From: chess...@aol.com (Chessdon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: 06 Nov 2004 19:15:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Beyond Question
 
 
Wayne:
 
Sorry for the go to hell statement. But I have had my fill of this. 
 
The people you talk about were not given rooms by me, they got them from the
office and had legitimate reasons for them. 
 
I've been accused of $50,000 theft or $40,000 theft on this with no proof and
then I hear from you that I should get Redman's  report to prove innocence; for
all I know it was a verbal report, 
 
The real point here is that this is the USA. In the USA one most be proven
guilty not told to go prove his own innocence. So rather than tell me to get
Redman's report, you would be better advised to tell those who claim I did
something inappropriate to give some factual basis for what they claim and
pursue it through proper channels such as Ethics violations.  
 
Don
 

 

Complaint Summary

 

There appears to be some suspicion to believe that a perception of a lack of impartiality resulting from irremediable competing interests by the current USCF Secretary, Mr. Donald Schultz, represents a violation of the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board section (2) which states “Any potential conflict of interest, whether due to financial, political, personal, geographical, organizational, familial, or other considerations, must be prevented from affecting any Board member in the discharge of his or her duties.”

 

Relief Sought

 

A non-discharged conflict of interest represents a very serious matter that can do lasting damage to an organization's governance, its reputation, its credibility, and its ability to carry out its mission. If the Committee determines that a violation of the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board has occurred, it is requested that the Committee submit a motion to the United States Chess Federation Board of Delegates directed towards the current USCF Secretary, Mr. Donald Schultz, which is appropriate for misconduct in office or neglect of duty.

 

Ongoing Executive Board conduct or fiduciary duty failings have real-time impacts to the organization and its reputation. Thus, as a matter of interim relief it is requested the USCF Secretary hold in abeyance the disputed conduct until a judgment by the Committee can be rendered.

 

Circumstances

 

According to the Bylaws of the US Chess Federation the Secretary shall preside over Federation elections.

 

From my understanding from Henry M. Robert’s work on Parliamentary Law someone who presides is responsible for seeing that the rules are enforced and business is transacted effectively on the basis of equality and impartiality. A presiding officer does not make the rules nor can his rulings be arbitrary.

 

The standards of conduct state: Any potential conflict of interest, whether due to financial, political, personal, geographical, organizational, familial, or other considerations, must be prevented from affecting any Board member in the discharge of his or her duties.

 

Impartiality involves having no direct involvement or interest and not favoring one person or side more than another. The perception of competing interests compromises ones impartiality. Traditionally a conflict of interest is simply a situation in which an individual has two separate and competing interests and it is unclear to others which interest will win out if it comes down to it. Even if something you’re considering isn’t actually illegal, a breach of the bylaws, or a damaging conflict, but it seems improper to someone from the outside then your organization’s reputation could still be damaged. Any perception of favoritism or arbitrariness of the presiding officer for an election may harm the organization.

 

It is my understanding when appointed by the Delegates; the USCF Ethics Committee may consider an allegation by any USCF member that an Executive Board member has committed a significant violation of this code of conduct. Usually the word significant indicates something meaningful that occurs not merely by chance.

 

Some will argue that what a USCF Officer does on their “own time” or in an “unofficial” capacity represents freedom of speech on his part and is not subject to the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board. I maintain at a minimum when transacting USCF business, when addressing or expressing opinions on USCF issues, or when dealing with USCF members, regarding this election the USCF Secretary is representing the organization. It is important to note when a member becomes an officer it is generally understood that he subjugates his personal interest for the greater good of the organization. 

 

At the end of this transmittal there are several examples for your consideration of what may be perceived as the USCF Secretary demonstrating he has a competing interest regarding the upcoming Executive Board election.

 

One of the first and foremost principles of parliamentary law is that of impartiality, equality, and justice for all.  Whenever an officer or member is given the responsibility of overseeing, carrying out, executing or presiding over an activity of the organization, it must be done according to the parliamentary laws that govern that situation, which usually include rules which ensure the democratic process.  So when a member is chairman of a committee or an officer, he does not have absolute power to do what he or she wishes, or thinks is best for the organization.  But he must follow what the members and the rules of the organization designate. 

 

One of the most important activities of an organization is the nominating and electing procedure of its officers.  Henry Robert realized that this activity needed to be protected from the tendency in human nature to have a small group pick their friends and cronies to be officers.  To prevent this abuse, there are rules in the parliamentary authority that state:

 

1.     the nominating committee should be elected by the organization wherever possible or else by its executive board.” 

2.     “…the president should not appoint the nominating committee or be a member of it –ex officio or otherwise.”

 

The point being that no undue influence should be exerted on this committee by the president or even the appearance that the president is influencing the nominating and electing process.  This then would hold true for any officer who is to preside over elections. When a presiding officer wants to participate in the business, Robert’s Rules provides for him to step down and let another preside. 

 

Since the secretary has been given this duty by the bylaws, he too should be absolutely impartial in all that he does.  To support another’s campaign or be a campaign manager for another member is not being impartial.  Some might consider showing oneself as an advocate of one side during an election may create the perception of competing interests that compromises ones impartiality. I would submit that if the USCF Secretary demonstrates he is an advocate of one side during an election the organization cannot expect the other side to consider, due to such competing interests, the Secretary to be an impartial judge in deciding any point of order regarding election matters. Such a perception could inhibit maximum effectiveness in the achievement of the goals of the USCF and thus should be mitigated to prevent any organizational impacts. Ultimately, if members do not believe that the elections are fair, it will be difficult to preserve unity, and it will result in a small faction who will constantly question the validity of actions of those elected. 

 

I therefore request a judgment from the Committee as to whether or not a violation of the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board has occurred. The issue at hand is if the perceived lack of impartiality by the USCF Secretary is at odds with the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board. Nothing more.

 


 

Evidence

 

Example One: From http://www.chessdon.com/new_page_3.htm as of April 15, 2005

 

2005 USCF ELECTIONS

Beatriz Marinello, Tim Hanke and I will have two more years of service before our term on the USCF Board expires. The other four Board members will be determined by this year's USCF elections. Every USCF member over 16 years old by June 1, 2005 gets a ballot in his/her June issue of Chess Life. Precise instructions on mailing that ballot are included. There are nine candidates shown on the ballot and you can vote for four of them. Below are the names of the four candidates I am endorsing and the reasons why:

Joel Channing: I support Joel Channing because he loves chess as much as anyone I have known and as a highly successful business man he brings to the Executive Board a wealth of knowledge and needed business know-how and expertise. For some quotes from Joel and a list of endorsements hit here.

Bill Goichberg:

I support Bill Goichberg because he has done more for US chess development than anyone. He has done it all both from the side of an employee and Executive Director and the side of the volunteer on committees and as a member of the Executive Board. He is honest, hard working, objective and very smart. It is only a matter of time until he is inducted into our Hall of Fame.

 

Robert Tanner:

I support Robert Tanner because of his involvement with chess, his love of the game and his proven track record in so many different areas of the chess world. Specifically he is a: Chess Expert/Master, National TD, International Arbiter, Organizer, Chess Teacher, Chess Collector, Chess Historian and has served in numerous volunteer positions.

