Goichberg Chases off a Candidate for Executive Board Election

Main

Date: 06 Jan 2009 04:05:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Goichberg Chases off a Candidate for Executive Board Election

A candidate for the USCF Executive Board has just posted a statement
over on the USCF Issues Forum that he is dropping out of the race
because Goichberg has demanded that he resign from the FOC if he runs
for election.

The FOC is the "Forum Oversight Committee" and the candidate who is
dropping out goes by the Moniker "Artichoke".

"Artichoke" has long been a thorn in the side of the otherwise
Goichberg controlled forum. Goichberg has appointed numerous
sycophants to the forum committees, people who will ban anybody who
makes statements embarrassing to or critical of Goichberg.

Artichoke was appointed to the FOC as part of a package deal in which
three persons were appointed, including Steve of Tennessee. In this
package deal, there were two pro-Goichberg appointees and one neutral
one, namely Artichoke.

Unfortunately, from the point of view Goichberg, the two pro-Goichberg
FOC members soon quit, leaving only Artichoke on the FOC.

This became a real problem for Goichberg, because one-by-one all the
pro-Goichberg sycophants dropped out of the FOC, leaving primarily
Artichoke and Louis Blair.

The reason this was a problem was that the FOC would consistently
overturn decisions by the moderators to not-allow statements critical
of Goichberg or of Goichberg backed candidates for election such as
Susan Polgar from appearing on the forum.

In order to curtail the ability of the FOC to overturn decisions by
the moderators, Goichberg created a new in-between committee called
the MOC. Henceforth, the FOC could not reinstate postings, they could
only overturn sanctions.

Since the MOC consisted primarily of the moderators, very few postings
that were removed from public view have ever been re-instated.

The latest problem is that the MOC has voted to ban Brian Lafferty
from posting for one year. Lafferty has declared himself to be a
candidate for election to the Executive Board. There is or should be a
legal question as to whether a certified and qualified candidate for
election can be banned from posting while he is running for election.

Lafferty is obviously running as an anti-Goichberg candidate.
Therefore, Goichberg, who is also a candidate, wants him banned.
Artichoke will be one of the votes to overturn the ban on Lafferty.

This explains why Goichberg is saying that if Artichoke runs for
election, he must resign from the FOC. Once Artichoke is off the FOC,
is will be easier for the Goichberg controlled moderators to ban
Lafferty as well as other miscreants such as Sam Sloan.

Artichoke feels that it is more important for him to stay on the FOC
so that the Goichberg-controlled moderators will have less ability to
impose sanctions including long-term suspensions on other candidates.

Goichberg is himself a candidate for election. Since that is the case,
why are not the Goichberg controlled moderators required to resign as
well?

Here is the statement just posted by Artichoke in this regard:

"I have been thinking of running for the EB, gathering signatures,
etc. but I have decided not to run this year.

"An important contributor to this decision is that it would be
difficult for me to continue on the FOC during the long election
campaign. Bill Goichberg expressed that I might have a conflict of
interest in that situation. An MOC member seconded that concern.

"Several likely candidates, as well as others who are not candidates,
have heavy sanction levels and it is important that appeals from them
receive the best review. Naturally I think that review is enhanced by
my presence and the practices that I prefer on the FOC. So I should
stay right where I am.

"I am grateful to those who have helped me, encouraged me and given me
advice, and wish for the best outcome from the election. "

Date: 06 Jan 2009 12:44:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg Chases off a Candidate for Executive Board Election

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Randall Hough <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Typical Sam. Nobody but him can make up his own mind; other people allow
> themselves to be manipulated. If an anti-Sloan member of the FOC ran for the
> Board without stepping aside from the FOC, we'd hear thunderous
> denunciations of conflict of interest. And oh, I thought Lafferty was
> running as an anti-Polgar candidate.

This is not true. I have never made a conflict of interest claim
against anybody. I believe in letting the voters decide who is the
best candidate.

If I was going to make a conflict of interest claim, it certainly
would have been against you, Randall Hough. You were working as an
Assistant TD for Bill Goichberg at the 2006 World Open while you were
also running against against me as a candidate. In the same election,
Ernie Schlich was also a candidate and was also working at the 2006
World Open. So two of the five candidates in that election were
employees of Bill Goichberg, who was USCF President.

I never charged either one of you with conflict of interest, even
though it would have been a valid claim.

Mike Atkins is in the same boat in the coming election. He has been
working for Bill Goichberg for more than ten years as Assistant TD at
the World Open and other tournaments. Atkins says that he resigned as
an official of the Continental Chess Association a few months ago to
avoid the conflict of interest charge. At least he recognizes the
problem. It will be up to the voters to decide whether working for
Bill for ten years and then quitting his job a few months ago
demonstrates sufficient independence from Bill to make him a suitable
member of the board. In view of Bill's history of having several
sycophants on the board with him, the most notable current example of
this being Randall Hough, I am certain that Mike Atkins will be
targeted by the anti-Goichberg crowd.

Regarding Lafferty, he seems to be an anti-everybody candidate. Lately
he has been attacking more than anybody else me, Sam Sloan. We have
yet to learn what he is in favor of. We only know what he is against.

Sam Sloan

Date: 06 Jan 2009 21:47:22
From: foad
Subject: Re: Goichberg Chases off a Candidate for Executive Board Election

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9c3ce010-7517-4fca-b6a3-0957e27f60d4@k18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> I have never made a conflict of interest claim
> against anybody.

If that's true, what is this post called UNPRECEDENTED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
in all capital letters by Sam Sloan about?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/db0a9266baa45da9?hl=en

I'm guessing its about you being a congenital compulsive liar. Let's see.

"The Mother of All Conflicts of Interest has Occurred with the Chief
Operating Officer of the USCF using the official USCF mailing list to
mail out a campaign letter supporting Randy Bauer, Steve Shutt,
Elizabeth Shaughnessy and George John for election."

I was right.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 14:00:15
From: foad
Subject: Re: Goichberg Chases off a Candidate for Executive Board Election

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d84d23bb-899e-435f-a3ed-be7111c3c3bc@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> The FOC is the "Forum Oversight Committee" and the candidate who is
> dropping out goes by the Moniker "Artichoke".

Maybe he just realized that you were the preferred candidate of the
vegetables and other brain dead voters.