The motto of the USCF
The USCF is the National Chess Federation of the United States with a little over 80,000 members in which more than 50% are young people. This federation has been on the decline for years on many fronts, including financial and membership level. The USCF has lost a lot of its credibility and respectability in recent years due to poor management decisions, unprofessional and unethical conducts by board members.
That is why I think the upcoming Executive Board election is crucial. We must elect the most qualified candidates (who can help the USCF improve) who possess strong moral, integrity and professionalism. We cannot afford to send back the same chess politicians with little or no success year after year. It is time for positive changes! Please make sure you encourage everyone to vote. The future of chess is in our hands.
What other qualities would you like to see from the people who represent our federation?
posted by Chess Daily News @ 1/17/2007 12:02:00 PM
3 Comments:
At Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:04:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
I'd add accountability and altruism.
At Thursday, January 18, 2007 11:12:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
One other attribute that people out there are looking for is “whistle-blower”. People on the USCF Forums keep coming back to this again and again. There is a real feeling out there that bad stuff has been happening and someone needs to bring it out to light.
This seems to be the biggest reason why good people who recognize Sam Sloan’s bad qualities still support him for election. They want somebody better but ask, as one writer put it, “Are there any candidates who are willing to ask the tough questions and dig but without the baggage Sam carries?”
It is a mistake to dismiss these concerns. One big matter that is driving this is the $2 million that got spent down from during the years that the USCF was running those deficits. Members felt something was really wrong, but the leaders seemed to be just not addressing the problems. So the climate was set for the negativity we see now. A couple of other quotes:
“Sam brings the issues to light...the ones that nobody else wants to talk about but which really need to be dealt with in a more transparent manner than has happened in the past.”
“The positive things include his beingness to be a "whistle blower" in regards to the inner workings of the USCF and its governance and management.”
These are all coming from Sloan’s enemies. One of these quotes is even from a person seeking his recall!
I also get an undertow that somebody will need to keep an eye on Susan and her cronies. Thus, we may see a bunch of people who vote for Susan and Sam both.
So – another attribute: whistleblower.
At Thursday, January 18, 2007 11:15:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
Our side does not have to leave the whistleblower issue to Sam Sloan and his ilk. (Remember Clinton, the early years? The Republicans were always complaining, “He’s stealing our issues!”)
I think that if Susan and her team were to address the concerns underling this issue head-on, she could steal this issue from Sloan without compromising her own principles. Here’s how.
What if Susan were to pledge that every member who had a concern about waste, fraud, or abuse could bring their concern to her and she would consider every one? Those that she thought might have merit, she promised she would bring to the attention of the auditors.
I’ve done a lot of work developing this approach. We need to do more to educate USCF voters on the role and the limits of the auditors. There is a wonderful thread on the USCF Forums about Internal Control. (BTW not everything on that forum is bad.) One big idea to come out of this is to utilize USCF volunteers to do internal auditing. The Board would evaluate the professional qualifications of these volunteers, would approve the checklist of the procedures they propose to perform and then when finished, the Board could evaluate not only the auditors’ conclusions but also the evidence and the professionalism that supported those conclusions.
In short, I recommend that the Polgar Campaign call for a more aggressive Board management of audits.
The reason all of this is important is that it is an alternative to attacks and public controversies. We can address legitimate concerns by relying more on professional auditors instead. Sloan’s approach is to be loud, rude, and ineffective. Polgar’s approach would be to be quiet, professional, and effective. And that’s the choice that can be laid before the voters.
Post a Comment
<< Home