 

Gregg Shahade:

Let's get some youth on the Board. And that is one reason why I am voting for International Master Gregg Shahade. Gregg comes from a chess family, his father is a former US Amateur Champion and his sister was the 2004 US Women's Champion. Aside from being a very strong chess player, Gregg organizes tournaments at the Marshall Chess Club and speaks out effectively on the chess issues of the day. I first met Gregg and his father at a chess camp I organized together with Yasser Seirawan. Ever since then, I have been a fan of the Shahades. Mike has two wonderful children in Jennifer and Gregg both of whom are destined for a lifetime of chess in the path of their choice. 

 

Return to Home Page

 

Joel Channing Quotes and Endorsements

 

The Quotes

“I love chess, especially what it does for children. I believe chess is the only pure (untainted) sport for children, the future of our country.”

"I know how to make a business succeed, I know how to work harmoniously with others and I’ve made enough money to give chess the amount of time it deserves."

The Endorsements

We the undersigned urge USCF members to vote for Joel Channing a very successful business man who will bring to the Executive Board  table a wealth of business experience and know-how:

Dean of American Chess - GM Arthur Bisguier,

Dale F. Frey, Treasurer, General Electric (ret.) and Chairman of the Board (ret.) of General Electric Investments, Inc.

World Champion Susan Polgar

Erik Anderson, President AF4C

                   Allen Kaufman, Former Executive Director Chess-in-the-Schools

Dan Lucas, President Chess Journalists of America

Bill Goichberg, USCF Executive Director, 2003 to 2004

Don Schultz, USCF Secretary & Board Contact Int'l Affairs

Bob Smith, Former USCF President

Mike Cavallo, USCF Executive Directors 1996 to 1999

 3-time US Champion & 1979 World Junior Champion Yasser Seirawan

Dr. Frank Brady, Founder Chess Life Magazine

Franc Guadalupe, President Florida Chess

Many time US Olympiad Team Captains John Donaldson

Paul Truong Captain and Manager 2004/05 US Women's Olympiad Team Captain

Harvey Lerman, Editor floridaCHESS

Jon Haskel, Co-chair USCF Finance Committee

Carol Jarecki, co-author USCF Official Rules of Chess

 Robert Tanner, FIDE Zonal President for USA

Former USCF Board Member Dr. Joe Wagner

2004/05 US Senior Champion Fabio LaRota

Return to Home Page

 

 

Example Two:

 

From: chess...@aol.com (Chessdon)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics

Date: 24 Jan 2005 09:42:57 GMT

Subject: Re: overzealous, arrogant ICC volunteers ?

 

>How can someone not (ever) be (have been) interested in the game and yet

>want to be involved in chess politics? It's like me wanting a seat on the

>board of the American Cat-Har Wool Knitting Society, or caring who gets

>elected to the Grand Synod of the Universal Church of Satan. Or like some of

>the posters here who have not been USCF members since 1992 or earlier, who

>are fascinated with what goes on at USCF headquarters. I don't get it.

> 

 

You ask: How can someone not (ever) be (have been) interested in the game and

yet want to be involved in chess politics. The answer for the individual

discussed in the letter Stan posted is that is notinterested in chess politics,

he is interested in playing chess and promoting the game and he believes he has

the ability and experience to make a difference in the way USCF manages its

affairs.

 

Joel is up studying chess at 7 in the morning. Beatriz knows that as she has

witnessed it firsthand.

 

He owns shopping centers and has installed chess tables for public use in the

central plaza of each shopping center along with a large built in the ground

chess board.

 

He is starting a chess club at Panera's in one of his shopping centers.

 

He is on the Board of the US Chess Trust and from what I heard people on both

sides of the aisle are impressed with his love of the game.

 

Leaders on both sides of the aisle agree with me that we need to bring talented

successful business folks like Joel into USCF governance.

 

This year, I tried tried to recruit two such leaders Joel Channing and Paul

Hoffman. Paul cannot run this time, He is an author and has business

commitments that prevent that it.He is also a former editor of Scientific

American and former President/CEO of Encyclopedia Britannica. But I am hoping

and expect that Paul will be available in 2007.

 

Joel Channing's credentials are just as impressive as Paul's and he is

available now. He already has the endorsement of such chess luminaries as GM

Yasser Seirawan, GM Arthur Bisguier, GM  Susan Polgar, IM John Donaldson, Erik

Anderson President of AF4C and virtually all the chess leaders in Florida

starting with the president of the Florida Chess Association Franc Guadalupe.

Joel also has an impressive endorsement from someone well qualified to assess

his business management credentials, a business associate: Dale Frey, Treasurer

General Electric (ret), Chairman of the Board General Electric Investments Inc

(ret).

 

Don Schultz

 

Joel is a former scholastic chess player planning his retirement from business

and looking forward to devoting the rest of his life to chess and family. The

posting of the nasty letter regarding Joel and his wife Susan on rgcp was

terrible and the accusations in it false. The libelous charges contained in it

should have been first verified by the poster.

 

You say you don't get it Angelo, considering the letter, I can understand that.

Tell you what, why not call Joel on the phone and talk to him about chess, You

will be surprised and will return here with a very positive impression of the

man.. Send me an email and I will send you his telephone numbers.

 

One last thing, if Joel is elected to the Board, he will be influenced by no

one, he prides himself in his independence and is clearly his own man.

 

Don Schultz

 

Example Three:

 

From: chess...@aol.com

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc

Subject: Re: The Year of the USCF Election Fraud

Date: 4 Mar 2005 09:35:48 -0800

 

> Don, while I have your attention, why don't you provide some insight

on the

> financial experience of the USCF during the years you were President

and Bill

> Goichberg was Vice President?  My recollection was that the losses

were, shall

> we say, significant, weren't they?  Is that the legacy your current

slate of

> candidates would inherit and seek to emulate?

> 

You can get the audited reports as easy as I can. The first two years

of my administration we lost I believe $20,000 total - truly an

insigificant amount. The last year I believe it was about a $200,000

loss but there were extenuating reasons that have been debated ad

nauseum. Bottom line I and Cavallo are not running against you. Very

capable and independent men are. So your "Slate" can go ahead and

campaign against us all you wish.

 

It will be a very close election and I urge all candidates to not waste

time defending themselves by saying: "Hey look what this other guy did

seven years ago, lets debate that." But that is my opinion, you are

entitled to yous.

 

Frankly, I don't want to see this election disintegrate into something

personal. Your Slate opted for Crossville  and opted to do it quickly.

You have done well in getting it there faster than many, including me,

thought possible. That's a plus for you. On the other hand, the

argument that you exaggerated your individual contributions to the turn

around is a fair argument against your side. You will have to decide if

countering it by bringing back the debate of seven years back regarding

Cavallo and me is helpful to your campaign.

 

As far as I'm concerned we have many good candidates and I look forward

to working with whomever wins. As for slates, like many others I think

you guys made a mistake. We shall see.

