| |
Main
Date: 03 Dec 2007 14:51:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Another Scandal involving "Volunteer of the Month"
|
[quote="tanstaafl"]The process hasn't changed since Susan joined the
board, AFAIK.
Gregory has done a lot as a volunteer for college chess. Suggesting
that he did not deserve an award on his own merits seems rather ...
misguided (after several attempts at self-moderation, that's the best
word I can come up with). You really don't need to denegrate the real
contributions somebody else has made just because you don't like him
or his politics.
Rodney Vaughan [/quote]
The problem is that Gregory Alexander has done a lot of volunteer work
for Susan Polgar.
However, as far as I am aware, he has done no volunteer work for the
USCF, other than his disastrous stint as moderator of the USCF Issues
Forum.
When I was on the board for 12 months, I was entitled to nominate two
people. My second nomination was for Richard Shorman of Northern
California, who has taken thousands of photographs of chess players
and recorded thousands of their games for the chess databases. Richard
Shorman is a true volunteer.
However, I lost the election and as a result Richard Shorman was
kicked out as volunteer of the month. In his place, Grant Perks was
substituted. I do not think that Grant Perks is a true volunteer and I
do not believe that he should have been recognized as Volunteer of the
Month.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2007 14:10:35
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: Another Scandal involving "Volunteer of the Month"
|
On Dec 4, 5:00 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>...Its not about some inert and dysfunctional organisation for everyone - its
not about Sam Sloan's role in things - its about promoting chess. Did
Gregory Alexander do that? I think so. What did USCF do in the same
realm,
de nada!
Gracias.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2007 13:07:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Another Scandal involving "Volunteer of the Month"
|
[quote="chessoffice"]I'm not aware of anyone who has done more to
promote chess in Ohio than Grant Perks. He has also served as a
volunteer member or chair of several USCF financial committees. The
fact that he has also had paid positions in USCF certainly does not
disqualify him from being recognized as volunteer of the month.
Richard Shorman is also well qualified and deserves to be named soon.
Bill Goichberg[/quote]
Glad to see you back. It has been a long time. I am also glad to see
you say that Richard Shorman will someday be given back his
recognition as "Volunteer of the Month" in a future issue of Chess
Life. It seems unfair that he was kicked out just because I also lost
the election. Also, during my 12-month term on the board, I should
have been entitled to name two volunteers of the month and I only got
one. Richard Shorman has been doing his volunteer work for at least
the last 20 or 30 years and has received no recognition for it until
now.
Having a "Volunteer of the Month" was a noble idea but so far the
first two people nominated by the new board are too political to be
suitable for this award. Regarding Grant Perks, he was Executive
Director in 2003 and Chief Financial Officer in 2005 and he was very
well paid. He was a candidate for election in 2006. He now does paid
work for the USCF on an on-and-off basis. Even if he is not paid for
everything he does, I think he is an inappropriate person to be
considered for "Volunteer of the Month".
Regarding Gregory Alexander, as he himself states, most of his
"volunteer" work was done before he became a USCF member. I do not see
how work by a non-member can be considered for USCF "Volunteer of the
Month". Will we be considering Larry Parr, Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell
and Tom Dorsch for this award soon?
Most of the "volunteer" work by Gregory Alexander was for a political
candidate, Susan Polgar, in a hotly contested election. That is the
reason why Susan named him "Volunteer of the Month". He was
volunteering to work for her, not for the USCF.
By contrast, Richard Shorman, the person I nominated, has never been
involved politically and has never been paid. I have never heard him
express a political opinion. I have never seen or heard of him
expressing an opinion, for or against, anybody.
Yet, he comes to every chess tournament in Northern California, takes
thousands of pictures and saves and records the scoresheet of every
game he can find, many of which make it into the chess databases and
are eventually published by others.
