The battle line has been drawn
Even though I have no choice but to discuss about the upcoming critical USCF Executive Board election, the most important USCF election in a long time, I will try to post as little as possible on the main Susan Polgar blog.
The new twist is some of the USCF EB members want to stop the momentum of scholastic chess by taking away the opportunities for young players to earn hundreds of thousands worth of college scholarships.
This has been advertised by the USCF:
Annual Susan Polgar National Invitational for Girls
7/29 - 8/3 2007
Crowne Plaza Philadelphia-Cherry Hill
2349 West Marlton Pike
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
1-800-227-6963 - $114 chess rate
Polgar Details & Rules
This is a USCF sanctioned national event which my foundation, the Susan Polgar Foundation, and I funded for the past 3 years as well as this year. We have awarded more than $200,000 in college scholarships (UTD), cash scholarships and many other chess prizes. This is an event that motivates girls from across the country to play and stay in chess. Thousands of girls compete in regional, state and national events to qualify for this prestigious event.
I had to fight tooth and nail just to get this event off the ground in the first place. Some people did not want to see all-girls events exist. But it did and it became the most successful all-girls tournament.
After I made a decision to save each parents at least $1,000 in lodging and meal starting from next year, some of the Executive Board member decided to retaliate. This is a motion that was made by one of the board members with no objection by the other board members:
"Accordingly, I make the following motion: Resolved that the "Polgar" tournament is no longer a USCF National event and that the Polgar Committee is hereby disbanded."
The level of destruction is simply incredible. Instead of helping the scholastic and college chess community, they want to hurt it. They are asking you to vote for them so they would have another 4 years of destruction.
It is up to you to decide if you want to grant these people 4 more years of the same direction or if you want to drastic positive and professional changes. If you are sick and tired of the same old pattern of destruction from the USCF chess politicians, I ask you to vote for the team of Mikhail Korenman, Paul Truong, Randy Bauer and me. We will work hard to build a better, stronger and sound USCF.
Thank you for your support.
Labels: EB Election, Scholastic
posted by Chess Daily News @ 5/29/2007 09:05:00 AM
10 Comments:
At Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:42:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
How could the USCF continue to harm chess like this? Who voted these people on? Is there an impeachment process?
At Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:44:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
Don't forget that Dr. Leroy Dubeck, the same man who endorsed and successfully campaigned for Sam Sloan to be on the board to get back at his enemy Bill Goichberg, is now endorsing and campaigning for Joe Lux and Stephen Jones. Just for this alone, I would never vote for either of them.
At Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:46:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
It's horrible to ask the Denker and Polgar kids to play 12 hours of chess daily during the US Open. It's ridiculous!
At Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:32:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
What are these board members thinking? What are they on? Do they not care about scholastic chess?
At Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:38:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
This was posted by NM Michael Aigner:
I was physically present at the Executive Board meeting. Mr. Bogner, Mr. Payne, Mr. Hanken, Mr. Nolan and board members saw me in the room. I spoke twice but mostly listened.
It is highly unusual to see a committee vote unanimously one way and to have the Executive Board vote unanimously the other way. Needless to say, the Board vote makes matters very difficult for the members of the committee.
I can clearly say that the Board's vote was based largely on Mr. Channing's recollection of communication he had with Mr. Quinn. Implicit in this communication was an understanding that a mistake was made and an agreement to avoid the same mistake in the future. While this is nice and dandy in principle, the Executive Board members, e.g. Mr. Channing, do not spend time daily reading and reviewing complaints on the Forum. How then can the Executive Board know that the implied agreement is being held? And how can the Executive Board ensure that the committee works together after such a divisive action?
I didn't realize it at the time, but it is clear to me today that the Executive Board's vote achieves only one goal: to destroy the Forum Oversight Committee, or at minimum to start anew from scratch. I understand this is what some members of this Forum have long sought to achieve. Congratulations!
Michael Aigner
At Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:39:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
This was posted by Gregory Alexander:
According to the public EB audio transcript that was initially released, Hal Bogner indeed had access to the FOC; not because he is an FOC member, but one of the members in the FOC gave Hal, and allegedly, his other personal friends such as Brian Lafferty, access to the information in the private FOC and moderators forums. Furthermore, David Quinn (artichoke) also submitted the contents of the private messages sent by forum members that complained. This supposedly ‘Private Message’ sent to the FOC ended up in Brian’s hands, and I was told that several officially threatened lawsuits were initiated from the contents of this member’s private complaint. I need to reiterate that this was done by David as a trusted member of the FOC. He released tons of supposedly FOC private information to his narrow list of personal friends.