 

Don

 

Example Four:

 

From: chessdon@...
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005  2:35 pm
Subject: Re: [fide-chess] Re: The End is Near?

 

In a message dated 2/15/2005 1:45:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Chesstours@cs.com writes:

Stan Booz is a CPA who has made some serious allegations against Erik Anderson and AF4C which raised a record $277,000 for the last U.S. Championship in San Diego. He points to a website to back up his charges without interpreting them for those of us who are less sophisticated.

Exactly what is AF4C doing wrong? What are they doing that other Foundations are not doing? How much are their directors being paid, and how does it compare with what other executives of charitable Foundations get?

I called Erik and he said AF4C books are open, their Directors do not get get paid (their ED does get paid), they have had their financial audit and he has absolutely no idea what Booz is talking about.

 

Erik and AF4C have truly saved, among other things the US Championship. They are the biggest contributors to USCF. For a USCF Financial Co-Chair to attack such an organization does not serve the USCF well.

 

The current Board majority ought to demand  some basis for what he said and if he cannot explain it, then they should reconsider their vote against my motion to have Booz fired.

 

Allowing the charge to stand unsubstantiated and taking no action is unacceptable and will, IMO, result in the defeat of all Board members running for re-election.

 

Don Schultz

 

Example Five:

 

From: chess...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: Please vote for...
Date: 19 Apr 2005 04:25:53 -0700

The following candidates would bring a great deal to the Executive
Board:

1) Joel Channing who says: "One thing I've learned in business is that
if you don't evolve you become irrelevant. I will push hard for a
retreat, bringing together our leaders, recognized experts in the
various facets of chess, and potential strategic partners, along with a
top notch facilitator to create a master plan for coherent action to
properly promote chess and keep USCF relevant.

2) Bill Goichberg, the country's leading organizer jumped in as
Executive Director and contributed significantly to USCF financial
stability during the 2003-04fiscal year.

3) Robert Tanner is a TD/IA, strong chessplayer, noted organizer of
scholastic and professional tournaments, chess teacher, chess
historian, chess collector and USCF FIDE Zonal President. He will bring
to the Board a wide range of knowledge and experience.

4) Greg Shahade, a young professional chessplayer and organizer. He is
not afraid to speak out on such subjects as GM cheating and petty
politics among organizers. Greg and his generation are the future of US
Chess.

 

Example Six:

 

From: chess...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Please vote for...
Date: 19 Apr 2005 19:43:50 -0700

Stan Booz asks:
Has Don ever encouraged someone from NY or Palm Beach to sue?

Absolutely not.
I'm Joel's campaign manager and even though I believe
he is 100% right and will inevitably prevail, I doubt this will help
his campaign and did told him that it would likely cost him some
additional votes to those the bad publcity of the false charges
. But
he had other considerations outside of chess. That is his business.

On the other hand bringing in some talented highly successful figures
like Joel and Paul Hoffman to our leadership and perhaps a few others
is a personal project of mine. Paul declined but IMO likely will run
the next time. By the way, I have never met Paul but sought him out
after seeing him on TV and have since had several telephone discusions
and email exchanges with him. For thosee who don't know who Paul is, he
is an author, former Editor of both Scientific America and Discovery
magazine.and former CEO and President of Encyclopedia Brittanica. he is
also a USCF member, has about a1900 rating an is nearing retirement.

 

Example Seven:

 

From: chess...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Unprecedented CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!
Date: 28 Apr 2005 17:14:23 -0700
 
I found out that Beatriz had sent her endorsements to floridaCHESS the
night before it went to the printer. Those endorsements could have
decided this election which will be close.as floridaCHESS only comes
out 4 times a year and won't come out again until after the election.
She is a smart politician and almost had a coup. Luckily, I found out
about this somewhere between the eleventh hour and midnight and managed
to match her thrust having my endorsements printed side by side with
hers. We both had a laugh over our 4 to 4 tie, C'est la politique.

 

Response

 

Response to Ethics complaint from Mr. Praeder about a perceived conflict of interest on my part in actions I took in my USCF Secretary position.

 

The complaint is very general. The last sentence reads: “The issue at hand is if the perceived lack of impartiality by the USCF Secretary is at odds with the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board. Nothing more.” Here are my comments:

 

1) I have meticulously dealt with my Secretarial duties in a fair and impartial manner. In this year’s election I informed all candidates of schedules promptly and repeatedly reminded them of their deadlines for submission of information. I don't believe any predecessors did this to the same time degree as I did and several did not do this at all.

 

2) I have consulted with the President and our attorney and have always come to agreement with them in the actions I took on the ongoing ballot problem.  I can't think of one action I took that did not end up having a consensus of the EB and involved officials.

 

3) The endorsement of candidates by the Secretary is not banned by the bylaws and has routinely been done by my predecessors. Many former Secretaries have themselves run for the Executive Board while supervising their own election. The fact is when I endorsed candidates I did nothing that was not done before. The fact is other EB officers do the same thing. The President just endorsed four candidates using her title and did it on USCF stationery using the USCF logo. She is on the opposite political side as I am, yet I told her and others that without specific bylaw sections prohibiting this type of electioneering I do not object to it and as far as I know her predecessors did the same thing.

 

4) In the past, USCF Secretaries had access to mailed in ballots by keeping a key to the PO Box to which the ballots were mailed. I stopped that practice by having ballots mailed directly to our auditor and are never removed from the auditors office. The instructions to the Auditor were that nobody including the USCF President or Secretary would have access to those ballots before the vote count.

 

5) As for the vote counting, I did something never done before: I appointed two individuals to supervise the vote count, in effect removing myself from that process. These two men are held in high esteem  by ALL political factions that I know.. They are Pete Tamburro, former CJA President and Glenn Petersen former Chess Life Editor.

 

6) I note that all Board members except me are actively supporting the same four candidates in this year’s election all of whom are different than the four candidates I am supporting. Obviously, that is their right. Furthermore even though they don't support the same candidates as I do they have voiced no objections or disagreed with any actions I took in my duties of presiding over the 2005 election.  

 

What Mr. Praeder should do, in my opinion, is to submit a recommended motion to one of his USCF state delegates. The motion should not be personal and should be aimed at explicitly banning actions by USCF officers, actions that he perceives rise to the level of misconduct.

 

Sincerely,

Don Schultz,

USCF Secretary

 

 

 

Rebuttal to Response

 

 

Dear USCF Ethics Committee Members:

 

 

Conflicts of interest undermine ones ability to make impartial decisions. Such conflicts can damage ones reputation as well as the reputation of our organization. Perceptions of conflict of interest can be just as damaging as actual conflicts because they undermine the membership’s confidence in the organization.

 

A conflict of interest occurs when an Executive Board member has a personal interest that may compete with the discharge of his or her duties. That interest may impair ones ability to conduct the corporation’s business with impartial and independent judgment. An apparent conflict of interest arises when a reasonable person, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would question the impartiality of the individual in the matter being considered. While a possible conflict between personal interests and corporate interests does not always result in significant damage to the corporation, its very existence creates an inappropriate condition. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided.

