0001
1 ------------------------------------------
2 UNITED STATES CHESS FEDERATION
3 Executive Board Meeting
4 February 10, 2002
5 ------------------------------------------
6 VOLUME 2
7
8 February 9, 2002
9:00 a.m.
9 Ramada Inn
Newburgh, New York
10
11 BOARD MEMBERS: DR. JOHN McCRARY, President
12 STEVE SHUTT, Vice President
13 Frank CAMARATTA, Treasurer
14 BOB SMITH, Secretary
15 DR. Frank BRADY,
16 Member-At-Large
17 Frank NIRO, Interim Executive
18 Director
19
20
21
22
23
24
0002
1 O P E N S E S S I O N
2 PRESIDENT McCRARY: The meeting is
3 convened in open session.
4 First item on the agenda, we'll
5 take care of some of the smaller issues. I
6 would ask Barb Vandermark to start off
7 regarding the Alaska affiliate if you would.
8 MS. VANDERMARK: Sure. Last year
9 around this time we received a call from
10 someone in Alaska wanting to start their own
11 affiliate in that state and discontinue the
12 one which is now Far North Chess. He had
13 some complaints about not being advised in
14 advance of their annual meeting and their
15 election of officers and different aspects of
16 Far North Chess.
17 So it was brought up at the August
18 board meeting, and at that time -- I'm sorry,
19 before the board meeting in June we sent out
20 all the information to the affiliate and the
21 states committees for their input on how to
22 proceed with handling it. And on the
23 recommendation of the Affiliates Committee
24 they decided that it would be best for the
0003
1
2 members of the state affiliate -- no, I'm
3 sorry, all the members in Alaska to have an
4 election to vote for which affiliate would
5 represent them.
6 In August at the board meeting
7 there was a motion passed that seven to
8 nothing that the board would accept the
9 report of the Affiliates Committee and send a
10 letter to the members in Alaska to vote on
11 who would be their official affiliate. So at
12 this point now we have to get a letter out to
13 the members in Alaska for them to vote on
14 their choice.
15 So it's something that we need to
16 do before the August meeting, because I
17 believe at the August meeting that it will be
18 determined which one will be the official
19 state affiliate of Alaska.
20 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Frank.
21 DR. BRADY: Has anyone spoken to
22 the original, the existing affiliate
23 president or director and heard what he had
24 to say?
0004
1
2 MS. VANDERMARK: Well, I had spoken
3 to Lew Brown-Coon, who had been the president
4 of Far North Chess for quite a while. And at
5 some point, I believe last year or the year
6 before, he had resigned, and they had elected
7 a new president. From what I understand, the
8 person that they elected is not in the state
9 a lot. I think he works on a ship or
10 something that goes off for a while. So Lew
11 offered to kind of act as an intermediary
12 between the two to try to get them to solve
13 it within the state, which was a
14 recommendation at first, hoping that they
15 wouldn't have to go through the delegates and
16 through the board. But there couldn't seem
17 to be anyone willing to resolve and get
18 together the issue and decide what would be
19 best.
20 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Now, this was
21 the August 9th board meeting?
22 MS. VANDERMARK: Actually, I have
23 the motion right here.
24 PRESIDENT McCRARY: If you would
0005
1
2 read that please.
3 MS. VANDERMARK: Sure.
4 In the matter of the challenge
5 about the USCF affiliate for Alaska, the
6 board accepts the report of the affiliate
7 committee as amended. It is the unanimous
8 opinion of the Affiliates Committee that it
9 is important that a completely proper and
10 democratic election by mail be held in the
11 state of Alaska to officially determine
12 leadership of the official USCF affiliate.
13 The election will take place within the next
14 year, and any eligible USCF voting member in
15 Alaska shall be sent a ballot where they can
16 mark their preference for affiliate
17 leadership.
18 To ensure a fair and proper
19 election, these ballots will be mailed to the
20 USCF office in New Windsor where, after a
21 certain length of time has elapsed, USCF will
22 compile the results and announce the results
23 to all members in the state of Alaska.
24 The USCF strongly urges cooperation
0006
1
2 and a mutual show of respect by the various
3 parties, regardless of the election results,
4 in helping Alaskan chess to go and thrive.
5 Passed 7:0.
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Now, that was
7 done by the previous board is what I wanted
8 to emphasize. Of course I did vote for it as
9 a member.
10 As I understand it, this is not to
11 determine the affiliate, which comes under
12 the bylaws, but to determine the leadership
13 of the affiliate, which is different. In
14 fact, we would not be changing the affiliate
15 but allowing them to determine its
16 leadership.
17 What I would recommend that we do
18 today is refer this to two committees for
19 fairly quick opinion. Those being the Bylaws
20 Committee and the Election Procedures
21 Committee, which was appointed in August and
22 consists of Bill Goichberg and Mike Nolan,
23 Mike Nolan also being co-chair of bylaws. I
24 want to make sure we don't have a bylaws
0007
1
2 problem with this. And if we don't, the
3 Elections Procedures Committee can then work
4 with Bob to have the election -- and sounds
5 logical as it might be time to coincide with
6 the board election this year, maybe the
7 ballots counted at the U.S. Chess Trust Open.
8 What do you think, Bob?
9 MR. SMITH: Three elections?
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes, that might
11 have to be a little easier. We wouldn't have
12 to get three different groups of talliers and
13 so on. Is there a discussion on this?
14 MR. CAMARATTA: Could it be
15 confusing for them to get two separate
16 ballots so to speak, if you do get them that
17 close together?
18 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, there
19 would have to be an explanatory letter I
20 think to go with the ballot. What would you
21 recommend?
22 MR. CAMARATTA: I kind of think the
23 way it was originally set up sounds fine. As
24 long as bylaws doesn't have a problem with
0008
1
2 it. I just perceive sending a ballot as soon
3 as possible, giving the people up there a
4 chance to campaign -- which they don't do. I
5 wouldn't get it too close to elections, and
6 maybe give them some cause for complain
7 getting back to us. Just a thought.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Steve.
9 MR. SHUTT: What is their problem
10 with them running their own election, as
11 every other state does?
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: That's why I
13 want to consult with bylaws. If there's a
14 question about the leadership, the leadership
15 itself is being contested, It might be a
16 contention of who would run the election.
17 That's just off the top of my head.
18 MS. VANDERMARK: The person that
19 contacted me originally about changing the
20 affiliate did send me some backup information
21 regarding stating that they had not followed
22 their bylaws as far as announcing an annual
23 meeting for the election of officers of the
24 state affiliate. So that was one of the
0009
1
2 problems. And I guess there's some fighting
3 within the people themselves about the way
4 things are being run. So that's where it
5 originally started.
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: It's probably
7 the rationale for the USCF refereeing so to
8 speak.
9 MS. VANDERMARK: Yeah, when this
10 came up actually I did touch base with Mike
11 Nolan, and he was the one at that time that
12 suggested consulting with the States
13 Committee and also the Affiliate Committee.
14 Which at that time I sent the whole packet of
15 information with all the e-mails and the back
16 and forth stuff to them, which was in June.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, as Frank
18 Camaratta suggested, the number of ballots
19 would be quite small --
20 MS. VANDERMARK: I don't think they
21 have that many members.
22 PRESIDENT McCRARY: -- so I think
23 probably a set of talliers might not be
24 necessary to be appointed. Perhaps it could
0010
1
2 be done at the office. Any other comments on
3 that?
4 Since the motion has already been
5 passed by the previous board and is still in
6 effect, I would prefer not to pass another
7 one but just act on the previous one. Is
8 that acceptable to everyone?
9 MR. SHUTT: Yes.
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay.
11 It sounds as though we are in
12 agreement to consult with the Bylaws
13 Committee and the Election Procedures
14 Committee. And then Bob set up the
15 procedures for the special election. Okay.
16 Now, the next item we'll go into
17 would be the committee structure. Why don't
18 we take this one next, the Bobby Fischer
19 matter. Go ahead and do that. I will start
20 by giving the floor to Frank Niro to explain
21 what has been done since the last meeting,
22 and then we'll have discussion.
23 MR. NIRO: Well, simply George
24 DeFeis followed through and sent a letter as
0011
1
2 requested at the October board meeting to
3 Bobby Fischer through his attorney in Los
4 Angeles. That was mailed on January 17th.
5 And to this point we have no response.
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay,
7 discussion.
8 DR. BRADY: If I may.
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes.
10 DR. BRADY: Yes, I was disappointed
11 to see on page eleven of the March issue of
12 Chess Life such a tiny little notice of what
13 we're doing. I think this is, it just simply
14 states what the board had agreed to do, the
15 U.S. Chess Fedration disassociates itself
16 from the remarks made by Robert J. Fischer
17 about the terrorist action. USCF Executive
18 Board expresses the deepest sympathy for
19 victims of the tragedy and the strongest
20 condemnation of the actions of the
21 terrorist -- it should say terrorists plural,
22 but it doesn't. Mr. Fisher will be informed
23 that his membership may be revoked.
24 Well, that's all true, except that
0012
1
2 I'll bet you that 90 percent of the people
3 who read the magazine wouldn't even notice
4 it. It looks like a little tiny ad in there.
5 And I think this is an extremely important
6 juncture that has infiltrated the U.S. Chess
7 Federation.
8 And admittedly, I have some very
9 personal involvement in that 64 people from
10 my university were killed in the World Trade
11 Center. But aside from my own personal
12 involvement, what Fischer is saying -- and of
13 course it's not indicated here what he's
14 saying -- some of you may have read about it
15 on the Internet or even heard his radio
16 broadcast. His statements are of course
17 outrageous. They are mean. They are unkind.
18 They are perhaps legally treasonous. We are
19 at war.
20 And someone pointed out, well, you
21 know, what would you do in terms of Alekhine
22 during the Second World War? Well, if this
23 was the Second World War -- we are at war --
24 if this was '44 and Alekhine made those
0013
1
2 pro-Nazi statements, I think we should stand
3 up against Alekhine as well.
4 I was absolutely devastated that
5 the Hall of Fame installed Fischer
6 prominently, despite my complaints. If
7 anything, I think the U.S. Chess Federation
8 should do more than just simply revoking
9 Fischer's membership. Some people are
10 getting very technical and saying he's not
11 really a member. Well, I don't know what
12 that means. I think that all Grand Masters
13 automatically become members and receive
14 Chess Life. And I believe that Fischer
15 receives Chess Life, and that he's de facto a
16 member, because he's an American Grand
17 Master. Whether or not he says I am a member
18 or not or whether he walks around with a
19 membership card or not, I still think he's a
20 member. And by all means, he's been given 30
21 days. Not only should we revoke his
22 membership, if he does not answer -- and I
23 hope he does, but I doubt that he will, but
24 that that should be widely, widely
0014
1
2 publicized. And that every effort should be
3 made by the Executive Board to pressure the
4 Hall of Fame to remove Fischer from their
5 exhibits, and further an attempt should be
6 made by FIDE to strip Fischer of his Grand
7 Master title -- well, can't strip him for his
8 World Championship title, but strip him from
9 his Grand Master title. That's all I have to
10 say.
11 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, well, I
12 would support revocation of the right to
13 membership, which he's entitled to as a Grand
14 Master. I would also support a larger piece
15 of some type in Chess Life, which might
16 include such quotes as we are sure were
17 correctly attributed to him. And I believe
18 you actually heard his interview, so there's
19 no question of the authenticity.
20 DR. BRADY: Yes.
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: And I would
22 also concur with expressing our concerns
23 about this both to the Trust and to FIDE for
24 the areas that fall within their
0015
1
2 jurisdiction.
3 Now, the question of how to do this
4 as a motion partly comes in with the fact
5 that the letter was sent very late, and so
6 therefore the 30 days have not yet expired.
7 They would expire I believe next Saturday,
8 the 16th. So perhaps we could phrase a
9 motion today which we could pass by
10 objections procedure at that time. Would
11 that be acceptable?
12 DR. BRADY: That would be
13 acceptable. Or we could wait until the May
14 meeting. You know, there's no great rush to
15 do this, but I think it has to be done.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Any other
17 comments on that?
18 MR. CAMARATTA: Well, I guess, you
19 know, it obviously has been suggested that
20 Fischer never made those comments, and that
21 the tape recording was a fraud. I think we
22 need to know whether or not those suggestions
23 are pure conjecture or whether we have
24 absolute proof that it was said. That's one.
0016
1
2 And I've already written my
3 feelings about the other. He was installed
4 in the Hall of Fame in 1986 for his chess
5 playing prowess, not for some of his idiotic
6 thoughts. And I don't think it's
7 appropriate, A) to expunge him from history.
8 He's certainly a major part of chess history
9 and don't see the point on pressing FIDE.
10 His World Championship he was; no longer. It
11 is a fact that actually happened. You can't
12 change history.
13 As much as we despise what he said,
14 if they are his words, they are just words.
15 I don't believe going beyond that really
16 serves any purpose. I don't want to be in a
17 position where this board supports changing
18 history. This has already happened. Fischer
19 is what Fischer is. He's a great chess
20 player, an historical figure. Being an
21 historical figure means he belongs in the
22 Hall of Fame. That's the history of chess.
23 We may not like him, but he's there.
24 Alekhine is going to be there. There are
0017
1
2 some unsavory people that play chess
3 unfortunately.
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Any other
5 comments? Steve.
6 MR. SHUTT: How would you
7 determine -- you said you would like to know
8 whether or not he said the words. Now would
9 you go about even determining if the tape is
10 a fraud or not? I wouldn't assume that it
11 was, but if you think it is, how would you
12 determine that?
13 MR. CAMARATTA: I didn't say it
14 was. I said I heard it.
15 MR. SHUTT: How would you
16 determine whether or not he actually said
17 those words?
18 MR. CAMARATTA: A voice print.
19 MR. SHUTT: What?
20 MR. CAMARATTA: A voice print.
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, I'll
22 recognize Don Schultz.
23 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, I'd just like to
24 say a couple of things. One I think whatever
0018
1
2 the board does on this it really should do
3 unanimously. I think the reason to do
4 this -- I mean we don't care much about
5 Fischer I don't think -- it is to completely
6 disassociate the U.S. Chess Federation from
7 these terrible things that he said.
8 As far as history goes, I don't
9 think it's a question of correcting history.
10 I think Fischer had ratings, maybe the
11 highest rating of all times, and that can be
12 changed. He was given a Grand Master title,
13 that can be changed. But you can take that
14 title away, and that really doesn't affect
15 history. The Hall of Fame is just that.
16 It's a Hall of Fame, not a hall of infamy.
17 And he was put in it, and no one is going to
18 say he wasn't. But there's no reason why you
19 can't take him out of the Hall of Fame.
20 I think the thrust here should be
21 to publicize what you're doing. It's not
22 that you want to do something to protect
23 individuals or the federation in a small way.
24 You just want to make it very clear. That's
0019
1
2 why I think Frank's point, the little thing
3 in the magazine is not so good.
4 There have been some very strong
5 letters on this, letters to the editor to
6 post that, maybe a little article in the
7 magazine and see the reaction to it. But I
8 think it's a public relations problem.
9 Because as time goes on and things get worse
10 perhaps, it could really reflect bad on the
11 USCF for honoring somebody who has -- I
12 couldn't listen -- I started to listen to the
13 tape, and after about 60 seconds I had to
14 turn it off. It was so terrible. It really
15 was. And I believe it was Fischer. I don't
16 see how it could not be.
17 MR. CAMARATTA: I'm not saying it
18 was or wasn't. All I'm saying is I heard
19 that allegation. Just reporting what I
20 heard.
21 MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah, I appreciate
22 there are two sides of the argument.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, Dr. Brady.
24 DR. BRADY: There are some people
0020
1
2 that believe that Fischer walks on water.
3 And our support of Fischer, no matter what he
4 did, if he assassinated the president of the
5 United States, they would still want him to
6 remain in the Hall of Fame. And there's
7 nothing we can do about that.
8 One of his biggest supporters
9 indeed posted something on the net saying
10 maybe this isn't Fischer. I listened to the
11 entire tape -- not that I am expert in the
12 field, but I am Fischer's biographer and
13 indeed spoke to him hundreds and hundreds of
14 times over the telephone and in person. And
15 if expert testimony prevails, I am telling
16 you that that was Bobby's voice. And it was
17 not anybody else making it up.
