>Sam, > >Perhaps you can explain a few things to everyone here. > >1. Why did you mail this message to a broad based mailing list and set it so >that Rachel did not have authorization to reply even though you make false >representations about her? As far as I know she has always been fair and >helpful to you and to all of the other candidates? >Dear Myron,
Here is my answer to the points you have raised in your letter:
You may be interested to know that I sent both of Rachel's replies to the Chess Discussion List. Rachel is not a member of that list and for that reason her messages bounced.
I must admit that I sent both of her messages to the list by accident, because I failed to notice that she had CCed them to the list in her reply to me. So, when I hit the "reply to all" button, which I customarily do, my reply, which included her letter, went to them.
Now, regarding the "false representations", I am aware that Rachel has a different philosophy from mine. Rachel feels that the tremendous squabbling and fighting which takes place at these policy board meetings do a disservice to chess and places the USCF in a bad light. Therefore, she believes that as little as possible should be said about this. In order to keep the general public from knowing how really bad things are internally with the USCF, she produces these milk-toast minutes which basically do not mention the many fights and arguments which have broken out at these meetings.
My view is exactly the opposite: When Tom Dorsch says for example that he has affidavits from voting members who say that Cavallo has called them and told them not to vote for Dorsch, I believe that this statement should be reported in the minutes. Perhaps someone will ask Dorsch to produce the affidavits which he says that he has. Personally, I do not believe that Dorsch has the affidavits, but I could be wrong.
>2. Why are you claiming that the minutes have been posted when they have >not? Rachel posts the unofficial summary immediately. The minutes come >substantially later. A summary is not the same as minutes. Its intent is to >inform members who are concerned about the results, not the details, as to >what happened. It is not only posted but it also goes into "Chess Life". >Readers of "Chess Life" already have too little chess information. Why >dilute that by making the unofficial summary anything even remotely close to >minutes?In the past, the "unofficial summary" has not been much different from the minutes. I doubt if any of the items which I mentioned or the more than a dozen or two other items which I did not mention, which took place at the meeting, will ever appear in the minutes, although perhaps they will now that I have raised an issue over this.
>3. How is your refusal to let people respond to your statements consistent >with your being in favor of OMOV?I am more than willing to let people respond to my statements. If the responses are any good, I will usually post them on my web site.
>Rachel does not know I am writing this. My comments do not necessarily >reflect her thoughts.I am glad that you are emancipated enough to do something without obtaining your wife's permission first. Unfortunately, there are far too few men out there like you any more.
To better illustrate the problem, here is another quote from Rachel's unofficial summary:
"Secretary Rachel Lieberman thanked Selby Anderson, Jim Gallagher, and Jesse Vasquez for their assistance with the CDC program in San Antonio, Texas. This program is expanding. The CDC affiliate in San Antonio is working with the Chess Trust to develop chess in the inner city. Part of the program now includes the Police in San Antonio playing chess with inner city children. The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children will be holding a convention in San Antonio on the same weekend as the CHESSathon. Mention was made that the outreach survey has been posted again at www.uschess.org."
I do not remember anything being said about this. Probably, Rachel did say this, just as she often states that having teens play chess will reduce teenage pregnancy, but nobody paid attention to this and certainly this was not a topic of discussion at the meeting.
Here is another quote: "Robert Hamilton (Canada) reported on a possible strategic alliance between the World Chess Network, the World Scholastic Chess Network, and the USCF. The Board was interested in this idea. Among other things, the alliance would establish a cooperative relationship with the USCF on the Internet."
Actually, Mr. Hamilton is working on a computer program which he hopes will be able to go into competition with ICC. Mr. Hamilton does not have his program ready yet, but says he will have it soon and when he has it it will be better than ICC. The "World Chess Network" and the "World Scholastic Chess Network" do not yet exist. We are still waiting.
Here is another quote: "Boris Yeshan, President of Shahcom Company in St. Petersburg, Russia, and Oscar Kuperman demonstrated an intelligent sensory board that is currently being used. The demonstration included its interface with the Internet. Mr. Yeshan, webmaster for the Russian Chess Federation, accessed the Russian website as part of the demonstration."
Actually, Mr. Yeshan was unable to demonstrate his board because it too did not work. Mr. Yeshan tried to get online with Russia but was unable to do so because his Internet connection was bad.
I am wondering why these items got into the "unofficial summary", when they either wasted time or accomplished nothing or did not work. Why, on the other hand, were the vituperative attacks by Tom Dorsch on almost everyone in chess, including Rachel Lieberman, not entitled to receive any mention in the "unofficial summary"? Tom Dorsch talked almost non-stop for the entire two days of the meeting. Why is almost nothing said by Treasurer Tom reflected in the "unofficial summary"?
As to your statement that the minutes will be published later, I need to remind you that we are in the middle of an election.
The matters concerned are serious. Just looking at the newsgroups, the impression created is that here we have this gallant white knight, Tom Dorsch, bravely riding out to do battle with the money-grubbing Bill Goichberg and his evil henchman Mike Cavallo.
Those of us who attended the May 1-2 meetings know that the real situation is much different. However, only 27 spectators attended the meeting plus the board and the Executive Director, so only 34 in all have an idea of what really took place there.
Right now, it is apparent that if the Dorsch group wins the election, Cavallo will have no choice but to resign and Goichberg may be forced to take his tournaments out of the USCF. Anybody who has attended these meetings will understand this. Hardly anybody who was not present is likely to realize the seriousness of the situation.
In 1996, Tom Dorsch campaigned to have Al Lawrence removed as Executive Director. Tom won the election and Al Lawrence resigned only one hour after the votes were counted. After that, Tom Dorsch campaigned to have his successor, George Filippone, removed. Again, Tom was successful and Filippone was removed.
This time, Tom Dorsch is campaigning to have Mike Cavallo kicked out. There is no longer any doubt about this. I have a real problem with this because not only is Mike Cavallo highly competent and qualified, but there is nobody to replace him. (Perhaps what Tom really wants is to become Executive Director himself).
My California people inform me that Tom Dorsch has never has a job and is supported by his wife, who works. This is to his credit, of course.
I am reminded of the infamous 1997 letter by Fan Adams in which Adams stated that Jim Eade "repeatedly takes credit for matters where he was more of a hindrance than a help." I have not attended many policy board meetings, but now I can see that what goes on at these meetings is vastly different from anything I had imagined.
Apparently, you feel that I am attacking your wife, Rachel. I believe you are being too thin-skinned. I do not think anybody else feels that way. The responses I have received are almost uniformly favorable, except for the name calling I have received from Tom Dorsch and Jim Eade as a result. (Eade has just called me a "Goichberg pimp" on the Internet.)
Sam Sloan
> > >Sam Sloan wrote in message <373b83fe.51865535@nntp.mindspring.com>... >>Happy Talk in the USCF Policy Board Minutes >> >>I have read the unofficial minutes of the May 1-2, 1999 Policy Board >>meeting as posted by the USCF Secretary at >>http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/pb9905us.html >> >>I disagree with Tom Dorsch on almost everything nowadays, but on one >>point I fully agree with him, which is that these minutes are >>absolutely unacceptable. These minutes provide zero useful information >>as to what actually went on at the May 1-2 meeting. From reading these >>minutes, one would think that the May 1-2 meeting was an uneventful >>love-feast. In reality, it was highly contentious, with all sorts of >>accusations, charges and counter charges being thrown across the >>table. >> >(snip) > >