USCF EXECUTIVE BOARD NOMINATION CONTROVERSY

15 days before deadline, Secretary announces new procedures

Editor's note:   Four seats on the USCF Executive Board are at stake in elections to be conducted this summer.  To obtain a place on the ballot, a candidate must obtain the signatures of 30 Voting Members by April 1.

Previous holders of the office of Secretary have allowed all signatures received by the deadline to count, regardless of whether or not they were submitted by the nominee.  On March 14, John McCrary sent an email to USCF Secretary Doris Barry asking for confirmation that she intended to follow this past practice.  He received no reply.  This and relevant subsequent emails are presented below.

On March 15, Don Schultz sent an email to Doris Barry asking the same question as well as others. He received a reply from Doris the following day in which she said "I will prepare a statement on the election process and post on the website" but answered none of his questions.

Neither McCrary nor Schultz had obtained an answer, and the USCF website is often very slow at posting information. With only about two weeks to go before the nomination deadline, I found the "I will... post on the website" reply alarming, suggesting that the Secretary might be considering the adoption of policies not used in the past, especially a requirement that only signatures sent by the nominee would be accepted.  

Mike Nolan, co-chair of the USCF Bylaws Committee, stated, "The USCF Bylaws do NOT require that nominating petitions be sent BY THE NOMINEE. Requiring such would not only be a distortion of our Bylaws and subject us to charges of election fraud (if not lawsuits) but would also be a major deviation from generally accepted election practices in years past.  Any such deviations, should some be contemplated, should have been part of the call for nominations."

A candidate, especially one who decides to run late, could easily be kept off the ballot by this requirement, which would produce delay in submitting signatures to the Secretary because individual voters and supporters circulating petitions could no longer write the Secretary directly, but would instead have to send signatures to the candidate to be forwarded.  This would be especially inconvenient if the nominee is out of town or even out of the country during the final weeks before the deadline.

I suspected that the Secretary's evasion might indicate that she would use her office to try to disqualify candidates she did not support.  I actually endorsed Doris for the EB when she ran, but her performance has been a great disappointment.  In addition to disagreeing with her on TLA fees, fiddle points, and many other issues, I was astonished when she attempted to insert into the minutes an imaginary 8-0 vote approving a Dullea contract extension, a vote which does not appear in the transcripts and clearly never took place. Her allies Redman, Pechac and Warren also voted to rewrite history with this piece of fiction, on a motion that failed with a 4-4 tie vote.  So I now fear the worst when Doris or her allies are involved.

I visited the USCF office March 16 and asked Jeff Loomis, who is in charge in the absence of George DeFeis, if I could submit petitions for a candidate to Doris through the office, with the idea that I would have evidence in the event Doris claimed that I had sent fewer signatures than was actually the case.  Jeff declined, but did call Doris to inquire about the nominating process, and told me that Doris said that signatures on many slips of paper were acceptable, but "technically," nominations had to be submitted by the nominee.

Still left unanswered was the main question- "technically" or not, will Doris follow past practice and accept signatures regardless of who submits them?  This question was finally answered on the night of March 17, when Doris defended "my decision" in an oddly worded email which still did not say precisely what her decision was, but implied that only signatures sent by nominees would be accepted.

Doris maintained that "There is no basis for a 'past practice' argument since the Bylaws were rewritten," a weak argument as that portion of the bylaws retains wording exactly identical to before, with the sole exception of raising the number of signatures required from ten to thirty.

She also said that she would "consult an attorney" if necessary to resolve this issue, suggesting an unusually passionate interest in keeping potential candidates off the ballot, candidates who might have relied upon past procedures being followed.  Nolan's response was, "Wouldn't it make more sense to consult the Bylaws Committee?  We work for free."

And she referred to my question to Loomis as a "serious transgression."  The charge that simply making an inquiry could constitute unethical behavior leaves me with great concern that the election may not be conducted in a non-partisan, unbiased way.

