|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > April 2005 > Statementgate
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]
|
|
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| <Personally, I thought it was shitty that they kept it out.> -- Eric
Johnson at the FIDE newsgroup.
Concerning the quashing of Sam Sloan's candidate's statement in
Chess Life, I have knowledge of what happened within the office and
Board. Sam's statement would never have appeared under any
circumstances. My knowledge is hearsay, but it could be taken in
deposition, I believe, if there is a case filed.
Concerning Randy Bauer's missed deadline, did he really miss it?
Mr. Bauer was to submit a check or payment to the secretary by a given
date. He himself says he sent payment to Judy Misner in the office on
that date. He also states that he believes in truly rigorous
enforcement of rules and bylaws. Hence the pretext for quashing Sam's
statement.
Sam says the bylaws, which Randy Bauer insiste must be fulfilled
to the letter, states that the secretary is to receive payment, not the
office. True, not true? Did Mr. Bauer, who states he sent the money to
Judy Misner, violate the bylaw?
George John, who is on a slate with the incumbents, appears to
argue that Randy Bauer need not meet the deadline of submitting money
to the "secretary" by a given date, but that you must meet the deadline
of sending in a candidates' statement by a given date. The Board will
determine these points by rewarding their own and by denying a
statement to a political opponent.
If Sam has quoted the bylaws accurately, then is Mr. Bauer an illegal
candidate within the very rules he says must be strictly interpreted?
Or will there be another emergency teleconference by the board majority
to alter the bylaws ex post facto?
And so it goes.
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
|
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1113187277.806942.219450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> <Personally, I thought it was shitty that they kept it out.> -- Eric
> Johnson at the FIDE newsgroup.
>
> Concerning the quashing of Sam Sloan's candidate's statement in
> Chess Life, I have knowledge of what happened within the office and
> Board. Sam's statement would never have appeared under any
> circumstances. My knowledge is hearsay, but it could be taken in
> deposition, I believe, if there is a case filed.
\
That is what happens when you miss a published deadline by over a week.
quote:
>
> Concerning Randy Bauer's missed deadline, did he really miss it?
> Mr. Bauer was to submit a check or payment to the secretary by a given
> date. He himself says he sent payment to Judy Misner in the office on
> that date. He also states that he believes in truly rigorous
> enforcement of rules and bylaws. Hence the pretext for quashing Sam's
> statement.
No, no deadline was missed. That is the difference between Sam Sloan and
Randy Bauer. Sam Sloan misses them, hopes that all the world will
undestand, and complains. Randy Bauer contacts the office, asks them how to
meet the deadline, and gives them a valid credit card which allows the USCF
to obtain their $250.
quote:
>
> Sam says the bylaws, which Randy Bauer insiste must be fulfilled
> to the letter, states that the secretary is to receive payment, not the
> office. True, not true? Did Mr. Bauer, who states he sent the money to
> Judy Misner, violate the bylaw?
USCF's own documents tell the candidates to send the information to the
office, which is what Randy Bauer does. The Secretary tells Randy Bauer not
to worry about it. Sloan and Parr then both lie about what Bauer's motion
actually does.
And so it goes.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| >Sam says the bylaws, which Randy Bauer insiste
quote:
>must be fulfilled to the letter, states that
>the secretary is to receive payment, not the
>office. True, not true? Did Mr. Bauer, who
>states he sent the money to Judy Misner, violate
>the bylaw?
You might want to look at your Dec 2004 CL:
"Both the petition and the filing fee must be received by either the
USCF Secretary or the USCF office by January 10, 2005."
- Tom Martinak
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:02:54 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
<randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote:
quote:
>
><parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
>news:1113187277.806942.219450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>\
>That is what happens when you miss a published deadline by over a week.
>
>No, no deadline was missed. That is the difference between Sam Sloan and
>Randy Bauer. Sam Sloan misses them, hopes that all the world will
>undestand, and complains. Randy Bauer contacts the office, asks them how to
>meet the deadline, and gives them a valid credit card which allows the USCF
>to obtain their $250.
>
>USCF's own documents tell the candidates to send the information to the
>office, which is what Randy Bauer does. The Secretary tells Randy Bauer not
>to worry about it. Sloan and Parr then both lie about what Bauer's motion
>actually does.
>
>And so it goes.
>
>Randy Bauer
I see. You are the boss. They are your employees. You fail to read the
by-laws of the organization of which you are an Executive Board
Member. Instead of following the by-laws of your organization, you
call your staff who, according to you, gives you wrong information.
You follow their wrong advice which you say is not your fault because
they told you wrong and then your compatriot on the board tells you
not to worry about it, your filing is accepted even though it was
improper.
Is that your explanation for your failure to follow the rules?
Sam Sloan
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| On 10 Apr 2005 20:17:54 -0700, "Tom Martinak"
<martinak_tom_m@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>You might want to look at your Dec 2004 CL:
>"Both the petition and the filing fee must be received by either the
>USCF Secretary or the USCF office by January 10, 2005."
>
> - Tom Martinak
Interesting point, but Randy Bauer is a member of the board and as a
board member he should know that this statement in Chess Life was
wrong.
Randy Bauer has violated numerous other provisions of the by-laws as
well, such as by letting Beatriz work as Chief Operating Officer while
also President and by allowing Beatriz to receive expense money to
which a board member is not entitled.
His other postings on other topics boil down to the statement that
Randy Bauer does not care what the by-laws say, he will do whatever he
wants.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
|
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:4259ec29.60171828@ca.news.verio.net...
quote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:02:54 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
> <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I see. You are the boss. They are your employees. You fail to read the
> by-laws of the organization of which you are an Executive Board
> Member. Instead of following the by-laws of your organization, you
> call your staff who, according to you, gives you wrong information.
> You follow their wrong advice which you say is not your fault because
> they told you wrong and then your compatriot on the board tells you
> not to worry about it, your filing is accepted even though it was
> improper.
Wrong on EVERY ACCOUNT.
The Secretary, who is the elected official that Sloan wants to control
these decisions, since he doesn't like the motion I filed to give the power
to the Executive Board, says I am fine and dandy, fulfilled all
requirements, certifies me for election, and deposits my $250. The USCF has
my money on the filing date.
End of story.
This, of course, is the same Secretary who endorses 4 other candidates for
election -- i.e., he doesn't want me to be on the executive board. Still,
he finds my candidacy valid. >
quote:
> Is that your explanation for your failure to follow the rules?
Sloan, of course, still can't "follow the rules" to meet a filing deadline
and moans and groans. He's special, you know.
And so it goes.
Randy Bauer
quote:
>
> Sam Sloan
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:54:02 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
<randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote:
quote:
>Wrong on EVERY ACCOUNT.
>
>The Secretary, who is the elected official that Sloan wants to control
>these decisions, since he doesn't like the motion I filed to give the power
>to the Executive Board, says I am fine and dandy, fulfilled all
>requirements, certifies me for election, and deposits my $250. The USCF has
>my money on the filing date.
>
>End of story.
>
>This, of course, is the same Secretary who endorses 4 other candidates for
>election -- i.e., he doesn't want me to be on the executive board. Still,
>he finds my candidacy valid. >
>
>Sloan, of course, still can't "follow the rules" to meet a filing deadline
>and moans and groans. He's special, you know.
>
>And so it goes.
>
>Randy Bauer
Wait a moment. A few hours ago you wrote that you submitted a credit
card number to Judy Misner because the check that you had mailed to
Don Schultz had not arrived on time.
Now you write that Don Schultz did receive the check and deposited it.
Which is the truth?
It seems that you have been caught in another lie.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
|
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:4259f5c0.62626843@ca.news.verio.net...
quote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:54:02 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
> <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wait a moment. A few hours ago you wrote that you submitted a credit
> card number to Judy Misner because the check that you had mailed to
> Don Schultz had not arrived on time.
>
> Now you write that Don Schultz did receive the check and deposited it.
>
> Which is the truth?
The truth is the USCF had my $250. The truth is I submitted my documents to
the address provided by the published deadline (which, as Tom Martinek
pointed, out, was the USCF office). The truth is the Secretary certified my
candidacy.
The truth is you are a liar, conman, and cheat. Feel free to sue me for
stating this. One of the beautiful things about the law is that the truth
is an absolute defense.
Randy Bauer
quote:
>
> It seems that you have been caught in another lie.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
| |
| George John 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
Larry,
[SNIP]
quote:
> George John [SNIP] appears to
> argue that Randy Bauer need not meet the deadline of submitting money
> to the "secretary" by a given date,
What led you to conclude that I gave this "appearance" please?
[SNIP]
Best regards,
George John
| |
|
|
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| A HORNET'S NEST
I mae no charge against Randy Bauer, but I did ask questions.
Apparently, Mr. Bauer now regards questions as lies. He appears to
have answered my quetions after a fashion.
Translation: Mr. Bauer implicitly admits he did not meet the
deadline according to the BYLAWS; but he claims to have met the
deadline according to the "USCF's own documents," whatever they may be.
My view? Mr. Sloan's statement ought to have appeared, and
Mr. Bauer ought to be permitted to run.
Yet if one employs the standard here adumbrated by Mr. Bauer
himself when so stupidly tossing stones at his own glass house, then
Mr. Sloan's statement ought not to appear, and Mr. Bauer's candidacy
ought to be ruled contrary to Federation bylaws. For Mr. Bauer himself
dilated on the necessity to follow the regs come what may.
