure should be deployed
upon?
A structure is being built that will support WHAT chess activity in the
C21st? Obviously USCF has a role to play in the development or sustenance of
chess in the USA, ... what is it?
Phil Innes
quote:
> Phil Innes
>
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| A structure is being built that will support WHAT chess activity in the
C21st? Obviously USCF has a role to play in the development or
sustenance of
chess in the USA, ... what is it?
Phil Innes
--------------------------------------
Only ratings and chess life.
CS
| |
|
|
| Chess One 2005-03-15, 5:54 pm |
|
"CS" <cschmidt@usa.com> wrote in message
news:1110892937.475807.94130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>A structure is being built that will support WHAT chess activity in the
>
> C21st? Obviously USCF has a role to play in the development or
> sustenance of
> chess in the USA, ... what is it?
>
> Phil Innes
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> Only ratings and chess life.
>
> CS
Well, that's at least a start. So let's extrapolate what it takes to support
ratings and ChessLife. Perhaps 5 people for each? This makes an organisation
of 10 people requiring perhaps 1500 square feet of office space which is, as
far as I can tell, not location dependent - assuming all these functions
need to be centralised in an HQ, and no tele-commuting is necessary.
I note that both these items are mainentance oriented. Any thoughts on what
should constitute chess development? Or what the other 20 people at HQ
should get up?
Of the current candidates for the board, what have they said so far about
their vision for supporting chess in the C21st? What is the associated
staffing and location cost for that support?
Cordially, Phil Innes
| |
| Le Modern Caveman 2005-03-15, 5:54 pm |
| Bring back Kalev Pehme as editor! Make Tate the new ED! Mke Asa Hoffman
for member relations director! Make Jay Bonin the head nutritionist!
Barbie Villiers
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy=AD.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/libr=ADary.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your
quest to get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum
|
| |
|
|