| |
Main
Date: 31 Oct 2007 16:56:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Confidential BINFOS
|
[quote="sloan"][quote="samsloan"][quote="nolan"]The BINFO system has
646 entries from you between August 20, 2006, and August 1, 2007.
Of those, 155 (nearly 25%) were sent to the confidential address BY
YOU.[/quote]
Thank you for these interesting statistics.
I believe that you will find that almost always when I sent an email
to the confidential BINFO address, it was because I was replying to an
email by another board member to the confidential BINFO address.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
So, Sam - you are saying that the only reason *you* were sloppy was
that someone else was sloppy *first*???
That's an interesting standard of excellence you have there.[/quote]
If another board member sends a BINFO ked "Confidential" and I
reply to it quoting some of his words, I am obliged to k it
confidential too.
On the other hand, I feel that the only "Confidential" BINFOS should
be those dealing with litigation and personnel matters. Therefore,
when it was reported that Susan Polgar wanted to move the Polgar Girls
Tournament to Texas Tech University and wanted to take over the Denker
Tournament of High School Champions and move it to Texas Tech too, I
posted that information here (over the objections of several board
members) because that concerned neither a personnel nor a litigation
issue and the members had a right to know about it.
As noted previously, Mike Nolan re-classified many of my public BINFOs
as "Confidential".
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 15:32:07
From:
Subject: Re: Confidential BINFOS
|
On Nov 1, 10:35 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> A TYPICAL USCF INSIDER
>
> <As noted previously, Mike Nolan re-classified many of my public
> BINFOs
> as "Confidential". -- Sam Sloan
>
> > My god Larry, this sounds like a cheap detective novel describing a
> > low level crime syndicate of ignorant boobs who are bleeding a large
> > group of "suckers" dry... This can't be our beloved USCF... Tell us
> > your post is really just a Halloween prank. You know, boo and all
> > that...Cheers, -- Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
>
> J. D. Walker is got the impression from a
> portion of GM Evans's interview with GM Lev Alburt
> that the USCF leadership resembles a "low level crime
> syndicate" peopled with "ignorant boobs." Like
> something out of 1940s-50s film noir -- minus the guns
> and dead bodies.
>
> Instead of "ignorant boobs," I would substitute
> the phrase, "small-minded nits." And yes, there is a
> semi-thug element among many USCF insiders. There was
> admiration for Florencio Campomanes, an embezzler,
> and there is cooperation with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a dictator
> and killer who puts dissidents into Soviet-era mental insitutions
> where they are tortured. Our Bill Kelleher works with the man
> and refuses to denounce him while members of the USCF
> Executive Board refuse to break with such leadership
> of world chess. Several of them hope to weasel their
> way into FIDE at a later date to hobnob with a
> real-life gangster.
>
> Some organizations are led by the best and
> brightest; we have, by and large, the worstest and cupidest.
>
> Take the censor Mike Nolan, add a dollop of E.
> Steven Doyle -- the Joysey Palooka -- and top off with
> a Bauer-power-freak cherry, and you then have a fair
> image of a typical USCF insider.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> j.d.walker wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 5:18 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 131)
>
> > > BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
>
> > > EVANS: But isn't such secrecy extraordinary in a not-for-profit, tax-
> > > exempt
> > > organization charged with promoting chess in America?
>
> > > ALBURT: The board certainly keeps a lot of things secret that they
> > > shouldn't. I was denied access to many documents. And when president
> > > Harold Winston came in, he tightened the secrecy despite his pledge to
> > > run
> > > an open administration. He regarded critics as enemies and tried to
> > > hide
> > > things from them.
>
> > > EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but
> > > had
> > > to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its newsletter.
> > > Isn't the board spending more and more time in closed session anyway?
>
> > > ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind don't
> > > belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse
> > > to say
> > > nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes they
> > > knock
> > > people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence or shut up.
>
> > > EVANS: So didn't they become more careful around you?
>
> > > ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared
> > > together-the feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better.
> > > When
> > > someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed ranks
> > > and
> > > developed a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become one of the
> > > boys as soon as they were elected.
>
> > > EVANS: Can you give an example?