Certainly, if Mr. Sloan is punished for violating a deadline,
then Mr. Bauer should be punished for failing to fulfill the clear
language of the bylaws (IF Sam has quoted it accurately).
Most readers with common sense know why Sam's statement did not
appear in Chess Life. I know a few more details but recognize the
problems involved in discussing this issue further at this time.
But I want Sam Sloan to know I will be available to be deposed
under oath about what I heard. The value of the testimony would be for
a court to decide.
However, I believe that in a deposition proceeding, the
situation would unravel very quickly for the political group now
controlling the Federation. Too many people are involved, some of them
honest, and they won't present a united front.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| DO TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT?
If it is true that Don Schultz cashed Randy Bauer's check and
that this check arrived late, then Mr. Bauer's candidacy is illegal
even given Mr. Bauer's earlier attempt at exculpation.
Earlier, Mr. Bauer stated that he gave his credit card number to
Judy Misner and that a charge was made. The Federation got its money
on time. Now, he seems to be literally hollering that Mr. Sloan is a
"liar, conman and cheat" without actually contradicting Mr. Sloan's
account that Don Schultz cashed Mr. Bauer's check instead.
If Mr. Schultz cashed a check that arrived late and such was how
Mr. Bauer made his payment, then IF Mr. Sloan accurately quoted the
bylaws, Mr. Bauer failed to fulfill their provisions.
Tom Martinak came forward to tell us what Chess Life says, and we
are discussing what the bylaws say.
My view? Once again, Mr. Bauer should be allowed to run, and Mr.
Sloan should very clearly be made whole in the May issue of CL. But we
should not pretend that both men failed to fulfill their obligations:
Mr. Bauer violated a bylaw, Mr. Sloan did not meet a published
deadline.
The governing principle here should probably be intent and the
extent of the derelictions. I see no bad intent from either side,
though Mr. Bauer's post factum hollering here attests that he fully
understands he violated a bylaw.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| <Personally, I would support a bylaw change. Do we really want
ex-felons running our federation?> Randy Bauer
Sam Sloan's felony -- notice that I do not put the word in quotation
marks -- was to run away with his daughter when there was a court order
to the contrary.
In an earlier period in our country, the State would not even
have been involved in these affairs of family and the heart.
I find the kind of stuff written by Mr. Bauer, which is half
self-righteousness (nothing wrong with that, per se) and half-political
calculation, to be vulgar and a bit ugly.
We note that these guys don't write similarly of a Florencio
Campomanes, a real felon convicted for embezzling funds or FIDE
president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a real killer who is in an entire
different category than anyone contributing to this forum.
Although this writer has likely never met Mr. Bauer, we have probably
reached the point where both of us can say we wouldn't much like each
other if we did.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| Oy.
This is a really stupid argument Larry. In the first place, everyone knows
what Sam was going to say in his candidates statement because he expresses
himself continually here.
But you would punish both Mr Bauer and Mr Sloan equally---either letting
them both run (which they are), or denying Mr Bauer the run, citing a glass
house, a stone and a non-sequitor.
Ok, I get it.
You're carrying the water for Don Schultz?
Now I don't get it.
--
Tom Klem
"Trust no one, Mr Mulder!"
---Xfiles movie, The well groomed man
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1113196871.081807.18550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> A HORNET'S NEST
>
> I mae no charge against Randy Bauer, but I did ask questions.
> Apparently, Mr. Bauer now regards questions as lies. He appears to
> have answered my quetions after a fashion.
>
> Translation: Mr. Bauer implicitly admits he did not meet the
> deadline according to the BYLAWS; but he claims to have met the
> deadline according to the "USCF's own documents," whatever they may be.
>
> My view? Mr. Sloan's statement ought to have appeared, and
> Mr. Bauer ought to be permitted to run.
>
> Yet if one employs the standard here adumbrated by Mr. Bauer
> himself when so stupidly tossing stones at his own glass house, then
> Mr. Sloan's statement ought not to appear, and Mr. Bauer's candidacy
> ought to be ruled contrary to Federation bylaws. For Mr. Bauer himself
> dilated on the necessity to follow the regs come what may.
>
> Certainly, if Mr. Sloan is punished for violating a deadline,
> then Mr. Bauer should be punished for failing to fulfill the clear
> language of the bylaws (IF Sam has quoted it accurately).
>
> Most readers with common sense know why Sam's statement did not
> appear in Chess Life. I know a few more details but recognize the
> problems involved in discussing this issue further at this time.
>
> But I want Sam Sloan to know I will be available to be deposed
> under oath about what I heard. The value of the testimony would be for
> a court to decide.
>
> However, I believe that in a deposition proceeding, the
> situation would unravel very quickly for the political group now
> controlling the Federation. Too many people are involved, some of them
> honest, and they won't present a united front.
>
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-11, 3:59 am |
| (comments interspersed below)
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1113200559.483893.12940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> <Personally, I would support a bylaw change. Do we really want
> ex-felons running our federation?> Randy Bauer
>
> Sam Sloan's felony -- notice that I do not put the word in quotation
> marks -- was to run away with his daughter when there was a court order
> to the contrary.
>
Think about it. You expect your child to show up, she doesn't, you call the
police, they spend x amount of man hours searching the woods, the lake, the
freeway, the registered sex offenders, and on and on; wasting hundreds of
man hours.
And oh wait, the dead beat dad took her. Oh, well why didn't you say so? Why
indeed!
quote:
> In an earlier period in our country, the State would not even
> have been involved in these affairs of family and the heart.
>
The civil war changed all that.
quote:
> I find the kind of stuff written by Mr. Bauer, which is half
> self-righteousness (nothing wrong with that, per se) and half-political
> calculation, to be vulgar and a bit ugly.
>
> We note that these guys don't write similarly of a Florencio
> Campomanes, a real felon convicted for embezzling funds or FIDE
> president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a real killer who is in an entire
> different category than anyone contributing to this forum.
>
I don't know what kind of security you have, but did it ever occur to you
that the reason why people are advised to pick their fights might have to do
with having to hire guards for your house 24/7.
quote:
> Although this writer has likely never met Mr. Bauer, we have probably
> reached the point where both of us can say we wouldn't much like each
> other if we did.
>
There's the pity. I still like you Larry. In fact I respect your
accomplishments and you character (what I know of it). I don't think anyone
can make that same argument with me for Sam Sloan. He was part of a gang of
thugs that destroyed a man's livelihood for money. I honestly don't remember
your faux protestations then. Where were your demands for due process,
bylaws fulfillment, law suits and investigations.
--
Tom Klem
"Slanders, Libels and Defamations are our business!"
---sign hanging up in the back of Spam Sloan's rusting cab.
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
|
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1113187277.806942.219450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> <Personally, I thought it was shitty that they kept it out.> -- Eric
> Johnson at the FIDE newsgroup.
>
> Concerning the quashing of Sam Sloan's candidate's statement in
> Chess Life, I have knowledge of what happened within the office and
> Board. Sam's statement would never have appeared under any
> circumstances. My knowledge is hearsay, but it could be taken in
> deposition, I believe, if there is a case filed.
Wrong. Sloan's statement would have appeared if it had met the printed
deadline. His statement will appear in next month's Chess Life, because,
like every other candidate, he met the deadline.
quote:
>
> Concerning Randy Bauer's missed deadline, did he really miss it?
> Mr. Bauer was to submit a check or payment to the secretary by a given
> date. He himself says he sent payment to Judy Misner in the office on
> that date. He also states that he believes in truly rigorous
> enforcement of rules and bylaws. Hence the pretext for quashing Sam's
> statement.
I said I gave my credit card number to Judy, and they processed the $250
charge. By the deadline.
quote:
>
> Sam says the bylaws, which Randy Bauer insiste must be fulfilled
> to the letter, states that the secretary is to receive payment, not the
> office. True, not true? Did Mr. Bauer, who states he sent the money to
> Judy Misner, violate the bylaw?
Absurd. The directions to candidates directed them to send their petitions,
letter of candidacy, and payment to the USCF office. Which is what I did.
The payment was received on the deadline date. My candidacy was properly
certified. It's typical Sam Sloan deflection -- he doesn't make the
deadline, cries foul; somebody else makes the deadline, he looks for some
strange contorted take on reality to fit it into the unreality that passes
for his perspective on the world.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
|
"Randy Bauer" <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNl6e.4838$GJ.128@attbi_s71...
<snips>
quote:
> USCF's own documents tell the candidates to send the information to the
> office, which is what Randy Bauer does. The Secretary tells Randy Bauer
> not to worry about it. Sloan and Parr then both lie about what Bauer's
> motion actually does.
>
> And so it goes.
>
> Randy Bauer
I don't think we should be hearing from Randy Bauer's declarations on this
issue of which rules are in force, I think we should be hearing from Mike
Nolan who is the appointed invigilator for the election process.
It seems that Mr. Bauer clearly admits that he did not act within the
byelaws, and both discounts his own error by citing the Secretary, who said
"don't worry about it", but in Sam Sloan's late submission case, when Glenn
P said "don't worry about it" we have a special board motion to censor the
issue. The same Secretary voting against Mr. Bauer's motion, presumably for
the same reason that he excepted Mr. Bauer's own lapse.
Yesterday in this forum Rob Mitchell suggested a reasonable solution - and
in another forum today, in addressing both issues, Larry Parr also said:-
"The issue then becomes reasonable sanctions."
