 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics ChessKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Chess Forum / Chess Politics / August 2009John Hillery- USCF election: Dark is the Day
From SCCF's Rank and File USCF election: Dark is the Day There’s yet another USCF election coming up this July. Four seats on the seven-member Executive Board are up for grabs. Frankly, there isn’t anyone on the ballot I really want to vote for. But there are several we should all vote against. Tolerable Michael Atkins – Active TD in the Maryland-Virginia area. He’s shown a certain lack of restraint in commenting on the USCF’s legal problems, but he’s qualified for the job. Jim Berry – Coming off a two-year term. I am generally unenthusiastic about people running for re-election, but he’s performed satisfactorily. Ruth Haring – Experienced player (she competed in the U.S. Women’s Championship a few times), excellent real-world credentials. A shot in the dark, but worth a try. Marginal Mike Nietman – I don’t know him well. Personally pleasant. Mainly a scholastic person, which is not a plus in my book but not disqualifying either. Bill Goichberg – I wish I could rank him higher. I have enormous respect for Bill’s accomplishments, but he’s a lightning rod for controversy and he’s been on the Board too long. He’s served with honor; now he should step aside with honor. Mikhail Korenman – He did a good job a few years ago with the “Karpov Chess School” in Lindsborg, Kansas, but his performance since then has been unimpressive. Seems to lack follow-through. Eric Hecht – He was one of Blas Lugo’s backers for the Miami Open (see below). Unless he dissociates himself from that fiasco (which he hasn’t even tried to do yet), I have to rate him as unacceptable. Awful Blas Lugo – IM and tournament organizer from Florida. Only one problem, but it’s a big one – at last year’s Miami Open, he reneged on a guaranteed prize fund, shorting the players by several thousand dollars. If you’ve ever played in a tournament and expected to receive your prize, don’t vote for him. Brian Mottershead & Brian Lafferty – A pair of nasty, backbiting trolls with zero knowledge or experience in chess, who think they should be able to start at the top. In a better year, their candidacies would be a joke. Let’s make it so. Sam Sloan – Perpetual candidate. Serial and vexatious litigant. Walking cartoon. If you want to cast a protest vote, write in Mickey Mouse. He’d do a better job. – John Hillery On Jun 24, 9:03 am, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > From SCCF's Rank and File > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > John > Hillery What examples do you have of Brian Mottershead being a "nasty, backbiting troll?" He is definitely on my list of votes unless I hear reasons otherwise. Jerry Spinrad > On Jun 24, 9:03 am, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > > From SCCF's Rank and File [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Jerry Spinrad I think there's overwhelming evidence on the USCF Forums, but finding and copying all those posts is more work than I'm willing to do. My earlier and more detailed post on the election read thus (he, Lafferty, Lugop and Sloan were grouped under "Glue Factory"): "Brian Mottershead: Probably the best of this group, but that’s not saying much. He does have some playing experience back in the 80s, but he spent the next couple of decades working in Europe. Upon his return in 2007, he was recruited to assist with the redesign of the USCF Forums, which he did fairly well. He soon made it clear, however, that he considered himself qualified to make pronouncements on law (though he is not a lawyer), publishing (though he is not a publisher), and tournament directing (though he has never directed a tournament). He reminds me of some people I knew in college, but they generally grew out of it by their sophomore year. In my opinion, he’s a pompous, conceited twit, who would make a very bad Board member." My basic objections to Mottershead are: 1) Bad judgment. His arrogant and self-righteous handling of the "FSS" business led directly to the current mess. Would we had come to the same pass without him? It's certainly possible, but we'll never know since he couldn't keep his damn mouth shut. 2) Ignorance. When a question arose recently about canceling a tournament, he didn't even know there was a rule about it, let alone what it was. This is just one example of many. 3) Arrogance. Despite #2, he feels himself qualified to make policy for the USCF. 4) Bad ideas. His list of campaign planks includes no dues for kids, eventual abolition of paid membership completely, USCF takeover of all large tournaments, and half a dozen other inanities which would run the USCF out of business a lot faster than Polgar ever could. BTW, this was posted by Richard Peterson without any suggestion from me. Exactly why he did so escapes me, as I assume his opinion of me is a low as mine of him, but if he /wants/ to post good advice, I'm hardly going to object. > BTW, this was posted by Richard Peterson without any suggestion from > me. Exactly why he did so escapes me, as I assume his opinion of me is > a low as mine of him, but if he /wants/ to post good advice, I'm > hardly going to object. Sorry to disappoint you John, but I think you are human. If you really want my opinion, I think you are too cranky for your own good but that also lessens your more severe posts because we don't get too many posts from you without the cranky opinions. You often repeat nonsense in attacks against your perceived enemies as you did when you previously attacked my conduct as Treasurer of CalChess (prior to Mike Murray doing the same thing) without any factual basis. Perhaps you inherited your opinions from that bastion of calm Jerry Hanken. People who have "opinions" need to have clean hands and it would be helpful if those opinionated people had some knowledge of the facts they are criticizing. You are known as "Mr. Meanie" among the coaches and players in southern California but that is merely temperment. From everything I have seen and heard, you are fair in your conduct as a TD although you have a tendency to lose your temper when challenged. No one can fault you for your devotion to chess. It is likely we agree on more than we disagree on but this is generally not a forum for making friends but rather taking sides and hurling insults when reason fails. Do you really find fault that USCF funds should not be used for largely political lawsuits? Perhaps your connection to Randy makes clouds your opinion. For me this whole email debacle is a sideshow when the real problem is the loss of another $500K. We keep being told what competent businessmen have come on board but all fall into the same trap of thinking financial reason will solve things when other board members have or represent personal financial or political interests. Rp ascach...