Chess politics - Election Petitions issue

Author

Election Petitions issue

Mike Nolan

2006-08-02, 10:32 pm

I believe Sam Sloan is incorrect when he claims that Ernie Schlich raised
the issue of the availability of nominating petitions. All Ernie did was
indicate that receipt of nominating petitions should be posted on the USCF
website.

Since it only takes an hour or so to validate petitions, that seems
to be an unnecessary step. Hopefully the new website will include a
redefined election area under the governance section where we can update
the list of certified candidates quickly. (That should include who has
been nominated by each state for the Delegate election.)

I raised the issue of inspection of nominating petitions in a side comment
on a note to the Election Committee regarding other aspects of the nominating
process, based on past knowledge as well as a conversation I had today with
the Lancaster County Election Commissioner.

My entire note is reproduced below.

It is worth noting that Harry Sabine, an elected official in Tennessee,
is also a member of the Election Committee and is a veteran of several USCF
elections. I did not intend any slight towards him when I mentioned
Woody Harris's election prowess.

The fourth full member of the Election Committee, Roger Gotschall,
from Iowa, has as far as I know never run for or held elected office in
Iowa or run for any USCF national office, though he has been the Delegate
from Iowa quite a few times.

Also, Ernie was named by the Delegates as an alternate (non-voting) member
of the Election Committee but resigned in order to run for the Board, as
required in the Bylaws. (The other alternate is Myron Lieberman.)

All five Board candidates have been added to the Election Committee's
listserver.
--
Mike Nolan, Chair, USCF Election Committee

quote:

> Thanks Mike and Pat.
> I still recommend posting receipt of petitions in the election area
> once in place with an unvalidated notation so potential candidates and
> electors can see who is interested in running and make decisions if they
> want to run or encourage someone else to do so. You may wish to at least
> count the number of signatures so it at least appears that the petition
> is in order before posting on the web site. However, your call.

Pat validated the petitions by checking the IDs and expiration dates
of as many signers as needed to make sure there were are least as many
signatures as were required under the Bylaws.

As we have rather limited rules and precedents to work with, when in doubt
I tend to go by how the state of Nebraska handles the election process, since
I have some familiarity with the process here, having served as an appointed
member of the school board and then having gone through the election process
as a candidate for public office when I ran for a full term. The Election
Committee also has the experience and wit of Woody Harris to draw on, he's
been through a few elections himself, both for the USCF and in Virginia.

In Nebraska, election petitions are available for inspection by the
public once they have been submitted, but that inspection cannot interfere
with the validation process. A public announcement of a certified candidate,
such as a notice on the election commission's website, does not take place
until the petition has been certified as valid.

Since it only takes Pat an hour or so to go through the process of checking
a petition, it seems to me that it is a diversion of staff time to update
the list of candidates twice, once when the petition is received and a
second time when it is certified. As I noted before, I think we need
a more complete and better thought-out election area on the new website.

Should we ever have a petition that fails the validation process, I guess
we would have to decide what to do about that.

Incidentally, if we followed the Nebraska rules completely, then that
would also resolve one of the questions that has been asked in the past,
whether USCF members can find out who has signed the election petitions
for a particular candidate. In Nebraska, that information is available
by viewing the petitions in person but it is not published or posted
on a website.
--
Mike Nolan, Chair, USCF Election Committee

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-08-02, 10:33 pm

DEMOCRACY -- USCF STYLE

We understand Sam's point. He has never had any
problem procuring signatures for his petitions in the
past and has mounted several campaigns. Ernie
Schlich's ploy is to prevent a Sloan candidacy this
time around. We have a fair idea whence Mr. Schlich
got his idea. Another corporate maneuver to restrict
Federation democracy.

Randy Bauer

2006-08-02, 10:34 pm

Mike Nolan wrote:

quote:

> I believe Sam Sloan is incorrect when he claims that Ernie Schlich raised
> the issue of the availability of nominating petitions. All Ernie did was
> indicate that receipt of nominating petitions should be posted on the USCF
> website.

Thanks Mike, I appreciate the clarification.

Sam Sloan got something wrong? I'm sure GM Leko will be surprised to
learn that.

Randy Bauer

Sam Sloan

2006-08-02, 10:35 pm

On 20 Apr 2006 07:05:01 -0700, "Randy Bauer"
<randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote:

quote:

>
>Mike Nolan wrote:
>
>Thanks Mike, I appreciate the clarification.
>
>Sam Sloan got something wrong? I'm sure GM Leko will be surprised to
>learn that.
>
>Randy Bauer

But, I did not get it wrong. Ernie Schlich clearly proposed that the
signed petitions be scanned and posted on the USCF website for all to
see. Mike Nolan did not propose this.

Here is the complete email. Ernie's response to Mike Nolan's email.
Read for yourself.

I do not ascribe any maliceous intent to Ernie. I think that Ernie was
simply too dumb to realize that his proposal would cause a firestorm
of controversy.

Sam Sloan

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:58:56 -0400
From: Ernest Schlich <ESchlich@verizon.net>
To: mnolan@uschess.org

Subject: [USCF Election] Re: EB election procedures

With the short time frame between receipt and validation, you are
absolutely correct. Placing scaned copies of the petition signatures
on the website is worth considering.

Regards, Ernie

mnolan@uschess.org wrote:

quote:

>
> Pat validated the petitions by checking the IDs and expiration dates
> of as many signers as needed to make sure there were are least as many
> signatures as were required under the Bylaws.
>
> As we have rather limited rules and precedents to work with, when in doubt
> I tend to go by how the state of Nebraska handles the election process, since
> I have some familiarity with the process here, having served as an appointed
> member of the school board and then having gone through the election process
> as a candidate for public office when I ran for a full term. The Election
> Committee also has the experience and wit of Woody Harris to draw on, he's
> been through a few elections himself, both for the USCF and in Virginia.
>
> In Nebraska, election petitions are available for inspection by the
> public once they have been submitted, but that inspection cannot interfere
> with the validation process. A public announcement of a certified candidate,
> such as a notice on the election commission's website, does not take place
> until the petition has been certified as valid.
>
> Since it only takes Pat an hour or so to go through the process of checking
> a petition, it seems to me that it is a diversion of staff time to update
> the list of candidates twice, once when the petition is received and a
> second time when it is certified. As I noted before, I think we need
> a more complete and better thought-out election area on the new website.
>
> Should we ever have a petition that fails the validation process, I guess
> we would have to decide what to do about that.
>
> Incidentally, if we followed the Nebraska rules completely, then that
> would also resolve one of the questions that has been asked in the past,
> whether USCF members can find out who has signed the election petitions
> for a particular candidate. In Nebraska, that information is available
> by viewing the petitions in person but it is not published or posted
> on a website.
> --
> Mike Nolan, Chair, USCF Election Committee

Kenneth Sloan

2006-08-02, 10:38 pm

Um, er...what evidence do you have that Sam is correct in his claim?

We understand Mr Parr's reluctance to adequately research the claim. It
would seriously detract from his book tour.

"parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com> writes:

quote:

> DEMOCRACY -- USCF STYLE
>
> We understand Sam's point. He has never had any
> problem procuring signatures for his petitions in the
> past and has mounted several campaigns. Ernie
> Schlich's ploy is to prevent a Sloan candidacy this
> time around. We have a fair idea whence Mr. Schlich
> got his idea. Another corporate maneuver to restrict
> Federation democracy.
>

--
Kenneth Sloan sloan@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/