Subj

A campaign mailing by USCF Executive Board candidate Jim Pechac has claimed to have a "written campaign endorsement" by EB member Joe Ippolito of Pechac's candidacy. Ippolito has objected and stated that he does not endorse Pechac, and Pechac has apologized for reporting such an endorsement.

Steve Doyle has posted an email on the newsgroup, sent to him by Ippolito, telling Doyle to "Please feel free to use my name for endorsing Steve & Jim," referring to Steve Shutt and Pechac. Ippolito says that this email was taken out of context and that he does not endorse Pechac.


Subj:	Re: Jim Pechac's 3rd Campaign Letter
Date:	7/4/01 10:56:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:	Ippy1
To:	george@neosoft.com, JPechac

Hi George & Jim,
   I was somewhat disgruntled to see my name listed in third letter by Jim. Jim, I never gave any written permission. In fact, we haven't spoken since the board meeting. Perhaps the confusion is coming from Steve Doyle contacting me several weeks ago. He stated that he was going to send out a letter of endorsement and would I endorse Jim. My comment was that I had no problem with him sending out a letter as long as there were endorsements of "other" candidates that I deemed excellent.
    Jim, I have no problem with your candidacy. You know I have the highest respect for you and the work you have done. However, common courtesy should have prevailed by calling me for an endorsement.
  Take care & good luck,
Joe Ippolito

Subj: Re: Jim Pechac's 3rd Campaign Letter
Date: 7/5/2001 8:02:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: JPechac
To: Ippy1, george@neosoft.com
CC: Chessdon

Hi Joe:
I apologize on the misunderstanding. In the last few days of the campaign I relied on email correspondence sent both by myself and others. At the time I assembled my third mailing I had not yet received endorsement letters in the mail from Tim and Helen, and was also advised via email copy of your support.

You are completely correct. I should have, and did not, contact you personally to confirm it. The last thing I intended to do was to cause a problem of this magnitude. Again, Joe, I apologize. Mr. John, you are welcome to either pull my third letter or qualify its posting with this letter, at your discretion.

Jim Pechac

Subject: ippolito endorsement of pechac
From: apct@aol.com (APCT)
Date: 7/5/01 8:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20010705115031.18426.00002173@ng-fa1.aol.com>

Steve Doyle has asked me to post the following message. He is at his summer
home on the Jersey shore and unable to access the newsgroups.

Jim Warren

Subj: endorsement
Date: 6/27/01 6:34:33 PM Central Daylight Time
From: Ippy1
To: ESDOYLE

Hi Steve,
Have been running around like crazy. Please feel free to use my name for
endorsing Steve & Jim.
I am comfortable with both. Jim has been steadfast, hardworking, to making
USCF solvent.
I will be home tomorrow night from 7 - 10. Off to Poconos after that. What
a life.
Take care,
Joe Ippolito


Subj:	Clarification
Date:	7/6/01 4:15:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: mccrary@axs2k.net (john mccrary) Reply-to: mccrary@axs2k.net (john mccrary) To: ippy1@aol.com CC: recmate@aol.com, chessdon@aol.com, ippy1@aol.com
File:	Clarific.gif (2947 bytes) DL Time (21600 bps): < 1 minute

Joe, thanks for speaking with me last night ( July 5). I know you are busy with your new job as a principal. Of course, I called in order to clarify the misunderstanding that has arisen from Jim Pechac's statement in his campaign letter that you had endorsed him. I know we share the desire that this campaign be decided by the major issues affecting USCF, and not be sidetracked by misunderstandings such as have arisen in this case. I am sure that anyone concerned will realize that I called you to avoid a "mountain-out-of-a-molehill" situation that could obscure serious evaluation of real issues in this important campaign. Although I understand your desire to avoid public comment, I believe it is essential to clarify the situation. Obviously, this creates an awkward situation for me, but I am restating the points made in this message, which I have addressed to you, so that any errors can be promptly corrected by you.

To restate your points as you told them to me, they were:

1) That you do not endorse Jim Pechac and do not support his bid for election, although you of course have nothing against him personally.

2) That the misunderstanding arose because you were asked to provide some views of all the candidates, as part of some e-mail exchanges with another Board member and with Steve Doyle. You did provide speak positively about 8 of the 10 candidates, declining to do so for the other two because you did not want to criticize anyone publicly. However, you did not intend for your statements to be taken out of context and treated as your endorsement of their respective candidacies.

3) That you feel that the e-mail you sent was taken out of the larger context of the above discussion, and made to appear as your endorsement of Jim. If the readers of your e-mail had been aware of the larger discussion in which this e-mail was sent, they would have realized that you did not intend for the e-mail to be treated as your endorsement of Jim Pechac. Again, you told me that you do not support Jim's bid for election.

4) That you do endorse my candidacy, but this endorsement came from a phone call between us. It was totally separate from the comments you sent on 8 candidates in the discussion referenced above.

5) That you have requested that Jim Pechac's letter be removed from George John's website. Your statement to me was :" Why would I have asked for the letter to be removed if I was endorsing Jim Pechac?"

6) That you yesterday told one of the persons in the larger discussion that you are not endorsing or supporting Jim's candidacy, and that he therefore does not have permission from you to say that you have endorsed Jim's candidacy. You were not aware that that person had posted a public statement, the same day, citing your e-mail and stating that you had endorsed Jim. Once again, your statement had been taken out of context and been presented as an endorsement of Jim's candidacy, when you were not endorsing his candidacy at any time.

7) That you do not plan to make a public statement yourself, but that you give permission for this call between us to be reported publicly to clarify misunderstandings that may confuse election issues.

Please let me know if anything I have restated above is in error. If so, I will immediately correct the error.

Joe, thank you for your clarification. Throughout your Board tenure, you have been a consistent example of integrity, and I have felt honored to have served with you. The strong credibility you have earned explains why your opinion is being so valued by so many. Your service to USCF has been of great value for a number of years, and I look forward to working with you in the future for the growth of chess.

Regards, John

ChessNews.org homepage