18 We don't want to make this another
19 Watergate where we have tapes and missing
20 gaps and so forth and so on. We'll spend all
21 of our time trying to determine the
22 authenticity of the voice and so forth. I
23 don't think that that's necessary. We all
24 know any reasonable person who hears the tape
0021
1
2 will know that it was Fischer, and anybody
3 who has ever spoken to Fischer will know that
4 it's Fischer.
5 I just stand by my feeling that the
6 Hall of Fame is indeed that. It is
7 recognizing this person. I think sometimes
8 we have to forget about the chess and look at
9 the person. And I know that's heretical
10 among chess players to say. But I believe
11 let's look at the person, and if the person
12 is indeed in this particular case, when the
13 United States is at war and the United States
14 has lost thousands of people, innocent
15 people, and someone says he applauds the act,
16 he's glad United States got what they wanted,
17 the people in the World Trade Center deserve
18 what they got, I think we can not tolerate
19 this.
20 This is our group, this is our
21 organization. As our group and we do have
22 the right -- it's part of the bylaws, that we
23 have a right to expunge people for reasons
24 that we so deem reasonable.
0022
1
2 So I think that we can wait till
3 what date did you say was it, February --?
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: 16th.
5 DR. BRADY: We could wait until
6 that date and then revoke his membership. I
7 don't know if you want to take a vote on
8 sending the people at the Hall of Fame a
9 letter asking them to do away with the
10 Fischer exhibit. Again, I don't by any way
11 shape or means want to hurt the museum. I
12 want it to prosper. I think it is good. I'm
13 not trying to interfere. But under the
14 circumstances I think something should be
15 done.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, Frank
17 Camaratta.
18 MR. CAMARATTA: Yeah, I want to get
19 back, you know keep in mind, it is not just a
20 Hall of Fame. It is a museum. It deals with
21 history in chess. Bobby Fischer is a piece
22 of history in chess, whether or not we like
23 it. I still feel very strongly we can not
24 change history. There is nothing in the
0023
1
2 bylaws I ever saw that says we can expunge
3 anybody. We can deprive them of their
4 membership, but we can't make them a
5 non-person.
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, I'll
7 recognize myself.
8 First of all, as I indicated
9 earlier, I would support revocation of the
10 right to membership. I do support a
11 statement in Chess Life which states more
12 clearly what the basis for that is. And I
13 would support a letter to the Trust and to
14 FIDE expressing our concerns, that it is an
15 area of jurisdiction.
16 It is somewhat ironic -- I woke up
17 early about 5:30 and in fact picked up Dr.
18 Brady's book on Bobby Fischer to read. And
19 obviously it is a classic book and very well
20 written, and it's fascinating to read. And
21 it is tragic that this person who made such
22 an impact has allowed himself to degenerate
23 the way he has.
24 Regarding the general issues of
0024
1
2 Hall of Fame and museums, it is an awkward
3 matter. If we expunge museums of all
4 undesirable people, you know, we won't have
5 any museums. The question of Hall of Fame is
6 a different matter. In the baseball Hall of
7 Fame, there are persons who were indicted and
8 later found to be involved in serious
9 gambling activities. So baseball has faced
10 the same situation.
11 I guess first I want to ask one
12 question, and then I want to poll the board
13 on a couple of things. And I'm going to put
14 you on the spot, Mr. Belcher. You just came
15 in to visit, and you've got to be put to work
16 immediately.
17 You're an attorney. Do you feel
18 just from a legal standpoint, would there be
19 any issues we would have to consider here. ?
20 MR. BELCHER: Well, as I was
21 listening, I mean all I could think about was
22 what you just said. And as I was listening
23 to what John just said, you know, I just
24 thought about what a tragedy, what a tragedy
0025
1
2 it is. And frankly, some of my thoughts had
3 to do I guess with not legal but had to do
4 with the Association. Because I know that in
5 marketing usually when you try to
6 disassociate yourself from some bad news, you
7 just make it worse. You know, people just
8 link; if they see more items out there, they
9 just link the USCF with Bobby Fischer. So,
10 you know, that's -- so I think how we
11 disassociate ourselves -- I guess, you know,
12 I wouldn't recommend a big article about it.
13 Because frankly, even before this happened, I
14 thought it was probably one of the biggest
15 tragedies for scholastic chess anyway,
16 because here was this hero for the children
17 of America. And if ever there was, you know,
18 a terrible hero, there you are.
19 I don't think that really there's a
20 legal issue. And you know, I think that
21 the -- you notice that was already put in the
22 magazine was, you know, a nice notice, very
23 simple. You know, it wasn't as big as I'm
24 sure we all would want it to be. But in
0026
1
2 terms of a legal point of view, I'm sure that
3 that would suffice. But, you know, I think
4 there's other reasons to continue to do
5 exactly what you're thinking about.
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: So just to
7 follow up before I get to Steve, I didn't
8 hear you express any legal concerns that you
9 could think of off the top of your head about
10 the actual revocation of right to membership?
11 MR. BELCHER: I don't think so.
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, Steve.
13 MR. SHUTT: Yeah, I haven't seen
14 the exhibit on Fischer, and is it up? Is it
15 complete?
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: There are some
17 items there, yes.
18 MR. SHUTT: I think that when you
19 put an exhibit up there's a wide latitude as
20 to how the exhibit is displayed. You can
21 simply list all the world champions and maybe
22 show their picture, the dates they were world
23 champion, and that's recording history. And
24 I wouldn't put a big gap or hole there. But
0027
1
2 on the other hand I know when you get a hero
3 you want to glamourize him and we have always
4 wanted to take our American heroes, whether
5 Paul Morphy or Bobby Fischer -- because we
6 haven't had a great number of chess world
7 champions -- and promptly display them and
8 showcase them. And I think certainly that's
9 an area that we don't need to do in this
10 case. We don't need to put in a big
11 glamorous display showcasing him and building
12 him up up as something that could be
13 idolized.
14 So there's a lot that could be done
15 to restrict the kind of prominence that he is
16 given in the Hall of Fame, should they elect
17 to continue displaying him. It could be
18 merely as an historical figure listing he was
19 world champion at such and such a time
20 without putting a lot of paraphernalia, like
21 this is Bobby Fischer's first chess set,
22 whatever. Which you often find happening.
23 It doesn't have to be a high visibility kind
24 of thing. And that I think would be in poor
0028
1
2 taste. Even if we don't have the authority
3 to dictate that, I think that if they did
4 that, showcase him in a prominent way, that
5 would be in poor taste. Basically I agree
6 with the rest of the membership.
7 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, Frank
8 Camaratta.
9 MR. CAMARATTA: A couple of things
10 real quick. Of course we can always show
11 Spasky prominently and mention who he played.
12 But we will overlook that trick. We know
13 there are people -- that some people believe
14 are legitimate candidates for halls of fame
15 that were never inducted because of their
16 behavior. We can mention one very prominent
17 person who we won't. Have any people
18 actually been removed from Hall of Fame?
19 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I'm not aware
20 of one. Except I'm only familiar with the
21 baseball Hall of Fame.
22 DR. BRADY: Are you talking about
23 chess or just general?
24 MR. CAMARATTA: In general.
0029
1
2 DR. BRADY: In general, I don't
3 know of people being removed from halls of
4 fame, but I remember people having just
5 recently, people who were stripped of their
6 titles, including that of champion of the
7 world.
8 MR. CAMARATTA: That's happened a
9 number of times.
10 DR. BRADY: Yeah, yeah, yeah,
11 boxing and in other things. So the fact of
12 stripping the title is done all the time.
13 MR. CAMARATTA: Let me respond to
14 that though. People that have been stripped
15 of titles when they had them, but they have
16 never been stripped of ex. When Ali lost his
17 he was world champion, he was always referred
18 to as former. Never lost that. You would be
19 very correct if he were world champion, but
20 the fact that he was, he was, that's a fact.
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Dr. Brady.
22 DR. BRADY: If I may, just one
23 other very short thing. I'm sorry to keep
24 harping on it. I don't know how you --
0030
1
2 people have responded in your individual
3 worlds, but at university, where I teach, I
4 must have had about a half a dozen people --
5 which is pretty high -- students and faculty
6 have come to me, knowing that I'm a chess
7 player and knowing that I've written a
8 biography of Bobby Fischer, saying what's
9 going on with Fischer? I even had one
10 student say to me: How could you have
11 written a biography of Bobby Fischer?
12 MR. CAMARATTA: A perfect example.
13 I didn't write it.
14 DR. BRADY: I said, you know, that
15 was in '72, and that I'm sorry. You know,
16 but I'm constantly having to explain it. If
17 that's just in my little world, what about
18 the entire chess world? The blight of damage
19 that he's already done is incredible. So if
20 you want to talk about marketing or publicity
21 value and so forth, the harm is already done.
22 And so I think that maybe we can through
23 statements and through articles and through
24 press conferences and through other media
0031
1
2 outlets, we can soften a little bit the
3 damage that he has done to American chess.
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Steve, go
5 ahead.
6 MR. SHUTT: Most of the people
7 that I've talked to, most of them are going
8 to be younger than the college age, and they
9 aren't aware of it. They did not hear it.
10 They don't know anything about it, and I
11 don't know. Those that haven't heard about
12 it, I would just as soon they not even know.
13 I don't go into a big long thing with them
14 about it. But I'm a little -- what do you
15 think, Frank, about -- is there a danger of
16 us --
17 DR. BRADY: Well, that is altering
18 history unto itself, if we don't -- you know,
19 if you're giving instruction to your students
20 about chess and Fischer comes up, I mean I
21 think you're going to have to say what he's
22 like.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, I'm going
24 to actually at this point I want to get this
0032
1
2 matter resolved, so I'm not going to
3 recognize persons from the audience.
4 I will comment first. I think the
5 cat's out of the bag already. I mean I
6 suspect, based on what's in the March Chess
7 Life that there will be other letters coming
8 to the editor already and that Peter will
9 probably be considering those for
10 publication, and I think it is within his
11 rights to do so.
12 That being the case, one
13 alternative might be -- your timing was very
14 good Peter; Peter Kurzdorfer I just mentioned
15 your name. We are talking about the issue of
16 Bobby Fischer. And I'm assuming that you
17 might have received other communications
18 besides the one already published on the
19 matter.
20 MR. KURZDORFER: Yes.
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: So I think to
22 address one of the concerns of the board,
23 it's likely that Chess Life is going to have
24 to address this matter anyway. And I don't
0033
1
2 think it can be avoided at this point. I
3 could be wrong. But I think it is a
4 legitimate matter of discussion. That being
5 the case, one suggestion might be that
6 perhaps Dr. Brady could write a statement for
7 the letters column on the matter.
8 What do you think, Frank?
9 DR. BRADY: I'm perfectly willing
10 to do that, and shall, if invited. But could
11 we entertain a motion or is that not right
12 now?
13 PRESIDENT McCRARY: No, that's my
14 next point.
15 DR. BRADY: Okay.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I wanted to
17 poll the board on the several points that
18 were discussed and just see where we are
19 informally. First of all, on the matter of
20 revoking his right to membership, is there a
21 board member who would object to doing so?
22 Okay, hearing none I assume there is not.
23 On the matter of conveying our
24 concerns in a letter to the Trust and to
0034
1
2 FIDE, is there any board member who would
3 object to doing so?
4 MR. CAMARATTA: Question, what
5 would be the tenor of it?
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: My
7 recommendation would be to state what has
8 been expressed here, that because of these
9 incredible statements that in fact the board
10 would like the responsible bodies to consider
11 whether action should be taken, specifically
12 such as membership in the Hall of Fame and
13 Grand Master status. And I'd refer it to
14 those boards that have jurisdiction.
15 MR. CAMARATTA: Let me comment a
16 little further. I would support a letter
17 that went out in more of an interrogatory,
18 like what are your opinions, rather than
19 stating our position in a hard we think you
20 should.
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, what do
22 you think, Frank?
23 DR. BRADY: Why not give our
24 opinions? If indeed the board feels that we
0035
1
2 are going to revoke the membership, you can
3 poll the board as to whether or not you think
4 we should recommend that FIDE revoke his
5 title of Grand Master, and the U.S. Trust
6 revoke his prominence in the Hall of Fame. I
7 would say I would prefer that.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Peter, did you
9 have something?
10 MR. KURZDORFER: Just one thing
11 about revoking Grand Master. Wouldn't that
12 be politicizing the title? Which is one
13 thing I thought we were trying to avoid.
14 Because essentially, he won his Grand Master
15 title through playing chess, and what he's
16 doing now has nothing to do with chess.
17 DR. BRADY: Nor was Pete Rose doing
18 that in baseball.
19 MR. KURZDORFER: It is the chess
20 world. But chess itself, he's still --
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: All right,
22 seems like there was a third point. I guess
23 those are the main ones. It sounds as though
24 we are in agreement on the first two, which
0036
1
2 is revocation of right to membership and
3 having Dr. Brady offer something to you for
4 publication to be associated perhaps with the
5 letters that you're going to be getting
6 anyway.
7 MR. KURZDORFER: Oh, sure.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Because I think
9 the issue will come up. I think chess
10 players will have strong opinions one way or
11 another. After the issue came out and before
12 I received my copy, I think I got the last
13 copy in America when it finally got to my
14 mailbox. But I had already received an
15 e-mail from someone who I had never heard of
16 complaining that we used the word "may"; that
17 we should have definitely thrown him out. So
18 you're going to get strong opinions both
19 ways.
20 So I think it is going to come into
21 the issue, and I think that's the best way.
22 And it's possible that other board members
23 might want to join with you in doing that
24 after you've drafted something. Perhaps a
0037
1
2 letter sent to these other bodies from board
3 members who are interested.
4 MR. CAMARATTA: Real quick.
5 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes.
6 MR. CAMARATTA: There is a way to
7 do that. I would like to not tell anybody
8 what to do. I would like to have a letter
9 going out asking that these bodies join us in
10 condemning this reprehensible act and do it
11 that way, rather than suggest remedies. We
12 could say we revoked the membership, and we
13 are looking for the World Chess Organization
14 to join us, and that type of a letter.
15 MR. SHUTT: Statement of
16 condemnation.
17 MR. CAMARATTA: Yes, absolutely.
18 DR. BRADY: Yes, that's acceptable.
19 MR. SMITH: Condemnation in the
20 very strongest terms.
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: It sounds like
22 now we have achieved agreement, is that
23 correct?
24 DR. BRADY: Yes.
0038
1
2 MR. SHUTT: Can I?
3 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes.
4 MR. SHUTT: I also think we can
5 let the museum know that the kind of display
6 should be carefully considered, and that the
7 word "prominent" is very important. We don't
8 have to change history. We can recognize the
9 historic fact that he was world champion
10 without giving him a prominent type of
11 display that glorifies him. And I think that
12 would be in bad taste. And I think we could
13 convey our feelings about that to the museum.
14 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I would agree.
15 I think as they stand now the display is
16 focussed on his chess ahievements, because
17 before this he was making pro-Nazi statements
18 and everything else. So this is the way that
19 he did before. There's not a heroism concept
20 there. Did you have something else?
21 DR. BRADY: Just to clarify. The
22 statement that we agreed upon in October was
23 that his -- and the letter stated that his
24 membership may be revoked. Now, if he does
0039
1
2 not respond by January 16th -- or February
3 16th, does that mean we are now agreeing that
4 we will revoke his membership?
5 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, that was
6 my next point.
7 DR. BRADY: Oh, sorry.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: We're thinking
9 alike. It sounds as though if we've reached
10 agreement that we could probably pass a
11 motion by objections procedure after the 16th
12 without difficulty on these points. Would
13 that be reasonable?
14 MR. CAMARATTA: Yeah, we could do
15 it now and have it become effective. I mean
16 anyway you want to do it is fine.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I could write
18 up something while we are doing something
19 else and see what it sounds like. I'm a
20 little hesitant from a legal standpoint to
21 say if we don't hear this we will do that.
