|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > July 2005 > Vote for the Chess Success Team NOT
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 |
Vote for the Chess Success Team NOT
|
|
| chessdon 2005-07-15, 12:31 am |
| Dr. Leroy Dubeck urges you to vote for the success team because he
claims Don Schultz's administration lost a lot of money. Whether true
or not that simply is not relevant. Below are some relevant reasons why
you should vote for: Joel Channing, Bill Goichberg, Robert Tanner and
Greg Shahade.
(1) You will see a more open chess federation. It is time to
reinstitute the BINFO procedures and have USCF Executive Board
exchanged emails included. It is time for Board members to routinely
report on the US Web site their view of the state of the USCF, what is
planned and the rationale behind what has been done.
(2) You will see a "Retreat Week" to meet with the leaders of US
chess, use of professional facillator(s) resulting in a Grand Plan for
the future evolution of chess in our country.
(3) You will see a Board that resists the temptation to micro manage
staff.
(4) You will see a board composed of members of mixed talents from a
highly successful businessman; a youthful, energetic International
Master; the imaginative and most successful tournament organizer of all
time; and a scholastic leader who also works well with the chess
professional, chess teachers, students, and members of the
international chess.
(5) You will see a Board that respects constructive criticism and
listens to good advice.
(6) You will see real success.
Don Schultz,
Former USCF President
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-15, 12:31 am |
| The reason I don't want Channing to win is that his winning will prove
that it's possible to buy a seat on the Executive Board. He must have
spent 25K on his campaign. While I understand that he can well afford
it, such a sum is well beyond the reach of most people. It will be a
sad day if one is expected to pony up that kind of money to have a
chance at being elected to the USCF board.
| |
| chessdon 2005-07-15, 12:31 am |
| Mike Goodall said: "The reason I don't want Channing to win is that his
winning will prove
that it's possible to buy a seat on the Executive Board."
Mike, it would have been impossible for Joel Channing to win without
spending money to let people know who he is. He lacked name
recognition. I believe the voters know him now possibly as much as the
other candidates.The playing field has been leveled not skkkewed toward
him..
Now the voters can decide if they want a successful business man (who
loves chess) on the Board.
Don
| |
| RSHaas@aol.com 2005-07-15, 12:31 am |
| "...You will see a "Retreat Week" to meet with the leaders of US chess,
use of professional facillator(s) resulting in a Grand Plan for the
future evolution of chess in our country...." (Don Schultz)
=========
You want a grand plan? I've got a grand plan.... the Mensa model
for chess. Put that idea in place and we could have a real chess
federation.
Old Haasie
| |
| Catalan 2005-07-15, 12:31 am |
|
"chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121391095.247347.264560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Mike Goodall said: "The reason I don't want Channing to win is that his
> winning will prove
> that it's possible to buy a seat on the Executive Board."
>
> Mike, it would have been impossible for Joel Channing to win without
> spending money to let people know who he is. He lacked name
> recognition. I believe the voters know him now possibly as much as the
> other candidates.The playing field has been leveled not skkkewed toward
> him..
That doesn't exactly change anything Mike said.
quote:
> Now the voters can decide if they want a successful business man (who
> loves chess) on the Board.
Don't get your hopes up, five minutes after he is elected he'll be his own
man and you'll have no further influence.
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-15, 12:31 am |
| Don,
Did Channing pay your expenses to be his campaign manager? If so I'll
have to revise my estimate upward. One acquires name recognition by
working hard for chess. The fact that Channing had to buy name
recognition suggests that he hasn't done enough for chess to be
noticed, nor enough for chess to be considered by the rest of us to be
on the EB. I don't wish to alienate a wealthy patron, but I question
whether patrons should govern.
Mike
| |
| chessdon 2005-07-15, 12:31 am |
| No Mike , I was not paid.
Watch the results of the election - Joel will do best where he is
known.
In the campaign he has been to the Nat''l scholastic supenational, the
national open, the HB Challenge, the Amateur Team East, he has spoken
to more organizers than any candidate.
Look at his endorsers - do you really think people of the caliber
blindly endorse him?
You say you question whether wealthy people shoud govern. I guess that
translates into successful people since few successful people aren't
well off. And I know you don't mean successful people shouldn't govern.
What I do know Mike is that you are an honest man and generally wise in
these matters. But on this you are wrong.
And bythe way, don't worry about alienating Joel, he loves chess, he is
committed.
Vote for success, vote for Channing, Goichberg, Tanner and Shahade!
| |
| George John 2005-07-15, 12:31 am |
|
chessdon wrote:
[SNIP]
quote:
> (1) You will see a more open chess federation.
Yes, hopefully the next USCF Secretary will actually follow the USCF
Bylaws and see that ALL Executive Board meetings are posted to the Web
within a month, and will not offer a litany of excuses and point
fingers at others for why it has not been done.
What follows is the current (as of July 14, 2005) missing information
from newest to oldest during the term of (former?) USCF Secretary Don
Schultz:
1) May 21-22, 2005
2) April 2-3, 2005
3) December 19, 2004
4) September 12, 2004
5) August 15, 2004
Best regards,
George John
"All meetings of the Executive Board, including conference calls, shall
be recorded in their entirety with a clear, permanent record by a means
determined by the Executive Board."