>
> > > ALBURT: The change in David Saponara was dramatic. At first he
> > > strongly
> > > opposed the board's austerity budget. But after they talked to him in
> > > Boston
> > > [1988] he did an abrupt about face. What the board did was, in my
> > > opinion,
> > > technically wrong. They called an unofficial session from which I was
> > > excluded where they made deals and persuaded Saponara to change his
> > > mind.
>
> > > EVANS: There's an old saying in politics that to get along you have to
> > > go
> > > along. Weren't you tempted to do this?
>
> > > ALBURT: I felt a great temptation to be more conciliatory. You see,
> > > after
> > > all, they are not evil people. Personally many of them are very nice.
> > > When
> > > you're in the same room and spend a lot of time together, exchange
> > > jokes
> > > and try to solve problems, you develop a sort of caaderie. It's
> > > natural.
> > > But I had to remind myself that although we were friendly, the things
> > > they
> > > were doing in secret were plainly wrong. The system which existed, a
> > > system of secrecy, could be easily abused. It certainly invited
> > > corruption.
>
> > > EVANS: Board member Harry Sabine said all that the reformers would
> > > accomplish by trying to open things up is to force the board into
> > > doing more
> > > things behind closed doors.
>
> > > ALBURT: Okay. It just shows their type of mentality. A siege
> > > mentality.
>
> > > EVANS: I was under the impression that the board only had the right to
> > > go
> > > into closed session to discuss things like sealed bids or legal and
> > > personnel
> > > matters.
>
> > > ALBURT: They do many other things that should be discussed openly. For
> > > instance, they went into closed session to discuss candidates to
> > > replace Don
> > > Schultz as FIDE delegate. They argued it was necessary because
> > > otherwise
> > > they could not say nasty things about other candidates in public, like
> > > so-andso
> > > is a drunk. My position was that if someone wanted to say something
> > > derogatory, they could stop briefly to go into closed session.
>
> > > EVANS: But doesn't much of this information get out anyway?
>
> > > ALBURT: Of course. They leak information all the time to their
> > > friends.
> > > For instance, when executive director Gerard Dullea was given
> > > authority to
> > > fire Larry Parr as editor in closed session, it was supposed to be a
> > > deep dark
> > > secret. But when I came out of the meeting I was met by Jerry Hanken
> > > who
> > > told me how sorry he was, that if only he had been elected instead of
> > > Sabine
> > > such a dreadful thing never would have happened. Probably some board
> > > member broke the news to him on the way to the bathroom.
>
> > > EVANS: Why should there be such a need to classify information? Chess
> > > is not the Pentagon.
>
> > > ALBURT: The board is playing with its power. I can hardly ever recall
> > > when any justification was given for going into closed session. Often
> > > they
> > > just wanted to bad-mouth people not being considered for jobs.
> > > Especially
> > > people who were my friends, but even some I didn't know. When I
> > > challenged them and asked for proof, they said they were merely
> > > speaking
> > > their piece and giving their opinion.
>
> > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > [quote="sloan"][quote="samsloan"][quote="nolan"]The BINFO system has
> > > > 646 entries from you between August 20, 2006, and August 1, 2007.
>
> > > > Of those, 155 (nearly 25%) were sent to the confidential address BY
> > > > YOU.[/quote]
>
> > > > Thank you for these interesting statistics.
>
> > > > I believe that you will find that almost always when I sent an email
> > > > to the confidential BINFO address, it was because I was replying to an
> > > > email by another board member to the confidential BINFO address.
>
> > > > Sam Sloan[/quote]
>
> > > > So, Sam - you are saying that the only reason *you* were sloppy was
> > > > that someone else was sloppy *first*???
>
> > > > That's an interesting standard of excellence you have there.[/quote]
>
> > > > If another board member sends a BINFO ked "Confidential" and I
> > > > reply to it quoting some of his words, I am obliged to k it
> > > > confidential too.