Yesterday I replied to Mr. Mitchell that reasonable solutions seemed
indicated for Mr. Sloan, and today I extend the very same principal of
praxis to Mr. Bauer's case.
I offered one comment to Mr. Mitchell as a caveat; that reasoned and
reasonable solutions seem indicated, but are we addressing reasonable people
here, in the middle of election and other frenzies? In other words, an
ethical issue which should properly be addressed by Mike Nolan.
I should therefore prefer that Mike Nolan addresses one principal of
reasonable redress, which equitable covers both party's lapses, which in
neither case seems to have caused /actual harm/ nor distortion to the
election process.
Phil Innes
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| <Ok, I get it. You're carrying the water for Don Schultz? Now I don't
get it.> Tom Klem
Dear Tom,
Since one of the tactics of the ticket allied with the Board
majority will be to lump Sam Sloan together with Don Schultz, Joel
Channing, Greg Shahade and Robert Tanner, I can't see how my advocacy
is like "carrying the water for Don Schultz."
Indeed, if you will simply give the matter a little thought, you
will conclude that Mr. Schultz is not at all happy with this
discussion. Having apparently certified Randy Bauer as a candidate, he
will eventually have to step forward and take a
political punch at Sam Sloan by defending his decision.
Frankly, Tom, anyone ought to be able to see that.
Now, then, I would only argue for Mr. Bauer being banned from
the race if Mr. Sloan is denied redress in the May issue of Chess Life.
The two men committed equivalent acts, IF Sam has quoted the
bylaws correctly and IF the person calling himself Randy Bauer here is,
in truth, our Mr. Bauer.
Sam missed a deadline for submitting copy, and I know the
editorial process well enough to state unequivocally that his copy
could have been inserted without great editorial inconvenience.
Period.
Still, he missed this deadline. Equally, period.
I mean to say that the statement could have been easily inserted
even in the days of cutting and pasting the magazine, let alone with
the new technology at the magazine!
Sam's defense was that he was unaware of a new deadline because
the Federation failed to contact him. The response from Mike Nolan
strikes me as nasty but accurate. There was an evident attempt to
contact Sam, who did not make it easy because he was going through
domestic turmoil at the time.
Enter Randy Bauer.
Mr. Bauer defended not printing Sam's statement because he
violated a deadline. Rules are rules, he told us. Bylaws are meant to
be obeyed as they are written, he told us. That kind of talk.
Sam Sloan quoted a bylaw stating that a candidate must pay the
secretary a fee to run by a given date. It didn't say a person acting
for the secretary or an office employee. It said the secretary. The
reason for this point is that the bylaws place the secretary in charge
of the election arrangements.
Following me so far?
Mr. Bauer himself understood the process and recognized the
problem in a posting here. He stated that he mailed his check to Don
Schultz, recognizing by his action who was supposed to receive payment.
He stated that as he feared his check would arrive late, he then
contacted Judy Misner who could charge his credit card before the
deadline.
That is Mr. Bauer's testimony, fairly rendered, I believe.
The problem with the above is that the bylaws do not provide, if
Mr. Sloan quoted them accurately, for Mr. Bauer paying Mrs. Misner.
They provide for Mr. Bauer sending payment directly to the secretary by
a given date. Chess Life may say otherwise. The bylaws apparently do
not.
Above all else, we have Mr. Bauer's word that he understood the
possibility of violating a deadline, and he therefore went to Mrs.
Misner without consulting the bylaws. Instead, as he himself wrote, he
relied on these "USCF documents." Which were not the bylaws.
You write that I would sanction them equally, and that is not
quite true. The sanction for both candidates ought to be the same, but
the justice won't be perfect. Unfortunately, it will cut slightly in
Mr. Bauer's favor.
If Mr. Sloan wishes to have his statement in Chess Life, he must
acknowledge missing deadlines. I am sure a fair, reasonably balanced
sentence can appear with Mr. Sloan's statement in the May issue.It
would say that because of a misunderstanding on his part, his statement
did not appear in the April issue. That would be true -- as far as it
goes.
But it would not be the full truth, as there is more to the story
about why the statement was suppressed.
If Mr. Bauer wishes to remain a candidate, he must acknowledge
violating the bylaws. This won't be much of an issue in the election,
and the acknowledgment won't get nearly as much press that the sentence
preceding Sam's candidate's statement in the May Chess Life will
receive.
Just is not perfect. It cuts against Sam a bit, but if he is
given a fairly prominent position in May for his statement, there will
be a rough balance.
Mr. Bauer has support, and he must not be kept off the ballot.
Sam's statement should never have been excised from the magazine. The
motives behind the excision were every whit as small-minded as the
motives behind many of the actions directed against you in the past by
a different group of insiders.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| <George John [SNIP] appears to argue that Randy Bauer need not meet
the deadline of submitting money to the "secretary" by a given date.>
Larry Parr
<What led you to conclude that I gave this "appearance" please?> George
John
Dear George,
But what you label absurd, is what Randy Bauer did. He mailed his check
to the secretary who did not receive it in time. He tried to make the
deadline at the last minute by charging his fee with Judy Misner.
It may now be the case that Don Schultz cashed Mr. Bauer's late check.
By Mr. Bauer's OWN ACCOUNT, he would be derelict in fulfilling the
bylaws. Your ticketmate, as you well know, then screamed that Mr. Sloan
was a liar, conman and cheat WITHOUT contradicting what Mr. Sloan
wrote. At some level, you know that kind of advocacy is bone wrong.
You obviously must stay in step with your political ticket and its
supporters, one of whom you must also at some level know is a low
character.
We have a common friend, whom we both respect a great deal. This friend
attests to your personal character. How refreshing were you or someone
among the majority on this Board or someone among their supporters to
simply state the obvious: Mr. Bauer violated the bylaws, and Mr. Sloan
violated a deadline. The issue then becomes reasonable sanctions.
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| In article <1113221067.277611.134110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
parrthenon@cs.com says...
quote:
>
><Ok, I get it. You're carrying the water for Don Schultz? Now I don't
>get it.> Tom Klem
>
>Dear Tom,
>
> Now, then, I would only argue for Mr. Bauer being banned from
>the race if Mr. Sloan is denied redress in the May issue of Chess Life.
Sloan's statement was received on time, so it will appear along with all the
other candidates statements in the May issue.
quote:
>
> The two men committed equivalent acts, IF Sam has quoted the
>bylaws correctly and IF the person calling himself Randy Bauer here is,
>in truth, our Mr. Bauer.
>
> Sam missed a deadline for submitting copy, and I know the
>editorial process well enough to state unequivocally that his copy
>could have been inserted without great editorial inconvenience.
>Period.
>
>Still, he missed this deadline. Equally, period.
>
> I mean to say that the statement could have been easily inserted
>even in the days of cutting and pasting the magazine, let alone with
>the new technology at the magazine!
>
> Sam's defense was that he was unaware of a new deadline because
>the Federation failed to contact him. The response from Mike Nolan
>strikes me as nasty but accurate. There was an evident attempt to
>contact Sam, who did not make it easy because he was going through
>domestic turmoil at the time.
>
> Enter Randy Bauer.
>
> Mr. Bauer defended not printing Sam's statement because he
>violated a deadline. Rules are rules, he told us. Bylaws are meant to
>be obeyed as they are written, he told us. That kind of talk.
Wrong again. This had nothing to do with the Bylaws; it was, however, a
published deadline that all the other candidates adhered to.
quote:
>
> Sam Sloan quoted a bylaw stating that a candidate must pay the
>secretary a fee to run by a given date. It didn't say a person acting
>for the secretary or an office employee. It said the secretary. The
>reason for this point is that the bylaws place the secretary in charge
>of the election arrangements.
>
> Following me so far?
>
> Mr. Bauer himself understood the process and recognized the
>problem in a posting here. He stated that he mailed his check to Don
>Schultz, recognizing by his action who was supposed to receive payment.
> He stated that as he feared his check would arrive late, he then
>contacted Judy Misner who could charge his credit card before the
>deadline.
Wrong again. I mailed the check and the nominating petitions plus certifying
letter TO THE USCF OFFICE AS DIRECTED BY THE USCF's ELECTION GUIDELINES. They
read, as posted on the USCF's website:
"There are four seats on the USCF Executive Board up for election in 2005. These
are four-year terms that will begin at the conclusion of the Delegates Meeting
in August of 2005.
Any USCF member can be nominated for election to the Executive Board of the
USCF. Each nomination must be accompanied by a petition containing the
signatures of 30 or more Voting Members of the U.S. Chess Federation, and by a
filing fee of $250 payable to the U.S. Chess Federation.
Both the petition and the filing fee must be received by either the USCF
Secretary or the USCF office by January 10, 2005."
I followed this guideline. My payment was made by credit card. My statement
shows that the $250 was billed AND PROCESSED on January 10, 2005. I can't wait
for the next great Sam Sloan lawsuit -- needless to say, I will keep this
statement handy.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| In article <1113221450.035240.12630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
parrthenon@cs.com says...
quote:
>
> <George John [SNIP] appears to argue that Randy Bauer need not meet
>the deadline of submitting money to the "secretary" by a given date.>
>Larry Parr
>
><What led you to conclude that I gave this "appearance" please?> George
>John
>
>
>Dear George,
>
>But what you label absurd, is what Randy Bauer did. He mailed his check
>to the secretary who did not receive it in time. He tried to make the
>deadline at the last minute by charging his fee with Judy Misner.