22 That kind of anticipates the process. I
23 would prefer to do it by objections
24 procedure. And I think we can expedite it
0040
1
2 and people would e-mail me back very quickly
3 with their responses. We could expedite it.
4 MR. CAMARATTA: Just a matter of
5 when you get an e-mail response, how do you
6 keep a record of that, just for the record
7 and so that it is -- people other than
8 yourself, other boards can access it if
9 necessary; what is your procedure?
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, for
11 objections procedure motions, we have a file
12 that I have a personal file that I print it
13 out, all the responses. And then that is
14 entered into the minutes of the following
15 meeting. And all of the responses should be
16 copied to the full board at the time they are
17 sending them.
18 MR. CAMARATTA: All right.
19 MR. NIRO: Just a clarification.
20 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes.
21 MR. NIRO: You mentioned earlier
22 that we were talking about his right to
23 membership. I thought you said that. I
24 think technically -- and it's merely a
0041
1
2 technicality -- he is not a member and has
3 not been a member since 1985. And we have no
4 record of ever sending him Chess Life since
5 at least 1985.
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I think it
7 would be the right to membership as a Grand
8 Master -- well, even if he were to send in
9 his $40, it would be taking away his right to
10 pay up.
11 MR. NIRO: Just to clarify.
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Joan.
13 MS. DuBOIS: We have a couple
14 products in our inventory line, one book is
15 Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess, and there's a
16 couple other ones his name is prominently in
17 the title. Would that have any effect?
18 PRESIDENT McCRARY: No, because one
19 of those would be in fact the outstanding
20 work by Dr. Brady. In fact, it should
21 remain.
22 MS. DuBOIS: Just need to know.
23 MR. SHUTT: Change the title, just
24 leave a blank.
0042
1
2 MR. SMITH: Blank teaches chess.
3 PRESIDENT McCRARY: It sounds like
4 that matter is resolved then. We'll proceed
5 to the next matter, which I've labeled the
6 membership drive.
7 MR. SMITH: John, how do you want
8 to treat this in the minutes?
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, no motion
10 was passed today. It would be done as an
11 objections procedure motion.
12 MR. SMITH: Okay.
13 PRESIDENT McCRARY: And then that
14 would go into the minutes of the spring
15 meeting.
16 MR. SMITH: Okay.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: So the next
18 matter is membership drive. I put this on
19 for a couple of reasons, one being -- for
20 three reasons. One being that even though
21 our membership has topped 90,000, the trends
22 have not changed. We are continuing to lose
23 adult regular members at the same straight
24 line rate. All of the efforts to change that
0043
1
2 have had no effect one way or the other.
3 That includes at least a couple of recent
4 membership drives, the previous board's
5 experiment with U.S. Chess Live and so on.
6 Nothing has worked. The growth of course is
7 due to scholastic membership growth.
8 And first of all, we did discuss
9 something -- it was not phrased as a motion.
10 Actually it was a sense of the board to be
11 done by the office regarding a booster
12 concept. So I want Bill to discuss that.
13 I think we also need to discuss
14 where we are in the affiliate incentive
15 program and evaluate changing that. So I'm
16 going to I guess the first thing to do would
17 be to ask Judy if she could discuss the
18 current affiliate program and statistics on
19 that.
20 MS. MISNER: Right.
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: At that point
22 then I would like perhaps Bill Goichberg as
23 chair of the Membership Growth Committee to
24 make any comments he wishes, and then the
0044
1
2 board will discuss it. Judy Misner.
3 MS. MISNER: You have copies of the
4 up-to-date numbers on the affiliate incentive
5 program. So far 56 affiliates have taken
6 advantage of getting the products when they
7 have signed up new members. Total number of
8 new members brought in since January 2001,
9 3232, and the relationship to merchandising
10 credit is $9,696 of merchandise.
11 What we did at the U.S. Open was
12 had quite a bit of feedback from organizers,
13 so we have changed the program a little bit
14 since November and tried to come to a
15 compromise with some organizers so we could,
16 you know, make everybody feel good.
17 So we have changed. We are
18 accepting not only new members, but those
19 that have lapsed which in effect would be
20 kind of new. And also they do not have to
21 save up and wait till end of a quarter.
22 We've also -- they can submit the names any
23 way they want. You know, it's fine with me.
24 I check them and so we really tried to work
0045
1
2 with them.
3 But there is a lot of feedback.
4 Some organizers really do want to go back to
5 some sort of money incentive when they are
6 signing up. They don't really need the
7 merchandise. A lot of the newer clubs see it
8 as a way to get merchandise. So that's where
9 we are.
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: And statistics,
11 I may have missed something, but let's see.
12 Did everyone get this affiliate incentive
13 program thing? Maybe I didn't pass that out.
14 You've got the January 29th numbers here, so
15 that's the correct one?
16 MS. MISNER: Yes.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: 56 affiliates
18 have participated.
19 MS. MISNER: Correct.
20 PRESIDENT McCRARY: That's a small
21 percentage of our total number.
22 MS. MISNER: Yes.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Obviously from
24 our membership status, this isn't producing
0046
1
2 much of an effect.
3 MS. MISNER: No.
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: And you've had
5 some feedback that they'd rather have a
6 rebate in the commission sense?
7 MS. MISNER: A lot of them did want
8 the flexibility to have the commission there,
9 and most of them would pass it onto the
10 individual members when they would come to
11 the club. So there's quite a few clubs that
12 would still like to have that. Of course
13 that did create the financial impact on the
14 budget, so you know.
15 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Frank.
16 MR. CAMARATTA: In your definition
17 of a new member, what did you include?
18 MS. MISNER: Well, a new member is
19 brand new coming in or somebody who has
20 lapsed.
21 MR. CAMARATTA: For how long?
22 MS. MISNER: Well.
23 MR. CAMARATTA: Period?
24 MS. MISNER: Yes, lapsed, and they
0047
1
2 are coming back, yeah.
3 MR. CAMARATTA: All right.
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: And Bill, did
5 you have comments, Bill Goichberg?
6 MR. GOICHBERG: Yeah, this program
7 was first announced in February and the
8 Membership Growth Committee was asked to
9 comment on it after it was announced. We've
10 discussed it, and we anticipated the
11 possibility of improvements just like the
12 ones that were eventually made.
13 Everybody, you know, immediately
14 recognized that, you know, without these
15 improvements it was really just a big
16 bureaucratic pain in the neck. Affiliates
17 would really have to go through a lot to get
18 very little. And however, after some
19 discussion, we decided in a unanimous vote --
20 eight-nothing -- that this was the wrong way
21 for USCF to go. And even though we
22 recognized improvements were possible from
23 the affiliates standpoint, we felt that this
24 was just a program that put an excessive
0048
1
2 burden on both the office and the affiliates.
3 And that affiliates would much rather have a
4 commission, even a very small commission, and
5 we felt a commission would be easier for the
6 office also. Because it would be, you know,
7 no particular record-keeping. You wouldn't
8 have to ship merchandise, you know, you would
9 just receive a little bit less money and just
10 record the amount, and you were going to
11 record the amount anyway. So you know, the
12 vote was eight-nothing in March to recommend
13 that this program be abolished.
14 Now, later on we had discussions
15 about TLAs and affiliate commissions in which
16 we were joined by the affiliate committee.
17 And the two committees combined had
18 discussions with eleven people represented.
19 And even though we didn't take a formal vote,
20 the people that joined us from the other
21 committee all agreed that the affiliate
22 incentive program was terrible. The chairman
23 of that committee said it stinks and some
24 people said this is insulting.
0049
1
2 And I mean there was a feeling
3 basically that the affiliates were being
4 offered nothing -- well, there were really
5 other problems with it from the standpoint of
6 the committee members. They opposed the
7 concept, but also there was the feeling that
8 the list of merchandise was so limited that,
9 you know, the majority of the affiliates
10 really had nothing there they were interested
11 in.
12 And I know, like from my standpoint
13 as an affiliate, I mean there isn't anything
14 there that I would want. Except that, you
15 know, if I got it I could try to resell it.
16 But if that's what you're going to do, then
17 why not just have a commission. And I had
18 suggested -- this is just from my own
19 standpoint -- having nothing to do with the
20 committee -- I suggested when it was first
21 implemented that well, you know, at least
22 have something like score sheets, you know,
23 something that every affiliate can use. But
24 I mean there is literally nothing there that
0050
1
2 I would need. And you know, the committee
3 felt there's nothing there that the majority
4 of affiliates would need. That most
5 organizers either don't supply chess sets, or
6 if they are a chess club and they have chess
7 sets, they already have them, so they have no
8 need for a large number of additional sets.
9 I think the whole structure is
10 wrong. There are really two other things
11 that I would greatly prefer, and I think that
12 the committees would prefer. One is to have
13 some sort of a commission instead. And I
14 recognize that financially that might not be
15 feasible until the dues are raised. I think
16 dues have to be raised, and I have a feeling
17 that maybe the committee wouldn't agree with
18 that. But that's just my own feeling. But I
19 think when dues are raised you should put
20 commissions in as part of a package with any
21 dues raise.
22 The second thing that I would like
23 to see and the committee also endorsed was
24 bringing back the membership appreciation
0051
1
2 program. I think that that's a much better
3 way to deal with affiliates than giving them
4 chess sets and other merchandise.
5 The USCF doesn't have to give out
6 anything. I mean you're giving up some Chess
7 Life space. And I know it is work to
8 tabulate the results, but basically what
9 you're giving the affiliates is recognition.
10 And I think recognition basically costs the
11 USCF less, and it's of more value to the
12 affiliates than getting this very limited
13 supply of, you know, possible merchandise.
14 And really, the membership
15 appreciation plan -- it wasn't always called
16 that, but that structure where affiliates get
17 credit in Chess Life for being among the
18 leaders, the leaders nationally, the leaders
19 in their state, that plan I think has a
20 phenomenal record which is unappreciated. It
21 was first tried in 1978. It was a year-long
22 drive. The membership has been declining
23 when the drive was initiated. After a year
24 membership was up about five percent. Then
0052
1
2 around 1990 -- well, actually after that
3 there was no drive for a number of years.
4 And then around '83, '84, '85, there were
5 several drives, all of which focused not on
6 affiliates but on individuals, and those all
7 failed. Those all brought in tiny numbers of
8 members.
9 Then in '89-'90 another drive was
10 started, which was like the '78 drive where
11 affiliates got credit and affiliates got
12 recognition. And after this drive had been
13 going for about four months, there was no
14 apparent increase in membership. And there
15 was a motion at the policy board meeting to
16 end the drive. Which luckily, I think it was
17 defeated three to two. And I was really
18 concerned that the drive would be over before
19 people really had a chance to learn about it.
20 You know, four months just isn't enough.
21 People hear about this, they decide to run
22 more tournaments; tournaments to get credits.
23 By the time they submit a site and submit a
24 TLA and actually run the tournament, more
0053
1
2 than four months goes by. Anyway after about
3 six months the membership started to turn up.
4 And after a year of that drive, there was
5 again about a five percent increase in
6 membership. And then at some point after
7 that the drive was made annual. Which I
8 think was great thing, but at that point you
9 couldn't really follow the impact of the
10 drive anymore, since it was always there.
11 But the only two times that we went
12 from no drive to that type of drive, both
13 times it was about a five percent increase in
14 membership. And you know, I was very
15 disappointed when the drive was ended in
16 2000. I mean I know that in '99, you know,
17 it had certainly motivated me to, you know,
18 to -- we brought in 1400 members that year.
19 And you know, I had special incentives listed
20 in my TLAs, if you joined the USCF together
21 with your entry fee, you got $8 off. And you
22 know, I was very discouraged by the fact that
23 there would be no more recognition for this.
24 And I know some other people that were also
0054
1
2 discouraged. You know, I think it is a
3 comparatively low-cost thing. I think the
4 cost of the Chess Life space is negligible.
5 Probably the main cost to the USCF is the
6 work in keeping track of the numbers. And I
7 don't know how to put a value on that cost,
8 but I think there's a substantial benefit in
9 terms of members. I would like to see that
10 drive return. I'd love to see a count of the
11 members brought in in 2002. I know there's a
12 problem with that, because I've been through
13 this discussion already, that 2002 has
14 already started. It would be a lot of work
15 to try to count the members that came in in
16 January.
17 So I don't know how you do it. If
18 you have to start with March 1st or something
19 like that, I would say do it. I'd rather see
20 the whole year. But I think the right way to
21 do the drive is count every member. If you
22 want to have subdivisions, that's fine. I
23 think a good subdivision which was never
24 tried would be to have add-on members. But
0055
1
2 certainly give credit for all members also.
3 Have a category with the scholastic members
4 and youth members also count. Have
5 breakdowns by state, have as many breakdowns
6 as you can. The breakdowns are not much
7 work. The work is just basically the overall
8 count. I certainly would recommend that
9 drive be brought back, and that drive was
10 something that was also endorsed by the
11 Membership Growth Committee.
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, could you
13 again remind us, first could I ask, is it
14 possible to open that door over there. It's
15 a little stuffy in here.
16 Could you remind us of how the MAP
17 program exactly worked, just a quick summary?
18 MR. GOICHBERG: Well, I think there
19 was a page or maybe it was half a page
20 sometimes in Chess Life every month with
21 standings. There were national standings and
22 leaders in each state. The standings
23 actually were broken down into two
24 categories, and it's a little problem if you
0056
1
2 want to do that again. The categories were
3 affiliates and individuals. The affiliate
4 categories always had large numbers. Quite a
5 few affiliates would bring in 1500 members a
6 year. The individual program usually had a
7 few individuals who really were affiliates
8 and they just chose to compete in the
9 individual section because it was easy to
10 win. So you'd have two or three, you know,
11 that had numbers like 50, 100 and 200 even,
12 and then a lot of other individuals that had
13 five, three, ten. And I don't know if that
14 was necessarily a bad way to do it. But
15 you'd have a problem doing that now because
16 there's no affiliate commission. Really the
17 way it was done then, they allowed members to
18 take credit for memberships on which the
19 affiliate commission was taken, and I think
20 that was a mistake. I think that individual
21 category, the rule should have been, you take
22 your commission, you compete in the affiliate
23 category. You don't take your commission,
24 then you're in the individual category. And
0057
1
2 I don't know why that was not done. I think
3 it should have been done. Now that there's
4 no commission, I guess you can't do that. I
5 think, and both committees think that
6 commissions should be brought back. And I
7 think when the commissions are brought back
8 maybe for 2003, the drive could be set up so
9 there is an individual category. And if you
10 take a commission, you can't compete in it.
11 That way an individual who brings in say 20
12 or 30 members could actually be number one in
13 the country, and I think probably deserves to
14 be.
15 But really the individual part of
16 the drive is not the very valuable part for
17 the USCF. I think it might be a useful
18 add-on. But the affiliate part has always
19 been the one that brings in a lot of members.
20 Exactly how would you do it now, you know, I
21 guess I probably would recommend just
22 temporarily going back to the way it was.
23 And I mean I don't really see any way to
24 prevent certain affiliates from signing up as
0058
1
2 individuals and dominating that category, I
3 guess you could differentiate. But the state
4 category was relatively new, and I think
5 that's a very promising approach. Because
6 some of the smaller states, you know, you
7 could have as few as 10 or 15 members brought
8 in and still be number one in that state.
9 People really like being number one, you
10 know, or even number two or number three. I
11 mean it's the sort of situation where a lot
12 of affiliates care about recognition.
13 Now, a lot of others I think don't,
14 but the ones that don't care, you know,
15 there's nothing lost. The tabulating is
16 automatic. They get their credits too. If
17 they don't care about the credits, well, so
18 what. I mean no one is going to do less for
19 chess as a result of this. But you know, if
20 you have half or a third or a quarter of the
21 affiliates doing more because of this, then I
22 think you've accomplished quite a bit.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Steve.
24 MR. SHUTT: Yes, I would like to
0059
1
2 ask Bill a question. I could think of two
3 areas, two things that affiliates could use.
4 You mentioned one of them score sheets, the
5 other one are time delay clocks. Because
6 certainly there are games that are going on
7 interminably, that if you have a time delay
8 clock to put on, the organizer, it is a great
9 benefit. What would you think about credits
10 towards these, in lieu of the types of
11 credits we get now?