>
> > > > On the other hand, I feel that the only "Confidential" BINFOS should
> > > > be those dealing with litigation and personnel matters. Therefore,
> > > > when it was reported that Susan Polgar wanted to move the Polgar Girls
> > > > Tournament to Texas Tech University and wanted to take over the Denker
> > > > Tournament of High School Champions and move it to Texas Tech too, I
> > > > posted that information here (over the objections of several board
> > > > members) because that concerned neither a personnel nor a litigation
> > > > issue and the members had a right to know about it.
>
> > > > As noted previously, Mike Nolan re-classified many of my public BINFOs
> > > > as "Confidential".
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > My god Larry, this sounds like a cheap detective novel describing a
> > low level crime syndicate of ignorant boobs who are bleeding a large
> > group of "suckers" dry... This can't be our beloved USCF... Tell us
> > your post is really just a Halloween prank. You know, boo and all
> > that...
>
> > Cheers,
> > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Larry is so right. For this reason, I saw myself becoming like them in
1994 as a Regional Vice President.
I resigned. You can only be in that environment for so long, and then
it is like you are forced to become
One of them, or resign.
The Delegates are similar to the Executive Board, but only meet once a
year.
The Delegates act like the EB, but there is less pressure to conform,
and freqently
the Delegates are ignored entirely. As mindless sheep with no real
power, the Delegates have the formal
power to govern the Chess Federation's Executive Board, but all to
often, do not attend the meetings, or even bother to understand
what is really going on.
Sam Sloan did not become like them, and he did not resign. Therefore,
we see these attacks on Sloan by Paul before Sloan was even elected,
Because he refused to become an insider, as Larry described. I feel
that many of Sloan's decisions
Were based on the constant pressure he had to conform. When the first
censure motion passed,
Sloan was then forever on the offensive.
It is so sad what we face. Paul Troung is not abnormal; he is ONE OF
THEM who merely was caught.
They do this kind of crap all of the time. The USCF insider can't
understand why we just don't move on
And talk about the new world chess champion.
cus Roberts
|
| |
A TYPICAL USCF INSIDER
<As noted previously, Mike Nolan re-classified many of my public
BINFOs
as "Confidential". -- Sam Sloan
> My god Larry, this sounds like a cheap detective novel describing a
> low level crime syndicate of ignorant boobs who are bleeding a large
> group of "suckers" dry... This can't be our beloved USCF... Tell us
> your post is really just a Halloween prank. You know, boo and all
> that...Cheers, -- Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
J. D. Walker is got the impression from a
portion of GM Evans's interview with GM Lev Alburt
that the USCF leadership resembles a "low level crime
syndicate" peopled with "ignorant boobs." Like
something out of 1940s-50s film noir -- minus the guns
and dead bodies.
Instead of "ignorant boobs," I would substitute
the phrase, "small-minded nits." And yes, there is a
semi-thug element among many USCF insiders. There was
admiration for Florencio Campomanes, an embezzler,
and there is cooperation with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a dictator
and killer who puts dissidents into Soviet-era mental insitutions
where they are tortured. Our Bill Kelleher works with the man
and refuses to denounce him while members of the USCF
Executive Board refuse to break with such leadership
of world chess. Several of them hope to weasel their
way into FIDE at a later date to hobnob with a
real-life gangster.
Some organizations are led by the best and
brightest; we have, by and large, the worstest and cupidest.
Take the censor Mike Nolan, add a dollop of E.
Steven Doyle -- the Joysey Palooka -- and top off with
a Bauer-power-freak cherry, and you then have a fair
image of a typical USCF insider.
Yours, Larry Parr
j.d.walker wrote:
> On Oct 31, 5:18 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 131)
> >
> > BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
> >
> > EVANS: But isn't such secrecy extraordinary in a not-for-profit, tax-
> > exempt
> > organization charged with promoting chess in America?
> >
> > ALBURT: The board certainly keeps a lot of things secret that they
> > shouldn't. I was denied access to many documents. And when president
> > Harold Winston came in, he tightened the secrecy despite his pledge to
> > run
> > an open administration. He regarded critics as enemies and tried to
> > hide
> > things from them.
> >
> > EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but
> > had
> > to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its newsletter.
> > Isn't the board spending more and more time in closed session anyway?
> >
> > ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind don't
> > belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse
> > to say
> > nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes they
> > knock
> > people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence or shut up.