Wrong again. I followed the USCF's direction to candidates -- mail the petition
and fee to either the Secretary or the USCF office. I followed the rules. Sam
Sloan did not, and that is the difference.
quote:
>
> It may now be the case that Don Schultz cashed Mr. Bauer's late check.
>By Mr. Bauer's OWN ACCOUNT, he would be derelict in fulfilling the
>bylaws. Your ticketmate, as you well know, then screamed that Mr. Sloan
>was a liar, conman and cheat WITHOUT contradicting what Mr. Sloan
>wrote. At some level, you know that kind of advocacy is bone wrong.
Obviously, Don Schultz wouldn't cash my check; it was made out to the USCF. The
whole argument is a sham.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| In article <0ot6e.11239$Xm3.7998@trndny01>, Chess One says...
quote:
>
>
>"Randy Bauer" <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:yNl6e.4838$GJ.128@attbi_s71...
>
><snips>
>
>
>I don't think we should be hearing from Randy Bauer's declarations on this
>issue of which rules are in force, I think we should be hearing from Mike
>Nolan who is the appointed invigilator for the election process.
>
>It seems that Mr. Bauer clearly admits that he did not act within the
>byelaws, and both discounts his own error by citing the Secretary, who said
>"don't worry about it", but in Sam Sloan's late submission case, when Glenn
>P said "don't worry about it" we have a special board motion to censor the
>issue. The same Secretary voting against Mr. Bauer's motion, presumably for
>the same reason that he excepted Mr. Bauer's own lapse.
I didn't "clearly admit" any such thing. I didn't rely on Don Schultz saying
"don't worry about it" -- I made the payment BY THE DEADLINE by credit card.
I'm looking at my credit card statement as I type this. It shows:
Sale date: January 10, 2005; Post date: January 10, 2005; Reference number:
CGJDQ66S; US CHESS FEDERATION NEW WINDSOR NY, $250.00
There was no "lapse" on my part -- my documents and payment were received
according to the election regulations published by the USCF, which read:
"There are four seats on the USCF Executive Board up for election in 2005. These
are four-year terms that will begin at the conclusion of the Delegates Meeting
in August of 2005.
Any USCF member can be nominated for election to the Executive Board of the
USCF. Each nomination must be accompanied by a petition containing the
signatures of 30 or more Voting Members of the U.S. Chess Federation, and by a
filing fee of $250 payable to the U.S. Chess Federation. Both the petition and
the filing fee must be received by either the USCF Secretary or the USCF office
by January 10, 2005."
End of story, at least the non-fictional account. I'm sure Phil, Sam, and Larry
will now write the fictional version.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| On 11 Apr 2005 06:09:44 -0700, Randy Bauer <Randy_member@newsguy.com>
wrote:
quote:
>In article <0ot6e.11239$Xm3.7998@trndny01>, Chess One says...
>
>I didn't "clearly admit" any such thing. I didn't rely on Don Schultz saying
>"don't worry about it" -- I made the payment BY THE DEADLINE by credit card.
>I'm looking at my credit card statement as I type this. It shows:
>
>Sale date: January 10, 2005; Post date: January 10, 2005; Reference number:
>CGJDQ66S; US CHESS FEDERATION NEW WINDSOR NY, $250.00
>
>There was no "lapse" on my part -- my documents and payment were received
>according to the election regulations published by the USCF, which read:
>
>"There are four seats on the USCF Executive Board up for election in 2005. These
>are four-year terms that will begin at the conclusion of the Delegates Meeting
>in August of 2005.
>Any USCF member can be nominated for election to the Executive Board of the
>USCF. Each nomination must be accompanied by a petition containing the
>signatures of 30 or more Voting Members of the U.S. Chess Federation, and by a
>filing fee of $250 payable to the U.S. Chess Federation. Both the petition and
>the filing fee must be received by either the USCF Secretary or the USCF office
>by January 10, 2005."
>
>End of story, at least the non-fictional account. I'm sure Phil, Sam, and Larry
>will now write the fictional version.
>
>Randy Bauer
Except that the by-laws say something different, and you are entrusted
with following the by-laws of the organization of which you are a
board member.
If you were not a board member, your candidacy would have been
declared invalid immediately. It is only because you are on the board
and have the power to hire and fire USCF staff that you are still
considered a candidate. On the other hand, if I were on the board, my
statement would have been published in Chess Life instead of a blank
space appearing there.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| On 11 Apr 2005 05:56:36 -0700, Randy Bauer <Randy_member@newsguy.com>
wrote:
quote:
>In article <1113221067.277611.134110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>parrthenon@cs.com says...
quote:
>
>Wrong again. This had nothing to do with the Bylaws; it was, however, a
>published deadline that all the other candidates adhered to.
>
>Randy Bauer
I ask again: Where was it published?
The fact is that it was never published anywhere. It was just sent in
an e-mail which I obviously never received.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| (comments interspersed below)
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1113221067.277611.134110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> <Ok, I get it. You're carrying the water for Don Schultz? Now I don't
> get it.> Tom Klem
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> Since one of the tactics of the ticket allied with the Board
> majority will be to lump Sam Sloan together with Don Schultz, Joel
> Channing, Greg Shahade and Robert Tanner, I can't see how my advocacy
> is like "carrying the water for Don Schultz."
>
> Indeed, if you will simply give the matter a little thought, you
> will conclude that Mr. Schultz is not at all happy with this
> discussion. Having apparently certified Randy Bauer as a candidate, he
> will eventually have to step forward and take a
> political punch at Sam Sloan by defending his decision.
>
> Frankly, Tom, anyone ought to be able to see that.
>
Nope. In my opinion, while that may happen, my crystal ball is too cloudy to
tell. "Always in motion, is the future"---Yoda
quote:
> Now, then, I would only argue for Mr. Bauer being banned from
> the race if Mr. Sloan is denied redress in the May issue of Chess Life.
>
> The two men committed equivalent acts, IF Sam has quoted the
> bylaws correctly and IF the person calling himself Randy Bauer here is,
> in truth, our Mr. Bauer.
>
Yes, I may not even be Tom Klem. I could be Jane Addams, for example ;)
quote:
> Sam missed a deadline for submitting copy, and I know the
> editorial process well enough to state unequivocally that his copy
> could have been inserted without great editorial inconvenience.
> Period.
>
> Still, he missed this deadline. Equally, period.
>
> I mean to say that the statement could have been easily inserted
> even in the days of cutting and pasting the magazine, let alone with
> the new technology at the magazine!
>
I agree. But then, where's the fun in that?
quote:
> Sam's defense was that he was unaware of a new deadline because
> the Federation failed to contact him. The response from Mike Nolan
> strikes me as nasty but accurate. There was an evident attempt to
> contact Sam, who did not make it easy because he was going through
> domestic turmoil at the time.
>
Too easy. This guy is _always_ going through domestic turmoil. I believe
that in and of itself is reason why he would not make a good board member.
Think about it. Meeting day comes, no Sloan. Day Two, Sloan drags his latest
creation (child) into the board room to get some sleep under the secretary's
desk, slithers over to his seat, raises his hand and says, "Uh ... What'd I
miss?" <<groan>>
quote:
> Enter Randy Bauer.
>
> Mr. Bauer defended not printing Sam's statement because he
> violated a deadline. Rules are rules, he told us. Bylaws are meant to
> be obeyed as they are written, he told us. That kind of talk.
>
> Sam Sloan quoted a bylaw stating that a candidate must pay the
> secretary a fee to run by a given date. It didn't say a person acting
> for the secretary or an office employee. It said the secretary. The
> reason for this point is that the bylaws place the secretary in charge
> of the election arrangements.
>
An interesting technicality, which if correct, upon which this whole
argument turns. I guess my question would be, is any of this new? How long
has Chess Life been denying this one or that one entrance into its hallowed
galleys?
quote:
> Following me so far?
>
> Mr. Bauer himself understood the process and recognized the
> problem in a posting here. He stated that he mailed his check to Don
> Schultz, recognizing by his action who was supposed to receive payment.
> He stated that as he feared his check would arrive late, he then
> contacted Judy Misner who could charge his credit card before the
> deadline.
>
At the very least, one should applaud Mr Bauer for going the extra mile; not
critizising him for abusing a nascent process at best, and an old tradition
at worst.
quote:
> That is Mr. Bauer's testimony, fairly rendered, I believe.
>
> The problem with the above is that the bylaws do not provide, if
> Mr. Sloan quoted them accurately, for Mr. Bauer paying Mrs. Misner.
> They provide for Mr. Bauer sending payment directly to the secretary by
> a given date. Chess Life may say otherwise. The bylaws apparently do
> not.
Just one oversight of so many.
quote:
>
> Above all else, we have Mr. Bauer's word that he understood the
> possibility of violating a deadline, and he therefore went to Mrs.
> Misner without consulting the bylaws. Instead, as he himself wrote, he
> relied on these "USCF documents." Which were not the bylaws.
>
Yes. For example, an organization has the right to publish policies and
procedures which clarify bylaws oversights. We're only human, afterall, and
I for one need clarifying every ten minutes. In my opinion, those policies
and procedures were published when the notice for elections went out. Sam
chose, or was remiss to ignore them. Oh well, he's only human too.
quote:
> You write that I would sanction them equally, and that is not
> quite true. The sanction for both candidates ought to be the same, but
> the justice won't be perfect. Unfortunately, it will cut slightly in
> Mr. Bauer's favor.
