quote:

---

> To depersonalise this issue somewhat, can anyone provide straightforward
> answers to these questions:
>
> 1) What can the ethics committee determine, if anything, about the result of
> their findings?

quote:

---

> 2) To whom do they report their findings, and if any, recommendations?

quote:

---

> 3) Is there a time-line within which anyone is required to act?

quote:

---

> 4) What degree of secrecy can be commanded by USCF to
> (a) its own findings

quote:

---

> (b) its own process

quote:

---

> 5) In the issue of board-censure of Sam Sloan,

quote:

---

> (a) is this itself unethical? In a public non-profit, can various forms
> of graft be claimed to be 'secret'

quote:

---

> (b) if USCF board members utter publicly or privately, on either Tanner
> or Sloan, are these ever more than 'personal opinion', and to what degree is
> this ethical?

quote:

---

> 6) What happens next, if

quote:

---

> (a) Mr. Tanner ignores calls for his resignation?

quote:

---

> (b) If Mr. Tanner resigns

quote:

---

>
> the accuser, the accusee and the EB

quote:

---

> chessdon wrote:
>
>
> No. The Ethics Committee does not report to the EB. A decision letter
> is sent to the Office, with copies to the participants.
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> university of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

quote:

---

>Let me say that I think the Ethics committee recommendation of a
>reprimand insufficient. I think they completely mishandled the whole
>tanner matter.

quote:

---

>They leaked information of a final vote

quote:

---

> then sat on it
>for a long time while BBs went at it ad nauseum.

quote:

---

> On 1 Dec 2006 06:40:37 -0800, "chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> You are entitled to your opinion. I cannot cannot discuss with
> you the specifics of a case but let me just say that it would be a
> mistake for you to conclude that we did not have good reasons for what
> we did.
>
> I also think it is most unfortunate that a member of the
> Executive Board would make such a comment in public. Since you have, I
> will respond the same way.
>
>
> It is true that there was a leak from the Committee. This was
> most unfortunate and I have taken steps to discourage any such thing
> from happening in the future.
>
>
> We did not "sit on" the decision. Let me explain a few facts
> of life to you, Don. The Committee is composed entirely of volunteers,
> all of whom have work and family obligations which must sometimes take
> precedence over Committee work. Since we began our new term in
> September, there have frequently been occasions where work obligations
> have caused us to hold up our deliberations until everyone could
> participate.
>
> As far as the Tanner case goes, there were some special
> cirumstances. As I am sure you have been informed, on Nov. 1st (after
> the decision vote but before the letter was written), I had a death in
> my family. That caused a substantial delay. Then, a Committee member
> was out of town on business for several days (with no e-mail access)
> and our office contact was off work for the entire week of
> Thanksgiving.
>
> Speaking for all of us, I'm sure we're all just SO sorry our
> private lives interfered with your precious ethics case.
>
> -- Hal Terrie (2006-07 Ethics Committee Chair)

quote:

---

> On 1 Dec 2006 06:40:37 -0800, "chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> You are entitled to your opinion. I cannot cannot discuss with
> you the specifics of a case but let me just say that it would be a
> mistake for you to conclude that we did not have good reasons for what
> we did.

quote:

---

>
>"Hal Terrie" <halNOSPAMterrie@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:b3c1n2tceunjs7nimiumunhe1qc7lg8dd6@4ax.com...
>
>What prevented you from putting some of your
>reasoning in your ruling?

quote:

---

> On 1 Dec 2006 06:40:37 -0800, "chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> You are entitled to your opinion. I cannot cannot discuss with
> you the specifics of a case but let me just say that it would be a
> mistake for you to conclude that we did not have good reasons for what
> we did.

quote:

---

>
> I also think it is most unfortunate that a member of the
> Executive Board would make such a comment in public. Since you have, I
> will respond the same way.
>
>
> It is true that there was a leak from the Committee. This was
> most unfortunate and I have taken steps to discourage any such thing
> from happening in the future.
>
>
> We did not "sit on" the decision. Let me explain a few facts
> of life to you, Don. The Committee is composed entirely of volunteers,
> all of whom have work and family obligations which must sometimes take
> precedence over Committee work. Since we began our new term in
> September, there have frequently been occasions where work obligations
> have caused us to hold up our deliberations until everyone could
> participate.
>
> As far as the Tanner case goes, there were some special
> cirumstances. As I am sure you have been informed, on Nov. 1st (after
> the decision vote but before the letter was written), I had a death in
> my family. That caused a substantial delay. Then, a Committee member
> was out of town on business for several days (with no e-mail access)
> and our office contact was off work for the entire week of
> Thanksgiving.
>
> Speaking for all of us, I'm sure we're all just SO sorry our
> private lives interfered with your precious ethics case.

quote:

---

>
> -- Hal Terrie (2006-07 Ethics Committee Chair)

quote:

---

> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 16:35:02 -0800, "David Kane"
> <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> We did put some of our reasoning in the ruling.
>

quote:

---

>Robert Tanner made a terrible mistake and is paying

quote:

---

>
> they made a recommendation. It is final unless the accused appeals to
> the Board or in the case of the accused being a member of the Board,
> the delegates.
>
>
> the accuser, the accusee and the EB
>
>
> An appeal must be done within 30 days
>
> whatever they wish for themselves but the accuser is free to make
> public the findings.
>
>
>
>
> I don't know,
>
>
> I think the different approaches on this by all board members were
> proper
>
>
>
> Let's wait and see before we speculate
>
>
> We have to determine whether to expand the coming election from 3 EB
> spots to 4 or not.
>
> Let me say that I think the Ethics committee recommendation of a
> reprimand insufficient. I think they completely mishandled the whole
> tanner matter. They leaked information of a final vote then sat on it
> for a long time while BBs went at it ad nauseum. Their reimand was
> definitely insufficient.
>
> Robert Tanner made a terrible mistake and is paying a high price. I
> would have preferred to see a harsh penalty but one for which somebody
> like Robert who has done so much to promote chess could absorb. I feel
> great sadness for him and hope to see him somehow redeem himself in the
> years ahead. Knowing him , i think if anybody can recover from this
> setback it is he.

quote:

---

>Waiting for someone to return from a business trip is inexcusable. You
>have nine people on your committee. The ethical thing to do, once the
>leak occurred was to proceed post haste for full disclosure and you as
>chair and the guy on the business trip would have to trust that the
>other seven could handle the job without your participation.

quote:

---

>MY PRECIOUS ETHICS CASE!? Every Ethic matter should be considered
>precious and handled swiftly and fair. Based on this characterization
>of yours belittling the matter by calling it MY PRECIOUS CASE, you
>should resign from the Ethics Committee. You have shown by your own
>words the root casue of the problem

quote:

---

>You tell me I should keep quiet about this. I am a delegate and you are
>a delegate's committee. I have every right to voice my criticism. You
>and your committee are not immune from criticism.
>
>You conduct your votes in secret. My experience has been that ethic
>committee votes of other organizations are not secret. I will see what
>I can do to have the delegates require OUR Ethics Committee to conform
>to that level of openness.

quote:

---

> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
> There were six questions. I had one I-don't -know and as Ken points
> out, one wrong. That is 4 out of six or 66.67% - probably better than
> expectations.
>

quote:

---

>
>
> they made a recommendation. It is final unless the accused appeals to
> the Board or in the case of the accused being a member of the Board,
> the delegates.
>
>
> the accuser, the accusee and the EB
>
>
> An appeal must be done within 30 days
>
> whatever they wish for themselves but the accuser is free to make
> public the findings.
>
>
>
>
> I don't know,
>
>
> I think the different approaches on this by all board members were
> proper
>
>
>
> Let's wait and see before we speculate
>
>
> We have to determine whether to expand the coming election from 3 EB
> spots to 4 or not.
>
> Let me say that I think the Ethics committee recommendation of a
> reprimand insufficient. I think they completely mishandled the whole
> tanner matter. They leaked information of a final vote then sat on it
> for a long time while BBs went at it ad nauseum. Their reimand was
> definitely insufficient.
>
> Robert Tanner made a terrible mistake and is paying a high price. I
> would have preferred to see a harsh penalty but one for which somebody
> like Robert who has done so much to promote chess could absorb. I feel
> great sadness for him and hope to see him somehow redeem himself in the
> years ahead. Knowing him , i think if anybody can recover from this
> setback it is he.
>

quote:

---

> Dear Don, thank you for your responses, the short of it seems to be that the
> Ethics committee recommend a 'reprimand', and if board members such as
> yourself, B. Marinello, and President Goichberg, already called for
> something more, then presumably the accused cannot stand trial a second time
> for the same offense, and the affair is over?
>
>

quote:

---

> Hal Terrie wrote:

quote:

---

> You tell me I should keep quiet about this. I am a delegate and you are
> a delegate's committee. I have every right to voice my criticism. You
> and your committee are not immune from criticism.
>
> You conduct your votes in secret. My experience has been that ethic
> committee votes of other organizations are not secret. I will see what
> I can do to have the delegates require OUR Ethics Committee to conform
> to that level of openness.

quote:

---

> Your committee has some of the finest ethical people in our
> organization on it. You can do better . . . much much better.
>
> Don Schultz
>

quote:

---

> What
>matters is that while we are laying Tanner out to dry, the same
>organisational factor goes unaddressed, and the same thing can happen
>tomorrow,

quote:

---

> especially if conducted in dark committee rooms [even if virtual
>rooms] by even more secret processes, for which no-one is ever to blame or
>admits responsibility, since no-one is ever identified, and no-thing ever
>gets fixed.

quote:

---

>
> But I note something disturbing in all this writing - a balance in people's
> writing indicating a willingness to scape-goat Mr. Tanner, rather than
> attend to anything ethical! Of those writers who raised the issue to public
> attention in the first place, and I cite Larry Parr specifically, these
> people put the least emphasis on punishment, and in Larry Parr's case, the
> least punishement.

quote:

---

>
> This attitude, I think, is psychologically astute - otherwise we scapegoat
> Tanner as if to dismiss all cheating from the scene by dismissing him, and
> miss a rather larger flaw! I note in Tanner's own representation he included
> the following paragraph:-
>
> "Shortly after dropping into the 2100s (about 1996 or 1997) I was approached
> by Eric Johnson who said I had 299 games at 2200 and would I like to be
> given the OLM title as there was precedent in a few cases where players were
> close. I declined largely due to my political visibility. I should have
> remembered that."
>
> WHO DUN IT?
>
> And it seems to me as if we are willing to prosecute Tanner, and just as
> equitably judge him too, and even sit on his jury - then suggest sentences,
> BUT, in fixing on our scapegoat we neglect to notice who approved his status
> in the first place.
>
> Someone was paid to do it - that is, they were USCF employees. And USCF has
> a responsibility for auditing ratings - am I the only person to observe that
> 'playing down' 299 games against a very small pool of players is patently
> not in the spirit nor the letter of the rating system.

quote:

---

> But at least one USCF
> employee, someone paid to monitor the rating system, failed to notice this
> staringly obvious fact.

quote:

---

>
> Whether it was Eric Johnson, or some other person doesn't matter. What
> matters is that while we are laying Tanner out to dry, the same
> organisational factor goes unaddressed, and the same thing can happen
> tomorrow, especially if conducted in dark committee rooms [even if virtual
> rooms] by even more secret processes, for which no-one is ever to blame or
> admits responsibility, since no-one is ever identified, and no-thing ever
> gets fixed.

quote:

---

>
> Chess One wrote:
>

quote:

---

> Why does a non-uscf member have such a strong interest in this?
>
> --Duncan

quote:

---

> Duncan Oxley wrote:
>
> Because he's an insane hysteric.

quote:

---

> The Historian wrote:
>
> I went three whole months without responding to any of his silliness.

quote:

---

>I went three whole months without responding to any

quote:

---

>Good for you. The Innes Pledge lives! > -- Neil Brennen (aka The Historian)

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> Good for you. The Innes Pledge lives!

quote:

---

> LOVIN' IT
>
> of his silliness.> -- Vince Hart
>
>
> The hysterical Vister and that wild man The
> Historian are trying to explain that they are now
> responding again to Phil Innes.
>
> Lovin' it.
>
> Vinster went three whole months, so he says, but could not hold
> out.

quote:

---

>
> The Historian wrote:
>

quote:

---

> <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1165210540.144350.121650@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I wonder how long they can go without adding anything to any chess topic,
> anything which is on-topic, informative or interesting, leaving decent legal
> honest and truthful for Sunday - but something worth airing in public: 3
> months, 3 years, 3 decades?
>
> Unfortunately Mr. Oxley has decided that there is a need to join up to
> report on anything, though without apparent irony he so often reports on
> Ludina. Does one have to be dead to report the dead?
>
> ---
> In terms of the Tanner scandal, I thank Don Shultz for at least trying to
> determine what USCF's processes are, though it remains to be seen if there
> is any need to pay up to learn if paying up has any effect at all. Another
> blase irony.
>
> Paying-up to become heard, is a-la-mode, Larry - since the CJA now employ
> the same procedure with ethics complaints - no pay no ethics!
>
> In other writing I asked an employee of USCF at the time why he suggested to
> Tanner that from his 299 games 'at 2200' which he never personally
> scrutinised, not who the opponents were, nor their ratings, nor that many of
> them had the same address [!] but encouraged a claim for life master. He in
> turn asked me if he were to doubt USCF's ratings department?
>
> They were all paid a salary for something, I replied, and if it wasn't for
> scrutiny, what was it?
>
> Your chess bucks at work ;)
>
> Phil Innes
>

quote:

---

> What could be more amusing than Silly Philly using words like "truth"
> and "scrutiny" given the rumors and misinterpretations that get
> reported as facts in his column.

quote:

---

> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165250637.028062.105240@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If you can't write about chess, bugger off! Who is interested in your shit,
> other than Brennan? And /he's/ not interested in chess as is amply
> demonstrated.
>
> PI.

quote:

---

>
> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165250637.028062.105240@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If you can't write about chess, bugger off! Who is interested in your
> shit, other than Brennan? And /he's/ not interested in chess as is amply
> demonstrated.
>
> PI.
>
>
>

quote:

---

> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:39:00 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> And I'd be willing to bet the same thing, essentially, has happened
> *yesterday*, probably multiple times.

quote:

---

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>
> How is Tanner a scapegoat? Didn't he submit the questionable events
> for rating in order to boost his own rating to a level he could not
> achieve in unbiased events?

quote:

---

>
> Of course you are not the only one Phil. That is why a complaint was
> filed. That is why the Ethics Committee ruled that a ethics violation
> has occurred. That is why many people have called for Tanner's
> resignation, Why would you be so silly as to conclude that you are the
> only one?

quote:

---

> By the way, Tanner did not play 299 games against a very small group of
> players. The majority of the games he played were outside the group in
> question.
>
>
>
> What basis do you have for this claim? Do you know that the employee
> had actual knowledge of Tanner's opponents? Do you know that the
> employee had actual knowledge that a particular segment of Tanner's
> opponents had only played within a closed group? Do you know that the
> employee had knowledge of the ratings impact of the games within this
> particular group. Do you have any basis to believe that the employee
> knew anything other than the fact that Tanner had maintained the
> required rating for 299 games?