> >
> > EVANS: So didn't they become more careful around you?
> >
> > ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared
> > together-the feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better.
> > When
> > someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed ranks
> > and
> > developed a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become one of the
> > boys as soon as they were elected.
> >
> > EVANS: Can you give an example?
> >
> > ALBURT: The change in David Saponara was dramatic. At first he
> > strongly
> > opposed the board's austerity budget. But after they talked to him in
> > Boston
> > [1988] he did an abrupt about face. What the board did was, in my
> > opinion,
> > technically wrong. They called an unofficial session from which I was
> > excluded where they made deals and persuaded Saponara to change his
> > mind.
> >
> > EVANS: There's an old saying in politics that to get along you have to
> > go
> > along. Weren't you tempted to do this?
> >
> > ALBURT: I felt a great temptation to be more conciliatory. You see,
> > after
> > all, they are not evil people. Personally many of them are very nice.
> > When
> > you're in the same room and spend a lot of time together, exchange
> > jokes
> > and try to solve problems, you develop a sort of caaderie. It's
> > natural.
> > But I had to remind myself that although we were friendly, the things
> > they
> > were doing in secret were plainly wrong. The system which existed, a
> > system of secrecy, could be easily abused. It certainly invited
> > corruption.
> >
> > EVANS: Board member Harry Sabine said all that the reformers would
> > accomplish by trying to open things up is to force the board into
> > doing more
> > things behind closed doors.
> >
> > ALBURT: Okay. It just shows their type of mentality. A siege
> > mentality.
> >
> > EVANS: I was under the impression that the board only had the right to
> > go
> > into closed session to discuss things like sealed bids or legal and
> > personnel
> > matters.
> >
> > ALBURT: They do many other things that should be discussed openly. For
> > instance, they went into closed session to discuss candidates to
> > replace Don
> > Schultz as FIDE delegate. They argued it was necessary because
> > otherwise
> > they could not say nasty things about other candidates in public, like
> > so-andso
> > is a drunk. My position was that if someone wanted to say something
> > derogatory, they could stop briefly to go into closed session.
> >
> > EVANS: But doesn't much of this information get out anyway?
> >
> > ALBURT: Of course. They leak information all the time to their
> > friends.
> > For instance, when executive director Gerard Dullea was given
> > authority to
> > fire Larry Parr as editor in closed session, it was supposed to be a
> > deep dark
> > secret. But when I came out of the meeting I was met by Jerry Hanken
> > who
> > told me how sorry he was, that if only he had been elected instead of
> > Sabine
> > such a dreadful thing never would have happened. Probably some board
> > member broke the news to him on the way to the bathroom.
> >
> > EVANS: Why should there be such a need to classify information? Chess
> > is not the Pentagon.
> >
> > ALBURT: The board is playing with its power. I can hardly ever recall
> > when any justification was given for going into closed session. Often
> > they
> > just wanted to bad-mouth people not being considered for jobs.
> > Especially
> > people who were my friends, but even some I didn't know. When I
> > challenged them and asked for proof, they said they were merely
> > speaking
> > their piece and giving their opinion.
> >
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > [quote="sloan"][quote="samsloan"][quote="nolan"]The BINFO system has
> > > 646 entries from you between August 20, 2006, and August 1, 2007.
> >
> > > Of those, 155 (nearly 25%) were sent to the confidential address BY
> > > YOU.[/quote]
> >
> > > Thank you for these interesting statistics.
> >
> > > I believe that you will find that almost always when I sent an email
> > > to the confidential BINFO address, it was because I was replying to an
> > > email by another board member to the confidential BINFO address.
> >
> > > Sam Sloan[/quote]
> >
> > > So, Sam - you are saying that the only reason *you* were sloppy was
> > > that someone else was sloppy *first*???
> >
> > > That's an interesting standard of excellence you have there.[/quote]
> >
> > > If another board member sends a BINFO ked "Confidential" and I
> > > reply to it quoting some of his words, I am obliged to k it
> > > confidential too.