12 MR. GOICHBERG: I think if we have
13 to have the existing program, I would really
14 like to see it done away with as soon as
15 possible. But I think if we have to have it,
16 the credits should be for anything, for any
17 merchandise. But, you know, I think some
18 affiliates just aren't looking for
19 merchandise. And you know, they would rather
20 have even a tiny commission, even a dollar
21 than getting merchandise. And I think also
22 that type of commission would be less work
23 for the office. I mean, seems to me the
24 commissions are no work for the office
0060
1
2 really. All you're doing is recording an
3 amount, and you were going to record an
4 amount anyway.
5 PRESIDENT McCRARY: The prizes and
6 the MAP are what? The prizes?
7 MR. GOICHBERG: Oh, the prizes.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes.
9 MR. GOICHBERG: In some of the
10 earlier membership drives, like in '78, I
11 don't recall if there were prizes. If they
12 were, I don't think they were prizes of much
13 value.
14 PRESIDENT McCRARY: In '78 you got
15 a little letter thing they sent out.
16 MR. GOICHBERG: Yeah. Some of the
17 recent drives had fairly valuable prizes. I
18 think that's a mistake. There was a drive,
19 and it was one of the bad types. It was one
20 of the types that well, actually most of the
21 drives I considered bad are bad because
22 affiliates couldn't participate. But they
23 were also -- there was one in 2000 in which
24 affiliates could participate. The main
0061
1
2 problem with that drive was it was announced
3 in Chess Life, which came out in September,
4 and it said that the drive covered October
5 through something like December 4th. So I
6 mean, due to the small amount of notice, it
7 was impossible for an affiliate to react by
8 getting a site, submitting a TLA, running a
9 tournament and then sending in the
10 memberships. Because it wasn't even close to
11 enough time for that.
12 And when I saw that drive announced
13 I told the Executive Director, you know, you
14 picked a period when I'm running a lot of
15 large tournaments, so I'm going to come in
16 first in this drive easily, and I'm going to
17 win $500 worth of merchandise, which was the
18 first prize. And I'll take the merchandise,
19 but really you're just giving this away for
20 no reason, because I'm not going to do
21 anything extra. My tournaments are already
22 scheduled. If you want to motivate people to
23 do something extra, you have to give them a
24 lot of lead time.
0062
1
2 Now I'm really opposed to the idea
3 of special short drives, where you get credit
4 only during certain months and not other
5 months. I think the right way to go is you
6 have permanent credit. You want to encourage
7 to always try to promote chess. No matter
8 when it is, you'll get your credit. No
9 reason why members brought in during certain
10 months are more valuable than those brought
11 in in other months. I want everyone to get
12 used to the fact that you'll always get
13 credit and always get recognition. You don't
14 have to worry about when it is.
15 But I would recommend in general no
16 prizes. I think recognition is all you need.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I'm going to
18 make first a general suggestion, and then I
19 want to go into the related issue of the
20 booster concept that you had mentioned
21 earlier at the October meeting.
22 A general suggestion would be to
23 follow on what Bill is saying, that we
24 emphasize recognition. We not just publicize
0063
1
2 it through Chess Life, but also through a
3 direct personal mailing from one of us to all
4 of the affiliates. That would be a cost of a
5 few hundred dollars initially, but it might
6 produce a response.
7 And in addition to giving
8 recognition by listing affiliates that we
9 also give a very small amount of space.
10 Peter, I'm talking about a paragraph to
11 either the leading affiliates and/or another
12 one who was submitted but who is selected at
13 random each month, which they could really
14 say something about this as the Sioux City
15 Chess Club, and these are officers and we
16 enjoy chess or something. So that would be
17 my suggestion as modification for discussion.
18 MR. GOICHBERG: I think that's a
19 good idea. That was done at the end of the
20 year, at least one year. The top affiliates
21 were invited to send something to Chess Life.
22 In fact, it was specified how large
23 this should be. I wrote up something on
24 continental chess and submitted it. The
0064
1
2 affiliate who finished third wrote up ten
3 times as much, and that was all published. I
4 found it incredible, but I think it was nice
5 they did that.
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: They would be
7 limited to a very short one paragraph apiece.
8 MR. GOICHBERG: Yeah, I would
9 rather see, rather than have the affiliate
10 who came in third have a whole page, having
11 many affiliates having a little bit of space
12 be even better.
13 PRESIDENT McCRARY: That's true.
14 We could have three or four in each issue.
15 You can nod or shake your head or throw up
16 your hands in disgust.
17 MR. KURZDORFER: Well, an affiliate
18 of the month, why not.
19 PRESIDENT McCRARY: You know, I'm
20 thinking of a certain university chess club
21 that was all upset about the activity points
22 passed by the previous board, and so they
23 e-mailed me about what a bunch of jerks we
24 all were and so on. And I replied, I'm not
0065
1
2 sure what I said, but they e-mailed again and
3 said well, thank you so much, we want to work
4 with you. We have signed up 20 members. So
5 I'm hoping that sort of response as a
6 personal and more direct will work.
7 MR. GOICHBERG: I like having a lot
8 of affiliates at the end of the year rather
9 than every month because that way it is
10 directly tied to the fact that they made a
11 good showing in the drive. I think if you
12 have it every month it is sort of oh, like we
13 decided to have something in Chess Life this
14 month about affiliates is not quite as
15 positive.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay. Frank.
17 MR. CAMARATTA: I think if we have
18 learned anything during all these years is
19 the one thing everybody appreciates is
20 recognition. Dollars don't mean anything to
21 these people. They are by and large
22 amateurs. I think Bill is right. I think we
23 ought to get back in the program. I think
24 smaller clubs, college clubs and so on would
0066
1
2 be more meaningful.
3 Now my next point would be, going
4 back to what we discussed in October and
5 what's been discussed since you had a
6 proposed article on the booster program and
7 so on, can we summarize what that was and see
8 if we can integrate what we're talking about?
9 MR. GOICHBERG: Yeah, I think
10 that's really separate from the membership
11 appreciation program. I think you should do
12 both. The idea of the booster program --
13 well, it started with the proposal that was
14 passed by the board where there would be a
15 $10 credit slip that would be returned to the
16 affiliate for sending in a three-year member.
17 Now, presumably -- we didn't really
18 get into the detail, but presumably the
19 affiliate could specify that member's address
20 if they wanted the member to get the credit
21 slip instead of the affiliate. So it would
22 be like an affiliate commission and that the
23 affiliate would have the option of either
24 retaining this credit or giving it to the
0067
1
2 member.
3 Anyway, that was sort of to start
4 the plan, like the foundation of the plan was
5 something special being given for a
6 three-year member. Now, just doing that
7 alone I think would not have a tremendous
8 impact. But what I think does have great
9 potential is to promote the idea of USCF
10 booster tournaments. And the USCF booster
11 tournament -- I wrote up a definition where I
12 listed really about five or six different
13 ways you could qualify and have your
14 tournament qualify and be a USCF booster
15 tournament. For instance, one was the
16 tournament guarantees to give out at least
17 three booster memberships, three three-year
18 memberships as prizes. Then since I know a
19 lot of smaller affiliates wouldn't want to
20 guarantee that because that would cost them
21 about $300, you could also do it by running a
22 USCF booster quad. And the USCF booster
23 quad, each section would give out one of
24 these memberships. Now, you know it would
0068
1
2 cost you $109 divided by four. Obviously
3 you're going to have to charge something like
4 almost a $30 entry fee just to cover the
5 prize. But I've tried that and people pay
6 those fees. These prizes are fairly
7 attractive.
8 Then I had some other formats, some
9 of which involved two-year and one-year
10 memberships. For instance, four-round Swiss
11 prizes based on points, four points wins a
12 three-year membership and three and a half
13 wins a two-year membership and three wins a
14 one-year membership. And I've tried that
15 also, and that works out well. You get a
16 pretty good turnout. And if you charge about
17 20 or certainly 25 dollar entry fee, that
18 will cover that. I mean theoretically if you
19 have a very small turnout it won't. But if
20 you have any sort of a reasonable turnout, it
21 covers that.
22 And then I had a few other formats
23 that people use. Like a six-player sections,
24 three-round Swiss or four-round Swiss,
0069
1
2 eight-player sections, four-round Swiss,
3 these are formats you actually see used in
4 Chess Life.
5 So we wanted to give people a
6 choice of various formats, but what these
7 formats all have in common is the USCF will
8 receive -- if there's any kind of decent
9 turnout, should receive at least $300 in
10 memberships. If it's a small club, and it's
11 a very tiny turnout, okay, you might have a
12 quad with one section. But the federation,
13 you know, still gets one member, you know,
14 and receives $109. And this is all, of
15 course, in addition to whatever members sign
16 up in order to play in the tournament. And
17 we've been experimenting with this, and we've
18 gotten both. Most of the money comes in with
19 the prize memberships. But there's always
20 additional money that comes in just in the
21 regular memberships.
22 We just had a novice tournament a
23 few weeks ago in Los Angeles that was run as
24 a side tournament to the western class
0070
1
2 championships. And we tried the four-round
3 Swiss with four points gets three years,
4 three and a half gets two years, three gets
5 one year, and the entry fee was $20, and it
6 was $10 for juniors, since the juniors win a
7 membership that's half as valuable. We give
8 it to juniors Chess Life if they win, but
9 still that costs half as much. We had
10 something like 25 players in there. And I
11 think the total sent in in memberships was
12 something like three or 3 or 4 hundred
13 dollars.
14 So what I'm suggesting is I think
15 these tournaments should be encouraged, and
16 you really have to push to get people to run
17 these things. So I thought it was essential
18 to have some special incentives in addition
19 to that credit slip. And I understand the
20 board has now approved the main incentive
21 that I suggested, which was if you run a USCF
22 booster tournament, if you pick from the list
23 of booster tournaments and your tournament
24 qualifies as one of the approved formats,
0071
1
2 then you would get a TLA free of up to five
3 lines.
4 Now, this doesn't mean that you
5 would get five lines free. If you send in a
6 TLA of 20 lines, you wouldn't get anything
7 free. But if you limit your TLA to five
8 lines, and it is a booster TLA, then you
9 would get it free. And I think if we really
10 push this, if organizers see boxes in Chess
11 Life, help support the USCF, run USCF booster
12 tournaments, you know, be a USCF booster and
13 they notice other affiliates are running
14 these things and then put a special symbol
15 next to them, I don't know what that would
16 be, maybe a USCF logo or something like that,
17 I think a lot of affiliates will notice, hey,
18 other affiliates, or especially other
19 affiliates in our area have this logo next to
20 their TLA, maybe we should do that too. I
21 think this could really catch on, and it
22 could be incredibly large amount of money
23 could come in in memberships eventually if it
24 is promoted sufficiently.
0072
1
2 Now, I do have some experience from
3 running rated beginners opens many years ago.
4 They used to have no TLA fee, but they were
5 not particularly pushed by the federation.
6 So I know from that experience that a lot of
7 affiliates will respond to this by saying:
8 We are not going to run this because no one
9 would show up. And they're wrong. But this
10 is what a lot of them have told me. I've
11 experimented in a whole lot of different
12 players with rated beginners' opens where I
13 just used the TLA, there was no other
14 publicity. And we always had a turnout,
15 sometimes three or four players, but on
16 average it would be something like eight or
17 ten. And the ones I've tried recently, it is
18 a little different format, but we have done
19 even better than that.
20 But it really is a problem to get
21 some of these affiliates even to try it. When
22 they are in that mood of no one is going to,
23 they are in that mood of oh, I don't want to
24 try this, you can't really hit them with a
0073
1
2 TLA fee.
3 I haven't addressed the minimum
4 rating fee. If you get so many members you
5 still have to pay the minimum rating fee.
6 You can try this and see how that works. I
7 think you should be in touch with affiliates,
8 and you should ask them through mailings and
9 maybe even experimental direct contact with
10 some of them. You know, why aren't you
11 running these? These are popular, these
12 bring in members. It will strengthen your
13 program in your area. You'll have more
14 members and come back and play in more
15 tournaments. It is something that has a lot
16 of potentiality, but it really needs to be
17 pushed.
18 I know like the chairman of the
19 affiliate committee was one of the people
20 that said he wouldn't run a rated beginners
21 open because nobody would show up in his
22 area. And I'm sure that he's wrong, but a
23 lot of people really feel that. And that's a
24 problem. You have to try to break through
0074
1
2 that. Hey, just try this once, you might be
3 surprised.
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, Tom
5 Brownscombe.
6 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: First of all, I
7 would like to say I have quite a bit of
8 experience doing rated beginners open. I did
9 one when I was an officer of the Maryland
10 Chess Association, which was in association
11 with just about every tournament we ran, the
12 Maryland class, the Maryland open, and they
13 were a huge success. Eventually, I had to
14 break them off into two sections, too big as
15 one as a single six Swiss tournament. So
16 actually shortly before I got this job I was
17 running two sections of rated beginners open
18 with every major MCA tournament.
19 Second, I read through the
20 transcript of the last board meeting twice to
21 try to get the sense of this discussion. And
22 I think, I think I've possibly distilled what
23 I think was a sense of discussion. I only
24 have a few of these. I regret I don't have
0075
1
2 enough for everyone, so I hope people can
3 share. But I think that Judy Misner and
4 Frank Niro have already seen this. Judy
5 thinks that it is very doable. Frank is very
6 much in support. It is a fairly simple
7 thing. You can do a booster quad or a
8 booster Swiss, and we offer to the affiliate
9 as an incentive either a merchandise credit
10 for every three-year membership or an
11 affiliate commission in a slightly smaller
12 amount for every three-year membership that
13 they give out.
14 If you're doing a Swiss, then
15 anyone who scores 75 percent would receive a
16 three-year extension of their membership.
17 You can adjust a little bit if you don't want
18 to give out quite as many. You can give a
19 five round, or out of five. If you want to
20 do a little more, a four round, three out of
21 four is good enough. A booster quad, anybody
22 who gets a clear first would get a three-year
23 extension. Of course, people can modify this
24 if they wish, but it seems like this was what
0076
1
2 the board was discussing.
3 MR. GOICHBERG: Yeah, I really like
4 the commission or merchandise credit. What I
5 don't like is the score 75 percent on the
6 booster Swiss, because you would have to have
7 a very high entry fee, either that or
8 anticipate a very large number of players.
9 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Percentage could
10 be changed. You could make it 80 percent.
11 MR. GOICHBERG: Yeah. What I
12 suggested was you choose from the list of
13 booster tournaments. And one of the things on
14 the list would be four rounds, four wins
15 three, which is 75 percent would only win one
16 year, and that fits in with an entry fee of
17 about $20 to $25.
18 If you wanted to do it -- I like
19 doing it based on points because, you know,
20 you can't lose unless you get one player or
21 something or two players, you can't lose. So
22 I would like to encourage small affiliates
23 especially to do it based on points. In
24 fact, I like to do it based on points even in
0077
1
2 areas like Los Angeles where it is a pretty
3 big turnout anticipated. But if you're doing
4 it based on points, you know, 75 percent gets
5 a three-year doesn't really work. But other
6 than that I think this is great.
7 PRESIDENT McCRARY: If I could add,
8 Tom, I think probably you need to say
9 three-year extension on the membership as a
10 prize from the organizer. It almost looks
11 like we give it to them.
12 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: That was the
13 intent, but yes.
14 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Right, I was
15 somewhat dismayed when I read the original
16 wording.
17 MR. GOICHBERG: I like using
18 two-year and one-year memberships also when
19 you have a Swiss, where the top prize gets
20 the three-year and below that gets the two
21 and the one. I think it is more natural and
22 you get a lower fee that way.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, Steve.
24 MR. SHUTT: Yeah, if the structure
0078
1
2 can be flexible enough so that if you're
3 running an inexpensive tournament with a low
4 entry fee in a particular area, maybe a $5
5 entry fee, if you can have a first prize a
6 one-year membership.
7 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: We can tweak this
8 any way anybody wants to tweak it.