"The public portion of the permanent record will be available on the
web-site within a month of the meeting record."
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-07-15, 6:39 am |
| On 14 Jul 2005 20:11:40 -0700, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
wrote:
quote:
>
>
>chessdon wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>
>Yes, hopefully the next USCF Secretary will actually follow the USCF
>Bylaws and see that ALL Executive Board meetings are posted to the Web
>within a month, and will not offer a litany of excuses and point
>fingers at others for why it has not been done.
>
>What follows is the current (as of July 14, 2005) missing information
>from newest to oldest during the term of (former?) USCF Secretary Don
>Schultz:
>
>1) May 21-22, 2005
>2) April 2-3, 2005
>3) December 19, 2004
>4) September 12, 2004
>5) August 15, 2004
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
>
>"All meetings of the Executive Board, including conference calls, shall
>be recorded in their entirety with a clear, permanent record by a means
>determined by the Executive Board."
>
>"The public portion of the permanent record will be available on the
>web-site within a month of the meeting record."
>
Very good point. Why has not this been done?
I suspect that the so-called "Success Team" does not want this posted.
Why does George John support the group that is engaging in this cover
up?
Sam Sloan
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-07-15, 8:38 pm |
| Yes, lacking name recognition is a problem in this context (One member one
vote); however, it is precisely the point of the new system.
As people contribute their time and talents to the USCF (for free and at
their own expense wherever possible), they gradually get the name
recognition that comes from being a _valuable_ resource and a friend to
Chess.
Anything else, is just an attempt by this or that party to put a warm body
with a friendly political slant on the board.
Why not reduce the size of the board to 5, and hire professionals to run it.
A professional board would go a long way towards solving the most pressing
problem in US Chess today, namely, conflict of interest.
--
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
"chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121391095.247347.264560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Mike Goodall said: "The reason I don't want Channing to win is that his
> winning will prove
> that it's possible to buy a seat on the Executive Board."
>
> Mike, it would have been impossible for Joel Channing to win without
> spending money to let people know who he is. He lacked name
> recognition. I believe the voters know him now possibly as much as the
> other candidates.The playing field has been leveled not skkkewed toward
> him..
>
> Now the voters can decide if they want a successful business man (who
> loves chess) on the Board.
>
> Don
>
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-07-15, 8:38 pm |
|
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
[snip]
quote:
> I suspect that the so-called "Success Team" does not want this posted.
> Why does George John support the group that is engaging in this cover
> up?
>
> Sam Sloan
You are spending too much time with the Hollyweird types on your TV show.
Cover up? What cover up?
This is not national security, this is a moderately sized professional
standards organization. One that you can't wait to get your hands on, so you
can begin to start stripping it for whatever financial gain you can accrue.
--
Tom Klem
"Slanders, Libels and Defamations are our business!"
---sign hanging up in the back of Spam Sloan's rusting cab.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-07-15, 8:38 pm |
| CUTTING GOVERNANCE EXPENSES
<Why not reduce the size of the board to 5, and hire professionals to
run it.> Tom Klem
A good point.
Reducing the size of the board to save money was one of the goals
of the Friends of the USCF -- in addition to one-member-one-vote.
These goals were bitterly opposed by the establishment at the time,
including Harold Winston and Don Schultz, who later changed his mind.
. In my view, this is the first really hard-fought OMOV election.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-07-15, 8:38 pm |
| Agreed!!
Here here!
--
Tom Klem
"Time goes by so fast, people go in and out of your life. You must never
miss the opportunity to tell these people how much they mean to you."
---"Frasier on Cheers"
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1121430671.542499.121600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> CUTTING GOVERNANCE EXPENSES
>
> <Why not reduce the size of the board to 5, and hire professionals to
> run it.> Tom Klem
>
> A good point.
>
> Reducing the size of the board to save money was one of the goals
> of the Friends of the USCF -- in addition to one-member-one-vote.
> These goals were bitterly opposed by the establishment at the time,
> including Harold Winston and Don Schultz, who later changed his mind.
>
> . In my view, this is the first really hard-fought OMOV election.
>
| |
| Catalan 2005-07-15, 8:38 pm |
|
"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1121397100.796105.170620@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> What follows is the current (as of July 14, 2005) missing information
> from newest to oldest during the term of (former?) USCF Secretary Don
> Schultz:
No (former?) needed, Don resigned in disgrace last month.
| |
| stanb@accountant.com 2005-07-15, 8:38 pm |
| I no longer endorse the Chess for Success team. Shaughnessy is now a
serious liability.
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-15, 8:38 pm |
| Anyone who hasn't voted yet should do so today. Ballots received in
New York by this Tuesday will count. If you wait until tomorrow or
Monday to mail your ballot may not make it.
| |
| SloanSam 2005-07-16, 12:32 am |
| Don't vote for the dream team either. Only vote for me.
|
| |
|
|