| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-20, 12:30 am |
| <BYLAWS MEAN OPTIONAL LAWS? Thank you, George.> Phil Innes
The ideal outcome of this coming election would
be a split board at three to three with one member
genuinely drifting from side to side. The best bet
for someone who might show minimal fairness would
appear to be either George John or Greg Shahade.
It is true that Mr. John has not cut a very glorious
figure in studiously overlooking points regarding a
couple of his political allies, but it is also true
that Mr. Shahade, though he protests (probably
honestly) otherwise, willy-nilly must choose sides.
There's no safety in No Man's Land. You've got to be
behind one barricade or another if you are in
politics. I bet he is behind the Florida barricade.
Speaking of breaking bylaws and the Iowa
barricade, the current Board majority will evidently
not release the expense figures for Beatriz Marinello
or the terms of her receiving $60,000 in annualized
expenses. There is no audio available, the Board
motion is baldly and barely stated, and nothing can be
found re the expenses in written form.
We are told that we may travel to Cross-to-Bear,
and if our reason for wishing to see the expenses
(say, the Board is already in violation of its own
rules) is found to be inadequate, then after making
the trip, one will be told, as Randy Bauer has put it
regarding another issue, that one may sue. The sheer
arrogance of blatantly violating bylaws and rules and
then telling members to sue is -- well, if Mr. Bauer
is retained on the Board, there will be more of this
kind of thing.
The bylaws and regulations are evidently going
to be crammed down the throats of the opposition even
as members of the Board majority ignore them.
The Randy Bauer episode is especially telling.
Mr. Bauer gave us a homily on obeying the rules as
written, and he said that Sam Sloan had missed a
deadline. Hence no candidate's statement. Tough guy talk.
But then came Mr. Bauer's own case: the bylaws
clearly call for the candidate to send payment to the
secretary. That is what is stated. Mr. Bauer
violated this bylaw. Instead, as he himself wrote, he
followed directions as explicitly given in Chess Life
and sent his payment to the USCF office. George John
and Mr. Bauer noted that it was "reasonable" to act in
such fashion and, really, a matter of common sense.
True enough. By the standard of reason and
common usage, Mr. Bauer should be a candidate.
Indeed, I support his appearing on the ballot. But by
the standard of following rules as written -- the
standard that Mr. Bauer applied to Sam Sloan -- he
should not be a candidate.
Mr. Bauer is your typical state politician. He
would not resign from the slate, come what may. We
know that. But he ought to resign his candidacy if he
would apply to himself the standard he used to justify
keeping Mr. Sloan's statement out of Chess Life.
Thus far, Mr. Bauer's single response is that
Mr. Sloan can sue and that Mr. Bauer figures that the
secretary's certification of his candidacy will stand
in court. I think he is right, but we have a
candidate who explicitly adopts this standard:
IF I
THINK I CAN WIN IN COURT, I WILL APPLY STANDARDS TO
THE POLITICAL OPPOSITION THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE
ONES I APPLY TO MYSELF OR THE MEMBERS OF MY TICKET.
I would ask everyone here to consider whether this kind of man
is suitable in the USCF leadership.
I favor a split Board. For those thinking of Mr. Bauer, you
might instead cast your ballot for Steve Shutt or Elizabeth Shaughnessy
or George John and then give Greg Shahade a try. Or simply vote for one
or two you like and abstain on the rest.
|