After the new board members are officially certified, the next step would be to choose its officers. There are 4 positions:
– USCF President
– USCF Vice President
– USCF VP of Finance
– USCF Secretary
The other 3 members of the board will be members at large.
By late Sunday to Monday afternoon, you will see how the new board will vote for these positions. These votes will determine the faith of the USCF for the next 2 years. The USCF will either move toward a new professional direction, with the best interest and welfare of this federation as the #1 priority as the USCF voters clearly wanted in the election, or status quo will remain with politics as usual.
I will inform you of the results of the election and how EACH board member will vote.
In addition, I will also inform you of the votes of each board member in the next 4 years. As I stated before, each board member should be accountable for their actions, conducts and votes, good or bad. You have the right to know what elected officials are doing. It is time for a more transparent and more informative USCF. Stay tuned.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
This sounds thugish to me, Susan: “If anyone votes against me, they’ll be held accountable and pay the consequences!” Please, let’s try to cut the nasty politics out of it. Just tell us who wins.
I am sorry you feel that way. As I stated before, I will inform the USCF members of every issue and every vote during my term. If the USCF members do not agree with my positions or votes, they can dismiss me after my term.
Every board member should be held accoutable, including me. This was a part of my campaign and this is what I will do. It is time we put the best interest of the USCF first.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
Great! It’s about time someone will stand up to these politicians. Thank you Susan!
See you on Saturday Susan!
–Sevan
One proper means of using quotation marks is to actually quote someone else’s words. I feel that you, anonymous 10:47, are just projecting what you see as “thuggish”. I, for one, am looking forward to the tranparency of knowing exactly where each board member stands on every issue.
the bridge picture is inappropriate because of today’s tragic events.
Headline SAM SLOANE jumps off The Golden Gate Bridge!
Why inappropriate? Did I miss something?
I bet you $10 that Goichberg will try to retain his Presidency even though the membership gave him a strong message that they want a new direction with Polgar.
There is no committee regime. It’s Goichberg, Goichberg and Goichberg. He’s controlling Channing, Hough and Berry. I bet he’ll stay on as President.
Good for you Susan! Let the sunshine in. Don’t let Goichberg and these guys continue to ruin the USCF.
Goichberg may be a successful chess promoter but he is no leader. His behavior during the recent election cycle is deplorable: turning the USCF issues forum into a Wild West free-for-all (rememember: he was the one who called for less moderation and you saw cyber-bullies (L, P and N) dominating the discourse and driving away all the normal people who actually know something about chess); his bush league post card and e-mail campaign in which he took pot shots at Susan Polgar and lumped her with Sam Sloan (talk about negative campaigning); his inability to resolve the USCF pension issue and to let Donna Alarie and Brian Lafferty take pot shots at Grant Perks on the USCF issues forum. (I’m not saying that Alarie’s investigations into the pension issue are not legitimate — I have no idea of the facts — but that the inquisition did not belong on the USCF issues forum for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which was liability). All these blunders and examples of poor management and poor leadership on Goichberg’s part very clearly show that he is not up to the job of President. My preference would be for Susan for obvious reasons but if not, let Randy Bauer or Jim Berry have it.
I see that my post, questioning whether SP was being premature, non-committe-oriented and ‘political’ … got deleted.
These are fair questions, and meant as friendly advisories – so can we have a more enlighted censorship regime on this blog?
susan is rite we have a rite to kno n bacause susan a woman standin up for her tru beleives n not afraid bravo susan b proud hold ur head up high u r n will b the best person ever happen to uscf to this day still silence frm other whtever there called havent defended themselve oh n remeber susan doesnt have to defend herself her supporters du tht for her nothin to defend
Anon 8:19, your post was deleted because it was obnoxious. This has been the policy of this blog since day 1. If you cannot respect me on my own blog then don’t post here. All I ask for is the common courtesy and respect that everyone is entitled to have.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
Will you continue to inform us exactly how each USCF board member votes on whatever … if the USCF board votes that you should not do this?
Susan’s recommendations were Polgar, Truong, Bauer, Korenman.
Goichberg’s recommendations were Schultz, Jones, Lux, Berry.
Three of Susan’s were elected and only one of Goichberg’s, and that one (Berry) came only fourth, and was someone Susan also recommended next.
Thus the USCF voters clearly prefer Susan’s program, and would clearly prefer Susan as USCF President.
Let’s hope the members of the new board have the integrity to vote accordingly.
Anon 8:19 wrote:
{
I see that my post, questioning whether SP was being premature, non-committe-oriented and ‘political’ … got deleted.
These are fair questions …
}
Anonymous posters do not deserve as much respect or leeway as nicknamed posters; and anonymous posters deserve much less leeway than named posters (my full name is easily found thru my web link).
As a mere anon, you are literally a nobody.
If you want to ask tuf or semi-unpleasant questions, earn it by showing your full name.
Thanks.
GeneM
There has been some talk on the USCF issues forum about how much experience someone should have before taking on the position of President of the USCF. Experience is important but so is judgment. (Interestingly, a similar debate is being played out right now in the race for the Democratic nomination between Clinton and Obama.) For all his experience, Bill Goichberg has shown questionable judgment of late. The anti-Polgar postcard and e-mail campaign was bad judgment (and certainly seemed to backfire at the polls). Here is another example. On January 16, 2007, someone named Brian Lafferty joined the USCF. Since joining, he has played in 4 rated tournaments. If interested, you can look up his results on MSA. Three days later, on January 19th, Bill Goichberg posted on the USCF issues forum, proposing the formation of what subsequently became the FOC (Forum Oversight Committee). At the tail end of Goichberg’s post, he wrote: “Among those who I feel might be good possibilities for such a committee are Michael Aigner and Brian Lafferty.” If that doesn’t show questionable judgment, what does? Suggesting that someone who just joined the organization three days earlier be put on a committee charged with the sensitive task of overseeing forum moderation during an election season? With the benefit of hindsight, of course, we know that Lafferty went on to become one of the most partisan posters on the USCF issues forum and that Michael Aigner (who concededly would have been a great member of the FOC) actually cited him as one of the reasons for his recent resignation as Moderator of the USCF issues forum!
While I voted for the Polgar slate, my vote was NOT a vote against Goichberg. Rather, my hope is that that both Polgar & Goichberg (as well as the others) are mature enough to put aside differences so as to work together for the benefit of the USCF, its members, and chess.
Experience, bah. Where did the ‘experience’ of Goichberg and Schultz get the USCF?
The USCF needs the name recognition of Susan as President to get the big sponsorship deals.
She can gain the experience as she goes, and if needs be be helped out by the more experienced members.
Susan doesn’t want to have to wait around two years before she can get things moving. The time to get things moving is now. Big change is needed – now.
Please note that Berry was not part of Susan’s slate where as Bill G recommended him.
Also note that Giochberg didn’t contest this time and hence is not the loser or has a mandate against. Last time, he won with more votes than Susan.
GeneM, Aug 2nd, 4.59, comments to a poster that “as a mere anon, you are literally a nobody” and “do not deserve as much respect or leeway as nicknamed posters”.
I wonder what Susan’s or Paul Truong’s view is on this.
Anonymous refereeing is standard practice, ensuring that no ‘personalities’ interfere with objective and constructive-critical (i.e. thoughtful) discussion. Anonymous referees are on balance helpful and rarely destructive.
This is not to say that there have been abusive and negatively-critical posts here: I would have deleted those if it had been my blog. At the same time, I would not have left ‘hanging’ those really seriously abusive posts, which only serve to show the prejudiced nature of their authors.
The idea that a nickname says more about the contributor than ‘Anon’ is bizarre, even amusing.