>
As Frank Sinatra used to sing, "That's Life"
quote:
> If Mr. Sloan wishes to have his statement in Chess Life, he must
> acknowledge missing deadlines. I am sure a fair, reasonably balanced
> sentence can appear with Mr. Sloan's statement in the May issue.It
> would say that because of a misunderstanding on his part, his statement
> did not appear in the April issue. That would be true -- as far as it
> goes.
>
I'm quite certain that his newly revamped (the old one was too horrible for
the little dears in Iowa) statement will make the pages of our highly
regarded magazine (sic).
quote:
> But it would not be the full truth, as there is more to the story
> about why the statement was suppressed.
>
> If Mr. Bauer wishes to remain a candidate, he must acknowledge
> violating the bylaws.
Ridiculous. And, I predict this will not happen.
quote:
> This won't be much of an issue in the election,
> and the acknowledgment won't get nearly as much press that the sentence
> preceding Sam's candidate's statement in the May Chess Life will
> receive.
>
> Just is not perfect. It cuts against Sam a bit, but if he is
> given a fairly prominent position in May for his statement, there will
> be a rough balance.
>
Would the page before the TLA's suffice? How about ten pages before the back
cover. The roll in the mens room?
quote:
> Mr. Bauer has support, and he must not be kept off the ballot.
> Sam's statement should never have been excised from the magazine. The
> motives behind the excision were every whit as small-minded as the
> motives behind many of the actions directed against you in the past by
> a different group of insiders.
>
In defence of custom (listen to me, oy), I would say the following: no
process, however well thought out, is ever perfect. For men to govern
themselves (and I don't believe we can), there must be a gentlemen's
agreement which roughly says, "We are all friends" Hmmm. that does sound
familiar, now let me see where have I heard that before? Since we are not,
and Sam has had so much to do with poisoning the wells everywhere he goes,
it is very unlikely that a satisfactory conclusion is to be had.
As I told another poster (unnecessarily it turns out), if you are convinced
that Sam is the right guy, then you are urged to vote for him. I am not. For
all the reasons stated: the fat, easy targets which Sam now presents,
because every single word he has ever produced on these newsgroups can
easily be read for oneself with ease, and because a cursory read of these
statements over the years presents a picture of redolence and decay combined
with confusion, I would recommend against a vote for Sloan. Afterall, Coke
has been listening.
I think its time for those who support Sam's candidacy because they think
they are going to get a "leaky" board out of it, need to face facts. A leaky
garbage can produces a certain smell too. While at first the whif of it is
unidentified but pungent, when once you realize where the fragrance is
coming from, you get someone to clean up. In some small sense, this
newsgroup, first introduced to me by Ken Horne only a few scant years before
he died in an untimely airplane crash, serves such a purpose. Cleanup, like
change itself, is inevitable.
As you say, anyone can see that.
One other small point. You will forgive me if I appear to be confused about
who is doing what to whom in the broader sense of Chess politics, because
just as Sam is all over the map, so are his on again off again supporters
and detractors. Since there is no apparent consistency to this dialectic
other than political self interest, it is very difficult to follow these
events from afar. Something you might consider as well.
Regards,
Tom Klem
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| In article <1113200559.483893.12940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
parrthenon@cs.com says...
quote:
>
><Personally, I would support a bylaw change. Do we really want
>ex-felons running our federation?> Randy Bauer
>
>Sam Sloan's felony -- notice that I do not put the word in quotation
>marks -- was to run away with his daughter when there was a court order
>to the contrary.
It's my belief that Larry Parr is an ardent supporter of the theory of natural
law, and this provides him a ready excuse for Sam Sloan's past lawlessness.
It's a little harder for me to understand how Parr overlooks Sloan's many other
indiscretions, some of which he readily admits on his website. Parr seems to
have a "boys will be boys" attitude, which I find strange when the guy's almost
eligible for social security.
quote:
>
> In an earlier period in our country, the State would not even
>have been involved in these affairs of family and the heart.
I find it hard to believe that any child's best interests would be served by
living the Sam Sloan lifestyle. Was that before or after he took up residence
in a homeless shelter?
quote:
>
> I find the kind of stuff written by Mr. Bauer, which is half
>self-righteousness (nothing wrong with that, per se) and half-political
>calculation, to be vulgar and a bit ugly.
I believe that the pursuit of righteousness is a positive character trait -- I'm
not perfect, but there are things I value, and Sam Sloan exhibits practically
none of these qualities. I think honesty, integrity, respect for the law,
working hard, playing by the rules, providing for your family, paying your
bills, not stiffing your creditors, etc., are good things. If these are
"political calculation" I guess I've been calculating my entire adult life.
I'll take this version of ugly vulgarity versus the Sloan version any time.
quote:
>
> We note that these guys don't write similarly of a Florencio
>Campomanes, a real felon convicted for embezzling funds or FIDE
>president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a real killer who is in an entire
>different category than anyone contributing to this forum.
What would you like me to write about them, Larry? I don't support felons or
killers. Clear enough for you?
quote:
>
> Although this writer has likely never met Mr. Bauer, we have probably
>reached the point where both of us can say we wouldn't much like each
>other if we did.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I try to not take these discussions
personally. I do, however, take exception to being called a liar (not
suggesting that you hare in this post). I've seen nothing ever discussed on
RGCP as being worth lying about. It does bother me to see people toss that
claim around as if it had practically no meaning, and Sam Sloan is a major
offender.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
|
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:425a82e6.9983703@ca.news.verio.net...
quote:
> On 11 Apr 2005 06:09:44 -0700, Randy Bauer <Randy_member@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
the[vbcol=seagreen]
Bauer[vbcol=seagreen]
Bauer's[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
Mike[vbcol=seagreen]
said[vbcol=seagreen]
Glenn[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
saying[vbcol=seagreen]
card.[vbcol=seagreen]
number:[vbcol=seagreen]
2005. These[vbcol=seagreen]
Meeting[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
by a[vbcol=seagreen]
petition and[vbcol=seagreen]
office[vbcol=seagreen]
and Larry[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Except that the by-laws say something different, and you are entrusted
> with following the by-laws of the organization of which you are a
> board member.
>
NOT. Policies and procedures may clarify murky bylaws, and certainly as the
standing delegate committee, the board has the right to make such
judgements.
quote:
> If you were not a board member, your candidacy would have been
> declared invalid immediately. It is only because you are on the board
> and have the power to hire and fire USCF staff that you are still
> considered a candidate. On the other hand, if I were on the board, my
> statement would have been published in Chess Life instead of a blank
> space appearing there.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> Sam Sloan
I prefer the blank space. Cosmic balance you know, 4 terrabytes of Sloan
postings here on rgcp vs one lousy candidates statment published to a
circulation of 90,000 +/-. Justice is being done.
--
Tom Klem
"Slanders, Libels and Defamations are our business!"
---sign hanging up in the back of Spam Sloan's rusting cab.
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| Excuse the top-post. I addressed these issues to Mike Nolan. But Randy Bauer
replies as if /he/ were auditing the election process, even his own case!
At least from an intellectual basis Randy Bauer must realise that in an
election an independent assessor is necessary, and while he says on behalf
of his own motion before the board that it is not against Sam Sloan
particularly, he have done little else except confound the process of the
election, with attacks on Sam Sloan's character.
Whether what he says is true or otherwise, he is clearly not in an impartial
state to be able to separate the issues and so resolve them, and has even
begun, as a sitting board member, to argue against having 'a felon' on the
board, which is I think is a personal point of view, and not any
representation of USCF bylaw.
This is heavy politics indeed. When we asked for transparency of process, we
didn't mean to suggest vacating normal checks, balances and essential
decency, and to suggest farcical banana-republic election procedures.
Phil Innes
"Randy Bauer" <Randy_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:d3dsuo075s@drn.newsguy.com...
quote:
> In article <0ot6e.11239$Xm3.7998@trndny01>, Chess One says...
>
> I didn't "clearly admit" any such thing. I didn't rely on Don Schultz
> saying
> "don't worry about it" -- I made the payment BY THE DEADLINE by credit
> card.
> I'm looking at my credit card statement as I type this. It shows:
>
> Sale date: January 10, 2005; Post date: January 10, 2005; Reference
> number:
> CGJDQ66S; US CHESS FEDERATION NEW WINDSOR NY, $250.00
>
> There was no "lapse" on my part -- my documents and payment were received
> according to the election regulations published by the USCF, which read:
>
> "There are four seats on the USCF Executive Board up for election in 2005.
> These
> are four-year terms that will begin at the conclusion of the Delegates
> Meeting
> in August of 2005.
> Any USCF member can be nominated for election to the Executive Board of
> the
> USCF. Each nomination must be accompanied by a petition containing the
> signatures of 30 or more Voting Members of the U.S. Chess Federation, and
> by a
> filing fee of $250 payable to the U.S. Chess Federation. Both the petition
> and
> the filing fee must be received by either the USCF Secretary or the USCF
> office
> by January 10, 2005."
>
> End of story, at least the non-fictional account. I'm sure Phil, Sam, and
> Larry
> will now write the fictional version.
>
> Randy Bauer
>
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| In article <ffx6e.14898$nt3.11986@trndny04>, Phil Innes says...
quote:
>
>Excuse the top-post. I addressed these issues to Mike Nolan. But Randy Bauer
>replies as if /he/ were auditing the election process, even his own case!
