DORIS BARRY REVERSES STAND
ON PETITIONS
Apparently stung by widespread criticism from
many sources including the federation's Bylaws Committee, USCF Secretary Doris
Barry has changed her decision to accept nominating petitions only if submitted
by the candidates themselves.
On Saturday night, Doris said, "The
current secretary has discretionary powers in running the election" and
"This language is quite clear. The member becomes eligible by
submitting a valid petition." She continued, "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."
Doris said of signatures I had collected,
without asking if the candidate's signature was among them, "I told Jeff to
have Bill forward the petition to the supposed candidate for
submission."
However, on Monday, Doris said, "Send the
petitions to me for certification. If the candidates have signed them that
is proof of intent. If they have not signed, ask them to send me an
e-mail. If no e-mail then I will have to call them." This means
that her intention is now to adhere to past nominating practices.
Relevant e-mails sent after those presented
yesterday appear below.
|
|
| Subj: |
Re: [spamcop@indirect.com] Re: Elections 2001 |
| Date: |
03/18/2001 2:06:52 PM Eastern Standard Time |
From: drchip@goodnet.com
(Myron A. Lieberman)
To: Recmate@aol.com, pistola@worldnet.att.net, nolan@celery.tssi.com
CC: Ippy1@aol.com, finance@uschess.org, APCT@aol.com,
redman@utdallas.edu, JPechac@aol.com, Gldefeis@aol.com,
bylaws-committee@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, nolan@tssi.com,
BobChess@aol.com, mccrary@axs2k.net, Chessdon@aol.com
|
Hi Bill, Doris and Mike,
Bill asked:
<< 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? >>
It seems rather clear that if a candidate's signature appears on any one of
his or her petitions it is a confirmation of the candidate's intention to
run, regardless of any other petitions that might be received for the
candidate. Does anyone dispute this?
On the other hand if the candidate's signature does not appear on any of the
petitions and the petitions were not submitted by the candidate there must
be a way of to confirm the candidate's intent prior to putting the candidate
on the ballot. Rachel simply contacted the candidates. Other Secretaries may
have their own methods.
It hasn't been mentioned in this discussion yet, but the Secretary needs to
notify the office whenever a candidate is certified, as that candidate is
entitled to receive non-confidential BINFOs and up to 2 sets of mailing
labels from the time he or she is certified. Once the office is notified, it
has been past practice for a letter which explains each candidate's
entitlements to go out under the ED's signature.
Doris commented:
<<<< 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. >>>>
It has always been that the Secretary, not the office, certifies the
nominees and that petitions are to go to the Secretary, not the office. That
is specified in the Bylaws (Article VI Section 4 states " ...upon
submitting
to the Secretary "). The office should not get involved in politics except
where required (such as the Delegate vote counts under SOMOV or sending
letters to EB candidates who are already certified).
Bill, I don't know if everyone is having the same problem with your e-mail,
but when I received your e-mail you seem to indicate where a quote starts
but not where it ends. I suggest that if you start a quote with <<
(the old
AOL standard), you also end it with >> (also the old AOL standard) so that
it does not require the reader to interpret where the quote ends and the
reply starts. I would appreciate it.
Regards,
Myron
________________________________________________________________
In a
message dated 3/18/01 4:22:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, pistola@worldnet.att.net
writes:
<< Mike, I have a hard copy of the Bylaws. Perhaps Tom Dorsch still
has an
electronic copy. Doris >>
Hi Doris,
I am puzzled as to what this is all about. Please, please enlighten me!
Do you plan to makle an attempt to disqualify prospective candidates?
Please, please don't put me in this position!
Best to Denis,
Regards,
Bob Smith
___________________________________________________________________
|
|
| Subj: |
Re: Elections 2001 |
| Date: |
03/18/2001 9:42:20 PM Eastern Standard Time |
| From: |
Chessdon |
| To: |
pistola@worldnet.att.net |
| CC: |
APCT, FCamaratta,
mike_cavallo@juno.com,
Gldefeis, Recmate,
JerryHanken,
Ippy1, mailto:cjareck@attglobal.net%20(Carol%20Jarecki),
mailto:george@neosoft.com%20(george),
Secretary, RJM19@BRYPH.DMH.state.sc.us,
accountant@uschess.org,
nolan@tssi.com,
JPechac, Redman@utdallas.edu,
yasser@insidechess.com,
BobChess, PTamburro,
Rtannerae |
Doris,
tradition is what has been done in the past.
Of course you can change tradition and follow the bylaws to the letter. The
problems are your delay in answering our questions, your failure to give early
notice that you will deviate from tradition and no reasonable reason for you to
deviate the way you have. Had John McCrary and I not inadvertently
inquired we would not have known and candidates that will be running could have
been denied.
