|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > July 2005 > Done Deals; Swampland, Natrol, Out-of-Contol
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 |
Done Deals; Swampland, Natrol, Out-of-Contol
|
|
| Chess One 2005-07-30, 8:32 pm |
| Dear Readers,
Six months ago the Secret 4 were encouraging us to trust them in their
dealings on the future of chess in the USA. Recently a massive vote by
members conclusively rejected that approach.
Recently the chess world has been shocked by the Natrol sponsorship for
which there has been no apology offered and scant explanation why any board
member could commit USCF to a scandalous commercial sponsorship without even
informing other board members, nevermind gaining their assent!
Since nothing of consequence seemed to happen, why stop there?
Currently there are as many unanswered questions about the wet-land new
building as there ever were, and yet there is a bullish insistence to commit
the lame-duck board to the unquestioned [better said, unanswered] rightness
of that activity.
It is clear that the previous leadership's actions does not enjoy the
confidence by the new board, but the old board continues to act as if none
of this matters at all, as if it were spending its own money rather than
that entrusted to it to further the mission of USCF.
The cost of these adventures in private-enthusiasms can be measured
everywhere by letters from members who say they will not renew membership
citing the fact that they consider USCF an irresponsible place to lodge
their money to further chess in the USA.
People say that it is because of its unconscionable public behavior, or its
lack of any perceived management and fiscal sense, or a simple failure to
pursue its mission.
This board has been unresponsive to opinion since its inception, and acted
to further its agenda regardless of the effect on the chess community. Still
and yet we can read recommendations to further action by those whose
soft-soap has actively brought about this catastrophe in public trust.
USCF has been entirely out of control for some time and only a
re-orientation to its mission can reform it.
Otherwise we will continue to see more politics than management, combined
with on-going private business deals, and power scrambles by petty burocrats
who want to strut the stage for an hour or two.
It no longer seems like a non-profit organisation that could further any
public agenda, but a private member's club grinding the public trust into
dishonorable oblivion.
Phil Innes
| |
| The Historian 2005-07-30, 8:32 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> (Snip usual advertising from Shultzberg's Parrot)
"The Committee to Elect Bill Goichberg has paid for this message...."
| |
| Chess One 2005-07-30, 8:32 pm |
| "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122742954.616627.128410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> "The Committee to Elect Bill Goichberg has paid for this message...."
A representative of Nitwits-Anonymous has responded to my message. [No
matter how much brown-nosing he did, he still couldn't get a job!]
Serious inquiries are entertained, and the situation is truly serious!
The USCF is almost down the tubes, nomatter what polite chatter you have
read here. A few more actions by the current board of this nature will
destroy it beyond repair - it is almost bankrupt, in danger of being sued
for its last few assets which it currently has available in liquid form, and
exist without any location which makes the slightest sense.
The President herself wrote here that the value of the property was
$250,000-ish. Mighty nice of Nashville to give away a plot of swampland
worth maybe $15,000 anywhere else, out of the goodness of their hearts.
If we want a national federation, we must engage it on the subject of why it
exists. If we want a private member's club which acts in secret [like a
closely-heald corporation] we will continue to pay up and shut up.
15,000 people in the past 18 months have offered not to do so. That's 20% of
the membership. Another 10% and its all over.
I repeat below the real & critical issues facing USCF's very existence.
-------
Six months ago the Secret 4 were encouraging us to trust them in their
dealings on the future of chess in the USA. Recently a massive vote by
members conclusively rejected that approach.
Recently the chess world has been shocked by the Natrol sponsorship for
which there has been no apology offered and scant explanation why any board
member could commit USCF to a scandalous commercial sponsorship without even
informing other board members, nevermind gaining their assent!
Since nothing of consequence seemed to happen, why stop there?
Currently there are as many unanswered questions about the wet-land new
building as there ever were, and yet there is a bullish insistence to commit
the lame-duck board to the unquestioned [better said, unanswered] rightness
of that activity.
It is clear that the previous leadership's actions does not enjoy the
confidence by the new board, but the old board continues to act as if none
of this matters at all, as if it were spending its own money rather than
that entrusted to it to further the mission of USCF.
The cost of these adventures in private-enthusiasms can be measured
everywhere by letters from members who say they will not renew membership
citing the fact that they consider USCF an irresponsible place to lodge
their money to further chess in the USA.
People say that it is because of its unconscionable public behavior, or its
lack of any perceived management and fiscal sense, or a simple failure to
pursue its mission.
This board has been unresponsive to opinion since its inception, and acted
to further its agenda regardless of the effect on the chess community. Still
and yet we can read recommendations to further action by those whose
soft-soap has actively brought about this catastrophe in public trust.
USCF has been entirely out of control for some time and only a
re-orientation to its mission can reform it.
Otherwise we will continue to see more politics than management, combined
with on-going private business deals, and power scrambles by petty burocrats
who want to strut the stage for an hour or two.
It no longer seems like a non-profit organisation that could further any
public agenda, but a private member's club grinding the public trust into
dishonorable oblivion.
Phil Innes
| |
| The Historian 2005-07-30, 8:32 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1122742954.616627.128410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> A representative of Nitwits-Anonymous has responded to my message. [No
> matter how much brown-nosing he did, he still couldn't get a job!]
I would ask for some evidence of the alleged "brown-nosing", but I
suspect Shultzberg's Parrot will just continue sqawking its usual
unsupported statements.
(snip more advertising for The Committee to Elect Bill Goichberg....)
|
| |
|
|