Chairman: Susan Polgar
President: Bill Goichberg
VP: Jim Berry
VP – Finance: Randy Bauer
VP – Marketing and Communications: Paul Truong
VP – Business Development: Joel Channing
VP – Secretary: Randy Hough
The votes for all positions were unanimous.
The plan is to have the 1st board meeting in Crossville on the first weekend in November 2007.
The plan is to have the 2nd board meeting virtual.
The plan is to have the 3rd board meeting during the US Championship (which will be one of the top priorities)
The 4th board meeting will be in Dallas at the next US Open.
The plan is to have ALL meetings shown online and USCF members CAN ask questions. More information to follow.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
should b chairwoman does tht mean ur bill boss
Susan, will you have the position to effect the changes needed to move the USCF forward?
Todd
congrats Susan!
Go Susan, Go Paul, Go Jim, Go Randy!
What precisely are the duties of the Chairman as compared to the President? Does the Chairman have veto power over executive decisions?
I hope so. Does anyone know?
Oh I forgot to mention about the list of names: YIPPEEEEEEE! I LOVE IT!!!!!
Hope does spring eternal!:)
chairwoman or chairperson?
Looks like everybody got something as there are more posts now and hence it is unanimous. Welcome to USCF politics!
= Kapalik
Why does a 7-person board need two chiefs? What are the diferences in duties between the Chairman and the President?
UNANIMOUS???????
WOW
Never thought I’d see the day when the USCF was unanimous about something
Bodes well for some real synergy
Congrats to all
I hope that the board can act with some unity and dignity. No more S.S. or B.M. allegations about playing footsie under the table at board meetings.
Behind the scenes Randy Bauer ran on the Susan Polgar ticket and refused to support Susan. She does not have the votes to get anything done.
Right now Susan really only has 2 votes. She has no power to get things done. Do not expect to see any real change in the next 2 years. The votes are split 5-2 against Susan.
We need to find strong candidates who will support Susan’s vision for the future of chess.
All the people who voted for Randy Bauer thinking he would support Susan are proven wrong. Randy abandoned Susan and refuses to assist her. He says she can get her support elsewhere but not from him.
The next 2 years are going to be very difficult Susan. Just do not fight them. We need to find new EB members in 2 years who will support your vision. 4 people will be elected in 2 years. Pick the candidates more carefully next time.
Let us understand the make up of the EB. Everyone elected opposes Susan except Susan and Paul. 5-2 against Susan. Susan is totally powerless these next 2 years to get anything done.
Susan you will have my votes in 2 years. Many others support you. You have 2 years to solve the problem. I know you can do it. Have faith. You will succeed.
The position of Chairman is an honorary title with no power. The title itself is only temporary and can be taken away at any time. The real title like President has power and can not be taken away for 2 years.
Susan is in a difficult spot. She had no option but to go along with what we see. She has no power. As someone said. the vote is 5-2 against her.
Her opponents really have her boxed into a corner. She is powerless and somewhat under their control. Susan is going to have to do the best she can in a very bad situation these next 2 years.
To say that Bauer ran on the Polgar ticket and refused to support her doesn’t seem accurate to me. First, he made it clear right from the start that while he is glad Susan supports him for the board and he also supports her for the board, he is still independent. He supports her. He simply did not support her for President. It’s correct that she didn’t have the votes for President, but don’t extrapolate that into a bunch of 5-2 votes in the future.
Do the Democrats and Republicans still go through the charade of voting by acclamation after they’ve gone through the vote call at their conventions? This seems rather similar. We don’t know how long the board discussed the positions before making their unanimous votes.
Weren’t you running for ‘President’ in line with the blog entries here?
Why aren’t you a VP of something as well?
What is Jim Berry VP of?
Why is ‘Chairman’ above ‘President’ in the list?
Interesting list.
>>To say that Bauer ran on the Polgar ticket and refused to support her doesn’t seem accurate to me.>>
What is not accurate.
1. Bauer ran on the Polgar ticket.
2. After the election Bauer refused to even consider Susan for President. He opposed her very strongly on the Forums repeatedly.
Looks accurate to me. Obviously he does not support Susan’s vision. He obviously supported Goichberg who attacked Susan repeated and often. He is a Benedict Arnold.
Would you like to talk about ethical behavior. Do you want to argue that Randy Bauer acted ethically. haha. what a laugh.
Would you like to have the definition of a Male Chauvinist Pig.
Randy Bauer is a person of high character.
As, I am sure, the editors of this blog are….
Are there soap operas in sudoku organizations?
Eyes on the prize, folks. Be nice to each other, and maybe I’ll even rejoin USCF in a couple years….
