REDMAN: SMITH IS
USCF President writes that his predecessor should "seek medical help"
USCF President Tim Redman today savagely attacked Executive Board member and former USCF President Bob Smith, who polled the largest vote of any EB candidate in the last election. Redman accused Smith of "paranoid interpretations of imagined events" and said of events Smith described yesterday by email, "These events are only occurring in your mind, Bob. Please seek medical help."
Even if Smith had erred, such a savage reaction coming from the highest officer in the Federation would be shocking. But Smith's description of events was unquestionably correct! Redman later admitted that he thought Smith was referring to hard copy Binfo packets, not the electronic mailings sent to the Board and all Executive Board candidates at email@example.com. It is hard to believe that Redman did not recognize the events described by Smith, as he reversed himself on the issue of the Sloan binfos only one day before the Smith mail.
Redman and his allies have been ridiculing Smith for the past year and a half, in an apparent effort to intimidate him into resigning from the Board. Redman has repeatedly referred to USCF's 1999-2000 loss as the "Smith Deficit," even though Redman had far more influence over Executive Directors Dullea and De Feis between 10/99 and 8/00 than Smith, who was not even consulted or notified about important decisions such as the enormous increase in TLA fees.
The vituperation from the Redman group did cause Smith to resign as President after the 2000 Delegates meeting, after an attempt to oust him by amending the bylaws was defeated. Smith told friends that he was stepping down because the attacks were affecting his health. He hoped, apparently in vain, that as an At Large Board member he would be less of a target and obtain more civil treatment. Subsequently, he considered resigning from the Board on several occasions, a development the controlling clique seems to be trying to encourage. When Smith did not attend the recent EB meeting in Kansas City (Redman erroneously says Seattle) citing business reasons, he was censured by Redman and his three allies, Pechac, Barry and Warren.
The latest controversy began with an email sent by Sam Sloan to firstname.lastname@example.org:
--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:16:54 -0400
From: "by way of Sam Sloan <email@example.com>"
Subject: Is George L. DeFeis CEO of the USCF?
Sender: "by way of Sam Sloan <firstname.lastname@example.org>"
Reply-To: "by way of Sam Sloan <email@example.com>"
I have a copy of a letter written by George DeFeis on official USCF
It is signed:
George L. De Feis
Executive Director & CEO
I have never known the Executive Director to sign himself as the CEO
before. Is this proper?
This seems an innocuous inquiry, however, it was apparently in violation of USCF policy which specifies that candidates are added to the binfo (Board info) email distribution list to keep them informed, but are required not to send emails to that list.
From: Timothy P Redman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Is George L. DeFeis CEO of the USCF? <fwd>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 12:28:22 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43)
Please instruct Laura Martz to remove Sam Sloan from
automatic receipt of the binfo messages as he has violated the
requirement that no candidate be allowed to post to that address,
which is for Board use only.
Sloan said that he was unaware that non-Board members were not allowed to post to email@example.com, and he pointed out that two other EB candidates who were not Board members, Bruce Draney and George John, had posted to this list with no complaint resulting from Redman or anyone else. Sloan charged that he was being singled out because of his effort to recall Redman and his allies, certainly a plausible claim. Redman apparently realized his stance was politically untenable, and offered to reinstate Sloan:
In a message dated 5/3/01 1:31:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
I'm sorry to bother you again about this matter, but Mr. Sloan claims that
he did not receive my instructions about not posting to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Further, he has pledged not to do so in the future.
Please ask Laura to restore his name to the distribution list for
email@example.com -- the e-mails should go to all candidates as well as all
Bob Smith then made the following very critical but entirely correct post:
On Fri, 4 May 2001 22:02:48 EDT BobChess@aol.com wrote:
I am quite sure that George is indeed very sorry to be bothered with this
and the many other matters in which you, WITHOUT BOARD CONSENT, have
exercised your perceived power and have given YOUR orders to the office and
its staff. It is no secret that you ordered no Binfo mailings sent to a
certified candidate who filed a recall petition against you.
If summer comes, can August be far behind?
And this was Redman's response:
From: Timothy P Redman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Restoring Mr. Sloan
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 09:25:30 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
Dear Mr. Smith,
Your paranoid interpretations of imagined events seem to be getting out of
hand. There were no orders to the office about excluding anyone from the
binfo list. These events are only occurring in your mind, Bob. Please
seek medical help.
Further, your dereliction of duty has been noted by your Board colleagues.
Without any advance warning, your non-attendance at the March conference
call meeting and your non-attendance at the recent crucial meeting in
Seattle have been noted by your colleagues.
To the best of my recollection you haven't fulfilled any of your
responsibilities since the start of this year. Your only participation is
with these weekly tirades. You owe it to your colleagues on the next Board
to either bear your fair share of Board responsibilities or resign.
After Sloan pointed out that Smith's comments were correct, Redman conceded his error later today in a reply to Mike Nolan. He did not, however, issue an apology for falsely calling a fellow Board member paranoid and suggesting he needed medical help, for saying that Smith had imagined events when it was Redman who was hallucinating, and for suggesting that Smith might consider resigning in the future.
If Bob Smith is treated with just a small amount of respect, I think he will be a productive Board member. Tim Redman, on the other hand, would do USCF a big favor if he would resign from the Board. This current outrage is only the latest in a long series of disgraceful statements and serious policy blunders committed by Redman and his gang. With three months remaining before Framingham, this Board has time to do even more damage to USCF than has already occurred- such as committing to Games Parlor for another two years so the new Board is locked into losing $100,000 a year on online play instead of making $30,000 from an alliance with ICC, or dismantling more successful programs as they have done with TLAs and book/equipment sales.On Sat, 05 May 2001 12:26:53 -0700, Tim Redman <email@example.com>