 

To resolve this complaint, the two basic questions that require answers are 1) Does the USCF Secretary have a competing interest that can be perceived to compromise his impartiality? and 2) Does such a conflict of interest represent a violation of the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board?  It was not very apparent exactly what the Secretary was arguing in his response or if the above questions were directly addressed.  Not trying to over simplify or distort, but to recap before addressing each point of the response,  it appears the Secretary claims he is and has been impartial during this election because he did several things to improve the election process that his predecessors did not do, everything has been done with the consensus of the Executive Board, his behavior is not banned by the USCF Bylaws, this is how it has been done in the past, no one on the Executive Board has objected to his behavior, and other officers have also not been impartial regarding this election.

 

The Need for Impartiality

 

The Bylaws of the US Chess Federation Article IX Section 15 designate Robert's Rules of Order as the organization’s parliamentary authority that shall be used at all meetings and in all cases to which they are applicable. Since the USCF Secretary has been given the duty by the bylaws to preside over Federation elections, the USCF Secretary is responsible and accountable for the effective conduct, according to the rules, of those elections. Also consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order, as one who presides, the USCF Secretary must be absolutely impartial in the discharge of these duties. Being impartial involves the appearance of no direct involvement or interest in the outcome of the election and not favoring one person or side more than another. It is a common practice that when a presiding officer presides over a meeting or process they are acting in their official capacity. One cannot remove themselves from presiding over the current business without relinquishing their position to another.

 

This complaint is in regard to the perceived impartiality of the USCF Secretary and is not a performance evaluation of the effective conduct of the election. In other words this is not about evaluating the smooth functioning of the election but about the appropriateness of the perceived behavior of the USCF Secretary during the election.

 

The USCF Secretary claims to have meticulously dealt with his Secretarial duties in a fair and impartial manner. The USCF Secretary has access to confidential information concerning the election as well as information usually not available to the candidates. More is required than just good intentions and attention to the tasks of the job. I would submit to publicly support another’s campaign or to campaign against others is not being impartial. To be a campaign manager for another member is not being impartial. Taking outspoken public positions, or playing politics, during an election regarding issues that align with the interests of candidates one endorses would be considered by many as also not being impartial. Such partisan activity by the USCF Secretary, an individual charged with presiding over Federation elections, can be perceived as representing a fundamental conflict of interest that may prevent the USCF Secretary from demonstrating an unbiased and accurate election. It can be viewed by others that this conflict impedes the duty of USCF Secretary to preside over Federation elections, undermines the integrity of Federation elections, and diminishes the membership's confidence in our electoral system by casting doubt on the results of Federation elections.

 

The Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board were adopted in 1997 and the first Ethics Committee appointed by the Delegates with the authority to oversee such standards was in 1998. All actions taken by the Executive Board must be consistent with the Bylaws of the USCF, and with all policy established by the USCF Board of Delegates. Thus an Executive Board member may not serve as a mere figurehead. He/she should know and understand the corporation’s bylaws, business, rules, and standards of conduct. Ignorance of the intent or application of the rules or standards can be considered neglect of duty. Any behavior that is found to be in violation of the Executive Board standards of conduct is misconduct.

 

Some may consider a lack of impartiality by the USCF Secretary represents a violation of the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board which states any potential conflict of interest, whether due to financial, political, personal, geographical, organizational, familial, or other considerations, must be prevented from affecting any Board member in the discharge of his or her duties. It is however up to you, the Ethics Committee, to decide if there is such a violation.

 

At the end of this rebuttal there are additional examples as evidence for your consideration of what may be perceived as the USCF Secretary demonstrating he may not be absolutely impartial regarding the current Executive Board election.

 

Rationales for Behavior
 

The Secretary has stated “I can't think of one action I took that did not end up having a consensus of the EB and involved officials.” Does this mean that the Executive Board and all involved officials consented to the USCF Secretary publicly campaigning for others, being the campaign manger for another, or making enhancements to Chess Life candidate statements? In any case, even if many people support such actions by the USCF Secretary it has little bearing on if such actions have the appearance of a competing interest or are at odds with the standards of conduct.

 

It has been argued that the endorsement of candidates by the Secretary is not banned by the bylaws. I would find it hard to believe that the USCF Bylaws Committee has ruled in this manner on this point. The Bylaws of the US Chess Federation do state the Secretary presides over Federation elections. The bylaws do designate Robert's Rules of Order as the organization’s parliamentary authority in which one who presides should be absolutely impartial in all that he does. It is also important to note the bylaws do not state the Secretary may publicly campaign for candidates or act as the campaign manager for another. It would be difficult to construe that the USCF bylaws or rules of order in any way give permission for such behavior by the presiding USCF Secretary. Regardless, the results of your deliberations will determine if the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board is also germane to this issue.

 

Further it has been presented that past USCF Secretaries have not been impartial regarding Federation elections. Thus it is implied that such practice is acceptable due to tradition. However, no specific evidence has been presented that a previous USCF Secretary has been a campaign manager for another member. No specific evidence has been submitted that since 1997 any former Secretary have themselves run for the Executive Board while supervising their own election. This would include Rachel Lieberman, Doris Barry, Bob Smith, and Frank Brady. It appears, however, that no complaint was submitted to the Ethics Committee regarding a last minute public endorsement of candidate Donald Schultz by the then USCF Secretary during the 2003 Executive Board election as that USCF Secretary only had a month left in his term of office.

 

The current standards of conduct have been in force since 1997. If the current standards of conduct are in conflict with past practice then there is a good reason for changing that particular practice. The claim "that is how we have done it in the past" does not make it right or make it consistent with the current application of the standards of conduct. Further, defending a particular wrongdoing by drawing attention to another instance of the same behavior that apparently went unchallenged is not relevant. Few people would defend, in principle, the view that a violation of the standards of conduct by one person justifies similar behavior by another.

 

The Secretary has stated that others on the Executive Board have voiced no objections or disagreed with any actions he took in presiding over the 2005 election. Even if this claim is true, the absence of objections or disagreement against the Secretary’s actions cannot be regarded as proof such actions do not have the appearance of a competing interest or are not at odds with the standards of conduct.

 

It has also been argued that other officers have not been impartial in this election. Indeed when individual board members manage a candidate’s campaign or publicly endorse individual candidates, it can be counterproductive to a board’s teamwork and trust. However, the simple fact is that other USCF Officers are not presiding over the election. Regardless, the behavior of another person or group does not constitute any logical justification for the USCF Secretary to behave in a similar manner or relieves the USCF Secretary of conformance to the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board.

 

Improving Fiduciary Accountability

 

Too long the USCF had only been concerned with the legality, not the propriety, of the behavior of its leaders. The implementation of the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board has added propriety as an organizational concern. How our leaders conduct themselves on our behalf has become as important as what they do on our behalf. Anything our leaders can get away with, including ignoring their fiduciary duty as well as the corporation’s rules or standards, is no longer acceptable. The members of the USCF have a right to trust that an Executive Board Officers will conduct the organization’s business without the specter of conflicts of interest. Unresolved conflicts of interest should no longer be tolerated in our Federation.