> >
> > > On the other hand, I feel that the only "Confidential" BINFOS should
> > > be those dealing with litigation and personnel matters. Therefore,
> > > when it was reported that Susan Polgar wanted to move the Polgar Girls
> > > Tournament to Texas Tech University and wanted to take over the Denker
> > > Tournament of High School Champions and move it to Texas Tech too, I
> > > posted that information here (over the objections of several board
> > > members) because that concerned neither a personnel nor a litigation
> > > issue and the members had a right to know about it.
> >
> > > As noted previously, Mike Nolan re-classified many of my public BINFOs
> > > as "Confidential".
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> My god Larry, this sounds like a cheap detective novel describing a
> low level crime syndicate of ignorant boobs who are bleeding a large
> group of "suckers" dry... This can't be our beloved USCF... Tell us
> your post is really just a Halloween prank. You know, boo and all
> that...
>
> Cheers,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 04:01:03
From:
Subject: Re: Confidential BINFOS
|
On Oct 31, 9:16 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 31, 5:18 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 131)
>
> > BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
>
> > EVANS: But isn't such secrecy extraordinary in a not-for-profit, tax-
> > exempt
> > organization charged with promoting chess in America?
>
> > ALBURT: The board certainly keeps a lot of things secret that they
> > shouldn't. I was denied access to many documents. And when president
> > Harold Winston came in, he tightened the secrecy despite his pledge to
> > run
> > an open administration. He regarded critics as enemies and tried to
> > hide
> > things from them.
>
> > EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but
> > had
> > to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its newsletter.
> > Isn't the board spending more and more time in closed session anyway?
>
> > ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind don't
> > belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse
> > to say
> > nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes they
> > knock
> > people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence or shut up.
>
> > EVANS: So didn't they become more careful around you?
>
> > ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared
> > together-the feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better.
> > When
> > someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed ranks
> > and
> > developed a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become one of the
> > boys as soon as they were elected.
>
> > EVANS: Can you give an example?
>
> > ALBURT: The change in David Saponara was dramatic. At first he
> > strongly
> > opposed the board's austerity budget. But after they talked to him in
> > Boston
> > [1988] he did an abrupt about face. What the board did was, in my
> > opinion,
> > technically wrong. They called an unofficial session from which I was
> > excluded where they made deals and persuaded Saponara to change his
> > mind.
>
> > EVANS: There's an old saying in politics that to get along you have to
> > go
> > along. Weren't you tempted to do this?
>
> > ALBURT: I felt a great temptation to be more conciliatory. You see,
> > after
> > all, they are not evil people. Personally many of them are very nice.
> > When
> > you're in the same room and spend a lot of time together, exchange
> > jokes
> > and try to solve problems, you develop a sort of caaderie. It's
> > natural.
> > But I had to remind myself that although we were friendly, the things
> > they
> > were doing in secret were plainly wrong. The system which existed, a
> > system of secrecy, could be easily abused. It certainly invited
> > corruption.
>
> > EVANS: Board member Harry Sabine said all that the reformers would
> > accomplish by trying to open things up is to force the board into
> > doing more
> > things behind closed doors.
>
> > ALBURT: Okay. It just shows their type of mentality. A siege
> > mentality.
>
> > EVANS: I was under the impression that the board only had the right to
> > go
> > into closed session to discuss things like sealed bids or legal and
> > personnel
> > matters.
>
> > ALBURT: They do many other things that should be discussed openly. For
> > instance, they went into closed session to discuss candidates to
> > replace Don
> > Schultz as FIDE delegate. They argued it was necessary because
> > otherwise
> > they could not say nasty things about other candidates in public, like
> > so-andso
> > is a drunk. My position was that if someone wanted to say something
> > derogatory, they could stop briefly to go into closed session.
>
> > EVANS: But doesn't much of this information get out anyway?
>
> > ALBURT: Of course. They leak information all the time to their
> > friends.
> > For instance, when executive director Gerard Dullea was given
> > authority to
> > fire Larry Parr as editor in closed session, it was supposed to be a
> > deep dark
> > secret. But when I came out of the meeting I was met by Jerry Hanken
> > who
> > told me how sorry he was, that if only he had been elected instead of
> > Sabine
> > such a dreadful thing never would have happened. Probably some board
> > member broke the news to him on the way to the bathroom.
