| |
Main
Date: 08 Nov 2007 06:09:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
The USCF Executive Board has decided to hold the February 2008 meeting
online over the Internet. There is no way that the general membership
will be able to participate. This was because Paul Truong refused to
go to California and Bill Goichberg refused to hold the board meeting
anywhere other than California, where he lives during the Winter
months. I am wondering if it is a violation of the by-laws not to
invite the membership to one of the quarterly board meetings.
This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
defeats the very purpose of having these meetings. Otherwise, the
meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 04:46:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
On Nov 8, 7:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> But, many of our USCF Delegates and officers and FIDE officals are
> felons, if not murderers.
Is it any wonder then that the minions of rgcp
constantly fight to get on there? Maybe it is
only from there that one can rule the underworld,
bark out orders and collect tribute, ala my good
friend "Lucky".
> They like kiddy
> Ass and you see that they are going to encourage and support the
> molestation, While claiming a DRUG WAR.
> Tim Redman and the FIDE medical committee has no right to drug test me
> while they molest children, as did the Catholic Church!
Did? Past tense? So, it's over with then, once and
for all? Very good.
> So, who do you propose to make the decision about the Atelonel, a
> murderer, or a child molester, or just a common criminal?
Okay, so I type that name into a Google search box
and what do you suppose I learn? Only that there is
apparently just *one* person, per Google, who takes
the drug. It's a good thing he is filthy rich, 'cause
the first user is always going to be the one to pay for
the R & D.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 04:37:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
On Nov 8, 5:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> The Pope would not agree with the USCF about the legal ramifications
> of background checkes. The Cathlotic Chruch
> has all kinds of legal rights (including diplomatic and soverign
> immuntiy that they used a bunch) and they still paid
> hundreds of millions, for lack of background checks on priests that
> molested children.
Are you suggesting that all or most of those
priests had criminal records, and could have
been screened out with a simple background
check?
> cus Roberts
> the rich dude who can't play chess due to a drug test for atenolol
So much for the world championship, then.
You could move here, where there is no drug
testing, there is no real competition, and you
would also likely be the only rich player in
the whole tourney. (Or... you could just go
on whining.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 04:31:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
On Nov 8, 4:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> One more curious thing about my time
> as a coach ... I held a parents meeting
> at the start of each season and advised
> the parents that if, at any point, they
> thought they could do a better job then
> I was I would petition the board to get
> them qualified (background check and
> required training), would use them as
> a supervised assistant in the meantime
> and would turn over the tem at the the
> earliest opportunity. Never got a single
> taker... go figure.
Did you try offering them free food?
That always seems to work around here.
In fact, perhaps 10% of the shoppers in
Sam's Club are there just for the free
(food) samples.
-- hungry bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 00:57:59
From:
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
On Nov 8, 6:07 pm, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 9:48 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
> > > > so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
> > > > defeats the very purpose of having these meetings.
>
> > > Laugh - no, it just eliminates potential inclusion of member's
> > > contributions.
>
> > > In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:
>
> > > "I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
> > > USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
> > > certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
> > > background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
> > > against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
> > > expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."
>
> > > Which of course is quite true. Pretense you have no responsibility is
> > > absurd. And How Absurd!
>
> > > Here is the one place where USCF could take the responsibility already
> > > granted to it, to act for the betterment of chess players - and it sticks
> > > its head in the sand!! ROFL.
>
> > > And on a more general note, without a timed agenda, if the President wants
> > > to talk for an hour with no seconder for any clearly stated motion, or even
> > > without a motion - and if even Sam Sloan thought Paul Truong spoke
> > > consistently to a topical point, while others wavered in the wind... this
> > > could only politely be termed discussion at all.
>
> > > What is the name for a topic-less discussion?
>
> > > > Otherwise, the
> > > > meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.
>
> > > Which they will be. Which has to be cheaper than flying everyone to
> > > Crossville to discuss...? What exactly had anything at the past meeting of
> > > import to chess players?
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Phil
>
> > The Pope would not agree with the USCF about the legal ramifications
> > of background checkes. The Cathlotic Chruch
> > has all kinds of legal rights (including diplomatic and soverign
> > immuntiy that they used a bunch) and they still paid
> > hundreds of millions, for lack of background checks on priests that
> > molested children.