 

The existing laws and standards governing fiduciaries already explicitly require that they maintain undivided allegiance to the interests of their organization. They also have a duty to know and follow the rules governing the corporation. But these laws, rules, or standards have not always been enforced, no sanctions imposed, nor have there been penalties for inaction. Not withstanding various laws, rules, and standards, there are good and practical reasons we demand the appearance of impartiality from our presiding officers just like we do from our judges.

 

Once again, the issue at hand is if the perceived lack of impartiality by the USCF Secretary is at odds with the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board. Nothing more.

 

 

Sincerely,

Wayne Praeder

USCF Member ID 12887461

 

Additional Evidence

 
Example Eight:
 
From: chess...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: CHANNING, TANNER AND GOICHBERG AND THE CHESS TRUST
Date: 4 Jun 2005 16:41:09 -0700
 
The above was posted here:
 
?Mr. Channing is responsible for the content of his own Chess Life
election
statements. Furthermore, even if Mr. Tanner was not responsible for the
way
his name was used by Mr. Channing in the May Chess Life issue, he had
ample time to protest it before it was repeated in the June Chess Life,
especially since Channing and Tanner are both part of the Goichberg
endorsed slate."
 
This is so sad. USCF needs new blood and fine people in leadership
roles. Joel Channing is first of several veryy successful, highly
principled people whom I am trying to bring on board. I am embarassed
by what he is seeing in our organization.
 
As our VP of Finance has said: Joel has helped USCF get good conditions
on a recent bank loan for the construction of the Crossville building.
Yet, he is now being accused (without any reason) of getting even with
USCF for not moving to his home town of Palm Beach Gardens.
 
Here he is being accused of violating a Trust rule of having someone
enter an endorsement for him using the Trust name. Well I entered that
title of Robert for the May issue on my own. I had no knowledge of the
Trust rule.
 
So  the charge then goes well it should have been changed for the JUne
issue because there is plenty of time between delivery of the May issue
when Joel and Robert  would have seen it and the making the change for
the June issue. Well that folks is simply not true. Winston got the May
issue first, he called me and asked me to change it in the June issue.
I immediately called Gerry Dullea acting editor and he sought tp make
the change - too late. The fact is you have to get changes in well in
advance to make the deadlines for the next issue and there was not
enough time.
 
And really folks we have two good men working for the Trust and the
appearance of their title in the endorsement was hardly noticeable -an
identifying title among a lot of other titles and names incuding Erk
Anderson of AF4C. But the Trust has a rule and we won't make the same
mistake again.
 
The real sad thing here is that the Trust is now getting a GREAT DEAL
OF PUBLICITY they don't want because some of its members saw this as a
way to make poltical hay.
 
Yes I am indeed sad for and embarassed by our organization.
 

 

Subj:

USCF Election endorsement listing trustee title 

Date:

6/5/2005 5:18:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

From:

HJWinston

To:

ssamole@excaliburelectronics.com, ESDOYLE, hc.dondis@verizon.net, JimEade, Rtannerae, azchess@cox.net, joel@channing corporation.com, redman@utdallas.edu, redmanink@yahoo.com, LWDubeck, Ippy1, dbelcher@sccscap.com, ddylan11@earthlink.net

CC:

Chessdon

 

Dear Fellow Trustees:

 

    I want to make you aware of the following situation which has occurred. A few months ago I sent out past Trust resolutions providing basically that the Chairman, President, and Treasurer of the Trust would not make any USCF election written endorsements and that any Trustees who made endorsements would not use their title of US Chess Trust Trustee.

On May 4, 2005, when I received my May issue of Chess Life I noticed Robert Tanner was listed as one of Joel Channing's endorsers with the title of Trustee of US Chess Trust. I immediately emailed Robert and Joel pointing this out and that it violated our resolutions.Robert immediately emailed me back, stating he had given permission for use of his name but not for the Trustee title and that such a listing must be an error. The next day I received an email from Don Schultz, stating that the listing was not the fault of Robert or Joel but that Don Schultz had inserted the title without checking first with either Joel or Robert.Don apparently is serving as Joel Channing's campaign manager. Don stated he would not use the Trust title in any future materials he prepared. 

 

    A few days later I specifically asked Don to make certain that the same mistake did not occur in the June Chess Life. Later Don informed me he had requested a change be made for the June issue but Gerry Dullea had stated it was too late for the change to be made.

 

    I think this is very unfortunate but I do not believe Robert Tanner is at fault in any way. I also do not think Joel Channing had any intention to violate our resolution. I have received emails from Steve Doyle on this subject and received a telephone call yesterday from Leroy Dubeck, who has mentioned this on a posting.  I do want all Trustees to know the facts as I know them. I commend the great majority of the Trustees for following our resolutions.

 

    I hope this information is helpful.

 

 

Subj:

Re: USCF Election endorsement listing trustee title 

Date:

6/5/2005 9:08:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

From:

Chessdon

To:

JimEade, HJWinston, ssamole@excaliburelectronics.com, ESDOYLE, hc.dondis@verizon.net, Rtannerae, azchess@cox.net, joel@channing corporation.com, redman@utdallas.edu, redmanink@yahoo.com, LWDubeck, Ippy1, dbelcher@sccscap.com, ddylan11@earthlink.net

 

In a message dated 6/5/2005 8:49:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, JimEade writes:

 

Dear Harold,

 

Why would Don have inserted that title or otherwise altered in any way a candidate's statement?

 

Jim Eade

 

For identification and to add to Robert's credibility. Actually, I screwed up, also unintentionally, on another title adding credibility to someone else.

 

I called Yasser Seirawan a three time US Champion when I should known that Yasser is a four time US Champion, but fortunately Yasser was  understanding.

 
 
Example Nine:
 
From: chess...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: CHANNING, TANNER AND GOICHBERG AND THE CHESS TRUST
Date: 5 Jun 2005 20:01:06 -0700
 
Stan Booz said :
 
"Nonsense. His statement consists principally of support from a lot of
people
who never even heard of him. That is until you called them up and asked
if
he could drop their names as supporting him"
 
That is simply not true. Stan clearly assumes and doesn't know but
pretends he is conveying true information.
 
Let's go down the list of those endorsing Joel in the June issue of
Chess Life:
 
Dean of American Chess GM Arthur Bisguier: Arthur gave a simul at a
Festival for chess children in one of Joel's shopping center. He had
several discussions over lunch and dinner with Joel about the future of
American Chess. Joel and I played as a team in against Arthur in his
simul and won either the only game against him or one of the only two
wins against him.
 
Treasurer General Electric (ret.) Dale E. Frey: A business acquaintance
and personel friend of Joel's who was one of the two or three senior
manegers of arguably the world's best managed company. He endorsed Joel
because he had first hand experience of Joel's business capabilities.
 
World Champion Susan Polgar: Joel has had several meetings and with
Susan and is currently organizing an attempt by Susan to break the
world record for number of games played simultaneously.
 