quote:

---

>
> Actually, it is highly unlikely that anyone could get away with the
> same thing Tanner did as the MSA makes everyone's tournament history
> available for scrutiny.

quote:

---

> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165175137.747035.253520@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> a) yes he did, but he was encouraged to do so, and if you read his comments
> on that specific invitation, you will also read that he was told this was
> /normal/

quote:

---

>
> b) my emphasis is on the systemic abuse perpetuated on the US rating system
> by friends and cronies of the political class in chess - not on the
> punishment we should mete out to Tanner because we've caught him, and care
> to look no further

quote:

---

>
> c) if Tanner is guilty then someone[s] at USCF must ALSO be guilty for not
> only processing hundreds of his games in order to rate them without noticing
> anything, but THEN offering him an LM title!

quote:

---

>
> d) The emphasis on punishment of one person is an attempted exorcism of the
> whole subject, but is obviously not a sincere interest in auditing the
> ratings system - since who has looked at (c) above, and who will?

quote:

---

>
> e) That would be sincere interest in the subject. Tanner is simply declared
> morally bankrupt, and our society allows bankrupted people another chance.
> What you continue to do below is restrict your enthusiasm for this subject
> to Tanner, and you appear to have no active curiosity to how it all
> happened!

quote:

---

>
>
> f) You seem rather fixed on Tanner's error, to the extent that you seem not
> to notice that I am asking about "a responsibility for auditing ratings".
>
> Am I the only person 'silly' enough to note that?
>
>
> g) The basis for the 'claim' of failing to notice - is what we are
> discussing right now! Its what the ethics committee made their resolution
> upon - does Vince Hart want to know the specific names of individuals who
> administered this? Why?
>
> h) Does Vince Hart think the ratings section has no audit function at all?
> And there is nothing to be fixed since it is just machine-like processing of
> whatever is submitted, without any oversight?
>
>
> i) In politcal land very much which is unlikely still comes to pass - and
> maybe its changed over the past year or two, but the highest ranked TD in
> the US never had a rating, which is against the rules. Tanner got away with
> this for years because although there can be scrutiny, there are no
> scrutineers - we are assured by considerable diversion of conversational
> interest, and a concommitant missing critique by the Ethics Committee
> itself, that the last people to be required to do anything is the USCF
> ratings department.
>
> Phil Innes

quote:

---

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>
> Wrong wrong wrong.

quote:

---

> The tournaments were submitted in 1992, four to
> five years before Eric Johnson asked Tanner whether he wanted the Life
> Master title. Tanner never suggested that anyone else had any hand in
> submitting the tournaments. He was told that there was "precedent" for
> getting the Life Master title with 299. In any case, Tanner declined
> the title so there is really no way to know what level of scrutiny was
> applied at that time.

quote:

---

>
> The extent to which others have abused the system is certainly a cause
> for concern, however, no facts have been presented at this time.

quote:

---

>
> The games were submitted in 1992. He got the LM title in 2005. I
> doubt that the person who processed the games in 1992 was the same
> person who "investigated and adjusted" his rating in 2005.
>
> I would agree that the person in 2005 was careless. I am not convinced
> that the manipulation was glaringly obvious, but I think there were
> enough red flags that he should have delved a little deeper. I am
> guessing he just assumed that he could trust anything that had been in
> the records without being questioned for more than a decade. I doubt
> that he deliberately ignored the red flags since he would know that his
> decision could be second-guessed (as it was) by anyone who took the
> time to examine Tanner's history.

quote:

---

> As far as the failure to catch the manipulation in 1992 goes, the
> question seems moot to me as the MSA makes it highly unlikely that a
> similar scheme could succeed today. In any case, it was not hundreds
> of games.

quote:

---

>
> Your (c) is based on factual misstatements.

quote:

---

>
> Since you don't understand what happened Phil, your are unable to ask
> intelligent questions about how it happened.

quote:

---

>