>
> > The EB has admitted the gulit of Paul Troung. For them, it is easier
> > to meet in secret than be mocked in public.
>
> > I am making some telephone calls with my money people. I'll make these
> > mother fuckers meet in person.
>
> > cus Roberts
> > the rich dude who can't play chess due to a drug test for atenolol- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You mean, atenolol has caused you to forget how to set up the board
> and pieces, and how they move? Or is it a physical impediment?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd say that the procedures of taking a drug test, and going through
my medical files
Represent a greater cost to FIDE than the cost of investigating my
criminal background
To deal with children. That is, we test for drugs, when we should be
looking out for child molesters.
But, many of our USCF Delegates and officers and FIDE officals are
felons, if not murderers. They like kiddy
Ass and you see that they are going to encourage and support the
molestation, While claiming a DRUG WAR.
Tim Redman and the FIDE medical committee has no right to drug test me
while they molest children, as did the Catholic Church!
So, who do you propose to make the decision about the Atelonel, a
murderer, or a child molester, or just a common criminal?
cus Roberts
Permanent Delegte of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 00:07:29
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 8, 9:48 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
> > > so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
> > > defeats the very purpose of having these meetings.
>
> > Laugh - no, it just eliminates potential inclusion of member's
> > contributions.
>
> > In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:
>
> > "I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
> > USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
> > certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
> > background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
> > against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
> > expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."
>
> > Which of course is quite true. Pretense you have no responsibility is
> > absurd. And How Absurd!
>
> > Here is the one place where USCF could take the responsibility already
> > granted to it, to act for the betterment of chess players - and it sticks
> > its head in the sand!! ROFL.
>
> > And on a more general note, without a timed agenda, if the President wants
> > to talk for an hour with no seconder for any clearly stated motion, or even
> > without a motion - and if even Sam Sloan thought Paul Truong spoke
> > consistently to a topical point, while others wavered in the wind... this
> > could only politely be termed discussion at all.
>
> > What is the name for a topic-less discussion?
>
> > > Otherwise, the
> > > meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.
>
> > Which they will be. Which has to be cheaper than flying everyone to
> > Crossville to discuss...? What exactly had anything at the past meeting of
> > import to chess players?
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Phil
>
> The Pope would not agree with the USCF about the legal ramifications
> of background checkes. The Cathlotic Chruch
> has all kinds of legal rights (including diplomatic and soverign
> immuntiy that they used a bunch) and they still paid
> hundreds of millions, for lack of background checks on priests that
> molested children.
>
> The EB has admitted the gulit of Paul Troung. For them, it is easier
> to meet in secret than be mocked in public.
>
> I am making some telephone calls with my money people. I'll make these
> mother fuckers meet in person.
>
> cus Roberts
> the rich dude who can't play chess due to a drug test for atenolol- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean, atenolol has caused you to forget how to set up the board
and pieces, and how they move? Or is it a physical impediment?
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 14:03:31
From:
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
On Nov 8, 9:48 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
> > so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
> > defeats the very purpose of having these meetings.
>
> Laugh - no, it just eliminates potential inclusion of member's
> contributions.
>
> In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:
>
> "I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
> USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
> certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
> background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
> against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
> expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."
>
> Which of course is quite true. Pretense you have no responsibility is
> absurd. And How Absurd!
>
> Here is the one place where USCF could take the responsibility already
> granted to it, to act for the betterment of chess players - and it sticks
> its head in the sand!! ROFL.
>
> And on a more general note, without a timed agenda, if the President wants
> to talk for an hour with no seconder for any clearly stated motion, or even
> without a motion - and if even Sam Sloan thought Paul Truong spoke
> consistently to a topical point, while others wavered in the wind... this
> could only politely be termed discussion at all.
>
> What is the name for a topic-less discussion?
>
> > Otherwise, the
> > meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.
>
> Which they will be. Which has to be cheaper than flying everyone to
> Crossville to discuss...? What exactly had anything at the past meeting of
> import to chess players?
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Phil
The Pope would not agree with the USCF about the legal ramifications
of background checkes. The Cathlotic Chruch
has all kinds of legal rights (including diplomatic and soverign
immuntiy that they used a bunch) and they still paid
hundreds of millions, for lack of background checks on priests that
molested children.
The EB has admitted the gulit of Paul Troung. For them, it is easier
to meet in secret than be mocked in public.