______________________________________________________

Nominating petitions

Date: 3/14/01 6:44:20 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: Robert McCrary <RJM19@BRYPH.DMH.STATE.SC.US>

To: pistola@worldnet.att.net <pistola@worldnet.att.net>

Cc: Mccrary@axs2k.net <Mccrary@axs2k.net>; rjmccrary@prodigy.net <rjmccrary@prodigy.net>

Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 9:17 AM

Subject: Nominating petitions

Doris, I have three questions regarding nomination petitions. I asked the Liebermans two of them and Rachel's reply is attached below. ( Myron agreed with her in a separate message.) The questions are as follows:

1) Because of geographical separation, it may be necessary for candidates to solicit nominating signatures by mail. This would result in signatures being sent as separate sheets of paper, though submitted together. This has been allowed in the past. Am I correct in assuming it will be permitted this year?

2) The Bylaws and the public calls for nominations require thirty Voting Members to nominate for the Board. Voting Members are now defined as all adult USCF members, regardless of whether they are Delegates or Alternate Delegates    ( now called "Electors.") The Liebermans and Mike Nolan have all confirmed that this interpretation is correct, so that the signatures of any thirty adult USCF members constitute a valid nominating petition for the Executive Board, even if they are not Delegates or Alternate Delegates. Is this your understanding?

3) Because of the geographical separation and resulting time delays, am I correct that if signatures for a candidate are submitted by someone else, this is acceptable as long as the candidate affirms in writing by the deadline that he is a candidate?

Please hit "reply all" so all my addresses ( copied above) will be hit.

Thanks, John McCrary

______________________________________________________

Subj: Elections 2001

Date: 3/15/01 4:45:34 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Chessdon

To: pistola@goodnet.com

CC: Gldefeis, Recmate, Ippy1, Secretary, RJM19@BRYPH.DMH.state.sc.us, mccrary@axs2k.net, ChessSafari, Redman@utdallas.edu, garscott@ice.net, BobChess, HalTerrie@compuserve.com

Doris, I am considering sending in nominations for an EB candidate. How are nominations being handled this year?

1) Is it required that thirty delegates or Alternates nominate or simply 30 full paying dues members?

2) Are faxed nominations followed up by a letter okay?

3) Is the deadline still April 1 - any particular time zone?

4) Will nominations from different sources sent to the Secretary be combined to reach the thirty total? Rachel for example added her and Myron's name in order to assure nomination of a candidate.

5) Will you follow the previous practice of accepting letters of acceptance from the candidates that come after the April 1 deadline.

6) Any other differences from past practices?

Thanks in advance for your attention to this request.

Don Schultz

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 3/16/01 1:26:22 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: pistola@worldnet.att.net (pistola)

To: Chessdon@aol.com (Donald Schultz)

Don, I will prepare a statement on the election process and post on the website. Thank you for the reminder Doris

______________________________________________________

Date: 3/16/01 6:52:37 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: mccrary@axs2k.net (john mccrary)

To: Chessdon@aol.com

CC: recmate@aol.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us

John

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 3/16/01 11:47:26 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: Chessdon

To: pistola@worldnet.att.net

CC: jbbaby@earthlink.net, stanbooz@home.com, WbcaBlitz, mrcarr@pacbell.net, mike_cavallo@juno.com, Gldefeis, mailto:execdir@uschess.org.g., MARNOLD270, DDillinger, cchess@uschess.org, theeldridges@worldnet.att.net, 72142.335@compuserve.com, A Frymer, Recmate, JerryHanken, phoekstra@ix.netcom.com, Ippy1, mailto:cjareck@attglobal.net%20(Carol%20Jarecki), mailto:GJ988759@MSXSEPC.SHELL.COMOM, magazines@uschess.org, Secretary, mailto:RJM19@BRYPH.DMH.state.sc.usus, mccrary@axs2k.net, RMille9601, ChessSafari, fidelis@tm.net.my, Redman@utdallas.edu, garscott@ice.net, yvette@insidechess.com, yasser@insidechess.com, BobChess, PTamburro, Rtannerae, HalTerrie@compuserve.com, wagner645@mediaone.net

Hi Doris:

Thanks for the response.

I just checked out the USCF Website and note that there is some information there. I'm not sure if this has been there and you are going to add to it or this is your new response.

In any event it doesn't answer my questions which are in fact shared by others. Since there are only 15 days left to the close out of nominations it is important that fairly quickly we understand the nomination process you intend to follow and have that we have answers to our specific questions.

Thanks in advance for your attention to this important matter.

