Chess politics - USCF Executive Board Recall ADM 05-24

Author

USCF Executive Board Recall ADM 05-24

George John

2005-07-21, 8:33 pm

The topic is ADM 05-24 (for the full text see
http://www.uschess.org/govern/2005D...esCall.pt1.pdf, page 16).

The very good news is the USCF Bylaws may get a recall provision for
Executive Board members, which it currently does not have.

The potential bad news is that the bar for the Voting Members to start
a recall may be set too high, and that's what I would like to discuss.
I quote:

"The Voting Members may initiate a recall of an elected Executive Board
member by petitions signed by 15% of the voting membership based on the
membership numbers at the end of the most recent fiscal year, i.e., May
31."

Currently, the USCF easily has over 40,000 Voting Members. Therefore,
to start a recall a petition would require over 6000 signatures.
First, I pity the USCF Secretary who would have to validate over 6000
signatures, and even worse it has to be done in two weeks. I quote:

"The USCF Secretary shall have two weeks from the date the petition is
received by the USCF office to determine if a recall petition is
valid."

Hopefully, this is a task that could be delegated to staff and/or
volunteers. Is it?

Second, even with a hotly contested election, duplicate ballots, and a
probable small fortune spent on direct mailings to the Voting Members,
the voter turnout in the current election was very likely less than
15%. Is it reasonable to require more signatures to start a recall
than there were ballots cast in the election which produced the
Executive Board member in question?

Third, for a recall to be considered valid, at least 1500 Voting
Members must participate in the recall election. I assume a simple
majority would prevail. I find it odd that there is a requirement for
what is effectively over 6000 members to start the recall, but as few
as 751 could cause it to be successful.

Certainly, the USCF should discourage frivolous recalls. We know of at
least one current USCF member who have very likely jumped at the
opportunity to start a recall had it been possible.

My question to you is do you think the 15% requirement too high, too
low, or about right? Comments are welcomed about this point and/or
anything else related to the ADM.

As a reference point I checked the requirements in California. For
statewide office the requirement is 12% of the last vote for that
office. For legislative positions its 20% of the last vote. Note:
this is NOT a percentage of the total *possible* voters, only of those
who actually voted.

Assuming 5000 votes in the 2005 USCF Executive Board election, 12%
would be 600; 20%, 1000. That might be too low, or maybe okay. I
don't know. What do you all think? I might accept 20% with a
minimum of 1500. What do you all think?

Best regards,

George John

George John

2005-07-21, 8:33 pm

The second part of my post considers how the USCF Delegates might start
a recall. I quote:

"The Delegates may initiate a recall of an elected Executive Board
member by a 2/3 majority vote of a motion on the advance agenda of an
Annual or Special Delegates Meeting, by a 3/4 majority vote of a motion
not on the advance agenda of an Annual or Special Delegates Meeting, or
by petitions signed by 3/4 of the Delegates in lieu of a meeting of the
Board of Delegates."

I think a recall could be started by as few as 35 people. Here's how.

The President calls for a Special Meeting, and the recall motion is
placed on the advance agenda.

A quorum for a special meeting is 1/3 of the total Delegates.
Currently, I believe there are 156 or so Delegates (125 + 7 EB + 24
DAL). A third of that is 52.

Two thirds of 52 is 35.

So a recall could in theory be started by the USCF President plus 34
Delegates.

More interesting might be if the special meeting were called for some
other reason, and the recall motion was introduced from the floor.
That would require a 3/4 vote or 39 votes.

So, a recall could be initiated by as few as 39 Delegates with no
advance notice to anyone -- interesting.

I wonder if my logic is correct? Comments are welcome.

Best regards,

George John

Bruce Leverett

2005-07-22, 3:31 am

George,

I don't see anything wrong with your math. Here are some more
thoughts, trying to take up where you have left off.

The proposed recall is nearly impossible for you and I to initiate, but
not so hard for an unhappy President and faction to initiate. So
instead of being a weapon for use by the voting members, it is a weapon
for use by feuding factional Board members.

As you probably know, feuding factional Board members can get fairly
irrational and out of control. So I favor keeping them away from
weapons and sharp objects. Or to put it another way, I think this
recall proposal would decrease the level of civility, and not increase
it.

I think that a recall proposal could in principle be drafted that would
not be so damaging as the one on the table, assuming your summary is
correct. But recall proposals in general do not contribute to
civility, that is, to the peaceful resolution of difficult
disagreements.

I think of recall mechanisms as a means to deal with gross and repeated
misfeasance and malfeasance. And even in such cases, the cure can
easily be worse than the disease.

Does the Texas state chess association have a recall mechanism? If
not, why not? I don't think that the Pennsylvania SCF has one, and I'm
sure that the Pittsburgh Chess Club doesn't have one. What is it about
the USCF that it would need one? If you say, "the USCF is larger",
bear in mind that the USCF is still smaller in budget and staff size
than the nearest supermarket.