I am making some telephone calls with my money people. I'll make these
mother fuckers meet in person.
cus Roberts
the rich dude who can't play chess due to a drug test for atenolol
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 13:01:30
From:
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
One more curious thing about my time
as a coach ... I held a parents meeting
at the start of each season and advised
the parents that if, at any point, they
thought they could do a better job then
I was I would petition the board to get
them qualified (background check and
required training), would use them as
a supervised assistant in the meantime
and would turn over the tem at the the
earliest opportunity. Never got a single
taker... go figure.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 12:51:08
From:
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
> Simply because you stumbled though a sport as coach doesn't mean you
> were a coach of any ability at all, except you sound like a competent
> babysitter. And perhaps that is what parents want, to protect their
> children while they ignore them in the pursuit of Almighty cash.
Perhaps I was simply blessed with exceptional talent for many
consecutive
years...
But that said many of the wrestlers who were unfortunate to be stuck
with
me as coach were able to perform such miracles (hindered no doubt by
my babysitting) as winning tournaments, qualifying for the state
championship,
starting as freshmen on their High School teams - no doubt without my
dragging them down they would have all be national champs ... but then
again
it seems that Dan Gable was otherwise occupied .
Similarly in five seasons as a football coach (a sport I actually did
have some
experience in) I was only able to achieve a winning record 4/5 times
with only
one championship appearance (we lost) so it was no doubt my fault that
we
failed to dominate the legue.
Never mind that were were somehow able to beat players coached by
people with college experience in their respective sports and so on.
And
looking back, I really don't recall a whole lot of professional
football coaches
being star players, in fact many of best ones seem to have been to
have
been players who were only able suceed at all by virtue of exceptional
effort -
go figure.
PS - to add a chess note - My own High School Chess Coach was a very
weak player, inferior to anyone on the team and yet we somehow managed
to take 3rd, 2nd and 2nd in the state of Illinois the three years I
was there
but I am sure that a Master class pedophile would have been our ticket
to
nationals and everyonee would have come out better for it.
And clearly someone like Bruce Pandolfini is in no way qualified to be
a
coach given that he peaked as a player at mere USCF mater level. If it
weren't for him old Bobby would have dominated at least the Galaxy if
not
the Universe instead of just the world.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 11:19:56
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
On Nov 8, 10:33 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Are the USCF leaders truely as ignorant as they appear? Frankly chess
> knowledge and ability are actually far from being the most important
> characteristics of a Coach! The best coaches are rarely those who have
> been
> top players whether we are talking about Chess, Athletics or anything
> else.
Bull of the highest order. Chess is about knowledge, therefore the
best coach will have a strong knowledge of the game. Those "good
coaches" in physical performance sports may not have been good players
due to a physical deficit of some kind, but they took the time to
learn the game.
Simply because you stumbled though a sport as coach doesn't mean you
were a coach of any ability at all, except you sound like a competent
babysitter. And perhaps that is what parents want, to protect their
children while they ignore them in the pursuit of Almighty cash.
> board meetings. We simply focused on Protecting The Children and over
> time
Yes the battle cry of the inept and scared - save the children from
the world!
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 08:33:53
From:
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
> In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:
> "I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
> USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
> certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
> background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
> against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
> expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."
> Phil Innes
Are the USCF leaders truely as ignorant as they appear? Frankly chess
knowledge and ability are actually far from being the most important
characteristics of a Coach! The best coaches are rarely those who have
been
top players whether we are talking about Chess, Athletics or anything
else.
On the other hand Character is of the utmost importance along with
protecting
children from predators.
I speak from experience having served as a volunteer wrestling coach
for some
8 years. I came into it with absolutely Zero knowledge of the sport,
just a
willingness to learn and a desire to help both my child and others
become
exposed to and hopefully enjoy being a part of this activity. Frankly
the vast
majority of volunteer youth sports coaches start this way. Each and
every year
I submitted to FBI background checks a nd for the last five of those I
did so
twice per year as I became a volunteer youth football coach as well.
It never occured to me to question the need for this, the requirement
was just
blatently obvious and while the legues would indeed have been exposing
themselves
to liability if they failed to do this, this angle was never even
discussed at the
board meetings. We simply focused on Protecting The Children and over
time
added training programs designed to both provide an enjoyable
experience for
all participants while still producing highly competitive teams. These
programs
were extremely effective.