Richard Shorman is a true volunteer and that is why I feel he should
have been named "Volunteer of the Month", rather than the other two.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2007 17:00:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Another Scandal involving "Volunteer of the Month"
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1ccc542d-6f58-4852-abf6-
>
> Regarding Gregory Alexander, as he himself states, most of his
> "volunteer" work was done before he became a USCF member. I do not see
> how work by a non-member can be considered for USCF "Volunteer of the
> Month". Will we be considering Larry Parr, Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell
> and Tom Dorsch for this award soon?
And this indeed is a valid question; did the person do anything for chess in
the USA? Or does it depend on what Sam Sloan, Eric Johnson and Bill
Goichberg think they did for USCF?
Sam Sloan here makes a distinction between the two; on the one hand someone
does something for chess requiring no position, money nor authority to do
so, and on the other hand we here they didn't so something for USCF as an
organisation.
That's a clear orientation of doing something for chess players, not an
'organisation', and his USCF reward is to be rubbished for it in public by
Sam Sloan.
> Most of the "volunteer" work by Gregory Alexander was for a political
> candidate, Susan Polgar, in a hotly contested election. That is the
> reason why Susan named him "Volunteer of the Month". He was
> volunteering to work for her, not for the USCF.
And the rest of this mean commentary about a guy who spent 5 years launching
a college chess network, utterly ignored and unsupported by USCF, hardly
deserves more response than to note that Sloan hates it, for the same reason
he hates Susan Polgar.
Its not about some inert and dysfunctional organisation for everyone - its
not about Sam Sloan's role in things - its about promoting chess. Did
Gregory Alexander do that? I think so. What did USCF do in the same realm,
de nada!
Personally I would be proud to be ignored by those who do nothing in that
direction, as much as to be ignored by prize-winning 'journalists' at CJA,
who make wet jokes to their constituency, which seems to compromise, in both
senses, each other.
Heuch! It seems that the pettier it is, the harder it plays.
Phil Innes
> By contrast, Richard Shorman, the person I nominated, has never been
> involved politically and has never been paid. I have never heard him
> express a political opinion. I have never seen or heard of him
> expressing an opinion, for or against, anybody.
>
> Yet, he comes to every chess tournament in Northern California, takes
> thousands of pictures and saves and records the scoresheet of every
> game he can find, many of which make it into the chess databases and
> are eventually published by others.
>
> Richard Shorman is a true volunteer and that is why I feel he should
> have been named "Volunteer of the Month", rather than the other two.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2007 04:53:47
From: Paolo
Subject: Re: Another Scandal involving "Volunteer of the Month"
|
Why is there such bitter fighting on such an award as volunteer of the
month? I think there are better things to worry about.
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2007 19:13:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Another Scandal involving "Volunteer of the Month"
|
[quote="samsloan"]The problem is that Gregory Alexander has done a lot
of volunteer work for Susan Polgar.
However, as far as I am aware, he has done no volunteer work for the
USCF, other than his disastrous stint as moderator of the USCF Issues
Forum.
When I was on the board for 12 months, I was entitled to nominate two
people. My second nomination was for Richard Shorman of Northern
California, who has taken thousands of photographs of chess players
and recorded thousands of their games for the chess databases. Richard
Shorman is a true volunteer.
However, I lost the election and as a result Richard Shorman was
kicked out as volunteer of the month. In his place, Grant Perks was
substituted. I do not think that Grant Perks is a true volunteer and I
do not believe that he should have been recognized as Volunteer of the
Month.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Max allows the following:
Aside from the fact that he has never gotten past 'descriptive
notation' Richard
Shorman has been the USA chess volunteer of the second half of the
20th century and probably will be the man for at least the first
decade of the 21st.
It speaks poorly of the USCF when it chose to not recognize Shorman.
But it is the USCF's loss, not Richard's. His chess photos will end up
in a book and Perks and most others recognized by the USCF will have
only their single moment of fame.
Please post this everywhere you can.
Amici sumus, Max
website: (inactive)
email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
snailmail:
Max Burkett
633-B Minnesota Av
East Missoula, MT
59802 (USA)
telephone:
406-728-6198 (USA)
|
|