______________________________________________________

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 03/16/2001 6:28:04 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Chessdon

To: Recmate, mccrary@axs2k.net, BobChess, Secretary, nolan@tssi.com

CC: rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us

Nominations in the past have NOT always come from the candidate. If Doris is to deviate from this she should immediately tell all of us and not just Loomis.

It is amazing that she is considering changing the procedures without letting everyone know. With Bill Goichberg present, Loomis asked Doris and got an answer that indicates Doris will void nominations that are not submitted by the candidate. This is contrary to past practices. McCrary and I asked about this and still have no answer from Doris. What will other potential candidates do?

Mike Nolan, perhaps you can get Doris to announce in advance any deviations from past practices that she intends to follow that will result in rejecting nominations that would in the past have been accepted.

Don Schultz

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 3/16/01 8:36:04 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Recmate

To: Chessdon, mccrary@axs2k.net, BobChess, Secretary, nolan@tssi.com

CC: rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us

Don Schultz wrote:

>Nominations in the past have NOT always come from the candidate. If Doris is to deviate from this she should immediately tell all of us and not just Loomis.

>It is amazing that she is considering changing the procedures without letting everyone know. With Bill Goichberg present, Loomis asked Doris and got an answer that indicates Doris will void nominations that are not submitted by the candidate. This is contrary to past practices. McCrary and I asked about this and still have no answer from Doris. What will other potential candidates do?

Actually, it would be correct to say that according to Loomis, Doris gave an answer which left open the possibility that she might refuse to accept nominations not coming directly from the candidate. She said that "technically" the candidate is supposed to submit the signatures, but when I asked Loomis whether she would accept signatures submitted by someone else or not, he said that she had not addressed that question.

>Mike Nolan, perhaps you can get Doris to announce in advance any deviations from past practices that she intends to follow that will result in rejecting nominations that would in the past have been accepted.

I do think that she should assure those who inquire that nominations sent by other than the candidates will be accepted. This has been past practice, and it seems unfair to have a new interpretation of the rules with so little notice to candidates, or to keep those who inquire guessing by replying (to Schultz) that she will post an answer on the USCF website or (to McCrary) by not responding at all.

Bill Goichberg

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 3/16/01 9:06:24 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: nolan@celery.tssi.com

To: Recmate@aol.com

CC: Chessdon@aol.com, mccrary@axs2k.net, BobChess@aol.com, Secretary@aol.com, nolan@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, pistola@worldnet.att.net, bylaws-committee@tssi.com

> >Mike Nolan, perhaps you can get Doris to announce in advance any deviations

> from past practices that she intends to follow that will result in rejecting

> nominations that would in the past have been accepted.

I'm not sure if it was Don or Bill who wrote the above paragraph. The formatting for both Don's and Bill's messages were so messy that I nearly didn't read either one. (That's a HINT, folks! If you want your message to be read and acted upon by others, including me, please make it READABLE and keep unnecessary quotation from previous messages to a bare minimum.)

And why isn't Doris on the CC: list on Bill's message? (I've added her to the CC: list for this note.)

I would also note that the USCF Bylaws do NOT require that nominating petitions be sent BY THE NOMINEE. Requiring such would not only be a distortion of our Bylaws and subject us to charges of election fraud (if not lawsuits) but would also be a major deviation from generally accepted election practices in years past.

Any such deviations, should some be contemplated, should have been part of the call for nominations. Absent any particular requirements being stated in that call, they are probably not enforceable, especially if they change the nomination requirments stated in the Bylaws or deviate from recent practice. (Any infringement of the nomination procedures as written in the Bylaws is not permissable, period.)

-

Mike Nolan

Co-Chair, USCF Bylaws Committee

______________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 3/16/01 11:12:27 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Chessdon

To: Recmate, nolan@celery.tssi.com

CC: mccrary@axs2k.net, BobChess, Secretary, nolan@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, pistola@worldnet.att.net, bylaws-committee@tssi.com

Folks:

Bottom line here is that Myron and Mike seem to have slightly different interpretations of the bylaws. Doris, I'd appreciate knowing how you intend to handle nominations submitted to you in behalf of a candidate rather than from a candidate. If you intend to deviate from past practices, then please tell us.