President American Foundation for Chess Erik Anderson: They have had
several discussions about where chess is headed.
 
Past Executive Director American Chess Foundation Allen Kaufman: Joel,
Allen and I had luncjh together in Palm Beach Gardens where we had an
intense discuss on the future development of chess in the US. After
lunch Joel and I played a game of chess against Allen with large pieces
on an in the ground chess board in the center of one of Joel's shopping
centers. Allen beat Joel and me though we gave him a good game.
 
Dan Lucas , President of the Chess Journalists of America hadn't met
Joel when asked to endorse him and rightly said no. Later he researched
Joel's statements and positions and qualifications and consequently
agreed to endorse him.
 
Bill Goichberg visited Palm Beach Gardens and met with Joel in his
office and later over lunch. Again the discussion was what to do to
best advance chess in the US. Since then they had numerous contacts.
 
Don Schultz: Joel called me several years ago after there was an
article in the Palm Beach Post about my book. He invited my wife Teresa
and I to join him and his wife Susan for dinner. He said he always
loved chess and wanted to find ways to become involved, start a chess
club in Palm Beach Gardens and help develop the game. We have since
become good friends.
 
Foremer USCF Executive Director Mike Cavallo met Joel at the 2004
Senior Open in Boca Raton. They had on and off discussions for a week
or so about chess and what needs to be done.
 
Four time US Champion Yasser Seirawan met Joel at a dinner we had
together with Shane Samole Al Lawrence, and our wives. Again lots od
discussion on chess.
 
Dr. Frank Brady, Founder of  Chess Life and former USCF Business
Manager has had numerous meetings, dinners etc. and discussions with
Joel. The first one was a few years back when Frank and his wife Maxine
were staying at a friend of mine's Florida Condo.
 
President Florida Chess Association Franc Guadalupe met Joel at several
Florida tournaments that Franc directed.
 
Co-Chair Finance Committee Jon Haskel: Jon and his wife Joanne are good
friends of the Channings and Teresa and I. Many, many discussions took
place between Joel with your co-chair Stan.
 
Robert Tanner: I don't recall when they first met but they have been in
contact for some time.
 
Co-author Rules of Chess Carol Jarecki: Visited Joel in Palm Beach
Gardens for one of our frequent luncheon discussions with leading chess
officials.
 
US Senior Champion Fabio LaRota met Joel at the 2004 US Senior Chess
Championship
 
There are two points here Stan. First, those who endorsed Joel knew the
man they were endorsing and NOT as you stated endorsed someone they
didn't know simply because I asked them to.
 
Secondly, Joel did not enter this election casually. He did so after
extensive discussion with leaders of US Chess and only after he became
convinced he could help primarily because of his business expertise.
 
Don Schultz
 
Example Ten:
 
From: chess...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: FROM BEATRIZ MARINELLO, USCF PRESIDENT
Date: 29 Apr 2005 08:21:42 -0700
 
George John said:
 
You can offer the motion, too, if you think that doing so is in the
best interests of the organization, which it sounds like you do.
 
I do and would support that motion.
 
Beatriz cannot do it because it is self serving.
 
I voted against the move to Crossville because of a lot of unknowns by
me. There are 3 members of the Board who are candidates they should
make that motion and not play chicken with me forcing me to make it. I
probably will make it but not until after waiting enough time for their
failure to make it to hurts their election chances. I don't say they
are playing games maybe they don't read their emails which IMO is
equally bad.
 
Don Schultz
 

Supporting Material

 

Response Three:

 
 
From: Myron and Rachel Lieberman <myronandrachel@...>
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005  7:32 pm
Subject: Re: FYI
 
Hello all,
 
Apparently Rachel and I have been accused again of public support of
candidates during our terms in the office of Secretary.
 
Neither of us have ever publicly supported any candidate except
ourselves for re-election while in office. Period.
 
Does that mean that we didn't have a preference?
 
Of course not. Everybody has their preferences and everybody is
entitled to have their preferences. The difference is that the
Secretary has the responsibility of overseeing the election.
 
As such, the Secretary must remain publicly neutral. Campaigning for
one's own re-election is different as the only person one is beholden
to is one's self, and everyone understands that someone running for
re-election favors their own candidacy.
 
This false accusation was made two years ago as well. I offered my
reply to those charges at that time and every word is as true today as
it was then. A copy of my comments follows this message.
 
We are both somewhat disappointed at the tactics used by people on
both slates in this election.
 
People in leadership positions on the Executive Board have taken
extreme measures in support of their desired candidates.
 
While USCF bylaws do not provide guidelines on what Board members
should do in campaigns, perhaps they should. Board members represent
the USCF as a whole and should therefore realize that comments made by
offcers, especially if associated with the office or the Board title,
can be viewed by others as an official USCF position. It is also
viewed as unfair for officers to use the power of their governance
positions to affect the election.
 
Trustees of the US Chess Trust have also entered the endorsement
arena, which is specifically against the Trust regulations, for both
sides.
 
One problem may be some difficulty in determining what constitutes
acceptable campaigning in the absence of limits set forth in the
Bylaws.
 
Boards of most corporations actively endorse candidates for Board
positions, but they are doing so as company policy and are speaking
for the company. Usually this is publicized as Board recommendations.
 
I do not have the time to continue a discussion on this thread, but I
have a few recommendations at this point.
 
1. Please consider a Bylaw revision that addresses how Board members,
especially the Secretary, can and cannot conduct themselves with
respect to an election.
 
2. Please consider a Bylaw revision that removes the position of
Secretary from the status of it being a position named by the Board.
If the Secretary is to be a Board member, the Secretary should run
separately to assure that candidates for the position are willing to
make a much larger commitment than most other Board members and have
the necessary skills.
 
3. We believe that both sides believe they are right and need to win
to benefit USCF. If that is their goal, now that the initial ballots
have been sent, it is time for them to tone down their rhetoric and
try to work together for the benefit of USCF.
 
4. In the absence of other rules please be guided by the Golden Rule
and common sense.
 
Regards,
 
Myron Lieberman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: Don Schultz the Best
> Date: 8 Jul 2003 13:08:43 -0700
 
> Although I was apparently not good enough to make your short list,
> Rachel was on your list.
> 
> You have accused her of publicly supporting candidates while she was
> secretary, which is something that she very specifically avoided. She
> was asked by many to write letters of support, which she declined. She
> was also offered campaign contributions from supporters in the chess
> community which she also refused.
> 
> She has avoided public letters or public statements of support of any
> candidate in any election which was held under her jurisdiction.
> 
> There was one exception and that was that she did write letters on
> behalf of her own candidacy for Secretary in 1996. She had (and still
> has) serious concerns about the conflict of interest that is inherent
> with the Secretary being a candidate for any position in an election
> that he or she is running.
> 
> She almost did not run for re-election in 1996 for that reason. She
> only decided to run because some of her outreach projects needed more
> time. When she became a candidate she was very mindful of her
> opponent's rights and went out of her way to not take advantage of
> this unavoidable conflict of interest.
> 
> She has always considered it necessary for all candidates in an
> election regardless of political position to be treated equally. She
> always went out of her way to use procedures and make decisions that
> would assure that her political opponents and allies were provided
> objective and equal treatment.
> 
> Needless to say she was very upset with your comment and asks that you
> provide her with a specific instance where she publicly endorsed any
> candidate.
> 
> While it is always possible that a third party wrote a letter and
> implied that it came from her, she would like to know about its
> existence for future reference.
> 
> Myron Lieberman
> USCF Secretary 1978-1981
 
 

Response Six:

 

-----------------

 

Subj:

Brain Pills Motion for open explanation results in attempt to fire Secretary  

Date:

6/19/2005 3:28:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

From:

WPraeder

To:

mmatsler@riderweiner.com

 

Mr. Matsler:

 

Please advise your client this discussion is best left to Executive Session. This hardly leaves any remaining credence to the USCF Secretary's claim that Board members have voiced no objections or disagreed with any actions he took in his duties of presiding over the 2005 Executive Board election.