The fictional accounts continue, as I predicted.
quote:
>
>At least from an intellectual basis Randy Bauer must realise that in an
>election an independent assessor is necessary, and while he says on behalf
>of his own motion before the board that it is not against Sam Sloan
>particularly, he have done little else except confound the process of the
>election, with attacks on Sam Sloan's character.
Character counts. At least that's what we teach our children.
quote:
>
>Whether what he says is true or otherwise, he is clearly not in an impartial
>state to be able to separate the issues and so resolve them, and has even
>begun, as a sitting board member, to argue against having 'a felon' on the
>board, which is I think is a personal point of view, and not any
>representation of USCF bylaw.
I don't think having ex-felons on the Board does the USCF any favors.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
|
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ffx6e.14898$nt3.11986@trndny04...
quote:
> Excuse the top-post. I addressed these issues to Mike Nolan. But Randy
Bauer
[snip]
quote:
> with attacks on Sam Sloan's character.
>
As if any were needed, though the chess voting public has a right to know
these things.
quote:
> Whether what he says is true or otherwise, he is clearly not in an
impartial
quote:
> state to be able to separate the issues and so resolve them, and has even
> begun, as a sitting board member, to argue against having 'a felon' on the
> board, which is I think is a personal point of view, and not any
> representation of USCF bylaw.
>
Phil,
It is the fiduciary responsibility of every board member to protect the
integrity of the USCF. Keeping an ex-felon off the board, in my opinion, is
an example of such vigilance.
quote:
> This is heavy politics indeed. When we asked for transparency of process,
we
quote:
> didn't mean to suggest vacating normal checks, balances and essential
> decency, and to suggest farcical banana-republic election procedures.
>
> Phil Innes
>
What checks and balances have been vacated. Surely, an ethix committee
complaint can be made by Mr Sloan, unless he would rather go into court
first. This of course, violates the spirit (at least) of our bylaws by
taking matters outside of due process and placing them with the civil
authorities.
The checks and balances you seek are there, they may not be administered in
favor of Spammy, but that is a judgement call ... fiduciarily speaking ...
of the standing committees.
Cordially,
Tom Klem
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
|
"Randy Bauer" <Randy_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:d3e84701b56@drn.newsguy.com...
quote:
> In article <ffx6e.14898$nt3.11986@trndny04>, Phil Innes says...
>
> The fictional accounts continue, as I predicted.
I note, for the record, that Randy Bauer does not actually dispute any
factual matter in my post, nor contend with it as a fair approach, in his
own case or in Sam Sloan's. Yet it is 'fiction'.
quote:
>
> Character counts. At least that's what we teach our children.
Randy Bauer seems to be auditing our opinion of who is allowed to appear on
the ballot and in CL as candidates, based not on any cited USCF bylaw, but
on his own assessment of other's character. He continues to audit the
election process /as a candidate/ instead of Mike Nolan.
quote:
>
> I don't think having ex-felons on the Board does the USCF any favors.
Case proved.
Mr. Bauer has evidentally developed a personal animus in this case, to the
degree that he is plainly not even attempting to address what is impartial,
fair and reasonable.
What a farce!
Phil Innes
quote:
> Randy Bauer
>
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
|
"Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Y6y6e.38258$Xs.5036@fed1read03...
quote:
> Phil,
>
> It is the fiduciary responsibility of every board member to protect the
> integrity of the USCF.
Is it?
[What bylaw are you citing, BTW.]
quote:
> Keeping an ex-felon off the board, in my opinion, is
> an example of such vigilance.
>
>
> we
>
> What checks and balances have been vacated. Surely, an ethix committee
> complaint can be made by Mr Sloan, unless he would rather go into court
> first. This of course, violates the spirit (at least) of our bylaws by
> taking matters outside of due process and placing them with the civil
> authorities.
The complaint is already made. It is an ethical complaint. zzzzzzzz zz zzzzz
quote:
> The checks and balances you seek are there, they may not be administered
> in
> favor of Spammy, but that is a judgement call ... fiduciarily speaking ...
> of the standing committees.
So where the hell are they? And what's Mike Nolan's role in all this? I
thought it was his specific responsibility to invigilate a fair election.
Phil Innes
quote:
> Cordially,
> Tom Klem
>
>
| |
| The Masked Bishop 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| >One of the beautiful things about the law is that the truth
is an absolute defense. <
yeah, it sure worked for Baretta and O.J.
Idiot.
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-04-11, 9:54 pm |
| NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.tssi.com
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com rec.games.chess.politics:272679
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
quote:
>So where the hell are they? And what's Mike Nolan's role in all this? I
>thought it was his specific responsibility to invigilate a fair election.
'invigilate'?
I'm the chair of the Election Procedures Committee, which advises the Board
and the Secretary on election issues. I have no authority whatsoever with
regards to the election, under the USCF Bylaws those powers are assigned
to the Board and/or the USCF Secretary.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| arodobop 2005-04-11, 9:54 pm |
| How are you advising the Board and Secretary to proceed in the Sloan
and Bauer election issues, Mr. Nolan?
Mike Nolan Apr 11, 2:37 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: n...@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Apr 2005 21:37:32 GMT
Local: Mon,Apr 11 2005 2:37 pm
Subject: Re: Statementgate
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> writes:
quote:
>So where the hell are they? And what's Mike Nolan's role in all this?
I
quote:
>thought it was his specific responsibility to invigilate a fair
election.
'invigilate'?
I'm the chair of the Election Procedures Committee, which advises the
Board
and the Secretary on election issues. I have no authority whatsoever
with
regards to the election, under the USCF Bylaws those powers are
assigned
to the Board and/or the USCF Secretary.
| |
|
| It's a routine notion of Corporate law that a corporate officer can
delegate responsibilities. This doctrine keeps busy corporate officers
from being swamped by mundante tasks. In this case the secretary
evidently delegated the responsibility of receiving the filing fee to
the office, because the website directed potential candidates to send
payment to the office.
Wick Deer
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-11, 9:54 pm |
|
"Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uxA6e.38411$Xs.38318@fed1read03...
quote:
> The Illinois Corporate Law, not bylaws of the Fed, covers it I'm sure.
>
> There is usually some sort of boilerplate like that in the non profit
> statutes.
>
> But, just for a second, say I'm wrong and there is no such requirement,
> therefore no responsibility.
>
> Let's say that Phil's Chess Emporium, a multi million dollar business
> employing nearly thirty people decides one day to go public. In your
> offering you are required to list all of the board members, the principals
> in the company, etc. The basic idea is to "sell" your company to the
> shareholders, and raise money to fund an expansion of the sensor board
> business. Ok, now let's say you put Spammy on your board, with his
> incredible resume (don't lie, they'll find out).
This is not at all analogous Tom.
(1) Sam would be /elected/ to the board of USCF by its members, not inserted
into a public company by virtue of shareholder's purchases and consequent
access to board seats.
(2) This issue here is if the USCF will allow members to make that choice,
or allow fellow slate incumbents and candidates to decide the matter.
(3) If the roles were reversed, and Sam Sloan as incumbent seemed* to act in
a prejucial way by virtue of his incumbency status against candidate Bauer,
I would be writing the same material here, and asking the arbiter to take
note.
(4) What you, George John and Randy Bauer have amply demonstrated is that
this IS a campaign against Sam Sloan. None of you can write about anything
else! None of you are able to differentiate process from personality, which
is why this election is as transparent as the financials.
(5) * Most elections have observers, often independent parties or ombudsmen,
who guarantee certain standards and rigors in the process of the election,
and to warrant its essential fairness. This election would be a farce in a
banana republic. For heaven's sake! Print the man's statement in the letter
column, and take your chances at the polling booth. If you are so sure of
your opinion, what on earth can you be afraid of?
Phil Innes
quote:
> Every stock touter from one end of the street to the other would uncover
> the
> fact that you have an ex-felon on your board and rate you down one or two
> multiples, costing you millions of dollars in funding.
>
> Still want Spammy for a partner? A principle in your business? If he's
> that
> great, would you pay him to give you advice outside the board context?
>
> I thought so.
>
>
> --
> Tom Klem
>
> "There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take
> the
> credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there."
> ---Indira Gandhi
>
>
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:lKy6e.8738$nH4.1900@trndny05...
> process,
> zzzzz
> ...
>
>
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-04-11, 9:54 pm |
|
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ERD6e.4438$Fm5.428@trndny09...
quote:
>
> "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uxA6e.38411$Xs.38318@fed1read03...
>
> (4) What you, George John and Randy Bauer have amply demonstrated is that
> this IS a campaign against Sam Sloan. None of you can write about anything
> else! None of you are able to differentiate process from personality,
> which is why this election is as transparent as the financials.
Baloney. I have not started these threads about "Statementgate" but I'm not
going to allow misinformation to be spread by Sam or those who seem to have
a soft spot for him and his candidacy. I followed the rules explicitly
stated in the official USCF guidance to candidates, and all the rest of this
is Sloan muddying the water.
Sloan and others continue to argue, for example, that the Board voted 5-2 to
keep his material out of the last issue of Chess Life, which is a lie. I've
prompted Sloan (or anybody else) to provide the motion that did that -- and
the silence is deafening. The fact is the Secretary, under the old system,
decided that the statement would not run.
If others don't want to discuss this issue, it will drop. But if you,
Sloan, Parr, wish to continue to spread misinformation, I will repond. If
you want me to stop talking about it, do so yourself.
quote:
>
> (5) * Most elections have observers, often independent parties or
> ombudsmen, who guarantee certain standards and rigors in the process of
> the election, and to warrant its essential fairness. This election would
> be a farce in a banana republic. For heaven's sake! Print the man's
> statement in the letter column, and take your chances at the polling
> booth. If you are so sure of your opinion, what on earth can you be afraid
> of?