There may still be candidates that neither of us know about who in fact will
follow tradition. What do you intend to do about them?
The only plausible explanation for the delay and your deviation seems to have
been an attempt to deny candidacies and cause inconvenience.
In a message dated 3/18/01 4:08:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, pistola@worldnet.att.net
writes:
Subj: Re: Elections 2001
Date: 3/18/01 4:08:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: pistola@worldnet.att.net (pistola)
To: Chessdon@aol.com
File:Procedure for submitting petitions for USCF Election.doc (23040
bytes) DL Time (28800 bps): < 1 minute
Don, I'm following the Bylaws as written. I don't know what you call
traditional methods. I can not find anything written for traditional methods
of running a USCF election. The secretary has the responsiblity for
running the election. All the petitions I have received have complied with the
wording in the Bylaws. Why don't you send in the petitions. You are
holding them up; not I. Doris
_____________________________________________________
|
|
| Subj: |
Re: Elections 2001 |
| Date: |
03/18/2001 11:51:57 PM Eastern Standard Time |
From: randallhough@yahoo.com
(Randall Hough)
To: Recmate@aol.com, pistola@worldnet.att.net, nolan@celery.tssi.com
CC: Ippy1@aol.com, finance@uschess.org, APCT@aol.com,
redman@utdallas.edu, JPechac@aol.com, Gldefeis@aol.com,
bylaws-committee@tssi.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, nolan@tssi.com,
BobChess@aol.com, mccrary@axs2k.net, Chessdon@aol.com
|
To Committee Members and All Concerned,
I agree generally with the tenor of the discussion
that there has never been a requirement that only
candidates themselves submit nominations, and
specifically with Rachel's comments. Efforts to
disqualify candidates on technicalities run contrary
to what should be a spirit of inclusiveness and
encouragement of dialogue. Barring timely
notification of alternative procedures, those which
have been successfully utilized in the past should
remain in effect.
-- Randy Hough
USCF Secretary, 1990-93
_______________________________________________________________________
|
|
| Subj: |
Re: Elections 2001 |
| Date: |
03/19/2001 10:38:38 AM Eastern Standard Time |
From: dmehler@chessctr.org (David Mehler)
Reply-to: dmehler@chessctr.org
To: bylaws-committee@tssi.com
CC: Recmate@aol.com, pistola@worldnet.att.net, nolan@celery.tssi.com,
Ippy1@aol.com, finance@uschess.org, APCT@aol.com, redman@utdallas.edu,
JPechac@aol.com, Gldefeis@aol.com, rjm19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, nolan@tssi.com,
BobChess@aol.com, mccrary@axs2k.net, Chessdon@aol.com
|
I don't recall any discussion while the Bylaws were being drafted or
approved about making it more difficult to be nominated for office. In
fact, the general tone of the discussion was to make things more open
and easier for members of the USCF to become part of the organizational
leadership. No longer would a few people be able to restrict access to
decision-making.
Any reading of the Bylaws contrary to that is done against the intent of
those who approved them.
David Mehler
<![CDATA[
]]>
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
| Subj: |
Re: Elections 2001 |
| Date: |
03/19/2001 11:11:50 AM 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,
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)
|
Bill, Why did you not contact me
directly with your questions and or concerns instead of trying to involve the
office. Secondly, I told Jeff to have you send the petition to the proposed
candidate. Did you? Are there really candidates? I'm not changing a long
established procedure. Rachel chose to verify candidacy by calling. She
had her way of establishing the intent of the candidate. Perhaps someone
may have challenged her methods, if the wording of the Nominations session was
the same 7 or 8 years ago. But no one did . Once again, I urge you to see
that the petition or petitions are sent to me for validation. Time
is of the essence.
Doris
_______________________________________________________________
|
|
| Subj: |
Re: Elections 2001 |
| Date: |
03/19/2001 12:09:17 PM Eastern Standard Time |
From: pistola@worldnet.att.net
(pistola)
To: Chessdon@aol.com (Donald Schultz)
CC: apct@aol.com (Helen Warren), FCamaratta@aol.com
(Frank Camaratta), mike_cavallo@juno.com, GLDefeis@aol.com (George L
Defeis), Recmate@aol.com (William Goichberg), JerryHanken@aol.com
(Jerry Hanken), ippy1@aol.com (Joe Ippolito), cjareck@attglobal.net
(Carol Jarecki), george@neosoft.com (george), secretary@aol.com
(Rachel Lieberman), RJM19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us, accountant@uschess.org
(Linda Legenos), nolan@tssi.com (Mike Nolan), jpechac@aol.com (Jim
Pechac), redman@utdallas.edu (Tim Redman), yasser@insidechess.com (Yasser
Seiawan), bobchess@aol.com (Bob Smith), PTamburro@aol.com (Pete
Tamburro), Rtannerae@aol.com (Robert Tanner)
|
To All, I responded to e-mails within a two day
time frame. It took me awhile to figure out what Bill's problem was. I
never had any intention of excluding candidates. I want the candidates
to give indication that they want to run. They can sign the
petition or they can send me an e-mail saying that they want to run and will
serve if elected.. Rachel verified by calling the candidates
willingness to run after the fact. I want to verify it in writing
before the fact. That prevents a lot of controversy, like she
said or she didn't say. Had Bill discussed this with me directly, this
entire situation would never have happened. Send the petitions to me
for certification. If the candidates have signed them that is proof of
intent. If they have not signed ,ask them to send me an e-mail. If no
e-mail then I will have to call them. Then, I'm responsible for the
verification of the signatures. Make sure the petitions have the state and
individual's ID number. Otherwise that will delay the process
even more.