@aol.com wrote: > > BTW, this was posted by Richard Peterson without any suggestion from > > me. Exactly why he did so escapes me, as I assume his opinion of me is [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Rp I don't agree that the lawsuits _initiated by the USCF_ are "primarily political," The Illinois suit could be described that way, but it's defenders would say that Polgar and Truong are doing so much damage to the USCF that their removal is necessary. (I express no opinion.) The California lawsuit is about criminal activity -- and the relevant federal statute explicitly allows for civil recovery in addition to criminal prosecution. Finally, even if the USCF had done nothing, _Polgar sued the USCF_ for $25 million. (Later lowered to $10 million, big whoop.) And yes, I think the USCF should _and must_ spend whatever is necessary to defend against a frivolous and harassing lawsuit. (Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.) I'm not terribly happy with the way side has handled this -- I think it could have been stopped at several earlier points with honest compromise and a little less self-righteousness -- but we're past that now. If one side has to lose, I want ti to be Polgar and Truong. FWIW, I wrote about this some time ago at http://westernchess.blogspot.com/2009/01/lost-art-of-compromise.html. I was not sanguine about a settlement then, and I'm no more optimistic now. ascach...@aol.com wrote: > You are known as "Mr. Meanie" among the coaches and players in > southern California but that is merely temperment. From everything I > have seen and heard, you are fair in your conduct as a TD although you > have a tendency to lose your temper when challenged. No one can fault > you for your devotion to chess. e or represent personal financial or political interests. > Rp Not an unfair description. Bear in mind that I regard scholastic chess as something unpleasant we have to put up with in the hope that some of them will eventually become "real" players. I haven't changed my opinion about the, ah, /misplaced/ CalChess funds, but fortunately it's not my problem. Let the NorCs argue about it. On Jun 24, 9:38 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > Do you really find fault that USCF funds should not be used for > largely political lawsuits? Perhaps your connection to Randy makes > clouds your opinion. There is certainly a valid business reason for removing Truong from the board. Unfortunately, Ms. Polgar has chosen to (metaphorically) chain herself to her husband. With her actions, her removal is now also necessary. I am less convinced of the wisdom of filing the California action from a cost/benefit point of view, but there were certainly non-political reasons to file it. > There is certainly a valid business reason for removing Truong from > the board. > > Unfortunately, Ms. Polgar has chosen to (metaphorically) chain herself > to her husband. �With her actions, her removal is now also necessary. I guess I have yet to hear the valid business reason for removing anybody. Could you use the word "allegedly" and tell us what the valid business reason might be? I seem to remember we had a USCF Treasurer who sold his expensive sets to the federation even when we were going down the tubes in the early part of this decade. Indeed, things were so bad tight that his personal approval was needed to allow disbursals. This is certainly not the worst conflict of interest that has occurred amongst the insiders in the last ten years. Perhaps you could compare the conflict of interest cited with Mr. Truongs alleged actions. I am not being flip. I just have not heard a thing which would justify the current actions of the insider board but I keep an open mind. Rp ascach...@aol.com wrote: > > There is certainly a valid business reason for removing Truong from > > the board. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Rp If you don't think suing the USCF for $25 million is a violation of an officer's duty, then there's a really nothing to discuss. And what exactly is your definition of an "insider" these days? Someone who was freely elected by a vote of all the members? >If you don't think suing the USCF for $25 million is a violation of an >officer's duty, then there's a really nothing to discuss. And what >exactly is your definition of an "insider" these days? Someone who was >freely elected by a vote of all the members? If for whatever reason it was hypothetically thought such a suit was needed then he should have resigned first. That this even needs to be discussed speaks volumes. Mr. Peterson, We do not need you to tell us what John K. Hillery's views are about the election. We already know what his views are, since he bombards us daily with them. Most of his postings are attacks on me. However, if you would be willing to tell us what your views are, we would be interested in learning about them. Sam Sloan > Mr. Peterson, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sam Sloan "he bombards us daily with them" Lie. "Most of his postings are attacks on me." Lie. You're a triviality. I mention you on the USCF Forums only when you say something exceptionally stupid or dishonest, and you certainly don't get any space on my blog. I did, however, write an earlier and more detailed election summary. The paragraph on you said, "Sam Sloan: Perpetual candidate. Serial litigant. Ratbag of note. Sloan has been a sleazy but colorful figure on the tournament scene for decades. He’s run for the Board many times. In the days before OMOV, when the voters actually knew who he was, he generally had trouble breaking two figures. In 2006, an off-year election in which several candidates split the sane-people vote, he got elected to a one- year term, and proceeded to make a fool of himself and a laughingstock of the USCF with his weekly paranoid fantasies. After being tossed out in 2007, he filed a lawsuit demanding a re-run of the election. Anyone who votes for him this time should be ashamed of himself. If you want to cast a protest vote, write in Mickey Mouse. He’d do a better job. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.