Randy is a person with strong integrity. He wants the board to discuss all positions before making his decision. We all respect his opinion. We discussed each position and voted on them. All votes were unanimous.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
In general, a unanimous decision involves behind the scenes activity well before the actual voting and is rarely spontaneous. Susan, are you aware of any such? If so, can you share it in the interest of transparency and accountability?
So, in the order and terms of Susan’s post of 8/01/2007, 10:35pm [doesn’t she ever sleep!], we have:
USCF President: Bill Goichberg
USCF Vice-Pres: Jim Berry
USCF VP Finance: Randy Bauer
USCF Secretary: Randy Hough
and three members ‘at large’:
‘Chairman’: Susan Polgar
VP Bus. Dev: Joel Channing
VP Mkt/Comms: Paul Truong
It’s not clear what Susan is ‘Chairman’ of, or why she puts herself at the top of the list.
Hopefully, when she summarises the pre-vote discussions, we shall understand why she is not President, what the considerations were, and what this means.
Anon of Sunday 5th 6.10pm sounds very informed and authoritative – or they are just leaping to conclusions. This ‘5-2 picture’ suggests ‘camps’ already, with the innovation getting 2nd spot: I didn’t vote for this.
Anyway, Susan and Paul have a raft of interesting responsibilities that suit their own interests and capabilities, so that should be good for them and the USCF. Let the results speak for themselves.
Randy Bauer several times stated on the USCF Issues forum two months before the election that he would not support Susan or Paul for President until they had more experience. It is not Randy’s fault if people voted for him thinking he would support Susan for President, since he was quite clear that he would not.
There is no member at large. The bylaws committee and attorney Harold Winston gave their ruling that the board has the right to create various positions.
The idea is to maximize the strength and experience of each board member.
While everyone agrees that Susan is a well respected voice and face to represent this board and the USCF and she would be a wonderful asset to this federation when approaching and negotiating with potential sponsors, the board also took into consideration of the Mr. Goichberg’s experience and success with many internal areas of the USCF.
Each position was carefully discussed and the votes were unanimous for all positions. This is a wonderful start for a very diversified and qualified board. The entire board agreed to put aside all of their philosophical differences and work together for the best interest of US Chess and the USCF.
Best regards,
PT
I did not like this distribution of positions. I think susan could not hold her fort and succumbed to the pressure…
Too pessimistic: Susan and Paul are going to strengthen the USCF through their actual contributions, not their words and votes.
Susan has previously stated that “we only have 2 votes”, which rather hinted at ‘camps’ and suggested that the only way to achieve change was by voting. I hope this is not the case.
If committees cannot reach concensus except by voting, the prospects are not good.
So my recommendations are:
1) aim to agree without votes
2) deploy strengths of the EB
3) avoid conflicts of interest between the USCF and SP enterprises
4) appoint moderators for the USCF forums, but moderators that allow constructive discussion of the issues – it is done successfully elsewhere, and there is technology to help.
I find it shocking that so many posters have been critical of Randy Bauer merely because he wants to think through the issues and make up his own mind, as opposed to those who wish to make Susan Polgar the supreme dictator of the USCF, while expecting others to bow to her will without giving the issues any thought of their own. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and chess players of all people should expect people to use it and reach their own conclusions.
I agree fully with Steven Craig Miller. Randy Bauer should decide himself how to vote. Apparently, so does Susan, she posted to clarify that she still has full confidence in Randy Bauer’s integrity.
Unanimous decisions imply agreement.
Obvioulsy any responsible decision is arrived at with ample discussion beforehand.
“A mind is a terrible thing to waste” – wonderful, I wrote that down.
On July 31st, under “One of the first changes that I [!] will make”, SP said that “Debates, votes and discussions and much more will be posted here shortly after every meeting and at the latest within 24 hours or when I have access to the Internet.” Well, that was setting the bar rather high, and assumed that the USCF EB would allow this.
I am actually more interested in the debates and discussions, after which votes should be unnecessary.
Susan’s perspective on the USCF meeting will be interesting, and in terms of her own self-defined pace, is now overdue.
>> Susan’s perspective on the USCF meeting will be interesting, and in terms of her own self-defined pace, is now overdue >>
I hope she hasn’t also turned into a chess politician, and like all politicians forgotton all those pre-election promises 🙁
I have a great deal of confidence in Susan, asked her to run for the Board and supported her candidacy. I was very impressed by the contributions made by both Susan and Paul to our first Board meetings. I am confident that we will all be able to work together to achieve great things for the USCF and chess.
It is true that I stated my opinion prior to the election that I believed the President needed previous Board experience. My guess is that Susan will, in fact, be President of the USCF in the not too distant future.