Don Schultz

PS to Mike Nolan: I didn't copy Doris because I was requesting you to intervene and obviously not to hide anything from her. As for too many quotation marks - thanks for the tip.

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

From: Secretary

To: nolan@celery.tssi.com, Recmate

CC: Chessdon, mccrary@axs2k.net, BobChess, Secretary, nolan@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, pistola@worldnet.att.net, bylaws-committee@tssi.com

Hi Mike,

I agree that election procedures that differ from the past should be made known in advance. In fact it would be a good idea to list current election procedures in advance even if there is no difference from past practices.

It is a change from past procedures to require the candidate to submit his or her own petitions, but it may not be a Bylaw issue. Myron points out that the Bylaws could be interpreted as allowing it.

The applicable Bylaw states in part "Any USCF member shall be eligible for nomination to any elected office upon submitting to the Secretary by April 1 of an election year a valid petition containing the signatures of thirty or more Voting Members."

I can therefore see how someone can interpret this as meaning that the candidate should submit the petitions.

I did not require that candidates submit their own petitions and I think that was also a valid interpretation.

Most of the petitions that I received in the 1999 election were submitted by candidates (or at least contained the candidate's signature). There were some that weren't. For example I was given petitions for Tony Cottell and Tim Redman at the 1999 USATE and neither had the candidate's signature and neither were submitted by the candidate.

Sometimes the petitions are sent in by several people for the same candidate and sometimes they are sent in by one person. My practice has been to contact the candidate as soon as I had certified a sufficient number of signatures and informed the candidate that he or she was on the ballot. This allowed a candidate to decline the nomination before the ballots were printed.

I believe that as many candidates as possible should be on the ballot, within the framework dictated by the Bylaws. I therefore took steps that I was allowed to do but not required to do in order to help candidates. For example, I honored the deadline as 12 Midnight on April 1 in Hawaii's time zone. That way everyone in every state in the US would have until midnight their local time or later. I could have used local time in Arizona, but that would give anyone in time zones farther west a deadline earlier than midnight.

Regards,

Rachel

______________________________________________________

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 03/17/2001 2:47:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: drchip@goodnet.com (Myron A. Lieberman)

To: Chessdon@aol.com, Recmate@aol.com, Secretary@aol.com, nolan@tssi.com, rjm19@brph.dmh.state.sc.us, pistola@worldnet.att.net, bylaws-committee@tssi.com

Hi Don,

I don't think that Mike and I have different interpretations. We both
believe (please correct me if I am wrong, Mike) that the correct
interpretation is that anyone may submit petitions on behalf of another
candidate.

I believe that the difference that Mike and I have is that Mike seems to
indicate that the Bylaws clearly forbid a requirement that a nominee submit
his or her own petitions and I believe that the wording of Article VI
Section 4 allows a different interpretation. I refer to the first sentence
of Article VI Section 4, which states:

"Any USCF member shall be eligible for nomination to any elected office
upon submitting to the Secretary by April 1
of an election year a valid petition containing the signatures of thirty or
more Voting Members."

The possible other interpretation (which neither Mike nor I would make) is
purely semantic. "Any USCF member shall be eligible for nomination to any
elected office upon submitting to the Secretary..." can be interpreted as
meaning the member is ineligible for nomination if he or she does not submit
the petition.

The first issue is whether the member can delegate the submission of
petitions to a third party or parties. I see nothing that prohibits
delegation of submission of petitions.

The second issue is the nominee's involvement. If, without the nominee's
knowledge or approval, a third party distributes and submits petitions for a
nominee, it is not the nominee delegating the submission. The proposed
candidate may not even want to run. The Bylaw specifies an action that is to
be taken by the nominee (whether or not it can be delegated), but it does
not say anything about the actions of a third party who independently
submits petitions without the direction of the nominee.

In practice I like the way Rachel did it. She certified signatures and when
a nominee had enough signatures she contacted the nominee, who had a chance
to decline at that time. Submission of the nominations by the nominee or the
inclusion of the signature of the nominee on one of the petitions was
considered sufficient to declare the nominee a candidate (as long as there
were a sufficient number of valid signatures on the petitions).

