I heard the quote below earlier today from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and it really touched me. I feel like it was written for me for the upcoming up USCF election. This is exactly how I approached this process!
“…before I committed myself and my family to this race, I wanted to be sure that this was right for us and, more importantly, right for the (country) USCF.
I certainly didn’t expect to find myself in this position a year ago. But as I’ve spoken to many of you in my travels across the states these past (months) years; as I’ve read your emails and read your letters; I’ve been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of (chess) politics.
So I’ve spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress that we so desperately need.”
I am tired of the dirty and destructive politics as usual. So many chess politicians spend too much of their time throwing out dirt and focusing of all the negativities instead of actually doing something productive for US Chess and the USCF.
This federation has sunk to a new level of unprofessionalism and destruction. As a result of this, we lost countless supporters and sponsors including the AF4C, an organization that has invested millions of dollars to help US Chess and the USCF.
We have to stop the bleeding! It is time for a change! We need to immediately restore the credibility, integrity and respectability back to chess and the USCF! There are many areas we need to work hard to improve on. But most important of all, we need to work together for the common good of our sport!
I am looking forward to a new and improved USCF! Together, we CAN end the typical “destructive politics as usual” and BEGIN a new positive direction. A special forum has been created to discuss and share ideas. Here is the link.
I want to thank all of you for your time, suggestions, encouragement and support!
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
There seems to be a widespread concern expressed out there that the finances of the USCF has not been handled as it should be. Otherwise intelligent people have opined that for all his faults we need Sam Sloan or somebody like him on the Executive Board to keep the rest of them honest.
Our side’s repugnance of Sloan should not blind us to the fact that there is a feeling of support for him out there that is based upon this. We need to address this concern and not just dismiss it out of hand.
Susan has stated elsewhere that she has detailed plans for the campaign. She can give her take on this concern when she’s ready. Here’s mine (reposted from the USCF Forums).
I edited the below posts for brevity.
————–
One thing that really bugs me is that a number of members seem to want to invest Sam Sloan with a quasi role of the USCF’s auditor. One man even opined in his thread on Sam that this was why he is neutral on his election. Another opined that concerns in the financial area is a reason why he thinks SS will get re-elected.
I submit that Sam Sloan is a bad repository of members’ desire to have financial defalcations and fraud exposed and corrected. We would do far better to look to professional auditors than to Sam Sloan to accomplish this task.
That is why a little education of auditor’s responsibilities and limitations could do a lot of good.
Has the USCF leaders been managing their relationship with the auditors properly? If they have, we members should expect certain things from the audit fees the USCF has paid out. For example, the Board (or a committee thereof) should have met with the auditors. They should have had an Entrance Conference at the start of each audit where Members told the auditors their concerns and reached an understanding as what issues were going to be addressed and which were not. Many of these issues (examples: relating to insider deals and missing assets such as laptops) should have been addressed there. The auditors would have been alerted to pay attention to these areas.
Then at the Exit Conference the Board Members would have had an opportunity to go over the audit with the auditors and what areas were addressed and what were not. What issues got resolved and how.
That’s the way Boards of non-profits handle auditors in my experience. I think that in the future at least, the Board needs to be more aggressive in managing its relations with the auditors. (And yes, cost/benefit considerations should play a role.) A whole lot of these controversies that trouble you and trouble us all would get handled.
Also note that nothing precludes Board Members from communicating with the auditors DURING the audit, either. The Board should establish policies in this area. This would go much further to actually resolve stuff, than relying on Sam Sloan and all of this attacking and defending which presently occupies so much of our attention in these forums.
If the Board HAS been properly managing it’s relationship with the auditors, then, these controversies should be moot. Just refer to the auditors and what they found when they examined there various areas of concern.
Summary: More reliance on professional auditors; less reliance on public controversies.
I also have a modest proposal of something we ordinary people can do to start cleaning up USCF politics RIGHT NOW. Since I don’t want to over-post here, I put it on Susan’s US Chess Decisions Blog.