 

Hopefully through your good counsel you can minimize the exposure to the organization regarding this matter.

 

Regards,

Wayne Praeder

 

******

From: fide-chess@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fide-chess@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chessdon@aol.com

Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:15 PM

To: fide-chess@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [fide-chess] Brain Pills Motion for open explanation results in attempt to fire Secretary

 

Brain Pill Motion for open explanation results in attempt to fire Secretary or Archibald Cox revisited!

 

President Marinello has made a Board motion to remove me as Secretary. Secretaries are elected by the EB and this would not effect my status  as an EB member but it is a huge unprecedented act.

 

Here is a copy of her email to the Board: I have placed my replies to her items of complaint in bold and quotes following each item:

 

From Beatriz Marinello:

I would like to introduce the following motion to the USCF Executive Board:

 

Beatriz Marinello:" Move to remove Donald Schultz as USCF Secretary.  If this motion passes it should be effective immediately." Rationale for Motion: Mr. Schultz has not dealt with his Secretarial duties in a fair and impartial matter.  An Ethic's complaint

 

DS: “The filing of an Ethics complaint is not simply an unsubstantiated complaint by one person.”

 

has been filled against USCF Secretary Don Schultz.   Additionally, recent events indicate the need to address the issue of having a Secretary that is in charge of running the election and at the same time acting as a campaign manager for some candidates running for a position in the USCF Executive Board. Here are more detailed explanations on my statement. 1) Back in February 2005, Mr. Schultz ruled initially to accept one of the candidate' statement after the deadline announced to all candidates for the submission of their political statements.  Once I was informed about this ruling and I complaint about it, Mr. Schultz changed his ruling in favor of enforcing the deadlines giving to the candidates.

 

DS: “That is incorrect. The only ruling I made was not to accept it.”

 

2) The USCF Secretary has the duty to review the list of voters prior to sending the ballots for the election.  There are two issues here which are very serious:

 

a) Since Mr. Schultz is not an impartial Secretary, he could share this list with the candidates he is supporting.  At the same time, the other candidates need to purchase the labels for their mailings, and they do not get a complete list of eligible voting members since some members request not to receive mail other than Chess Life Magazine and membership forms. An investigation should be conducted to determine if Mr Schultz has indeed acted in unethical fashion by using this privilege of obtaining this confidential information for this own political agenda and in favor of the candidates to whom he declares himself the Campaign Manager.

 

DS: “I don’t understand this. The voters are everyone over 16, there are 48,000 of them.”

 

b) The USCF Secretary has the duties of coordinating the logistic for the election.  Mr. Schultz was too busy traveling around the country campaigning for his candidates that he did not insure that the information given to the printer with instructions on the procedures for printing and mailing the ballots was adecuate.  This negligent action helped create the mishandling of the printing of the ballot.  Now, we are correcting the mistake, its costing the USCF around $20,000.-

 

DS: “The contact with the printer has never been done as far as I know by the Secretary. That aside the instructions to the printer was fine. The problem was there are two ink jet printing nozzles used by the printer – one for the magazine address and one for the verification data on the ballot inside the magazine. During a run of 5,000 of the magazines the nozzle that was supposed to print the verification data was turned away at a 90 degree angle.” The printer has conceded that the error was his.

 

3) The endorsement of candidates by the Secretary is not banned by the USCF Bylaws.  However, Mr. Schultz admitted that he wrote part of Mr. Channing's political statement for the May and June Chess Life Magazine.  Mr. Schultz admitted putting in Mr. Tanner's endorsement of Channing using Tanner's title of the Chess Trust Trustee, in violation of the code of ethics adopted by US Chess Trust in relation with the USCF election.

 

Mr. Schultz is not a neutral supervisor of the election and has a clear conflict of interest.  Therefore, Don Schultz should step down as Secretary.

 

DS: “And the president endorsed candidates using official USCF letterhead with the USCF logo. She supported candidates while she was acting Chief Operating Officer something never been done before. Secretaries have routinely, in the past endorsed and actively supported candidates as have all Board members.”

 

Please Pat check when the Executive Board members are available for a conference call.

 

Thank you,

Beatriz Marinello

 

Response One:

 

    Robert McConnell Productions

Your Parliamentary Resource

4303 67th Ave. NW

Gig Harbor, WA 98335

253-265-3184

 

 

May 7th, 2005

 

 

 

Dear Wayne,

               In April, you e-mailed me concerning the secretary presiding over the election process and the importance of being impartial during this process .  The question that you wanted answered was: Does a perception of a lack of impartiality resulting from competing interest represent a violation of the standards of conduct for the USCF Executive Board? From the information that you provided me,  I give the following parliamentary opinion.

 

One of the first and foremost principles of parliamentary law is that of impartiality, equality, and justice for all.  Whenever an officer or member is given the responsibility of overseeing, carrying out, executing or presiding over an activity of the organization, it must be done according to the parliamentary laws that govern that situation, which usually include rules which ensure the democratic process.  So when a member is chairman of a committee or an officer, he does not have absolute power to do what he or she wishes, or thinks is best for the organization.  But he must follow what the members and the rules of the organization designate. 

               One of the most important activities of an organization is the nominating and electing procedure of its officers.  Henry Robert realized that this activity needed to be protected from the tendency in human nature to have a small group pick their friends and cronies to be officers.  To prevent this abuse, there are rules in the parliamentary authority that state:

3.     the nominating committee should be elected by the organization wherever possible or else by its executive board.” 

4.     “…the president should not appoint the nominating committee or be a member of it –ex officio or otherwise.”

 

The point being that no undue influence should be exerted on this committee by the president or even the appearance that the president is influencing the nominating and electing process.  This then would hold true for any officer who is to preside over elections.

               Since the secretary has been given this duty by the bylaws, he too should be absolutely impartial in all that he does.  To support another’s campaign or be a campaign manager for another member is not being impartial.  So to answer your question, you will find the answer to it in The Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board in the paragraph entitled “General Principles” where it states “and to adhere consistently to the principles of fairness, honesty, and respect for the rights of others.”   And in # (2) “Any potential conflict of interest, whether due to financial, political, personal, geographical, organizational, familial, or other considerations, must be prevented from affecting any Board member in the discharge of his or her duties.”