He has met the deadline for the candidates statements and it will be
published in the next issue. See, that's all he needed to do in the first
place -- meet the deadlines that all 10 other candidates were able to do.
Randy Bauer
quote:
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-11, 9:54 pm |
|
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:d3eqms$bl8$1@gw.tssi.com...
quote:
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
> 'invigilate'?
>
> I'm the chair of the Election Procedures Committee, which advises the
> Board
> and the Secretary on election issues. I have no authority whatsoever with
> regards to the election, under the USCF Bylaws those powers are assigned
> to the Board and/or the USCF Secretary.
I see! The mind googles!
So, I now understand that the people in charge of the election are the
ruling slate of incumbents [!] and they alone [!] could determine any matter
of ethical misconduct.
Will they now do so? - I note that Mr. Bauer has recused himself from taking
part in this issue - and since this is a timely matter and harm can be done
by delay, can we understand when they might table this issue, and if
witnesses can be present - ( it is well known that a stated goal is to
achieve transparency of governance by this board), and I am sure having
independent parties present will be entirely in the spirit!
Incidentally, is it permitted to allow an advocate for Mr. Sloan?
Phil Innes
quote:
> Mike Nolan
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-04-11, 9:54 pm |
| "arodobop" <arodobop@yahoo.com> writes:
quote:
>How are you advising the Board and Secretary to proceed in the Sloan
>and Bauer election issues, Mr. Nolan?
I advised the Secretary some months ago (probably in November or December)
to take a hard line on deadlines because of past problems, which led to
a late printing and mailing of Chess Life on at least one occasion.
I also knew the USCF offices would be in a transitional state during
the election period, including having at best limited communication with
and services from Barb Vandermark, who moved to Florida last year.
Barb handled most of the work in the past several elections including
contacting one of the candidates numerous times in both of the last two
years to get a candidate statement and election supplement copy.
In years past letters outlining the election process and deadlines were
sent by the ED (prepared by Barb) to all candidates once their petitions
were certified. I saw a draft of such a letter for this year coming
from Don as Secretary, but I cannot say with first-hand knowledge
when or even whether a letter to the candidates was sent.
I think I was copied on the e-mail Don sent to the candidates, but I
probably have both the draft of the letter and the e-mail saved on a
system in Nebraska that I don't have access to when I am on the road,
which I will be for another two weeks.
I was in regular contact with Don and the office in the days leading up
to the filing deadline and remained in near daily contact with Glenn
in January and February tracking the receipt of the candidate statements,
or lack thereof.
I believe I have already posted on what role I had in the Board decision,
upon which I was not consulted in advance. I considered the decision
somewhat unnecessary and certainly subject to criticism, but still within
the Board's authority under the Bylaws.
I don't recall the Board having asked me for any recommendations on
the election process since that vote.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-11, 9:54 pm |
|
"Randy Bauer" <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gZD6e.6379$xL4.1141@attbi_s72...
quote:
>
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ERD6e.4438$Fm5.428@trndny09...
>
> Baloney. I have not started these threads about "Statementgate" but I'm
> not going to allow misinformation to be spread by Sam or those who seem to
> have a soft spot for him and his candidacy.
Exactly the point! You, Randy Bauer, have made sure that people are not
going to hear false statements, and in fact, no statements at all!
Having claimed this has nothing to do with Sam Sloan you, in every post,
ONLY write about Sam Sloan. ROFL!! Are you serious?
I am writing about process - to which there are no independent witnesses
during an election time. And to which new-style slate-politics determine who
members can vote for, on what - I ask you to notice from the general
response here - has not /seemed/ to be one and the same standard, applied to
all people.
The elections already does not /seem/ to be fair, and there are no
independent invigilators or ombudsmen, both of which are black eyes for the
board.
The resolution is straightforward and immediately removes suspicion proving
that there is nothing 'going on'. After some 30 posts from your slate-mates
no one has deemed to even notice what appears to be a simple and evidently
fair remedy, as suggested by Rob Mitchell and Larry Parr - to print the
statement in the letters column. Rather than any impartial attitude to the
election - and a transparent view of processes fairly applied - I could
almost think there is a certain malice possible in this one.
Isn't putting the text and picture ontot the letters page reasonable? Are
you willing to be reasonable? Or do you want to attempt to win a rhetorical
battle as the sitting incumbent determining the fate of a political
opponent, by doing not exactly nothing - by stating your personal dislike,
but denying members the right to vote for what they like?
You are unable to understand that your word is the same as his! You are both
naturally partisan, both call each other liars, and such stuff. You are
entirely free to continue to do so until the end of time, as far as I am
concerned. That is not the point!
The point is that members cannot register their vote for Sam Sloan
persoanlly, or for a non-slate candidate on principal, should they wish to
register such a vote.
Phil Innes
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-11, 9:54 pm |
| Phil,
I don't give a whif about process. Do you think that I am able to peer
through walls, three thousand miles away? It's a game of he said, she said
that I (and I hope others) do not have the precience to play.
You're exactly right. The only position which I have, is the one I KNOW
about. Sam Sloan. Itinerant taxi driver, peerless litigant before the
supreme court (sic), and defrocked securities man.
I ask you again, and don't dodge the question. Would you put him on the
board of your business?
Tom Klem
"Don't wait for the translation ..."
Adlai Stevenson, Cuban Missle Crisis, US Ambassador to the UN
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ERD6e.4438$Fm5.428@trndny09...
quote:
>
> "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uxA6e.38411$Xs.38318@fed1read03...
principals[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> This is not at all analogous Tom.
>
> (1) Sam would be /elected/ to the board of USCF by its members, not
inserted
quote:
> into a public company by virtue of shareholder's purchases and consequent
> access to board seats.
>
> (2) This issue here is if the USCF will allow members to make that choice,
> or allow fellow slate incumbents and candidates to decide the matter.
>
> (3) If the roles were reversed, and Sam Sloan as incumbent seemed* to act
in
quote:
> a prejucial way by virtue of his incumbency status against candidate
Bauer,
quote:
> I would be writing the same material here, and asking the arbiter to take
> note.
>
> (4) What you, George John and Randy Bauer have amply demonstrated is that
> this IS a campaign against Sam Sloan. None of you can write about anything
> else! None of you are able to differentiate process from personality,
which
quote:
> is why this election is as transparent as the financials.
>
> (5) * Most elections have observers, often independent parties or
ombudsmen,
quote:
> who guarantee certain standards and rigors in the process of the election,
> and to warrant its essential fairness. This election would be a farce in a
> banana republic. For heaven's sake! Print the man's statement in the
letter
quote:
> column, and take your chances at the polling booth. If you are so sure of
> your opinion, what on earth can you be afraid of?
>
> Phil Innes
>
two[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
essential[vbcol=seagreen]
procedures.[vbcol=seagreen]
committee[vbcol=seagreen]
court[vbcol=seagreen]
by[vbcol=seagreen]
speaking[vbcol=seagreen]
election.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| arodobop 2005-04-12, 3:56 am |
| Thanks for your reply.
Mike Nolan Apr 11, 4:58 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: n...@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Apr 2005 23:58:38 GMT
Local: Mon,Apr 11 2005 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: Statementgate
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"arodobop" <arodo...@yahoo.com> writes:
quote:
>How are you advising the Board and Secretary to proceed in the Sloan
>and Bauer election issues, Mr. Nolan?
I advised the Secretary some months ago (probably in November or
December)
to take a hard line on deadlines because of past problems, which led to
a late printing and mailing of Chess Life on at least one occasion.
I also knew the USCF offices would be in a transitional state during
the election period, including having at best limited communication
with
and services from Barb Vandermark, who moved to Florida last year.
Barb handled most of the work in the past several elections including
contacting one of the candidates numerous times in both of the last two
years to get a candidate statement and election supplement copy.
In years past letters outlining the election process and deadlines were
sent by the ED (prepared by Barb) to all candidates once their
petitions
were certified. I saw a draft of such a letter for this year coming
from Don as Secretary, but I cannot say with first-hand knowledge
when or even whether a letter to the candidates was sent.
I think I was copied on the e-mail Don sent to the candidates, but I
probably have both the draft of the letter and the e-mail saved on a
system in Nebraska that I don't have access to when I am on the road,
which I will be for another two weeks.
I was in regular contact with Don and the office in the days leading up
to the filing deadline and remained in near daily contact with Glenn
in January and February tracking the receipt of the candidate
statements,
or lack thereof.
I believe I have already posted on what role I had in the Board
decision,
upon which I was not consulted in advance. I considered the decision
somewhat unnecessary and certainly subject to criticism, but still
within
the Board's authority under the Bylaws.
I don't recall the Board having asked me for any recommendations on
the election process since that vote.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| George John 2005-04-12, 3:56 am |
| parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
Dear Larry,
quote:
> But what you label absurd, is what Randy Bauer did. He mailed his
check
quote:
> to the secretary who did not receive it in time. He tried to make the
> deadline at the last minute by charging his fee with Judy Misner.
I'm sorry if I was not clear. What I would consider to be absurd is
having a clause in the Bylaws which *requires* all candidate petition
mail to go to the USCF Secretary's *home* address. The USCF Bylaws,
quite rightly, does *not* have such a clause.