I’m tired too of people like Schultz, Sloan and Marinello. We need new faces and new ideas. The same old stuff just doesn’t cut it anymore. I’ll vote for Susan and her team. I met all 4 members of her team and I like them all. I think the USCF will be in great shape under the leadership of Susan.
DT
Susan:
You should keep doing what you are doing — working hard to promote chess, teach and encourage the next generation of chess players, write about chess, etc. I am completely convinced that the USCF forums have a very limited audience. If you notice, it is the same 10 to 20 people who post day after day. The vast majority of people who are actually involved in chess as players, teachers, promoters, parents, do not have the time or the interest to read the USCF issues forum. Sloan was elected as a fluke because no one was paying attention to last year’s election and it enabled some washed up has beens in the chess world to play out some revenge scenario. It is inconceivable to me and many others that I have spoken to in the chess community — active teachers, IMs and GMs — that it could happen again. Not everyone in the U.S. chess community agrees with every single thing that you have said or done but by and large, you are respected for your many accomplishments and your tireless work on behalf of chess. Let the denizens of the USCF Issues Forum argue themselves into oblivion while the rest of us look forward to a new leadership in the USCF.
Best,
A Chess Mom Fan
Susan I think you should reconsider your approach to this election, because so far your campaign, at least on this blog, is rather weak.
Yes, we all know you think there are these “chess politicians” who are dirty and evil, but you have yet to call them out by name and point to whatever terrible things they have done. Doing so would give you much more credibility than your approach of being vague about who did what. This is not dirty politics – this is reminding voters of problems with the current gang, as long as you stick to irrefutable facts.
If your opponents are making unfounded accusations against you, you will need to confront at least one of them, dissect it and expose it for being a lie. Do this not only to defend yourself, but to expose your opponent and make him/her less credible.
Your reputation and hard work speak for themselves and will no doubt earn you many votes, perhaps enough to get elected. But politics is a rough game and you sometimes need to play rough yourself.
Best wishes, and for the sake of all of us, let’s hope you and your comrades do succeed and make some substantial changes when you get elected.
I have addressed ALL their outrageous and malicious lies. It is a long campaign season. I do not want to reveal all my cards yet. Everything will come out in due time.
I am committed to this very difficult battle. The future of the USCF depends on it.
Thank you.
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Jack, let me ask you just one question: What leads you to believe that Susan can successfully monitor the auditors? Does she have the same accountant’s experience, education, etc. that you have? Can she do more than ask general vague questions and nod her head while posturing?
Don’t get me wrong, I think that Susan’s spirit is in the right place. However, what YOU can do, or think should be done, is YOUR platform, not Susan’s.
Otherwise board members would simply delegate tasks and responsibility…something any child could do.
Jeff, thanks for your question.
I disagree that delegation is something anybody can do. The business world is full of examples of people in management who cannot delegate well.
Recently, a very famous man Kenneth Delay died from the stress of his having to go to prison. His defense (which the prosecutor did not contest) at his trial had been that he hadn’t done anything criminal; he just hadn’t delegated very well. Delay was CEO of Enron and presided over one of the biggest scandals in corporate history.
As for Susan, your point is a good one. As Paul Truong pointed out elsewhere, don’t underestimate her business abilities or acumen, though. She’s surrounding herself with a good team. I presume she will look to Randy Bauer to beef up the Board’s skills on the financial front.
Jack,
Thanks for your timely response.
While your point is well taken, I suppose it all depends on how you interpret my point:
As you point out, a manager can easily fail his or her duties by refusing to delegate responsibility effectively and efficiently (he or she micro-manages everything).
On the other hand, as I point out, if when challenged, a manager simply throws up his or her hands and exclaims “Hire an expert to figure it out and tell us what to do” every time he or she is faced with a difficult decision, they can become managers by proxy only and not in fact. As such, they often fall under the influence of unscrupulous, undesirable advisers wishing only to promote their own agenda and reward.
Thus, my concern…
IMHO, the best managers are exceptionally good at evaluating their expert advice, and selectively using it to get the most out of their business venture, as well as being exceptionally good/astute at managing [their] people, and “putting it all together”.