9 MR. GOICHBERG: That just doesn't
10 do enough though. I mean you can't really
11 give free TLA to a tournament just because
12 they are giving out a one-year membership.
13 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: There has to be
14 some minimum requirement to be a "booster
15 tournament".
16 MR. GOICHBERG: I think the
17 requirement should be you have your choice of
18 five, six, seven formats. One format is
19 you're giving out three three-year
20 memberships so that takes in a whole lot of
21 different tournaments. Another format is the
22 quad. And the quad format I think is
23 suitable for the smallest clubs. You know,
24 the people that are really worried that they
0079
1
2 won't get entries should try the quad format.
3 Now, you know, I mean really
4 there's no answer to the question of if you
5 want a five or ten dollar entry fee to
6 qualify. The only way you could do that
7 under what I propose is you guarantee the
8 three memberships and you have a structure
9 where you know you're going to get a lot of
10 players so you'll cover the cost. But you
11 know, I mean I think if you're only going to
12 run a quad, you have to charge like about a
13 $30 fee. I mean there's no way you can run a
14 quad with a $5 fee and participate in this.
15 There's no way to generate any money out of
16 that.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: If I could
18 summarize at this point. It sounds like then
19 we are talking about two different things
20 that can be run simultaneously. And one is
21 the earlier restoration of a version of the
22 MAP with the additional changes that we
23 discussed in giving additional recognition,
24 perhaps on a random basis, to smaller
0080
1
2 affiliates. The other being the actual
3 structure of the tournament with the
4 incentives that you're describing.
5 And if the board agrees, I don't
6 think we need a formal motion. We would
7 encourage that the office immediately
8 implement both. Is that agreeable?
9 DR. BRADY: Yes.
10 MR. SHUTT: Yes.
11 PRESIDENT McCRARY: With the
12 specifics to be determined, and then we'll be
13 in touch. And obviously Bill, as chair of
14 the Membership Growth Committee, would be in
15 consultation.
16 One additional point. Nomenclature
17 is one reason I wanted to integrate. We are
18 using the word booster over here. Maybe we
19 could come up with a word to use for the
20 other too, for affiliates meeting the
21 minimum. Give that additional recognition.
22 Frank.
23 MR. NIRO: It was also brought up
24 the current issue of the current affiliates
0081
1
2 incentive program and reinstating
3 commissions. I would like to have the
4 authority to phase out the affiliate
5 incentive program that currently exists and
6 prepare a proposal for perhaps the May
7 meeting or at least the delegates meeting to
8 reinstate commissions.
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, I would
10 think that the affiliate commission programs
11 that presently exist should be discontinued
12 in favor of these other two things. Do other
13 board members have comments?
14 MR. CAMARATTA: I agree.
15 MR. SHUTT: I agree.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay.
17 MR. GOICHBERG: I think that's the
18 sort of thing that which traditionally the
19 Executive Director can do and doesn't require
20 board approval.
21 MR. NIRO: I guess that's what I'm
22 asking.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I think the
24 sense of the board is that would be a good
0082
1
2 approach.
3 MR. NIRO: Judy had a comment.
4 MS. MISNER: There is a lot of
5 information going out to new affiliates and
6 stuff. So would there be a date that we can
7 publicize that that affiliate incentive
8 program would no longer be in effect, but
9 anything prior to that date --
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: That's what
11 Frank meant about phasing it out.
12 MS. MISNER: Okay, great.
13 MR. NIRO: We will discuss that at
14 a senior staff meeting.
15 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, I think
16 that concludes our membership drive agenda
17 item. We are -- I will note that I am
18 deliberately taking the most difficult and
19 lengthy items first so we can coast on
20 through the easier ones when we are tired
21 later.
22 We will now take a 15-minute break.
23 And at the resumption we will take the
24 scholastic report.
0083
1
2 (Recess in the proceeding.)
3
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: All right, we
5 are reconvened in open session. At this
6 point I'll recognize Steve Shutt for his
7 scholastic council report.
8 MR. SHUTT: Back to business here.
9 Scholastic report. Well, the scholastic
10 membership of the United States Chess
11 Federation is growing, is continuing to grow.
12 We are now over 30 thousand. We saw the
13 figures yesterday from Frank Niro showing
14 that growth.
15 One of the things that I was
16 particularly interested in was that if you
17 looked at that quarterly report you saw the
18 little peaks and valleys and membership
19 coincide pretty much with the peaks and
20 valleys in scholastic membership. They
21 generally coincide with the times in which
22 kids are registering for the national
23 championships. And I think that's no small
24 coincidence. There are a few, the national
0084
1
2 championships that are held each year attract
3 quite a few kids. And even those that don't
4 go may have gone in the past and joined at
5 the first time at one of those championships.
6 Their annual renewal time comes up at the
7 same time each year. So I think the peaks in
8 scholastic membership reflect that interest
9 and growth that the national championships
10 have produced.
11 In looking back, I was first
12 involved in that in 1977. My students can't
13 believe it when I tell them that. But in
14 1977 I took my first team to the national
15 championship in San Clemente. Second year
16 they had an elementary championship. Bill
17 Goichberg ran at the time the junior high and
18 elementary at the same site. We had about 80
19 some elementary school kids and fewer than
20 200 junior high kids in two separate
21 championships held in the same place, same
22 room. Of course today that's unthinkable.
23 In the Kansas City National Super
24 Nationals last year there were 4600 kids
0085
1
2 involved. So there's been incredible growth
3 in scholastic chess.
4 The whole idea of a scholastic
5 committee and the number of people in USCF
6 that are involved in leadership roles in
7 scholastics reflect those that became
8 involved and met each other and got involved
9 with the national office at the national
10 championships. It is the one thing we all
11 have in common. We have all met at a
12 national championship. That was the magnetic
13 force or attractor that brought us all
14 together where we got to know each other and
15 where we got involved with USCF.
16 The kids we brought to those are
17 kids that most of us have been working with
18 and kids that their interest has been to get
19 involved with scholastic chess, with the
20 chess and the USCF and in rated events. And
21 that represents a whole group of kids that
22 compete in rated events that want to get
23 better. It represents a need for us to
24 address. There are kids that want to
0086
1
2 involve, that want to compete, that get
3 better and move on and become adult members.
4 And that is a very important concept. It is
5 a very important goal of scholastic chess, to
6 bring more of those kids into that.
7 Then there's another group of kids
8 that play only in their scholastic programs.
9 They may play in rated events and they drop
10 out, stop playing when they leave that
11 particular program. I know of very few
12 places, if any, where chess has been
13 institutionalized to the point where you can
14 say if the person who is responsible for that
15 scholastic program should leave, it would
16 continue. In almost all cases the program
17 exists only because of the individual that is
18 there. And when kids leave that individual's
19 influence and program, they then go on and
20 drop out of chess. So keeping those kids
21 involved is important.
22 We find that the largest numbers
23 are at the elementary school level, fewer at
24 junior high, fewer still at high school. And
0087
1
2 a big drop-off after high school.
3 The third area of scholastic
4 membership are those -- well, scholastics I
5 should say, are those that do not become USCF
6 members but are involved in a scholastic
7 program somewhere in the country under
8 someone who is elected, not associated
9 themselves with the USCF. Either because
10 they don't know about it or because they feel
11 it doesn't fit their needs. And some of the
12 problems we have had with ratings in the
13 recent past and getting timely ratings back
14 and getting membership information processed
15 quickly and accurately, we have seen some
16 loss of people.
17 Scholastic members are not
18 necessarily locked in to USCF membership to
19 the extent that adults are. There are
20 programs that are run around the country
21 where they provide their own in-house rating,
22 or they don't rate it at all. They are
23 involved only within their own school or
24 association or maybe of three or four schools
0088
1
2 or a league. And they compete only at that
3 level; they never compete with adults. They
4 never compete outside of their own region.
5 And consequently whether or not they are
6 members is somewhat tenuous. If they have
7 their own in-house formula for rating, they
8 don't necessarily feel they need USCF
9 service.
10 So a third goal of the scholastic
11 committee is that we try to bring -- create a
12 need with the USCF for some of those students
13 and organizations and try to bring them in
14 under the umbrella. So we've got three goals
15 there that we are trying to achieve.
16 The scholastic committee itself in
17 achieving these goals have grown as we have
18 gotten more people interested. I think we
19 are up to about 21 on the committee. Two
20 years ago at St. Paul we passed a delegates
21 motion to create a Scholastic Council which
22 would consist of five members of that
23 committee, that would organize the work,
24 provide the leadership for committee as a
0089
1
2 whole and vote on specific proposals of work
3 that was done by the committee as a whole.
4 The committee was organized into
5 subcommittees based on different topics. The
6 five council members, please announce we have
7 Beatriz Marinello here today representing one
8 of the five council members. Others are Pat
9 Hokstra, Joe Ippolito, Ralph Bowman and
10 Robert Ferguson. Ralph was elected to take
11 my place when I came on the board last year.
12 So that's the basic organization of it.
13 Now to achieve these different
14 goals that we have, I sent out a survey, also
15 with issues that come before the board
16 itself. Any issue that's presented before
17 this Executive Board, I like to poll the
18 scholastic community. I think it should be a
19 two-way street. I think on the one hand I
20 should represent the scholastic community and
21 their interests and convey those to the
22 board. But on the other hand, things that
23 come before the board should go back to the
24 scholastic community for their input. And
0090
1
2 there were a few questions that I sent out
3 based on previous meetings that we've had
4 here. One of course was the fact that the
5 service for U.S. Chess Live possibly might
6 change, and that it might become a paid for
7 service, a pay for service. That hasn't
8 happened yet, but in anticipation of that I
9 wanted to get a poll from membership. I got
10 about twelve responses from my questionnaire.
11 Not everyone responded in every area. But I
12 will briefly summarize what the responses
13 were.
14 And I asked the question: Do you
15 think youth and scholastic members will
16 continue to use U.S. Chess Live if it charges
17 for service? And it was just about
18 universally no. Some said it might if the
19 service is good. But I thought it was rather
20 vague, because no one had a clear idea of
21 just what the level of that service would be.
22 I realize that it would be difficult for them
23 to estimate that. But at present the
24 membership is rather skeptical I would say.
0091
1
2 Do you think a new Internet only
3 membership will become popular among
4 scholastic and youth members? Because that
5 was a proposal that we established without
6 any hard copy or the ability to play over the
7 board, just online. And again, only one
8 person responded and thought that that would
9 likely become popular.
10 And I also asked if they thought
11 that schools would sign up to compete in a
12 scholastic chess league competition should
13 technical problems be solvable? And I
14 personally thought that was a good idea and I
15 still do. I think that schools will be
16 involved with that, but the majority of the
17 respondents -- well, all of the respondents I
18 should say felt that it's unlikely that that
19 would happen.
20 So I'd have to say right now
21 there's a lot of skepticism in the scholastic
22 community that would have to be overcome
23 before an Internet presence would make itself
24 felt. I know from my own point of view I've
0092
1
2 got approximately 50 kids in my school that
3 play chess. And when Kasparov was introduced
4 last year, the kids loved it. Now they are
5 on U.S. Chess Live and they get on and they
6 do play it. They do play online. They do
7 enjoy that. So I know that the kids
8 themselves are not turned off by it. But
9 organizers and coaches I think at this point
10 feel somewhat skeptical, and maybe that's
11 because they are not sure that the service
12 would work out. It can be difficult to
13 overcome the technical problems for that.
14 Another question I asked is can the
15 scholastic and youth players afford higher
16 rates for membership fees? And that was kind
17 of a mixed bag. I think the majority felt
18 that if there was to be an increase, it would
19 have to be a very modest one, two to three
20 dollars was mentioned. And many felt don't
21 even try it unless it is going to be an
22 across the board increase that's going to
23 affect adults too.
24 Two years ago we had a motion, a
0093
1
2 delegates motion, that pegged scholastic dues
3 at one third of adult dues and youth dues at
4 one half. And most people I talked to felt
5 we should stick with that ratio. That we
6 just established that ratio and then to jump
7 into something else this soon wouldn't be
8 fair to the scholastic community. They
9 wanted to keep it pegged at those. So that I
10 think if some sort of a dues increase went
11 through, there might have to be some package
12 thing tied with it. Bill mentioned a
13 commission to organizers, to affiliates. And
14 that maybe would be a more palatable way, or
15 an across the board one where scholastics
16 feel that they are not the ones being dumped
17 on for that.
18 MS. MARINELLO: May I make a
19 comment about a subject?
20 MR. SHUTT: Yes.
21 MS. MARINELLO: As far as I know,
22 most scholastic committee members are opposed
23 to the dues increase unless they see a direct
24 correlation between improving the service and
0094
1
2 raising the scholastic fee. I think if
3 there's not a proposal in place that clearly
4 states what the kids are going to get for the
5 dues increase, most scholastic people would
6 not support it.
7 MR. SHUTT: This is true, that
8 they definitely want to see -- it would have
9 to be part of some sort of package in which
10 they would see some benefit going to
11 scholastics, a lot of things tie together.
12 I'll get into the bit with School Mates too.
13 Because we have reduced the number of issues
14 of School Mates, and if there's no
15 improvement -- well, there has been some
16 improvement on rating of course, but unless
17 they see some sort of benefit or improvement
18 in service there's a lot that will object to
19 dues increase at this point. Bill.
20 MR. GOICHBERG: Yes, just to throw
21 out a possibility. You could have something
22 like a $5 increase across the board in all
23 dues. Adult would go to $45, scholastic
24 would go to $18. This means scholastic is
0095
1
2 getting raised by a much larger percentage.
3 As compensation for that, instead of getting
4 four issues of School Mates a year,
5 scholastic members could get six issues of
6 Chess Life, and the editor would put
7 scholastic and beginners material in those
8 six issues of Chess Life and not in the other
9 six issues.
10 MR. SHUTT: I'm going to get into
11 that part. That's another part of the
12 question on School Mates. What's with that,
13 so I'm going to get into that.
14 MS. MARINELLO: Two years ago at
15 the U.S. Chess Trust Open we came up with
16 this formula that basically the scholastic
17 membership would be half the amount of the
18 regular membership --
19 MR. SHUTT: Youth youth.
20 MS. MARINELLO: No, the
21 scholastic -- oh, youth and then the
22 scholastic membership one third.
23 MR. SHUTT: Yes.
24 MS. MARINELLO: So I think
0096
1
2 everybody is very happy with it. In fact, in
3 my view, instead of trying to think about
4 increasing the dues, what we should do is
5 work with the school districts around the
6 country and try to basically increase the
7 number of kids playing chess. Even if they
8 are not playing at this point organized
9 tournament chess and they don't have ratings
10 or they are not members, but if we have a
11 connection within a school district that can
12 provide us with access to 10,000 kids. The
13 big school districts we have one board of ed,
14 so what we need is the numbers to be able to
15 get sponsors to, you know, for marketing
16 purposes. And I think increasing the dues,
17 it will upset a lot of people, a lot of
18 people.
19 MR. SHUTT: I'm going to talk about
20 it. Glad you brought that up, because I am
21 going to talk about that idea for reaching
22 some of the non-members now.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Steve, if I
24 could interrupt a second. Frank Camaratta
0097
1
2 wants to speak, but after he does so if he
3 could perhaps make a suggestion that we allow
4 Steve to go all the way through the report,
5 that we have general discussion and perhaps
6 take notes and specifics to go back.
7 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Frank.
8 MR. CAMARATTA: Yeah, I wanted to
9 point out, to Beatrice particularly, we have
10 not had an increase since 1996. Cost of
11 living increase is around 60 percent? Which
12 means it costs us 60 percent more to provide
13 the services which we weren't charging enough
14 for to begin with. So either the services
15 are -- we have got to at least stay level.
16 We are losing ground every year. So that's a
17 fact of life.
18 MR. SHUTT: Let me just go on with
19 other issues.
20 The next issue was of course should
21 School Mates be continued as a separate
22 issue; should it be included as a series of
23 features in Chess Life or abandoned
24 completely? And if produced, should the
0098
1
2 magazine be hard copy or online, and should
3 it be targeted for kids or coaches? The
4 majority felt it should be targeted for kids.
5 I'll take the easy one first. If it were
6 produced, all but one wanted a hard copy.