Regards,

Myron

______________________________________________________

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 3/17/01 9:56:48 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: nolan@celery.tssi.com

To: drchip@goodnet.com (Myron A. Lieberman)

CC: Chessdon@aol.com, Recmate@aol.com, mccrary@axs2k.net, BobChess@aol.com, Secretary@aol.com, nolan@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, pistola@worldnet.att.net, bylaws-committee@tssi.com

Myron wrote:

> The first issue is whether the member can delegate the submission of

> petitions to a third party or parties. I see nothing that prohibits

> delegation of submission of petitions.

> The second issue is the nominee's involvement. If, without the nominee's

> knowledge or approval, a third party distributes and submits petitions for a

> nominee, it is not the nominee delegating the submission. The proposed

> candidate may not even want to run. The Bylaw specifies an action that is to

> be taken by the nominee (whether or not it can be delegated), but it does

> not say anything about the actions of a third party who independently

> submits petitions without the direction of the nominee.

The key issue at this point is whether a semantical interpretation of the Bylaws is within the purview of the Secretary, especially if such interpretation is restrictive rather than inclusive and differs from practice in recent years. And in my opinion, any such restrictive interpretation should have been made as part of the Call for Nominations.

The issue of consent is one that is probably best handled the way Rachel did it, by contacting candidates for whom nominating petitions have been received before certifying their candidacies.

I think requiring a 'statement of intent' in advance would be an abridgement of the rights of potential candidates, but if unsolicited nominations become a problem due to having tens of thousands of signees and a very small signature requirement, I could see adding one explicitly to the Bylaws.

This is likely to be more of an issue for the Delegate and Alternate Delegate election than for the Executive Board election, as I have heard of several people who were nominated by their State Chapter to appear on last year's ballot without their consent.

Bylaws will have to look at the wording to see if more clarity can be added.  It's beginning to look like there will be an omnibus 'technical cleanup' ADM coming from Bylaws, as this is the 3rd or 4th such issue to arise.  And I still hope to have time to do a comprehensive review of the current Bylaws before the ADM deadline. I had a copy of the current text, but it got trashed when a hard drive crashed last month. Does Doris have the file or should I get it from the office?

-

Mike Nolan

______________________________________________________

Date: 3/17/01 10:14:28 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: mccrary@axs2k.net (john mccrary)

To: drchip@goodnet.com (Myron A. Lieberman), nolan@celery.tssi.com

CC: Chessdon@aol.com, BobChess@aol.com, Secretary@aol.com, nolan@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, Recmate@aol.com, pistola@worldnet.att.net, bylaws-committee@tssi.com, ebcomments@uschess.org

Thanks to all. I do have a question here: I had not heard a rumor of a "Declaration of Candidacy." How would such a hypothetical thing differ from a simple statement by the candidate? I will offer the following points:

1) Although the Secretary "presides" over the election, the responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Bylaws rests with the EB, the Board of Delegates, and the Illinois courts ( through the Illinois statutes, which require and legally enforce Bylaws for organizations registered in that state). Any decisions by the Secetary must be consistent with the standards enforced by these bodies, or litigation could be easily filed.

2) Two candidates have already been certified. What procedures were employed in those cases?

3) The call for nominations was issued after the Bylaws deadline. Clearly, additional procedures or clarifications issued too late for candidates to react effectively would leave wide open the possibilities of litigation. The content of these public calls for nomination cannot be substantively altered, and that would totally rule out any additional requirements not already unambiguously published.

4) It goes without saying that prompt replies to inquiries is an important part of the Secretary's job. Why has this not occurred to the inquiry sent 3-13 and repeated 3-15, which have not even been ackowledged?

Regards, John McCrary

______________________________________________________

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 3/17/01 11:59:32 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: pistola@worldnet.att.net (pistola)

To: Recmate@aol.com (William Goichberg), nolan@celery.tssi.com

CC: ippy1@aol.com (Joe Ippolito), finance@uschess.org (Jeff Loomis), apct@aol.com (Helen Warren), redman@utdallas.edu (Tim Redman), jpechac@aol.com (Jim Pechac), GLDefeis@aol.com (George L Defeis), bylaws-committee@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, nolan@tssi.com (Mike Nolan), bobchess@aol.com (Bob Smith), mccrary@axs2k.net (John McCrary), Chessdon@aol.com (Donald Schultz)

Mike, Thank you for your input. I appreciate your consideration in copying me. My decision was made after referring to Section 4 Article VI of the By-laws. "Nomination. Any USCF member shall be eligible for nomination to any elected office upon submitting to the Secretary by April 1 of an election year a valid petition containing the signatures of thirty or more Voting members." This language is quite clear. The member becomes eligible by submitting a valid petition.