According to the audio transcript, the FOC made a motion to remove the FOC member that gave this information to Hal, but the motion was overturned by the EB. The means in which Hal accessed this forum, and David’s methods of providing this information to his personal friends appear to be quite underhanded. IMO as a concerned fellow USCF member, Hal, and others, used what is supposedly private information to promote their own narrowly defined needs.
I, along with others, have kept this to ourselves for over a month now; however, since this information continues to be erroneously bandied about by Hal, Brian, and others to promote their own agendas, it is time to state on record how Hal came by this information. While I am only writing in regards to what was stated in the open EB session, I can state personally that David’s acts caused me, and others, an enormous amount of grief. I personally do not like seeing any of the members that I serve, sued and attacked from the contents of what should have been a private message to the FOC.
Warning: if you complain to the FOC, based upon previous events; it should be considered that one FOC member has in the past shared a supposedly private complaint to his friends-- and you might have a legal papers served on you. Is this chilling? IMHO, yes.
Gregory, speaking as Gregory
Note that the audio transcript was a recording of an open session of the EB, and it was put on the USCF website for public review. It has since been retracted however, but this information is now in the public domain.
_________________
Gregory Alexander
At Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:40:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
This was posted by Terry Winchester:
That's not the point, David. You had no authority whatsoever to pass along information to others. As a result, and by unanimous vote, you were given a no confidence vote by the FOC. The EB decided to ignore the wishes of ENTIRE committee. Personally, I don't consider any of our communications private anymore as long as you're here. Just be aware folks that when you send us complaints, others may get to see them too. Your writings are no longer confidential as long as Mr. Quinn is around. What befuddles me is why Mr. Quinn thought that Mr. Bogner needed information regarding a complaint that had nothing to do with him.
_________________
Terry Winchester
You discuss everything else publicly, Hal, why not tell us how you came about this private information?
Readers: THE EB allowed me to sit in on a conference call, which was later interrupted by an accidental push of a switch. The matter at hand was the FOC, which I had not requested, but considering I am the Chair, I thought it would be good if I gave the members 2 hours of MY time.
_________________
Terry Winchester
At Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:43:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
This was posted by Terry Winchester:
An interesting point to this is that Mr. Quinn wrote a letter of defense to the EB. We, on the committee, never received this letter. It was said that if Mr. Quinn asked the committee to forgive him, it would be unfathomable for anyone to not accept the request. I echoed agreement to this. I think everyone on the committee would have extended a hand and their heart in forgiveness. Problem is, Mr. Quinn never asked us. Furthermore, we asked him for a copy of the letter, and offered him chances after chances to admit he was wrong, and you know what he said? ["The EB voted 6-0 to reject your no confidence"]. this indicated to me that he felt he has a mandate from the EB to do anything he wants regardless of the committees will. I'm not talking about one or a few individual members of the committee, I'm talking about the committee as a whole. We have, as a group, passed policies by which the committee will function, and about how information will be released. Mr. Quinn cares little if any about this. He has his mandate. Go and sin some more!
Terry Winchester
At Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:02:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
This was posted by Terry Winchester:
Hal, I've got a simple solution for you. Don't butt in to matters that are not of relevance to you. You had no standing to request confidential communications that didn't involve you. You can also calm the waters by stopping the falsehood that I've been malfeasant in my duties. Stop the complaining. You have yet to have any FOC action leveled against you, so why all the fuss from you? Is uppose you see yourself as Mr Lafferty's saviour?
Terry Winchester
At Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:07:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
It's incredible what Bogner, Lafferty and Quinn are doing. Very sad. It's worse to see such political, bias and poor judgement of the current board by voting 6-0 to condone an illegal and unethical act by a member of the FOC. Now I understand what people are talking about. I can never imagine what some people are willing to do.
The board and these gents are endorsing Mr. Jones and Mr. Lux. Did these candidates speak out against this type of behavior or do they condone and welcome it? I would be interested to know before I cast my votes.
Post a Comment
<< Home