>
> > EVANS: Why should there be such a need to classify information? Chess
> > is not the Pentagon.
>
> > ALBURT: The board is playing with its power. I can hardly ever recall
> > when any justification was given for going into closed session. Often
> > they
> > just wanted to bad-mouth people not being considered for jobs.
> > Especially
> > people who were my friends, but even some I didn't know. When I
> > challenged them and asked for proof, they said they were merely
> > speaking
> > their piece and giving their opinion.
>
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > [quote="sloan"][quote="samsloan"][quote="nolan"]The BINFO system has
> > > 646 entries from you between August 20, 2006, and August 1, 2007.
>
> > > Of those, 155 (nearly 25%) were sent to the confidential address BY
> > > YOU.[/quote]
>
> > > Thank you for these interesting statistics.
>
> > > I believe that you will find that almost always when I sent an email
> > > to the confidential BINFO address, it was because I was replying to an
> > > email by another board member to the confidential BINFO address.
>
> > > Sam Sloan[/quote]
>
> > > So, Sam - you are saying that the only reason *you* were sloppy was
> > > that someone else was sloppy *first*???
>
> > > That's an interesting standard of excellence you have there.[/quote]
>
> > > If another board member sends a BINFO ked "Confidential" and I
> > > reply to it quoting some of his words, I am obliged to k it
> > > confidential too.
>
> > > On the other hand, I feel that the only "Confidential" BINFOS should
> > > be those dealing with litigation and personnel matters. Therefore,
> > > when it was reported that Susan Polgar wanted to move the Polgar Girls
> > > Tournament to Texas Tech University and wanted to take over the Denker
> > > Tournament of High School Champions and move it to Texas Tech too, I
> > > posted that information here (over the objections of several board
> > > members) because that concerned neither a personnel nor a litigation
> > > issue and the members had a right to know about it.
>
> > > As noted previously, Mike Nolan re-classified many of my public BINFOs
> > > as "Confidential".
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> My god Larry, this sounds like a cheap detective novel describing a
> low level crime syndicate of ignorant boobs who are bleeding a large
> group of "suckers" dry... This can't be our beloved USCF... Tell us
> your post is really just a Halloween prank. You know, boo and all
> that...
>
> Cheers,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unfortunately, Larry is absolutely correct.
- Mike Petersen
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 01:16:08
From: j.d.walker
Subject: Re: Confidential BINFOS
|
On Oct 31, 5:18 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 131)
>
> BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
>
> EVANS: But isn't such secrecy extraordinary in a not-for-profit, tax-
> exempt
> organization charged with promoting chess in America?
>
> ALBURT: The board certainly keeps a lot of things secret that they
> shouldn't. I was denied access to many documents. And when president
> Harold Winston came in, he tightened the secrecy despite his pledge to
> run
> an open administration. He regarded critics as enemies and tried to
> hide
> things from them.
>
> EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but
> had
> to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its newsletter.
> Isn't the board spending more and more time in closed session anyway?
>
> ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind don't
> belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse
> to say
> nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes they
> knock
> people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence or shut up.
>
> EVANS: So didn't they become more careful around you?
>
> ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared
> together-the feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better.
> When
> someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed ranks
> and
> developed a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become one of the
> boys as soon as they were elected.
>
> EVANS: Can you give an example?
>
> ALBURT: The change in David Saponara was dramatic. At first he
> strongly
> opposed the board's austerity budget. But after they talked to him in
> Boston
> [1988] he did an abrupt about face. What the board did was, in my
> opinion,
> technically wrong. They called an unofficial session from which I was
> excluded where they made deals and persuaded Saponara to change his
> mind.
>
> EVANS: There's an old saying in politics that to get along you have to
> go
> along. Weren't you tempted to do this?
>
> ALBURT: I felt a great temptation to be more conciliatory. You see,
> after
> all, they are not evil people. Personally many of them are very nice.
> When
> you're in the same room and spend a lot of time together, exchange
> jokes
> and try to solve problems, you develop a sort of caaderie. It's
> natural.