'm in the process of attempting to collect
some of the USCF's accts receivables. It requires a lot of phone
calls.
I have signed every petition and will continue
to do. You asked if Denis would also sign. I cannot commit his
signature.
That's up to him.
What's the purpose of your copying all these
non-board members, for example Carol Jarecki. What do they
have to do with the election process? Are they candidates? Doris
|
|
| Subj: |
Re: Elections 2001 |
| Date: |
03/19/2001 1:35:55 PM 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, FCamaratta |
Doris
Barry wrote:
>> Bill, Why did you not contact me directly with your
questions and or concerns instead of trying to involve the office. <<
I did not because John and Don had tried for two days and obtained no reply.
After you told Don you would reply at some unspecified future date on the
USCF website, an apparent stalling tactic, it seemed like you wanted to postpone
their learning about your actual policy until it was too late, so I wanted a
written rather than a telephone response. I could have emailed you but
already had a copy of your reply to Don, so assumed I would get the same answer
he did.
>>Secondly, I told Jeff to have you send the petition to the proposed
candidate. Did you? Are there really candidates?<<
Why do you think that just because you have not heard from the candidate yet,
this means he may not be running? If I had sent you his signatures
directly, and his own signature was among them, wouldn't this be enough proof
that he was running?
If I had sent you 30 signatures not including his and he wrote you separately to
say he was running, wouldn't this be enough proof that he was running?
Has USCF had a problem in the past of Board candidates being placed on the
ballot who didn't want to be there? You act as though this was a very
troublesome issue indeed, requiring a new interpretation of the bylaws.
Suppose you receive one signature each from 30 different Voting Members for the
same candidate by April 1, but nothing from the candidate himself. Then on
April 2, the candidate calls you and says, "Am I certified as a
candidate?" Which of the following will your answer be?
A. Not yet, you must also tell me you are running. You say you are?
OK, you're certified.
B. Not yet, you must also tell me in writing you are running. Send
me a letter.
C. No, you didn't declare you were running by April 1, so there is no
longer any way you can get on the ballot.
Rachel would use procedure A. If you prefer B, that's fine with me. Of
course, under B I would not be told I must send my signatures to the candidate.
If you are going to use C, as it seems, that is a surprise new rule and is
highly improper.
>> I'm not changing a long established procedure. Rachel chose to verify
candidacy by calling. She had her way of establishing the intent of the
candidate. Perhaps someone may have challenged her methods, if the wording
of the Nominations session was the same 7 or 8 years ago. But no one did .
Once again, I urge you to see that the petition or petitions are sent to me for
validation. Time is of the essence.<<
>>Doris<<
Doris, I believe you will receive that candidate's petitions in time. But
what if someone else makes a last minute decision to run and in order to reach
30 signatures, needs some voting members to write you directly in order to make
it by April 1? Is it fair to require that these signatures be mailed to
the candidate first, inevitably causing delay? And what if the candidate
counted on the old procedures and is out of town or out of the country?
Bill
Goichberg
_____________________________________________________________________
|
|
| Subj: |
Re: Elections 2001 |
| Date: |
03/19/2001 5:17:04 PM Eastern Standard Time |
| From: |
Chessdon |
| To: |
pistola@worldnet.att.net |
| CC: |
APCT, FCamaratta,
mike_cavallo@juno.com,
Gldefeis, Recmate,
JerryHanken,
Ippy1, cjareck@attglobal.net,
george@neosoft.com,
Secretary, RJM19@bryph.dmh.state.sc.us,
accountant@uschess.org,
nolan@tssi.com,
JPechac, redman@utdallas.edu,
yasser@insidechess.com,
BobChess, PTamburro,
Rtannerae |
Doris:
I won't belabor this. Your response below now indicates that nominations
can be sent direct to you without being sent to you by the candidate so long as
the candidate confirms to you in advance that he /she accepts the nomination.
Fine!
__________________________________________________________
ChessNews.org
homepage
<![CDATA[
]]>