7 However, the majority felt that it should be
8 included in Chess Life, and not put out as a
9 separate issue. The idea of a bi-monthly
10 Chess Life that included articles that would
11 have been in School Mates or School Mates
12 type articles is very appealing. That is
13 something that I specifically want to explore
14 more with them.
15 But generally the consensus is --
16 and the overwhelming consensus is to include
17 the material for School Mates in Chess Life.
18 And the month issues would be those issues
19 that coincide with the official rating in
20 which the rating on the label is the official
21 rating. So that when kids get that mailing
22 label, they see it that is their official
23 rating.
24 I think last year Peter asked me
0099
1
2 what I thought about a breakdown. That we
3 had X number of pages and we could split that
4 up into six issues at so many or four issues
5 with more pages or that kind of thing. I did
6 ask the Scholastic Committee. I didn't get
7 enough feedback from them that I felt I could
8 really provide an answer there.
9 I would say six issues. Because
10 fewer issues and kids get out of the habit of
11 receiving it. They don't really expect it to
12 come. It's not something they look forward
13 to. I think when I wait more than two months
14 -- when you're eight years old, it has
15 disappeared, it's gone forever and there's
16 not going to be any kind of habit of looking
17 at it. Then when it does come in they are
18 not likely to look for it, and it's not
19 likely to be read. And that was a problem
20 that some people alluded to. So I think six
21 issues is key. I like the idea of it
22 occurring when the rating is official and
23 with the inclusion of material in the Chess
24 Life. So I think that would be the
0100
1
2 recommendation of the Scholastic Committee on
3 that issue.
4 The other things, less important,
5 but as I said, when a motion is presented
6 before this board, I feel obligated to take
7 it to the Scholastic Committee for their
8 input.
9 So the next two: Should the names
10 of the rating classes be changed from alpha
11 to numeric. Instead of class A, class B,
12 class D -- I'm a class D player. Should we
13 have some sort of a category name? We had
14 some people that felt strongly about that.
15 But our Scholastic Committee did not. They
16 feel don't mess with it. Why change it.
17 It's not worth it. We have more important
18 things to think about. Don't bother me with
19 such questions. That was basically the
20 response I got.
21 And should rating class As be
22 granted as titles? No one thought that
23 should happen. One person said we should do
24 that as expert, but below that no one else
0101
1
2 thought it was not worth doing it at all. So
3 there was no recommendation for any such
4 change from the Scholastic Committee there.
5 How useful do you think an auto
6 sensory board would be for young children?
7 The majority felt it would be useful. Again
8 I phrased that at a target price of around
9 $100, which is what we talked about.
10 Definitely I've gotten enough
11 feedback now so I can say that the scholastic
12 community definitely would feel that would be
13 a useful item to have if we could target it
14 for around that price. The only question
15 remains would be on features as to whether or
16 not it should be able to produce an output
17 that could go online. A lot of people would
18 like that, but I have no idea what that might
19 do to the cost. So looking into that would
20 be the next area that we would want to do, to
21 see if we can put the features that a
22 majority of the people might want, might make
23 it incompatible with that price stage. So
24 that's the next thing we need to look at.
0102
1
2 Then do you favor the development
3 of a regional qualifier for the national
4 scholastic championship? This was suggested.
5 It was suggested at previous Executive Board
6 meetings that we look into that. Each year I
7 have been asked that question, and this year
8 it was in the context of 9-11 and people not
9 wanting to travel by plane. Maybe we should
10 have regional qualifiers. Not a single
11 respondent thought it was a good idea.
12 The formula for the national
13 championship we had has been very successful.
14 It has grown enormously. And many of us feel
15 it is the prime reason that scholastic chess
16 has grown, and nobody wants to diminish that
17 or eliminate that. And the majority feel
18 that people could not afford to go to both.
19 Rather the idea was that we look to try to
20 establish within state championships subsidy
21 for those to go -- the top players to go to
22 the national championships. And we look to
23 try to help each state affiliate that runs a
24 state championship provide such a subsidy to
0103
1
2 encourage that the strongest players at least
3 are represented in the U.S. Chess
4 Championship.
5 The final one: Do you think the
6 title "National Champion" should be reserved
7 for open section winners only? And there
8 were a couple of incidents where the winner
9 of an under 800 section was billed as a
10 national junior high champion, and the team
11 that won the open section was then unable to
12 get any publicity from the same newspaper,
13 and in the same area. And then another case,
14 where in Arizona where a team that won an
15 under section billed themselves and the team
16 that actually won the open section forced a
17 retraction, which I thought was in rather
18 poor taste. But the policy has been written
19 into the guidelines that you're first place.,
20 but if you're to be national champions of
21 junior high, it must be in an open section.
22 The response to that was sort of mixed, but
23 the majority felt that the current system was
24 preferable. And that sort of completes the
0104
1
2 survey I have.
3 On one issue though, when we got
4 up -- I did go into a lot of detail about the
5 financial situation of the USCF, in that it
6 is in a very difficult position right now,
7 and none of us are sure exactly how this is
8 going to play out. And there is definitely
9 going to be a lot of pressure to raise dues.
10 And this, in conjunction with one of our
11 goals, which is to look at this sort of three
12 separate types of scholastic members. We
13 have got those that are actively competing in
14 tournament play, will compete in adult
15 tournaments and really want to get better.
16 Then we have got those that are playing in
17 tournament chess, but only through their
18 organizer or their affiliate and will drop
19 out when they leave that program. And then
20 those that we haven't reached at all.
21 And I had several very interesting
22 suggestions from a couple of people, and I
23 think they are going to be the basis of
24 further exploration on the topic. But one
0105
1
2 suggestion, that we revamp the membership and
3 that we create a scholastic membership that
4 where they could only play in scholastic
5 events, not play in open events. And that we
6 then have a student membership at a slightly
7 higher price, but one that is retained to age
8 25, where for a $30 student membership up to
9 the age of 25 where they can play in all
10 events. That those that were scholastic only
11 would be limited to just scholastic events.
12 And if they wanted to play in an open event,
13 there would be perhaps a fee charged for
14 that. Sounded like that would be a rather
15 difficult thing to put into place with a fee
16 being charged for the exception and all that.
17 It sounds like maybe that would be a
18 nightmare to manage that.
19 Another suggestion was we establish
20 a school-based membership where the affiliate
21 themselves could have tournaments for X
22 number of members, and that these members
23 would get a rating based on some sort of an
24 online rating calculator. I know that we
0106
1
2 passed at a board meeting two or three
3 years -- I'm trying to remember which board
4 meeting it was -- to permit the office to
5 establish an experimental rating that could
6 then be used for non-members in order to give
7 them -- if they played in non-rated events,
8 they could use this experimental rating that
9 would approximate the USCF's actual rating.
10 And then later, when they joined the USCF, if
11 they did, that rating would be used instead
12 of having them unrated. So that would be
13 sort of a bridge to those that are
14 non-members that are playing in affiliate
15 organizations that do not have membership for
16 their members. And there's quite a few
17 around the country that have large numbers
18 that we provide this online rating calculator
19 that they could get an experimental rating.
20 And I would suggest that each kid that
21 participates in that for the school be given
22 some I.D. number which they would retain.
23 And if they later joined, that I.D. number
24 would guarantee that we had the same person.
0107
1
2 One of the problems that was stated
3 to me was that the kids -- the composition of
4 who is playing for a school affiliate changes
5 a lot. You may have -- and I've seen this
6 with my own group of young kids. You start
7 off with ten or fifteen kids that are
8 interested. Three months later you have
9 fifteen or twenty kids that are interested
10 and maybe seven are the same. But you'll
11 have others that try it out for a while and
12 then drop out. If I were to run a tournament
13 with the first fifteen that I have, three or
14 four of them may play in that, but then they
15 may not play again. So then there's a mix,
16 and this can make it difficult to identify
17 which kids.
18 I know when our school joined the
19 Kasparov competition, the online competition,
20 that the kids I had at the end of the year
21 weren't the same ones I had at the beginning
22 for the youngest group that were playing. So
23 I can sympathize with organizers and see a
24 turnover. They open up a club, kids join it,
0108
1
2 become enthusiastic, kids stay, others come
3 in later on. So if we had this online rating
4 calculator where everyone who played in the
5 in-house tournaments had an I.D. number and a
6 rating that the USCF office did not have to
7 generate, but was generated by this online
8 rating calculator, the organizer himself kept
9 a record of all the kids that played in it.
10 Those that decided to join the USCF and play
11 events outside, we would take the I.D. number
12 of that kid and enter him into the USCF
13 record that way.
14 We could charge an affiliate an
15 additional affiliate fee for providing this
16 service if we wanted, but it would be a way
17 of using this experimental rating and perhaps
18 it would attract some of those affiliates out
19 there that currently don't see USCF
20 membership as necessary for their own
21 in-house tournaments. It might in fact bring
22 them in. So I think this might be -- a
23 couple of these areas in modifying the
24 membership categories might be something that
0109
1
2 we can explore further.
3 MS. MARINELLO: I'm sorry, I just
4 wanted to make a comment. I think, without
5 really knowing what is the exact cost of that
6 service, it will be very hard to actually
7 implement such an idea. And as I was
8 mentioning before, you know, increasing the
9 dues increase, I mean the dues, scholastic
10 dues, I mean the main point is to make it
11 affordable and accessible for the children.
12 So for someone who is going to play chess for
13 three months to pay a membership of $13 a
14 year is not such a big cost. I mean that is
15 exactly the reason -- one of the reasons why
16 we believe that we should keep the fee
17 structure the way it is as the scholastic.
18 And the second point is most people
19 who promote the scholastic chess around the
20 country, they are volunteers.
21 MR. SHUTT: What?
22 MS. MARINELLO: They are
23 volunteers. And not a professional chess
24 person. But many of the people around the
0110
1
2 country who are engaging kids in the concept
3 of playing tournament chess, they are
4 volunteers. That is an issue. You know, we
5 have to make it easier for them to sell
6 these.
7 And the third point, and I think is
8 the most important one, is that we haven't
9 explored the possibility of seeking sponsors
10 for scholastic chess. And there's where the
11 big money can come into the organization. I
12 mean if you get the sponsorship of McDonalds
13 or America Online or big corporations, if
14 they see the numbers and they see the
15 service, the value of the service and the
16 uniqueness of the service, then they say
17 okay, let's put a million dollars into a
18 project or half a million dollars. But we
19 have to start thinking in terms of big
20 fish -- big fish. I think we really -- and
21 the only way how we can reach out to those
22 people is by showing them that we have a
23 large scholastic and youth membership. The
24 current amount of kids that we have is
0111
1
2 probably not enough to fill a baseball
3 stadium. 50,000 kids, nothing. If we talk
4 about a million kids playing chess, then
5 McDonald's might be interested in having a
6 national campaign and giving us money for it
7 and promoting the game. But again, it is all
8 about increasing the number of kids who are
9 playing chess in the country and working with
10 the volunteers, working with professional
11 coaches. There are problems with the
12 ratings. There are problems with the
13 services. We have to keep on increasing the
14 number of people.
15 What we are seeing now is a lot of
16 scholastic people are moving in the direction
17 of breaking away from the USCF and that is
18 the reality. That is what we're facing right
19 now. It is our biggest challenge. And it
20 makes it very difficult for people like me,
21 who, you know, I'm very loyal to the
22 organization. I run rating events. I tried
23 to get kids involved in the USCF, get more
24 members. But then you have to keep -- if now
0112
1
2 I have to explain to the parents it is going
3 to cost more, I mean probably in New York it
4 is not such a big issue. People will pay for
5 it. But in many places around the country it
6 is going to be an issue.
7 MR. SHUTT: Thank you. Your words
8 are very true.
9 In fact, as I said there are three
10 groups out there, and one of them are those
11 that are not members. And tapping into that
12 is very important. Now, we have several
13 proposals that we're developing. We think
14 one of the most important things is to be
15 able to have access to the USCF's website and
16 to be able to reach out to scholastic members
17 through the USCF's website. And I was very
18 pleased to hear Frank talk about the
19 possibilities that he envisions happening
20 with that website, because it fits in so
21 closely with what we would like to do. Right
22 now Bob Ferguson and George John have done
23 incredible work about putting in information
24 about the scholastic council, our committee
0113
1
2 and projects and information on the website.
3 Beatriz was one of the first ones to come up
4 with the idea that we need to reach out and
5 get affiliates and these organizations out
6 there that aren't affiliates and register
7 them. Find out who they are and to bring
8 them aboard. She's absolutely right. We do
9 need to have a service that they want. And
10 they are going to provide. And instant
11 feedback on ratings is one thing that we've
12 been asking for for a long time.
13 I'll get to you in a minute, Bill.
14 But what we envision is that we would have a
15 place where every organization that works
16 with kids could register with the USCF
17 online. They would give us the name of the
18 contact person, their e-mail, phone number,
19 address, and the number of kids in their
20 organization. What the breakdown of their
21 ages is, in categories of ages. What their
22 ratings are. What services they provide to
23 the kids. What would they like from the USCF
24 in terms of service? It would be one where
0114
1
2 we could put questions up there, a survey,
3 such as this or any other survey, and they
4 could respond automatically, and it would be
5 tabulated automatically. Frank mentioned
6 something yesterday that I was very pleased
7 to hear, and that was an idea of having a
8 home page for every scholastic member that
9 would instantly have their rating. They
10 could go on that home page. It could be one
11 where only other kids could have access to by
12 entering their PIN number, and they could get
13 on that web page and contact each other or
14 have a pen pal type of arrangement. We need
15 things that will attract the kids and make
16 the USCF valuable to them. That is one way.
17 Getting their organizers or coaches the
18 ability to get information on what's going on
19 at the USCF, to have surveys to answer.
20 That's another way. We are also working on a
21 coaches' corner where we would put
22 information online out there, and it could
23 also go in the School Mates or Chess Life,
24 one of the Chess Life issues from a coach on
0115
1
2 suggestions and helpful hints to coaches.
3 That's another idea.
4 We were also working on a coaches'
5 certification process, where that was an idea
6 of Tom Brownscombe which we put together.
7 That we would have different levels of
8 coaches' certification, where a coach as the
9 more experience and more knowledge they had,
10 the higher their level would be. Information
11 that would help one pass these different test
12 levels could also be online. Different ways
13 that we would make ourselves attractive to
14 those out there that currently aren't
15 members. That's the goal, as Beatriz said,
16 to bring those in. And these are just some
17 of the ways that we are talking about.
18 In terms of sponsorship, we now
19 have working out of the office we have got
20 some -- we have got Ann and others that are
21 going out there getting sponsorship. We have
22 some members of the Scholastic Committee such
23 as Kelly Jacobs that is very actively
24 pursuing sponsors. And I see that the
0116
1
2 nationals could well have some large
3 corporate sponsors in the future which could
4 increase the amount of money coming from
5 them.
6 So these are some of the ways that
7 we would like to reach new members. As far
8 as retaining additional members, I've long
9 felt that college chess is a very important
10 area that we need to pursue, to try to keep
11 members. And we are looking at ways of doing
12 that now. There's more -- since this
13 conference that we had at the University of
14 Dallas, there were a lot of us that have been
15 working with kids got a chance to meet each
16 other, and there were a lot of other colleges
17 that we talked about. Dr. Sherman, who is
18 chairman of the College Committee was there.
19 And it seems that at the college level most
20 colleges will have a small club based on an
21 interested student. If you have a few
22 interested students, they will form a club.
23 Not many have it sponsored at the university
24 level. That's rather exceptional.
0117
1
2 I went to Penn State with Donald
3 Byrne there, and we were a university
4 activity with a budget. But that seems to be
5 the exception rather than the rule. I think
6 if we can find avenues to approach college
7 presidents, college boards with the idea --
8 board of directors or whoever is in charge,
9 with the idea bring them, get some of them
10 interested in promoting a team at their
11 school. I know working at the top down has
12 been beneficial at the scholastic level, and
13 that may be the answer to work at the college
14 level.