I have based my decision on the above language

I see no causative action for suggesting that I am in violation of the Bylaws nor that I would be subject to legal action. If you can show me any language that supercedes this section of the Bylaws, I will reconsider my decision. There is no basis for a "past practice" argument since the Bylaws were rewritten. One prior year's election does not constitute "past practice" nor does it validate a procedure.

As I understand it, the current secretary has discretionary powers in running the election. For example when John ran the state delegates election, he organized it with no feedback that I am aware of.

I have been involved in the running of elections in other organizations.

Having the candidate send in his petition establishes his intent to be a candidate and to serve, if elected. If necessary I will consult an attorney to resolve this issue.

On Friday, Bill tried to submit a petition to the office for another individual who has not declared himself a candidate. Apparently he expected that the office acceptance of the petition would serve as a validation. Bill's attempt to involve the office was a serious transgression. After all the years Bill has been involved in electing candidates, he should be aware of the proper procedures. Fortunately, Jeff, realized that Bill's actions were inappropriate. He called me. I told Jeff to have Bill forward the petition to the supposed candidate for submission. There was plenty of time before the deadline. Bill expressed his concern to Jeff that I May SAy that I did not receive the petition. Jeff's advice to Bill was to have the candidate send it certified mail, return receipt requested.

Please be aware that two declared candidates have already complied with my request in submitting their petitions. Several other possible candidates have also agreed. Changing the requirements for submission of petitions in the middle of the election would be cause for complaint.

Mike, I object that this correspondence initiated by Don and Bill or Bill or Don has been limited to only two Board members.  Please note that I am copying the full board and the ED and Jeff. Doris

______________________________________________________

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 3/18/01 12:06:14 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: Chessdon

To: pistola@worldnet.att.net, Recmate, nolan@celery.tssi.com

CC: Ippy1, finance@uschess.org, APCT, redman@utdallas.edu, JPechac, Gldefeis, bylaws-committee@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, nolan@tssi.com, BobChess, mccrary@axs2k.net, Chessdon

Doris, I must point out that it is only 13 days to close out of nominations. Very short notice to change from traditional practices.

______________________________________________________

Date: 3/18/01 1:16:19 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: Recmate

To: pistola@worldnet.att.net, Recmate, nolan@celery.tssi.com

CC: Ippy1, finance@uschess.org, APCT, redman@utdallas.edu, JPechac, Gldefeis, bylaws-committee@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, nolan@tssi.com, BobChess, mccrary@axs2k.net, Chessdon

Doris Barry wrote:

>> Mike, Thank you for your input. I appreciate your consideration in copying me. My decision was made after referring to Section 4 Article VI of the By-laws. "Nomination. Any USCF member shall be eligible for nomination to any elected office upon submitting to the Secretary by April 1 of an election year a valid petition containing the signatures of thirty or more Voting members." This language is quite clear. The member becomes eligible by submitting a valid petition.

>>I have based my decision on the above language

>>I see no causative action for suggesting that I am in violation of the Bylaws nor that I would be subject to legal action. If you can show me any language that supercedes this section of the Bylaws, I will reconsider my decision. There is no basis for a "past practice" argument since the Bylaws were rewritten.

The "no past practice" argument is flawed, since the previous bylaws contained exactly the same language as the above, except for the number ten instead of thirty. The prior precedent is thus quite clear, and it is difficult to imagine why the Secretary would suddenly have a more restrictive interpretation, especially without providing advance notice. What is the new interpretation designed to accomplish, if not to disqualify candidates?

>> One prior year's election does not constitute "past practice" nor does it validate a procedure.

>> As I understand it, the current secretary has discretionary powers in running the election. For example when John ran the state delegates election, he organized it with no feedback that I am aware of.

>> I have been involved in the running of elections in other organizations.

>> Having the candidate send in his petition establishes his intent to be a candidate and to serve, if elected. If necessary I will consult an attorney to resolve this issue.