Bruce

George John wrote:

quote:

> The second part of my post considers how the USCF Delegates might start
> a recall. I quote:
>
> "The Delegates may initiate a recall of an elected Executive Board
> member by a 2/3 majority vote of a motion on the advance agenda of an
> Annual or Special Delegates Meeting, by a 3/4 majority vote of a motion
> not on the advance agenda of an Annual or Special Delegates Meeting, or
> by petitions signed by 3/4 of the Delegates in lieu of a meeting of the
> Board of Delegates."
>
> I think a recall could be started by as few as 35 people. Here's how.
>
> The President calls for a Special Meeting, and the recall motion is
> placed on the advance agenda.
>
> A quorum for a special meeting is 1/3 of the total Delegates.
> Currently, I believe there are 156 or so Delegates (125 + 7 EB + 24
> DAL). A third of that is 52.
>
> Two thirds of 52 is 35.
>
> So a recall could in theory be started by the USCF President plus 34
> Delegates.
>
> More interesting might be if the special meeting were called for some
> other reason, and the recall motion was introduced from the floor.
> That would require a 3/4 vote or 39 votes.
>
> So, a recall could be initiated by as few as 39 Delegates with no
> advance notice to anyone -- interesting.
>
> I wonder if my logic is correct? Comments are welcome.
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John

George John

2005-07-22, 3:31 am

Bruce Leverett wrote:

Bruce,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree that a recall should
be used only in the instances you mentioned, and not as a political
weapon.

quote:

> Does the Texas state chess association have a recall mechanism?

It does not.

quote:

> If not, why not?

I imagine no one thought it was necessary. We started working on a
motion last year just before the 2004 Fall business meeting, but
decided we needed more time to think it through. I think we will
probably have an advance motion recall measure for our Fall meeting.

I agree the USCF is small potatoes when you consider its budget, but it
does have over 80,000 members and a large number affiliates. The
prospect of having to deal with a totally unacceptable Board member for
as long as four years isn't very appealing to me. The term of a TCA
officer is only one year. Even then, it could be a very long year if
the wrong person is elected.

Best regards,

George John

Mike Nolan

2005-07-22, 3:31 am

"George John" <george@neosoft.com> writes:

quote:

>The potential bad news is that the bar for the Voting Members to start
>a recall may be set too high, and that's what I would like to discuss.
>I quote:

I picked a number as a starting point, it may or may not be the right
point, hopefully there will be constructive discussion of that aspect and
other parts of the motion by the Delegates. However, given that a
recall election could cost the USCF $15,000 or more, it should not
be something initiated frivolously.

quote:

>"The USCF Secretary shall have two weeks from the date the petition is
>received by the USCF office to determine if a recall petition is
>valid."

quote:

>Hopefully, this is a task that could be delegated to staff and/or
>volunteers. Is it?

Nothing in the quoted sentence would prevent the office from doing some
or most of the work at the direction of the Secretary.

quote:

>Assuming 5000 votes in the 2005 USCF Executive Board election, 12%
>would be 600; 20%, 1000. That might be too low, or maybe okay. I
>don't know. What do you all think? I might accept 20% with a
>minimum of 1500. What do you all think?

In Nebraska I believe it is 15% of those who voted in the last election
for that office, except in small towns, where the requirement is 25%.
(I think that's because it was thought they had too many recall elections
in towns with less than 1000 or so active voters.)

Now that we have had an election with 5500 or so voters participating,
we might be able to set some reasonable percentage of that, possibly with
a floor of 1000 in case the next delegate election has a much lower turnout.
A more intriguing idea may be to set the floor at 125% of the turnout at the
largest adult tournament in the previous fiscal year.
--
Mike Nolan

Sam Sloan

2005-07-24, 3:51 am

George John just lost the election. He finished dead last in most of
the regions. Already, he wants a recall of those who defeated him!

Sam Sloan

Jerry

2005-07-24, 3:51 am

Sam, I don't see how his asking questions about something in the 2005
Delegates Call
translates into him trying to recall those who defeated him, or at
least appear to be in the
process of defeating him. ADM-05-24 seems to be from Mike Nolan.

George John

2005-07-24, 3:51 am

Jerry wrote:

quote:

> Sam, I don't see how his asking questions about something in the 2005
> Delegates Call
> translates into him trying to recall those who defeated him, or at
> least appear to be in the
> process of defeating him. ADM-05-24 seems to be from Mike Nolan.

Jerry,

Your assessment is correct.

BTW, I would never start a recall for political reasons only. A recall
would be very expensive and time consuming, and should be used only in
the most dire of circumstances.

While I may vigorously disagree with the will of the majority, I
believe in democratic rule, and due process, and will most certainly
abide by the will of the majority, in sharp contrast, IMO, to Sam Sloan
(supported by an alleged, and currently unknown backer), who took the
USCF to court, costing the USCF membership somewhere between roughly
$11,000 and $21,000 in legal fees in an attempt to thwart the will of
two Executive Boards, and a Board of Delegates.

Note: now that I am no longer a candidate, I am no longer responding
to Sam Sloan's personal attacks against me unless someone asks me to do
so. My recommendation is that all of his comments be regarded as pure
fiction unless supported up by an independent, credible source.

Best regards,

George John