> But I had to remind myself that although we were friendly, the things
> they
> were doing in secret were plainly wrong. The system which existed, a
> system of secrecy, could be easily abused. It certainly invited
> corruption.
>
> EVANS: Board member Harry Sabine said all that the reformers would
> accomplish by trying to open things up is to force the board into
> doing more
> things behind closed doors.
>
> ALBURT: Okay. It just shows their type of mentality. A siege
> mentality.
>
> EVANS: I was under the impression that the board only had the right to
> go
> into closed session to discuss things like sealed bids or legal and
> personnel
> matters.
>
> ALBURT: They do many other things that should be discussed openly. For
> instance, they went into closed session to discuss candidates to
> replace Don
> Schultz as FIDE delegate. They argued it was necessary because
> otherwise
> they could not say nasty things about other candidates in public, like
> so-andso
> is a drunk. My position was that if someone wanted to say something
> derogatory, they could stop briefly to go into closed session.
>
> EVANS: But doesn't much of this information get out anyway?
>
> ALBURT: Of course. They leak information all the time to their
> friends.
> For instance, when executive director Gerard Dullea was given
> authority to
> fire Larry Parr as editor in closed session, it was supposed to be a
> deep dark
> secret. But when I came out of the meeting I was met by Jerry Hanken
> who
> told me how sorry he was, that if only he had been elected instead of
> Sabine
> such a dreadful thing never would have happened. Probably some board
> member broke the news to him on the way to the bathroom.
>
> EVANS: Why should there be such a need to classify information? Chess
> is not the Pentagon.
>
> ALBURT: The board is playing with its power. I can hardly ever recall
> when any justification was given for going into closed session. Often
> they
> just wanted to bad-mouth people not being considered for jobs.
> Especially
> people who were my friends, but even some I didn't know. When I
> challenged them and asked for proof, they said they were merely
> speaking
> their piece and giving their opinion.
>
> samsloan wrote:
> > [quote="sloan"][quote="samsloan"][quote="nolan"]The BINFO system has
> > 646 entries from you between August 20, 2006, and August 1, 2007.
>
> > Of those, 155 (nearly 25%) were sent to the confidential address BY
> > YOU.[/quote]
>
> > Thank you for these interesting statistics.
>
> > I believe that you will find that almost always when I sent an email
> > to the confidential BINFO address, it was because I was replying to an
> > email by another board member to the confidential BINFO address.
>
> > Sam Sloan[/quote]
>
> > So, Sam - you are saying that the only reason *you* were sloppy was
> > that someone else was sloppy *first*???
>
> > That's an interesting standard of excellence you have there.[/quote]
>
> > If another board member sends a BINFO ked "Confidential" and I
> > reply to it quoting some of his words, I am obliged to k it
> > confidential too.
>
> > On the other hand, I feel that the only "Confidential" BINFOS should
> > be those dealing with litigation and personnel matters. Therefore,
> > when it was reported that Susan Polgar wanted to move the Polgar Girls
> > Tournament to Texas Tech University and wanted to take over the Denker
> > Tournament of High School Champions and move it to Texas Tech too, I
> > posted that information here (over the objections of several board
> > members) because that concerned neither a personnel nor a litigation
> > issue and the members had a right to know about it.
>
> > As noted previously, Mike Nolan re-classified many of my public BINFOs
> > as "Confidential".
>
> > Sam Sloan
My god Larry, this sounds like a cheap detective novel describing a
low level crime syndicate of ignorant boobs who are bleeding a large
group of "suckers" dry... This can't be our beloved USCF... Tell us
your post is really just a Halloween prank. You know, boo and all
that...
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
|
| |
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 131)
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
EVANS: But isn't such secrecy extraordinary in a not-for-profit, tax-
exempt
organization charged with promoting chess in America?
ALBURT: The board certainly keeps a lot of things secret that they
shouldn't. I was denied access to many documents. And when president
Harold Winston came in, he tightened the secrecy despite his pledge to
run
an open administration. He regarded critics as enemies and tried to
hide
things from them.
EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but
had
to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its newsletter.