These requirements also had the favorable side effect of disuading
many of those
who appeared to be participating out of a desire fore personal
aggrandizement.
Something that appears to be something of an issue with the USCF
governance.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 22:46:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
good post, man! good witness about what's true - it's how it really is out
there, no? not some silly fantasy appreciation
cordially, phil innes
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:
>
>> "I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting.
>> The
>> USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
>> certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
>> background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
>> against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
>> expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."
>
>> Phil Innes
>
>
> Are the USCF leaders truely as ignorant as they appear? Frankly chess
> knowledge and ability are actually far from being the most important
> characteristics of a Coach! The best coaches are rarely those who have
> been
> top players whether we are talking about Chess, Athletics or anything
> else.
> On the other hand Character is of the utmost importance along with
> protecting
> children from predators.
>
> I speak from experience having served as a volunteer wrestling coach
> for some
> 8 years. I came into it with absolutely Zero knowledge of the sport,
> just a
> willingness to learn and a desire to help both my child and others
> become
> exposed to and hopefully enjoy being a part of this activity. Frankly
> the vast
> majority of volunteer youth sports coaches start this way. Each and
> every year
> I submitted to FBI background checks a nd for the last five of those I
> did so
> twice per year as I became a volunteer youth football coach as well.
>
> It never occured to me to question the need for this, the requirement
> was just
> blatently obvious and while the legues would indeed have been exposing
> themselves
> to liability if they failed to do this, this angle was never even
> discussed at the
> board meetings. We simply focused on Protecting The Children and over
> time
> added training programs designed to both provide an enjoyable
> experience for
> all participants while still producing highly competitive teams. These
> programs
> were extremely effective.
>
> These requirements also had the favorable side effect of disuading
> many of those
> who appeared to be participating out of a desire fore personal
> aggrandizement.
> Something that appears to be something of an issue with the USCF
> governance.
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 15:48:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
> so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
> defeats the very purpose of having these meetings.
Laugh - no, it just eliminates potential inclusion of member's
contributions.
In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:
"I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."
Which of course is quite true. Pretense you have no responsibility is
absurd. And How Absurd!
Here is the one place where USCF could take the responsibility already
granted to it, to act for the betterment of chess players - and it sticks
its head in the sand!! ROFL.
And on a more general note, without a timed agenda, if the President wants
to talk for an hour with no seconder for any clearly stated motion, or even
without a motion - and if even Sam Sloan thought Paul Truong spoke
consistently to a topical point, while others wavered in the wind... this
could only politely be termed discussion at all.
What is the name for a topic-less discussion?
> Otherwise, the
> meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.
Which they will be. Which has to be cheaper than flying everyone to
Crossville to discuss...? What exactly had anything at the past meeting of
import to chess players?
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
>
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 07:42:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
On Nov 8, 10:25 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> So, when are these tapes going to be produced and posted? When will
> the Executive Director and the board start complying with the by-laws?
> Ever? Never?
A: It will happen only when Sam Sloan is made
Director of the board. (That was an easy one.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 07:37:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
On Nov 8, 9:09 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The USCF Executive Board has decided to hold the February 2008 meeting
> online over the Internet. There is no way that the general membership
> will be able to participate. This was because Paul Truong refused to
> go to California and Bill Goichberg refused to hold the board meeting
> anywhere other than California, where he lives during the Winter
> months. I am wondering if it is a violation of the by-laws not to
> invite the membership to one of the quarterly board meetings.
>
> This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
> so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
> defeats the very purpose of having these meetings. Otherwise, the
> meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.
Apparently, the evil minions of the USCF can do nothing
right.
a) If they fly board members somewhere, they will be
accused of wasting the members' money.
b) If they don't fly them anywhere, they will be accused
of excluding the members.
c) If they were to demand that board members transport
themselves at their own expense, they would likely be
accused of excluding the ones who failed to show up,
as part of some evil conspiracy.
Typically, no solutions are offered by Mr. Sloan, just
never-ending complaints. (If complaining is the goal, I
heartily recommend replacing the worst officer of the
board with Sam Sloan, effective immediately.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 07:25:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
[quote="Hal Terrie"]It's not a violation of the Bylaws either. Article
VI, Section 3 of the Bylaws specifies that:
"The Executive Board shall meet at least twice per year, the day and
place to be fixed by vote of that Executive Board. Special meetings,
including conference telephone calls or Internet conference meetings,
may be called by the President or upon the written request of any
three members of the Executive Board."