15 The other area is to get college
16 kids more interested. And with the advent of
17 club chess, more club chess, with events that
18 colleges could formulate clubs to compete is
19 another way of doing that. Extending youth
20 membership up to the age of a college senior
21 is another way to try to bring more college
22 kids in. But I think that's an area that we
23 need to work on.
24 MS. MARINELLO: Steve, may I make a
0118
1
2 comment. I think the USCF should have a
3 community service program for teenagers,
4 which is something that kids need to do to
5 gain some college credit. So we could have a
6 community service that we could link the kids
7 to some established program so they can be
8 helpful. They can help with the younger
9 kids, and that will be a way to motivate
10 these teenagers to continue playing the game
11 or contributing, you know, giving back to the
12 community. And the benefit for them will be
13 to have the credit of the community service
14 program. So it's something that has already
15 existed, and it's everywhere around the
16 country.
17 MR. SHUTT: Well, that pretty much
18 concludes it. I would say the immediate
19 changes, the inclusion of School Mates in
20 Chess Life would be the one area. And we're
21 working on some of these ideas with
22 scholastic, the membership categories. We'll
23 be working on exploring some of those ideas
24 further for the May meeting. They are about
0119
1
2 the only changes that we have agreed to at
3 this point, okay?
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay.
5 MR. SHUTT: Bill.
6 MR. GOICHBERG: Yeah, I agree with
7 most of what you're saying. I think having
8 faster ratings, you know, better rating
9 service is certainly important. I think
10 online cross tables of scholastic events
11 would also be helpful. I'd also like to
12 see a sortable rating database so somebody
13 could go on the database and say look at
14 this. After typing in some appropriate
15 things, you could say hey, look, I'm number
16 58 player in South Dakota, something like
17 that. You should be able to find out where
18 you rank in your state, maybe even in your
19 city, zip code area, whatever. You know,
20 basically it could be an extension of the top
21 50 or top 100 list online. So that every
22 player could look up exactly where he stands
23 compared to every other player. And some of
24 them might actually feel good that they have
0120
1
2 moved up from number 500 to number 400.
3 One thing that you mentioned that I
4 think is not a good idea is this approach of
5 experimental ratings and assigning I.D.
6 numbers to players that are not members. I
7 think we've tried that already. It was
8 called JTPs, and it was a disaster. JTPs got
9 ratings. They got I.D. numbers and they were
10 not members. I think we know from that
11 experiment that very, very few of those JTP's
12 went on to become members. It caused a lot
13 of confusion. There were a lot of kids that
14 didn't know whether they were members or not.
15 I think organizers were confused also.
16 I also very much dislike the idea
17 of having a special membership which is only
18 good for scholastics. I think that would
19 send exactly the wrong message, the message
20 the USCF must send is okay, you're part of
21 scholastic chess now, that's fine, but
22 there's also this other chess, and we're
23 hoping that you get into that some day. And
24 to say you're banned from playing in that and
0121
1
2 there's an extra fee for that, your
3 membership doesn't qualify you for it is
4 really a very defeating message for the USCF
5 to send.
6 And regarding the scholastic dues,
7 Frank Camaratta mentioned there hasn't been
8 an increase since 1996. I don't think that's
9 correct, I think there have been some
10 increases. But I do agree with him that USCF
11 has to do something about the dues. And I
12 don't just mean the scholastic dues; I mean
13 all the dues. There has not been an increase
14 in adult dues since '95. And this is the
15 longest that the U.S. Chess Trust, that the
16 USCF has ever gone without an increase in
17 adult dues with one exception, and that was
18 '66 to '75. And of course Fischer winning
19 the World Championship made the increase
20 unnecessary for a few years. So really, I
21 think considering the USCF's financial
22 situation, I think there has to be an
23 increase in adult dues. I don't think it
24 could be a big increase. I think if you
0122
1
2 raise the dues to $50 there would be so much
3 outrage that it really wouldn't be worth it.
4 But to go to something like $45, I think is
5 necessary. And I think if -- you know, I'm
6 glad to hear that the scholastic people want
7 School Mates included in Chess Life and want
8 to get six issues a year, but you know, you'd
9 have to have an increase to cover that, in
10 addition to the increase that you're already
11 getting if you raise adult to $45 and
12 scholastic by the existing formula goes to
13 $15. So I mean it seems to me I'm guessing
14 it would cost another three or four dollars
15 maybe to send the kids six issues of Chess
16 Life instead of four issues of School Mates.
17 So it seems to me if the scholastic dues were
18 about $18, you know, there could be a
19 commission, maybe a dollar or two, so it
20 wouldn't impact the organizers that much if
21 they chose to give that back to the players.
22 But you know, that might be a reasonable
23 compromise. If you're starting with a $5
24 across the board increase for all membership
0123
1
2 classes, it's a lot of money. It's $350,000,
3 $400,000. Even if you start deducting from
4 that by having extra issues of Chess Life for
5 kids and having commissions for various
6 membership classes, you know, it seems to me
7 you might still have 200, 250 thousand left,
8 which is very significant.
9 MR. SHUTT: I would first agree
10 with you completely -- I don't like the idea
11 of a separate scholastic membership that
12 plays only scholastic events either. I was
13 relating that as one of the ideas I've
14 received. I personally am not in favor of
15 that either. I believe very strongly in
16 trying to include kids with adults as soon as
17 they are able to play without their egos
18 being shattered. I try to play them up as
19 soon as possible. I don't agree with you on
20 the JTP however. This proposal wasn't
21 related to that or wasn't even a JTP type of
22 concept. In the JTP the USCF had to keep
23 records of -- full membership records of
24 everybody that was a JTP in the same way they
0124
1
2 did an adult member. But my idea was simply
3 you would go to a program. Say you had a
4 program in New York City's Chess in the
5 Schools, which is pulling out of rating
6 tournaments now, and/or some other program,
7 and you offer them an online rating
8 calculator. That would give them a USCF
9 rating for all of their kids playing in their
10 own tournaments and for an affiliate's fee,
11 and that each kid had a number. And in that
12 way if those kids went on to play, as a
13 number of them do in regular tournaments, we
14 would have some purpose of identifying them
15 from their pre-USCF experience. And instead
16 of listing them as unrated, they would now
17 have a rating that would approximate their
18 playing strength, and we would have a number.
19 And that's all we would need from them. We
20 wouldn't have to have all the other loads of
21 information, so it would be a virtual no cost
22 item to the USCF and a way of attracting --
23 MR. GOICHBERG: I think one of the
24 things we have learned from JTPs though is
0125
1
2 one of the main reasons people join the
3 federation is to get a rating. And if you
4 give them a rating without being a member I
5 think they have less incentive to join. I
6 think it is a self defeating approach.
7 MR. SHUTT: Well, I don't know. I
8 think that and a package with a couple of
9 other things we have to offer would keep them
10 involved with the USCF, myself. And also, if
11 there's more of a chance they might stay with
12 the USCF than leaving that particular program
13 if they had some sort of connection with us
14 through a rating. They might want to keep
15 that rating and continue playing. And a lot
16 of them may be playing now without any
17 rating, and we don't have them anyway. So
18 there's no motivation for them to join us
19 because they don't even know about the
20 rating. So this would at least open the door
21 for those kids.
22 Anyhow, I don't want to get into an
23 argument about that. But I would ask if
24 maybe we could have some sort of cost
0126
1
2 analysis done on what it would cost to
3 include School Mates in Chess Life.
4 MR. NIRO: We are already working
5 on that.
6 MR. SHUTT: So when the question
7 of dues comes up, we'll at least have some
8 accurate cost figures to help guide us.
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, I'm
10 assuming that that would be subtracting the
11 current costs of issues of School Mates and
12 factoring in the total thing.
13 MR. NIRO: Well, I think there are
14 a variety of options that we are looking at,
15 and we'll be talking more about it in May for
16 sure in the course of the budget
17 preparations. One option we are looking at
18 is actually enfolding School Mates as it
19 currently exists directly into the magazine
20 and doing that periodically and maybe that
21 magazine also having some feature articles
22 geared to its coaches and more towards kids.
23 That's one way we're thinking of doing it.
24 We are looking at doing that four times a
0127
1
2 year. We are looking at doing that six times
3 a year.
4 Another option is the one you
5 mentioned specifically, where instead of
6 having a separate School Mates you make half
7 of the Chess Life magazine be a scholastic
8 oriented Chess Life. Another thing we are
9 looking at is keeping School Mates the same
10 and going from four issues to six issues or
11 eight issues or twelve issues and looking at
12 the various cost options of that. Another
13 thing is doing School Mates in a different
14 way. So in the course of the budget
15 preparations, in the course of May's
16 presentation we will be identifying what the
17 cost of the various options are, without
18 prejudice towards one way or the other, just
19 so that we have the information to look at
20 for any possible option.
21 We are also going to look at
22 different page sizes, whether it's a 16-page
23 insert or a 32-page insert, whether that
24 makes the magazine a total-68 pages, 84, 100,
0128
1
2 how it affects postage, how it affects
3 printing, etcetera. So there will be a
4 variety of ways to look at it.
5 MS. MARINELLO: I think it would
6 also be a good idea to look into a
7 possibility of posting the magazine online.
8 MR. NIRO: Absolutely.
9 MS. MARINELLO: Because that would
10 facilitate the transition for the kids to
11 using the Internet and playing chess through
12 the Internet. If it is School Mates magazine
13 online, the kids will go there, they can
14 check their ratings, use their rating
15 calculator, which a lot of kids don't know
16 about it.
17 MR. NIRO: Right.
18 MS. MARINELLO: And that is nice.
19 Even if they don't have an official rating,
20 they can find out how they did in the
21 tournament last weekened, how many points
22 they gained, how many points they lost, and
23 that is one of the benefits that the kids may
24 have.
0129
1
2 MR. NIRO: Beatriz, we talked about
3 that a little bit yesterday in the context of
4 what would be available on our website, not
5 specifically about School Mates, but that's
6 definitely something we could consider. And
7 if you have some time later, we could talk
8 more about what you're thinking on the
9 website. But that's a great suggestion and
10 something we also include in our analysis.
11 MR. SHUTT: There was one other
12 item that came up too late to include in this
13 survey, but the idea of expanding the top 50
14 list to have it to every age. Instead of the
15 top 50 twelve to fourteen, it would be top 50
16 twelve, top 50 thirteen, top 50 fourteen, and
17 have it every age bracket. I responded,
18 well, if we have enough, why not do the top
19 100 in every age bracket.
20 And I remember Bill's remark when
21 he first created the top 50s list for under
22 thirteen. There weren't enough, he couldn't
23 get 50 kids. He said don't worry about it;
24 there will become enough. And sure enough,
0130
1
2 it catches fire. And once we found out we
3 made sure we knew their birth date and when
4 they joined.
5 MR. GOICHBERG: The board passed my
6 motion. We are going to have the top 50 on
7 the thirteen. And then a few months later we
8 got a note from Ed Munson saying you sure you
9 really want to do that and we can only find
10 47 and the lowest ones are rated X. We said
11 go ahead and do it, and eventually it will be
12 okay.
13 MR. SHUTT: I would say the same
14 thing would happen if we did a top 100 list.
15 I like a kid going online and finding out
16 where he stands in his state or whatever. It
17 might be demoralizing if you're 4,037th. But
18 I don't know how far you want to take that.
19 But certainly a top 100 list in every age
20 category seems like it would be very doable.
21 MS. MARINELLO: Steve, I agree with
22 you. I think we should calculate the cost of
23 developing the database where the kids can
24 find out, you know, what is their rating in
0131
1
2 relation to the other kids in their state or
3 their city, whichever. And the cost of
4 printing the top 100 kids for an age, it may
5 be probably less expensive in the long run
6 just to develop a database and have it
7 available for many, many years.
8 MR. SHUTT: We have someone doing
9 it on a volunteer basis in Pennsylvania where
10 they are arranging the kids and the top ten I
11 think by each age and the top ten teams based
12 on the average rating of their top four
13 players.
14 MS. MARINELLO: My concern would be
15 the printing and the additional pages that
16 would be required in the rating supplement
17 and all the other publications.
18 MR. SHUTT: Well, it wouldn't
19 necessarily have to be in a supplement, would
20 it? Couldn't it be online?
21 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: You couldn't do
22 it on a paper supplement. We are looking
23 into and expect to implement for the February
24 supplement as a free download from the
0132
1
2 members only area of our website.
3 MS. MARINELLO: I think it's a
4 great idea, Tom.
5 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I don't know how
6 searchable it will be. Unfortunately Laura
7 is not here. I don't know technically how
8 she intends to do this, so I can't respond to
9 the searchability issue.
10 MR. NIRO: Certainly in the future
11 the technology will be there.
12 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: We expect to have
13 that as a free download for the April
14 supplement.
15 MR. NIRO: You said February. You
16 meant April?
17 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: If I said
18 February I was mistaken. I meant April.
19 Obviously, we haven't done it for the
20 February supplement.
21 MR. NIRO: Time flies.
22 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I was going to
23 compliment you on your extremely expeditious
24 response.
0133
1
2 All right, are there other
3 comments? I think this, as always, has been
4 an outstanding report. It is filled with
5 creative ideas. As always, the office has a
6 tremendous challenge of implementing such as
7 can be done. But I think clearly we have to
8 be making a lot of changes for it forward and
9 a forward direction as part of our total
10 approach.
11 MR. NIRO: Question.
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yeah.
13 MR. NIRO: Is there a chair for the
14 Scholastic Council at this point?
15 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Path Hochstra
16 was serving as chair, and there was some
17 question about that, but she will continue
18 serving. Beatriz and Ralph and others have
19 decided a lot of the chair duties can be
20 split up, and different ones can come to the
21 different meetings, so it's not too much of
22 an imposition on any one person to travel to
23 each of the meetings. That they can share
24 that. And Beatriz today is representing the
0134
1
2 Council, and will be reporting back to the
3 Council.
4 MS. MARINELLO: Yes, and I will say
5 in the next couple of weeks we are going to
6 restructure part of our -- you know, how we
7 are working and communicating. I think we
8 are going to try to get something
9 accomplished before the U.S. Chess Trust
10 Open.
11 Each of us has one particular
12 objective, but I think we need to start
13 working together, you know, as a team. It is
14 going well. It is a good group of people. I
15 think it is going to be fine.
16 Right now we are going through a
17 difficult period because we don't have a
18 chairperson. So we are basically dividing
19 the obligations among each one of us, so....
20 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, well,
21 when you report back to the Council, I think
22 I can speak safely for the full board in
23 saying that the motion of thannks and
24 commendation to be passed in October is still
0135
1
2 very much in effect as we continue to be very
3 much impressed by the very high level of
4 creativity of output of the Council.
5 MS. MARINELLO: Thank you.
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Is that it?
7 Steve.
8 MR. SHUTT: Yes.
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I want to drive
10 on forward and get some more things done.
11 MR. SMITH: Mr. President, I don't
12 know whether anyone else has to check out.
13 Do you know the check out time? Is it 12:00?
14 MS. DuBOIS: I could go and check
15 for you.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: The next item
17 is the U.S. Chess Trust championship
18 residency requirements.
19 There was a lot of discussion in
20 the current cycle preceding the most recent
21 event about the residency requirements. So
22 I've put it on the agenda for today. My
23 personal recommendation -- and I will open
24 this to discussion -- would be to that we
0136
1
2 leave the requirements as they are but we
3 make two important changes. First be that
4 the three-year requirement is reduced to two
5 years. And secondly, that there be an
6 announced public deadline for submission of
7 documentation to avoid confusion. Having
8 said that, I would like to recognize Tom
9 Brownscombe, if you would, Tom.
10 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Well, I would
11 like to expand this discussion a little bit
12 beyond just the U.S. Championship residency
13 requirements. Our published invitational
14 event requirements have not been revised
15 since January of 1999. There have been some
16 important changes in the way we do the U.S.
17 Chess championship, and there are also a few
18 other suggestions I would like to recommend.
19 So I have rewritten our event requirements a
20 little bit. In the back of the room are
21 paper copies of the January 1999 version and
22 my suggested revisions. The Executive Board
23 has already gotten my suggested revisions by
24 e-mail. If anybody needs a paper copy, I'll
0137
1
2 be happy to distribute them.