In this instance, the December Chess Life had a written statement which
instructed prospective candidates to mail their petitions to either the
Secretary or the USCF office. So, it was explicitly permissible to use
either.
[SNIP]
quote:
>
> You obviously must stay in step with your political ticket and its
> supporters,
No, I do not. While I do support the administration of President
Marinello and the candidates on my slate, should I should find any have
conducted a gross misdeed or a major violation of the Bylaws, I will
speak out against any of them. My need to win is absolutely
subordinate to good governance and fair play.
quote:
> one of whom you must also at some level know is a low
> character.
I strongly disagree with this statement.
quote:
>
> We have a common friend, whom we both respect a great deal. This
friend
quote:
> attests to your personal character.
Please tell our mutual friend, thank you!
quote:
> How refreshing were you or someone
> among the majority on this Board or someone among their supporters to
> simply state the obvious: Mr. Bauer violated the bylaws,
I strongly disagree with your assertion that Randy Bauer violated a
Bylaw. And, very frankly, I am surprised that any reasonable person,
unbiased by any political or personal agendas, would think so.
quote:
> and Mr. Sloan
> violated a deadline.
That he did. Furthermore, as stated by the USCF Secretary, he violated
it sufficiently that if his campaign article were published it would
have adversely affected the Chess Life publication process.
quote:
> The issue then becomes reasonable sanctions.
The USCF Secretary enforced his written rule.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| George John 2005-04-12, 3:56 am |
|
Chess One wrote:
Dear Phil,
[SNIP]
quote:
> (4) What you, George John and Randy Bauer have amply demonstrated is
that
quote:
> this IS a campaign against Sam Sloan.
WRT the USCF Secretary's decision to not publish Sam Sloan's April
Chess Life article, what have I done to demonstrate there is a campaign
against Sam Sloan?
quote:
> None of you can write about anything
> else!
I would gladly write about almost anything else, but I will not idly
stand by and allow all incorrect statements and paraphrasing to stand
without rebuttal.
quote:
> None of you are able to differentiate process from personality, which
quote:
> is why this election is as transparent as the financials.
Please explain to me what is so difficult about the concept that if an
article is not submitted by a certain deadline it is not guaranteed to
be published, and if it is submitted after a given date, it will not be
published if doing so would adversely impact the publication of a
magazine?
[SNIP]
Best regards,
George John
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-12, 3:56 am |
| DISSIDENTS ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY
<I see absolutely no violation of the Bylaws here. IMO, USCF Secretary
Don Schultz acted properly when he certified Randy Bauer as a
candidate. I can think of no valid reasons to decertify Randy Bauer as
a candidate.> George John
The issue is what the bylaws say -- not what Chess Life says or, as
Randy Bauer put the matter, unnamed "USCF documents."
Sam Sloan quoted a bylaw which stated that election fees must be
transmitted to the secretary -- period -- by a given date. Such did not
occur in the case of Mr. Bauer whose response is reasonable but
unresponsive: He states that he followed directions as given in Chess
Life and those unnamed "USCF documents." That's fine. But that is also
not what the bylaws say.
George John can see no violation of the bylaws. I cannot see how they
have not been violated.
To be sure, Mr. Bauer's violation was a technical one, and we would
normally leave the matter at that. But Mr. Bauer's excuse for the
suppression of Sam Sloan's election statement is that Mr. Sloan
violated a deadline that he did not receive. Mind you, the statement
could still have been included easily enough in the magazine and it was
already typeset before it was excised; but Mr. Bauer explained that it
is high-time to begin observing the rules as they are written.
Indeed, he made a point of referring to himself rather sickeningly in
the third person, telling us how "Randy Bauer" does things by getting
everything just in under the last-minute deadline.
Except that he did meet the deadline. Not according to the bylaws as
they are written -- as Mr. Bauer would have us read them. Which is to
say, he would have us read the regulations strictly where a felon named
Sam Sloan is concerned and would have us append common sense and common
conventions to the bylaws where he is concerned.
Sam Sloan's election statement was suppressed, allegedly because it
arrived late. Mr. Sloan believes the statement was received in time and
was actually set up for inclusion in the magaine -- and then
suppressed. For the record, he is right and any deposition proceeding
under oath will show such.
So Mr. Bauer did not send payment in time to the secretary under the
bylaws. He followed directions as the Federation gave them, which were
not the same as what appeared in the bylaws. He did not meet the letter
of the law, and he wants us to understand that common sense precludes
holding him to the letter of the law. It is, after all, "reasonable,"
as George John put it, that Judy Misner would instead take Mr. Bauer's
money.
Indeed, it is "reasonable." But it is also not what the bylaws state.
Printing Sam Sloan's statement, which was already in type, would have
been reasonable, too. But Mr. Sloan may have violated a deadline.
The difference: Mr. Bauer gets to be a candidate, though he violated a
bylaw and Mr. Sloan's statement is suppressed because he violated a
deadline.
Did Don Schultz cash Mr. Bauer's check, or was it destroyed or returned
to Mr. Bauer because it was deducted from his credit card?
| |
| George John 2005-04-12, 3:57 am |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
Larry,
[SNIP]
quote:
> George John, who is on a slate with the incumbents, appears to
> argue that Randy Bauer need not meet the deadline of submitting money
> to the "secretary" by a given date, but that you must meet the
deadline
quote:
> of sending in a candidates' statement by a given date.
I'm curious, is "appears" your favorite word. ;-)
IMO, it is clear to me, and I truly hope to any reasonable, impartial
person, that the USCF office was acting as an agent for the Secretary.
This is based on information found in the December "Chess Life" and on
the USCF Website at http://www.uschess.org/EBNominations.pdf (did you
get your pdf viewer working?).
I think we should agree to disagree on whether the information in
December "Chess Life" and on the USCF Website, which allowed mailings
to the office, was a violation of the Bylaws or not. I think it is
not. You think it is. I recommend you contact the USCF Bylaws
Committee for their interpretation. Unless you can think of something
new, that we haven't already discussed, I think I have said about all
that I can on this subject.
[SNIP]
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-12, 7:01 am |
| Larry,
Your argument is rendered moot (the bylaws say, etc) by the publication in
our offical organ of the policies and procedures for the election in
December 2004. This publication set all the rules in black and white for any
prospective candidates to follow. I don't believe this publication violates
either the spirit or the letter of the given bylaws procedure.
Tom Klem
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1113281424.677141.127910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> DISSIDENTS ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY
>
> <I see absolutely no violation of the Bylaws here. IMO, USCF Secretary
> Don Schultz acted properly when he certified Randy Bauer as a
> candidate. I can think of no valid reasons to decertify Randy Bauer as
> a candidate.> George John
>
> The issue is what the bylaws say -- not what Chess Life says or, as
> Randy Bauer put the matter, unnamed "USCF documents."
>
> Sam Sloan quoted a bylaw which stated that election fees must be
> transmitted to the secretary -- period -- by a given date. Such did not
> occur in the case of Mr. Bauer whose response is reasonable but
> unresponsive: He states that he followed directions as given in Chess
> Life and those unnamed "USCF documents." That's fine. But that is also
> not what the bylaws say.
>
> George John can see no violation of the bylaws. I cannot see how they
> have not been violated.
>
> To be sure, Mr. Bauer's violation was a technical one, and we would
> normally leave the matter at that. But Mr. Bauer's excuse for the
> suppression of Sam Sloan's election statement is that Mr. Sloan
> violated a deadline that he did not receive. Mind you, the statement
> could still have been included easily enough in the magazine and it was
> already typeset before it was excised; but Mr. Bauer explained that it
> is high-time to begin observing the rules as they are written.
>
> Indeed, he made a point of referring to himself rather sickeningly in
> the third person, telling us how "Randy Bauer" does things by getting
> everything just in under the last-minute deadline.
>
> Except that he did meet the deadline. Not according to the bylaws as
> they are written -- as Mr. Bauer would have us read them. Which is to
> say, he would have us read the regulations strictly where a felon named
> Sam Sloan is concerned and would have us append common sense and common
> conventions to the bylaws where he is concerned.
>
> Sam Sloan's election statement was suppressed, allegedly because it
> arrived late. Mr. Sloan believes the statement was received in time and
> was actually set up for inclusion in the magaine -- and then
> suppressed. For the record, he is right and any deposition proceeding
> under oath will show such.
>
> So Mr. Bauer did not send payment in time to the secretary under the
> bylaws. He followed directions as the Federation gave them, which were
> not the same as what appeared in the bylaws. He did not meet the letter
> of the law, and he wants us to understand that common sense precludes
> holding him to the letter of the law. It is, after all, "reasonable,"
> as George John put it, that Judy Misner would instead take Mr. Bauer's
> money.
>
> Indeed, it is "reasonable." But it is also not what the bylaws state.
> Printing Sam Sloan's statement, which was already in type, would have
> been reasonable, too. But Mr. Sloan may have violated a deadline.
>
> The difference: Mr. Bauer gets to be a candidate, though he violated a
> bylaw and Mr. Sloan's statement is suppressed because he violated a
> deadline.
>
> Did Don Schultz cash Mr. Bauer's check, or was it destroyed or returned
> to Mr. Bauer because it was deducted from his credit card?
>
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-12, 6:01 pm |
|
"Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:wxE6e.38674$Xs.33663@fed1read03...
quote:
> Phil,
>
> I don't give a whif about process. Do you think that I am able to peer
> through walls, three thousand miles away? It's a game of he said, she said
> that I (and I hope others | | |