That wording seems to imply that two meetings must be held in person
but others may be held in any way the EB wants. Article VI, Section 3
doesn't say anything about access of the membership to open sessions.
It says only that the minutes shall be posted on the web site within
six weeks and the audio recording of the open sessions shall be posted
within one month.
-- Hal Terrie[/quote]
I am so glad that Hal Terrie brought up this last point, where it
says, "the audio recording of the open sessions shall be posted within
one month".
As a member of the board, I attended five board meetings plus one
telephone conference call. (Bill Goichberg is opposed to telephone
conference calls and that is the reason we only had one, although many
more were requested.)
The meetings were on August 14, 2006, November 17-18, 2006, February
2-3, 2007, May 21-22, 2007 and August 2, 2007. The telephone
conference call was on February 25, 2007.
Will somebody explain why so far only the May 21-22, 2007 meeting and
part of the February 3, 2007 meeting have been posted? We know that
the tapes of all of these meetings exist because Myron Lieberman was
present taping all of them. He states that he handed over all these
tapes to Bill Hall. Why has not Bill Hall posted them?
Is it possibly because of the objectionable comments that certain
board members plus the Executive Director made at these meetings?
Yesterday, I posted four short excerpts of the just concluded meeting
held on November 3-4, 2007 in Crossville, Tennessee. Many USCF members
are shocked to hear the reks made by Joel Channing and Bill Hall. I
can assure you that this is only the tip of the iceberg. If the other
tapes were posted, it would be seem that many other comments are far,
far worse.
Meanwhile, there are constant claims that I made objectionable
comments at these meetings. However, if the tapes were produced it
would be shown that I was the most business-like board member at the
meetings. I never told dirty jokes or made off-color reks like
certain board members did. I stayed on topic and was always all-
business.
So, when are these tapes going to be produced and posted? When will
the Executive Director and the board start complying with the by-laws?
Ever? Never?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 11:57:01
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
samsloan wrote:
> <snip>
> Will somebody explain why so far only the May 21-22, 2007 meeting and
> part of the February 3, 2007 meeting have been posted? We know that
> the tapes of all of these meetings exist because Myron Lieberman was
> present taping all of them. He states that he handed over all these
> tapes to Bill Hall. Why has not Bill Hall posted them?
>
> Is it possibly because of the objectionable comments that certain
> board members plus the Executive Director made at these meetings?
> Yesterday, I posted four short excerpts of the just concluded meeting
> held on November 3-4, 2007 in Crossville, Tennessee. Many USCF members
> are shocked to hear the reks made by Joel Channing and Bill Hall. I
> can assure you that this is only the tip of the iceberg. If the other
> tapes were posted, it would be seem that many other comments are far,
> far worse.
>
> Meanwhile, there are constant claims that I made objectionable
> comments at these meetings. However, if the tapes were produced it
> would be shown that I was the most business-like board member at the
> meetings. I never told dirty jokes or made off-color reks like
> certain board members did. I stayed on topic and was always all-
> business.
>
> So, when are these tapes going to be produced and posted? When will
> the Executive Director and the board start complying with the by-laws?
> Ever? Never?
>
> Sam Sloan
>
To my mind this is both a fair and excellent point. Is there anything
false about Sam's claim that the tapes should be released?
First, this sounds like a good potential source of evidence for
litigation. Is a subpoena in order?
Second, if the membership rallied around the idea, I bet the tapes would
end up being released. This might answer a lot questions for people on
all sides of many of the issues.
third, the longer this is put off, the more likely the tapes will meet
with destruction in an "accident."
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 06:49:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet
|
[quote="Brian Mottershead"]Why does holding the meeting using an
online meeting service such as WebEx or GoToMeeting mean that there
cannot be any observers? That does not follow at all. If the
meeting is made closed because it is Internet-based, that will be a
pretext. It does not have to be closed.[/quote]
I just looked at http://gotomeeting.com and it appears to be just a
fancy telephone conference call that outsiders can listen to. Is that
what we want?
Also, http://www.webex.com fails to explain how it works. None of this
seems to be an acceptable substitute for a live meeting with real
people present and members allowed to ask questions.
Sam Sloan
|
|