Suppose the candidate sends in a petition to "establish his intent" to be a candidate, but it has less than 30 signatures, and his supporters send signatures to the Secretary separately. Why should the latter signatures not count?

>> On Friday, Bill tried to submit a petition to the office for another individual who has not declared himself a candidate. Apparently he expected that the office acceptance of the petition would serve as a validation. Bill's attempt to involve the office was a serious transgression. After all the years Bill has been involved in electing candidates, he should be aware of the proper procedures. Fortunately, Jeff, realized that Bill's actions were inappropriate. He called me. I told Jeff to have Bill forward the petition to the supposed candidate for submission. There was plenty of time before the deadline.

>> Bill expressed his concern to Jeff that I May SAy that I did not receive the petition. Jeff's advice to Bill was to have the candidate send it certified mail, return receipt requested.

This would be proof of receipt, but not of content. There could still be a dispute regarding the number of signatures submitted, which is why I was hoping the office could in effect serve as a witness. Jeff's reply was that he was afraid the office would be accused of being political, and I accept his logic, but certainly not the Secretary's suggestion that my inquiry was improper.

To have the Secretary declare an inquiry to the office regarding whether they would transmit petitions to be "inappropriate" and "a serious transgression" only validates my fears that were previously aroused when she failed to give John McCrary or Don Schultz a straight answer to their questions regarding who can submit petitions. Rather than tell either that she had decided to reject signatures not sent in by the candidates themselves, Doris ignored John and told Don she would post a reply on the USCF website. With time short, evasive behavior such as this certainly produced the impression that the Secretary might be conducting the election process in a partisan manner.

>> Please be aware that two declared candidates have already complied with my request in submitting their petitions. Several other possible candidates have also agreed. Changing the requirements for submission of petitions in the middle of the election would be cause for complaint.

The Secretary has just announced such a change in the requirements, and it certainly is cause for complaint.

When did these other two candidates learn that, unlike in previous elections, signatures would be counted only if sent in by the candidates themselves? John, Don and I just learned this tonight. Were these other two candidates told about this new procedure before?

Bill Goichberg

______________________________________________________

Subj: Re: Elections 2001

Date: 3/18/01 2:53:05 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: nolan@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan)

To: pistola@worldnet.att.net (pistola)

CC: Recmate@aol.com (William Goichberg), nolan@celery.tssi.com, ippy1@aol.com (Joe Ippolito), finance@uschess.org (Jeff Loomis), apct@aol.com (Helen Warren), redman@utdallas.edu (Tim Redman), jpechac@aol.com (Jim Pechac), GLDefeis@aol.com (George L Defeis), bylaws-committee@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, nolan@tssi.com (Mike Nolan), bobchess@aol.com (Bob Smith), mccrary@axs2k.net (John McCrary), Chessdon@aol.com (Donald Schultz)

> Mike, Thank you for your input. I appreciate your consideration in copying

> me. My decision was made after referring to Section 4 Article VI of the

> By-laws. "Nomination. Any USCF member shall be eligible for nomination to

> any elected office upon submitting to the Secretary by April 1 of an

> election year a valid petition containing the signatures of thirty or more

> Voting members." This language is quite clear. The member becomes eligible

> by submitting a valid petition.

What nomination procedures were specified in the Call for Nominations as required to be published in Chess Life? That was the proper place for specific directions to have been given regarding who may submit petitions and to where they should be sent.

> As I understand it, the current secretary has discretionary

> powers in running the election. For example when John ran the state

> delegates election, he organized it with no feedback that I am aware of.

I recall having several e-mail exchanges with John leading up to last year's election, in part because there was considerable confusion as to whether there was even a properly elected USCF Secretary at the time.

It is quite proper and reasonable for the Secretary to consult with the Bylaws Committee through its co-chairs in interpreting Bylaws language, especially when that language is being used for the first time.

> I have been involved in the running of elections in other organizations.

> Having the candidate send in his petition establishes his intent to be a

> candidate and to serve, if elected. If necessary I will consult an attorney

> to resolve this issue.

Wouldn't it make more sense to consult the Bylaws Committee? We work for free.

-

Mike Nolan

______________________________________________________

ChessNews.org homepage