               When a member becomes an officer it is generally understood that he subjugates his personal interest for the greater good of the organization.  So here are some suggestions to solve this problem and bring harmony to the election process.

               First, when a presiding officer wants to participate in the business, Robert’s Rules provides for him to step down and let another preside.  That could certainly be a solution here.

               Second, for this election, the Executive Board or the Board of Delegates needs to adopt standing rules to give to the Secretary that will explain the election procedure.  These rules should also provide for a monitor to oversee the election process to ensure that the rules are obeyed. 

Third, amend the bylaws to provide for an “elections committee” to handle the election instead of the secretary.  Then adopt standing rules for this committee to ensure each member’s impartiality and fairness in carrying out the election procedures.

               If members do not believe that the elections are fair, it will be difficult to preserve unity, and it will result in a small faction who will constantly question the validity of actions of those elected. 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Janet S. McConnell

Registered Parliamentarian

 

Response Six:

 

From: "Randy Bauer" randybauer2...@yahoo.com [current USCF Executive Board Member]

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics

Subject: Re: What really happened

Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 03:21:53 GMT

 

 

<parrthe...@cs.com> wrote in message

news:1113361676.347539.316520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>     PERMIT ME TO TELL YOU HOW THESE ELECTIONS WORK

> 

>     Don Schultz states that he told editor Glenn Petersen not to

> include Sam Sloan's

> candidate statement.  Further, he notes that the Board then passed a

> motion designed to keep Mr. Sloan's statement out of the magazine in

> any event, not realizing that Mr. Schultz had already acted on the

> matter.  He opines that the motive of the Board majority was to

> disenfranchise an opponent it did not like.

 

This is the view of Schultz.  It does not fit with the motion that was

actually passed.  The motion passed had nothing to do with Sloan, it merely

created a process for dealing with exceptions to deadlines.  Of course

Schultz will not like it -- it takes total power away from the Secretary

(him) and requires a transparent process and Board approval for his

decisionsWhat if the Secretary were a candidate?  Would Parr feel

differentlyIn fact, Schultz has endorsed a slate of 4 candidates in the

election, so he can hardly be called a neutral third party.

(snip)

> 

>      Randy Bauer has here defended quashing the letter because Sam

> missed a deadline.  He waxed sanctimoniously and viciously about how

> deadlines are

> there to be met and rules and regulations are to be obeyed as written.

> You know, Mr. Bauer's faux tough-guy stuff.

> 

>      Fine.  But Mr. Bauer will not apply that dishonestly rendered

> standard to himself.  He now admits he did not fulfill the bylaws as

> written but argues (quite correctly, by the way) that he acted

> reasonably and in accord with common understandings.

 

Absolutely false.  I met every standard set by the organziation -- I

submitted my petitions, declaration of candidacy and payment as required by

the USCF own written guidelines for the election.  There is nothing that I

did that did not fulfill the Bylaws, and Parr relies on a sophistic

rendering to suggest otherswise.  He absolutely LIES in suggesting that I

ADMIT I did not fulfill the bylaws -- but that is purile Parr for the

course.

 

I provide him one more opportunity to put his money where his silly mouth

is -- if I have violated the Bylaws, sue!  I have $1,000 I will bet on the

outcome of a suit based on my meeting the bylaws -- payable to the USCF.

 

Of course Parr won't follow through.

 

And so it goes.

 

Randy Bauer

 

 

Government Rebuttal:

 

It has been argued on the Internet that the actions of the USCF Secretary have been consistent with other organizations such as the US Government. Evidence given concerns the 2000 election where Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris served as co-chair of President Bush's Florida campaign as well as the 2004 Presidential election where Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was co-chairman of Bush/Cheney '04 in Ohio.

 

Since the USCF and the US Government resemble each other only in that they both have elections, no inference should be drawn concerning the claim at issue. In this regard, it is important to note that the USCF is a not-for-profit corporation and not a part of the US Government. Also the USCF Secretary is not a Secretary of State. Regardless no one has argued that the above actions by a Secretary of State do not represent a potential conflict of interest by the referenced parties, only such actions were legal and not a violation of any existing standards or codes. Even that soon may change as the Federal Election Integrity Act (FEIA) of 2005 and the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 currently being considered in the US Congress would make such behavior unlawful.

 

Free Speech Rebuttal:

 

A few individuals may regard the impartiality rules for a presiding officer as an infringement on their rights of freedom of speech and association. However, it is generally accepted in a rational philosophy of life that with every benefit there is a corresponding burden. Accordingly, one who accepts Office must sacrifice some of the freedom in political and personal matters that otherwise he might enjoy. When he accepts an Officer position, ex necessitate rei, he thereby voluntarily places certain well recognized limitations upon his activities for the greater good of the organization. For what it’s worth, there are no legal rights to freedom of speech for those inside for-profit and non-profit corporations and other non-governmental employers. Thus the USCF Secretary is bound by fiduciary duty, the bylaws including its’ rules of order, and the USCF standards of conduct.

 

 

How to Submit a Complaint

 

Date

 

USCF Ethics Committee

c/o Ms. Pat Knight

U.S. Chess Federation

P.O. Box 3967

Crossville, TN 38557-3967

 

Dear Ms. Knight:

 

Enclosed is a Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board complaint as well as an associated deposit submitted in good faith. I wish to make it perfectly clear this is not a Code of Ethics of the United States Chess Federation complaint. The complaint is regarding an incident of behavior which may constitute a possible violation of a specific written standard of conduct, not about being unethical. I would also like to request this complaint be added to the USCF BINFO system. I am hopeful the organization will not tolerate retaliation against any person who provides information in good faith to the USCF Ethics Committee concerning a possible violation of any law, regulation, standard, or rule. 

 

As Office Liaison to the Ethics Committee, I want to thank you very much for your excellent and prompt facilitation in this matter.

 

Sincerely,

Name

USCF Member ID

 

Attachment

 

 

Postlude

 

Posted in the order received

 

 

05-47 (Board) We accept the resignation of Don Schultz as Secretary with thanks for his service. *Passed. *5-0

 

 

DM05-30 - ADM 05-25 (Mike Nolan, NE) - Effective with the conclusion of the 2005 Delegates Meeting, all duties regarding the conduct of USCF elections that are assigned to the Secretary under the Bylaws are assigned to a Delegate-appointed Election Committee.

This committee shall consist of four members appointed by the Delegates, except that members of the Executive Board may not be appointed to the committee.  The Delegates may name alternates who would replace any member of the committee who resigns or otherwise leaves the committee.

No member of the Election Committee may be a candidate for the USCF Executive Board during his or her service on the Election Committee or may campaign on behalf of or make an endorsement for or against any candidate for the Executive Board.

The committee shall choose its own chair.

PASSED

 

 

The Ethics Committee of the US Chess Federation has decided by a vote of 5 to 3 that Wayne Praeder has not demonstrated to the Committee's satisfaction that Don Schultz committed unethical behavior. -- Richard Buchanan