Isn't the board spending more and more time in closed session anyway?
ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind don't
belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse
to say
nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes they
knock
people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence or shut up.
EVANS: So didn't they become more careful around you?
ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared
together-the feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better.
When
someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed ranks
and
developed a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become one of the
boys as soon as they were elected.
EVANS: Can you give an example?
ALBURT: The change in David Saponara was dramatic. At first he
strongly
opposed the board's austerity budget. But after they talked to him in
Boston
[1988] he did an abrupt about face. What the board did was, in my
opinion,
technically wrong. They called an unofficial session from which I was
excluded where they made deals and persuaded Saponara to change his
mind.
EVANS: There's an old saying in politics that to get along you have to
go
along. Weren't you tempted to do this?
ALBURT: I felt a great temptation to be more conciliatory. You see,
after
all, they are not evil people. Personally many of them are very nice.
When
you're in the same room and spend a lot of time together, exchange
jokes
and try to solve problems, you develop a sort of caaderie. It's
natural.
But I had to remind myself that although we were friendly, the things
they
were doing in secret were plainly wrong. The system which existed, a
system of secrecy, could be easily abused. It certainly invited
corruption.
EVANS: Board member Harry Sabine said all that the reformers would
accomplish by trying to open things up is to force the board into
doing more
things behind closed doors.
ALBURT: Okay. It just shows their type of mentality. A siege
mentality.
EVANS: I was under the impression that the board only had the right to
go
into closed session to discuss things like sealed bids or legal and
personnel
matters.
ALBURT: They do many other things that should be discussed openly. For
instance, they went into closed session to discuss candidates to
replace Don
Schultz as FIDE delegate. They argued it was necessary because
otherwise
they could not say nasty things about other candidates in public, like
so-andso
is a drunk. My position was that if someone wanted to say something
derogatory, they could stop briefly to go into closed session.
EVANS: But doesn't much of this information get out anyway?
ALBURT: Of course. They leak information all the time to their
friends.
For instance, when executive director Gerard Dullea was given
authority to
fire Larry Parr as editor in closed session, it was supposed to be a
deep dark
secret. But when I came out of the meeting I was met by Jerry Hanken
who
told me how sorry he was, that if only he had been elected instead of
Sabine
such a dreadful thing never would have happened. Probably some board
member broke the news to him on the way to the bathroom.
EVANS: Why should there be such a need to classify information? Chess
is not the Pentagon.
ALBURT: The board is playing with its power. I can hardly ever recall
when any justification was given for going into closed session. Often
they
just wanted to bad-mouth people not being considered for jobs.
Especially
people who were my friends, but even some I didn't know. When I
challenged them and asked for proof, they said they were merely
speaking
their piece and giving their opinion.
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="sloan"][quote="samsloan"][quote="nolan"]The BINFO system has
> 646 entries from you between August 20, 2006, and August 1, 2007.
>
> Of those, 155 (nearly 25%) were sent to the confidential address BY
> YOU.[/quote]
>
> Thank you for these interesting statistics.
>
> I believe that you will find that almost always when I sent an email
> to the confidential BINFO address, it was because I was replying to an
> email by another board member to the confidential BINFO address.
>
> Sam Sloan[/quote]
>
> So, Sam - you are saying that the only reason *you* were sloppy was
> that someone else was sloppy *first*???
>
> That's an interesting standard of excellence you have there.[/quote]
>
> If another board member sends a BINFO ked "Confidential" and I
> reply to it quoting some of his words, I am obliged to k it
> confidential too.
>
> On the other hand, I feel that the only "Confidential" BINFOS should
> be those dealing with litigation and personnel matters. Therefore,
> when it was reported that Susan Polgar wanted to move the Polgar Girls
> Tournament to Texas Tech University and wanted to take over the Denker
> Tournament of High School Champions and move it to Texas Tech too, I
> posted that information here (over the objections of several board
> members) because that concerned neither a personnel nor a litigation
> issue and the members had a right to know about it.
>
> As noted previously, Mike Nolan re-classified many of my public BINFOs
> as "Confidential".
>
> Sam Sloan
|
|
