by Bruce Draney

    I would like to comment briefly on the last line of your article about
the TLA motions in Kansas City, where it is stated that President Redman
is likely to aid or  enhance my candidacy by claiming that I fixed the
TLA's by having a proposal ready to change the current unpopular policy by
July 10th.
    I was asked to Chair an Affiliates Committee on October 27th.  I
accepted on the condition that I would not be wasting my time, nor the
time of my fellow committee members.  Between October 27th and March 15th,
we developed 4 compromise plans that each approached TLA's in a slightly
different mannner.  One plan offered a system where the TLA rates would be
based upon the number of lines and the maximum entry fee for the event.
This plan which had the merit of charging more for larger tournaments and
less for smaller club events was a somewhat complex system based upon a
chart and sliding scale.
    My personal plan called for $2.00 per line rates
for up to six lines, and $3.00 per line for the next 4 lines.  Line 11 and
on would be $4.00 per line.  My plan also included an incentive program
where each affiliate would get one complimentary TLA that could be used at
some time during the year of at least 8 lines.  An affiliate could check
off a box asking not to receive the monthly copy of Chess Life and receive
a 2nd complimentary 8 line TLA.  I also suggested a Gold Affiliate option
where a person could pay $50.00 and get another free 8 line TLA for the
additional $10.00 in fees.
    Luis Salinas' plan was to charge $1.50/line for up to 10 lines, but to
increase the rating fees to cover this reduction in the TLA rates.  Luis
also had a stiff penalty for TLA's of lengths of more than 10 lines.  Tom
Martinak suggested a plan that gave the best TLA rates for events and
TLA's submitted on disk or electronically.  Manual reports had a surcharge
added.  We picked four snapshots of 4 different types of events and
calculated the TLA fees under each different situation.  All of this
information was forwarded to the Board several weeks before Kansas City.
I have since found out that at least one Board member claims to have not
known anything about our proposals and therefore proposed his own plan to
return to the old rates.  If this is true, then that is certainly
upsetting to my committee, in that it makes it difficult to convince Board
members to support our proposals if those proposals have never been seen
until the day they are presented to the Board.
    We were extremely optimistic that one of our plans would be acceptable
to the Board.  My goal when I took on the assignment of Chairing this
committee was to see the TLA's returned to an affordable rate and to see
the number of pages of TLA's changed back to what it was prior to January
    Dr. Redman and I are in fierce disagreement on this issue and
certainly he does not agree with my views, nor do I agree with his.  To
imply as it does in the post that I will derive some benefit by a watered
down TLA policy that will be ready but not voted on until Framingham,
seems unfair to me and my commmittee, or that Redman intends to send out
mailings praising me for my efforts is unfair to me.

    Best Regards,

    Bruce Draney, Chairman Affiliates' Committee.

Editor's comment:   The paragraph including the line Bruce refers to stated:

The Board could have given American chess a shot in the arm by simply rescinding the ill advised fee increases at Kansas City, but instead the plan appears to be to have the electors learn that the fees will be lowered at just about the time they receive their ballots.  Perhaps the next Redman mailing attacking EB candidates at USCF expense will also say, "We all owe a great vote of thanks to Bruce Draney for the lowering of  our TLA fees."  Draney is, of course, a candidate for the Executive Board.

I apologize to Bruce, because even though I didn't say so, a reader might infer that I was accusing him of trying to obtain a political advantage out of the motion to have his committee work with the ED to lower the TLA fees by July 10.

I do not believe that Bruce is playing politics with TLAs, but the Redman alliance is.  I think that Bruce would prefer that one of his committee's motions had passed in Kansas City, so that TLA fees would be lowered immediately. 

The Board majority may well want Bruce elected even though they disagree with him on TLA fees, as he has supported them on some other issues, and there may be no candidates other than Pechac who back the TLA fee increases.  I expect Helen Warren, who made the "July 10" motion, to support Bruce's candidacy.  

Note that Helen's motion does not appear to be intended to lead to a vote at Framingham- rather, she says the Delegates should not intervene in this "business decision," and wants the ED to set the final rates by July 10.  Having not been consulted at St Paul as they should have been, the Delegates are now being told that if the huge increase is cut back, maybe only a little bit, they should be happy and again be silent on the issue.

ChessNews.org homepage