3 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Remind me when
4 you sent those out, Tom?
5 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: A couple weeks
6 ago.
7 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, I think
8 that's what I printed out.
9 DR. BRADY: I would like a paper
10 copy.
11 MR. SMITH: Yeah.
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I would like
13 another copy, yes.
14 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: So we'll take a
15 moment to get these things distributed.
16 There are two sheets, the old sheet showing
17 the January 1999 as it exists. And then
18 there's my proposed changes, so you can have
19 both of them in front of you and see the
20 differences. I mean the main issue is the
21 U.S. Chess championship. The board has
22 already voted in previous Executive Board
23 meetings to make some changes in the
24 structure. And I think that we should
0138
1
2 officially acknowledge that in our event
3 requirements. And I have a few other
4 suggestions. So I just want to go through
5 and highlight the differences between what
6 I'm proposing and what we have from January
7 1999.
8 In the first paragraph I'm
9 proposing a small change. We used to say:
10 Not less than three months and not more than
11 five months before the event is when
12 invitations would be sent out. I don't quite
13 like that limitation. There are a few
14 instances when I want to get invitations out
15 before five months and there are sometimes
16 when I just can't get them out three months
17 before the event, so I prefer to say
18 invitations shall be issued several months
19 prior to the scheduled beginning of the
20 event, rather than put that three to
21 five-month limitation.
22 Then under ratings --
23 MR. NIRO: May I make a comment on
24 that please?
0139
1
2 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Go ahead.
3 MR. NIRO: I think in particular we
4 have had some inquiries already about the
5 Olympiad, the next Olympiad because people
6 have commitments to organizers that they are
7 already considering. And if we are saying it
8 is too soon to be able to say to people we
9 want to invite you to the Olympiad it is hard
10 to confirm to them whether or not they would
11 be considered so they can make their plans.
12 So I would endorse fully the flexibility for
13 certain events to be able to make decisions
14 and invitations earlier.
15 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I see no benefit
16 specifying three to five months. I think
17 allowing ourselves to be more flexible is
18 better.
19 MS. MARINELLO: Well, I was part of
20 the discussions when we changed it the last
21 time, and I think the main issue was the
22 rating that will be used to qualify people.
23 I mean if you notify people six months
24 before, three months before, it basically
0140
1
2 changes the rating supplement that they will
3 be using to qualify the players to receive an
4 invitation to events. So it's important for
5 the players to know what rating list will be
6 used for this purpose.
7 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I was just about
8 to address that issue.
9 MS. MARINELLO: Okay, that will be
10 one issue. And the other issue is you have
11 to make plans in advance. Especially when it
12 comes to playing in leap year? Then you have
13 to be out of the country for three weeks.
14 You have to know if you qualify for it or not
15 so you can make your arrangements in advance.
16 MR. NIRO: And fortunately, now our
17 strongest players get invitations a year in
18 advance to go to events. They'd like to know
19 what their options are.
20 MS. MARINELLO: Exactly.
21 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Exactly on that
22 subject, if we move down to rating, we used
23 to say in a variety of places current
24 published USCF rating at time of invitation.
0141
1
2 There are two places where I would like to
3 specify a particular rating list. Number
4 one, the U.S. Championship, I've broken the
5 U.S. Junior away from the U.S. Championship.
6 I want to specify the February rating
7 supplement is the cutoff for the U.S.
8 Championship. I've had discussions with the
9 SCF on this matter. I agree with the SCF
10 that it's important to determine who the
11 seeded players are before the qualification
12 tournaments begin, so that everybody knows
13 going into the qualification tournaments who
14 is seeded and who needs to possibly play in a
15 qualification tournament in order to get into
16 the U.S. Championship. So by using the
17 February rating supplement everyone can know
18 in advance, and it can be published in
19 advance who already is seeded and who needs
20 to play in a qualifying tournament in order
21 to qualify for the U.S. Championship.
22 MS. MARINELLO: We're talking about
23 the year prior to the event because this year
24 the championship was in January.
0142
1
2 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Yes, that's
3 right.
4 MR. NIRO: First qualifying events
5 is next month.
6 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: At the time first
7 qualifying events for the next U.S.
8 Championship, which would be in January,
9 would be the U.S. Masters, which begins at
10 end of February. So in order for people to
11 know before the qualifying tournament who is
12 seeded, we would have to use the February
13 supplement.
14 MS. MARINELLO: So then it will be
15 necessary to take into account their
16 residency requirement.
17 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: That's correct,
18 and I will get to that later. You're
19 bringing up some very good points, and yes I
20 will address residency a little bit later.
21 I'm going through this in order.
22 So I've broken apart the U.S.
23 Junior from the U.S. Championship, because I
24 intend to use the April supplement as the
0143
1
2 final supplement for the junior. I did that
3 last year. It's a good supplement, and I see
4 no reason not to specify the April supplement
5 for that event. So I've made those two
6 changes. Breaking the U.S. Junior away from
7 the U.S. Championship and specifying what
8 supplement would be used to determine the
9 seeded players.
10 I combined the FIDE Olympiad and
11 the FIDE women's Olympiad. It seems rather
12 strange to me that we would have different
13 qualifying requirements for the FIDE women's
14 Olympiad than we do for the women's Olympiad.
15 But we do. I see no point in that. I went
16 with the structure that we had with the FIDE
17 women's Olympiad for simplicity, because
18 calculating published FIDE ratings is a
19 manual thing, so to save myself a little work
20 I'm suggesting we not do that, and we put
21 those two events together and qualify people
22 in the same system.
23 MS. MARINELLO: Tom, may I ask you
24 a question. Did you get the input of the top
0144
1
2 players in the country, the people who will
3 be affected by this?
4 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: The only top
5 player that I spoke to about this was Joel
6 Benjamin. And he's --
7 MS. MARINELLO: I will survey the
8 players.
9 MR. GOICHBERG: The reason the
10 rules are different for women is when the
11 players were last surveyed the women said
12 different things than the man.
13 MS. MARINELLO: Right, that was
14 exactly my point.
15 MS. MARINELLO: I will survey the
16 players. This is very important to the
17 players.
18 MR. NIRO: Yasser also had input to
19 that, not the whole thing but the things that
20 relate to the whole U.S. Chess Trust
21 Championship.
22 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: One of the
23 reasons I'm highlighting these is so they can
24 be discussed individually and perhaps some
0145
1
2 compromise between the two can exist. But
3 certainly some changes need to be made.
4 Moving along. In number seven I've
5 removed any reference to the Disney Mickey
6 world rapid event. That event no longer
7 exists. The folks at Disney Europe have
8 informed me they have no intention of ever
9 doing that event again. So since it doesn't
10 exist and the organizers have no intention of
11 doing it, I don't see any point in referring
12 to it in our regulations.
13 And then there are no changes until
14 we get down to 15. Then in 15 I recognize
15 the fact that we are now using qualifying
16 tournaments, and I state that in our
17 regulations. So where there used to be just
18 an A and a B, there's now A, B, C. And B
19 specifically indicates the top scores and
20 qualifying tournaments will get into the U.S.
21 Chess Trust Championship.
22 Under activity. We used to have
23 different activity requirements for the U.S.
24 Women's Championship and the U.S. Men's
0146
1
2 Championship. Since the two tournaments have
3 been merged, this seems extremely ridiculous.
4 I had a discussion with the SCF about that
5 going into this tournament. And the SCF and
6 I agreed, just informally that, well, since
7 it is all one tournament it should have the
8 same activity requirement and it would not be
9 right for the women to have to play more
10 games than the men in order to qualify for
11 the same tournament. So last year we set the
12 activity requirement as ten for both women
13 and men, and I think that -- I hope that the
14 Executive Board will ratify that today.
15 MS. MARINELLO: Tom, may I make a
16 remark about that. Here it says players must
17 play a minimum of 20 USCF rated games and in
18 the twelve months prior to invitation.
19 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Yes.
20 MS. MARINELLO: So that means that
21 will be two years before the event? Because
22 if you're going to use a February rating --
23 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: That's correct,
24 yes.
0147
1
2 MS. MARINELLO: Okay.
3 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: The old one --
4 you're looking at the one from January of
5 1999 which says 20 games.
6 MS. MARINELLO: Um-hmm.
7 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: My proposal was
8 ten games.
9 MS. MARINELLO: The question is
10 actually the time.
11 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Yes, that's
12 right.
13 MS. MARINELLO: Recommendeded
14 there, twelve months prior to the invitation.
15 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: That's correct.
16 I did not change the wording, "twelve months
17 prior to invitation". If we are going to
18 produce the list of seeded players in
19 February, then the activity requirements have
20 to refer to games played before February.
21 MS. MARINELLO: Two years before
22 the event.
23 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Yes, two years
24 before the event.
0148
1
2 MS. MARINELLO: And how that will
3 impact the new players, the new people who
4 are moving to the U.S., if it is two-year
5 residency.
6 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: They would have
7 to qualify through the qualifying
8 tournaments.
9 MS. MARINELLO: The problem with
10 that should have specified there as well, so
11 they will know that they have a chance to
12 qualify.
13 MR. NIRO: You're saying that only
14 applies to the seeded players that paragraph
15 you're referring to?
16 MS. MARINELLO: Yes.
17 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Yes.
18 MR. NIRO: Okay.
19 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: It's my
20 understanding that the activity requirement
21 does not apply to any of the qualifiers in
22 the qualifying tournaments.
23 And then we finally get to the
24 residency issue. I am proposing to rewrite
0149
1
2 that, because there was quite a bit of
3 confusion going into this U.S. Championship
4 regarding exactly what our residency
5 requirements were. And so I tried to clarify
6 that a little bit. I've taken number six and
7 put it into the introductory paragraph. And
8 I've done a bit of renumbering. And I have
9 combined what used to be 1 and 2; 1 and 2 was
10 creating quite a bit of confusion. One was
11 for national invitations, one was for FIDE
12 invitations. They were basically saying
13 exactly the same thing, so I didn't see any
14 reason to split them up. It was creating
15 confusion. And someone was trying to say
16 that, well, this doesn't apply, and a lot of
17 confusion was created that I think was
18 unnecessary.
19 I've moved zonal events down to the
20 bottom. I've tried to put things in what I
21 considered to be the order of importance.
22 The number one thing is you have to live in
23 the country for, you know, three years. And
24 then the number two thing is you need to fill
0150
1
2 out a residency form. And zonal events is
3 kind of an afterthought, and someone was
4 trying to say, well, it was creating
5 confusion the way it was done. And so I'm
6 trying to make it less confusing and address
7 the issues that some people brought up going
8 into this U.S. Championship.
9 Another thing that I'm suggesting,
10 we used to say players must provide a written
11 declaration of their intention to remain a
12 U.S. resident. I want to change that wording
13 to players must complete and sign a USCF
14 residency form. And this residency form must
15 be received by the USCF prior to the time
16 when invitations are determined. There was
17 quite a bit of confusion about what exactly
18 constitutes written notification, and someone
19 was trying to claim that some letter sent a
20 year ago constituted written notification.
21 And I want to make it clear exactly what type
22 of written notification the USCF would like
23 to receive. And I also want to make it clear
24 when the USCF wants to receive it, because we
0151
1
2 had situations where people played in a
3 qualifying tournament and then said oh, now I
4 want to submit a residency form so that I can
5 be eligible for the U.S. Championship. And
6 it doesn't seem right to me that after all
7 the requirements -- after the qualifications
8 have been determined then someone can say,
9 oh, now I want to submit a residency form
10 after the list of players has already been
11 determined and try to change the list of
12 players by making themselves eligible by
13 submitting a residency form. So I think it's
14 important we say somewhere when the residency
15 form should be submitted. And I think that
16 the residency form needs to be submitted no
17 later than when the invitations are being
18 determined.
19 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, Dr.
20 Brady?
21 DR. BRADY: What details are
22 included in the residency form? What's
23 preventing someone who's only been here one
24 year to fill out a residency form saying he's
0152
1
2 been here for three?
3 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: We ask for a copy
4 of some type of supporting documentation.
5 That supporting documentation is usually a
6 green card. There has been at least one
7 case -- I'm not going to name any names --
8 where someone put down a date which we later
9 discovered was not correct, because it did
10 not match the supporting documentation that
11 he provided. So that was a good question.
12 MR. GOICHBERG: We had some of
13 these problems at the National Chess
14 Congress. It was one of the qualifiers and
15 actually Tom, if that's what you're referring
16 to, it's not true that the player asked after
17 he qualified. What he did is he asked right
18 before the tournament, right before the first
19 round started, and said he wanted to declare
20 that, you know, his U.S. status. And you
21 know, I didn't have any forms on me, wasn't
22 really familiar with what I needed to do. So
23 I think that needs to be clarified. That you
24 know -- can you do that? Can you wait till
0153
1
2 the last minute right before the tournament
3 and do that?
4 But there was another problem with
5 this player, and I think as a result of that
6 other problem some change in wording would be
7 desirable. It says that you must complete
8 three continuous years of United States
9 residency with the U.S. address. I think it
10 should also require that if you're not a
11 citizen you must have a green card. Because
12 we had a player who had apparently four years
13 of continuous residence; however, he doesn't
14 have a green card, which is another way of
15 saying he's not legally in the country. I
16 don't think if you're here illegally that you
17 should be allowed to represent the United
18 States. If you're not a citizen, you should
19 have a green card. It doesn't say that.
20 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: It may be a good
21 idea to state legally a resident. I don't
22 think specifically stating a green card is a
23 good idea, because this is not just for the
24 U.S. Championship. It's for everything.
0154
1
2 MR. GOICHBERG: A legal resident
3 would take care of it.
4 MS. MARINELLO: It would engage
5 players that they have white passports coming
6 from Russia, that their legal situation was
7 not totally clear yet, and they have been
8 living in the country like Dimitri Schneider,
9 who for many years his family didn't have a
10 green card, and they were living in this
11 country four or five years before they
12 actually got the papers to stay in the
13 country as residents.
14 MR. GOICHBERG: Probably they
15 should not be allowed to play.
16 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: If they can
17 demonstrate they live in the country, I'm
18 willing to let the INS say whether they could
19 live here legally or not. If the board wants
20 to put legally in here, I would try to
21 determine who is living legally in the
22 country and who isn't, but I would really
23 prefer not to do that.
24 MS. MARINELLO: Tom, I would
0155
1
2 recommend seeking advice from INS. What kind
3 of information is required to stay in the
4 country legally?
5 MR. GOICHBERG: You might talk to
6 Ed Frumkin about this, because he works for
7 immigration.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Let me
9 interject here, and then I'll recognize
10 Steve.
11 When we spoke, whenever I got here,
12 Friday night, you had handed me an additional
13 sheet, which I don't think is part of these
14 requirements, which had the criteria
15 indicated for legal residency. I must have
16 it in my room.
17 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Yes.
18 PRESIDENT McCRARY: So there was
19 some attempt to spell that out. I have
20 forgotten exactly what it it said. I mention
21 that it did not include citizenship, but it
22 had a couple of other things.
23 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: You're referring
24 to our residency form, which was created in
0156
1
2 March of 1999 by Eric Johnson. You are
3 right. I didn't bring those along, although
4 it is referred to in my version, but not
5 Eric's version. Or not the January 1999
6 version.
7 Yes, we do have a standard
8 residency form, which we send out to anyone
9 who requests it, and which is what we would
10 like to receive from anyone who is living in
11 the country and would like to change their
12 status from their former country, whatever
13 that might be, to U.S. player.
14 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, I've got
15 two other follow-ups before I recognize you,
16 Steve.
17 MS. MARINELLO: Just have one more
18 question, Tom, and it's about the players
19 under age 20.
20 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Yes.
21 MS. MARINELLO: Because I can see
22 here that basically it's a more flexible
23 policy.
24 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I didn't change
0157
1
2 that.
3 MS. MARINELLO: Yes, I know. It
4 could be a little bit controversial for
5 players under age 20, because according to
6 this, if they.
7 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: If they submit
8 proof of full-time enrollment in a U.S. Chess
9 Trust school then they are immediately
10 eligible. That's the current policy, and I'm
11 not proposing to change that.
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, and my
13 follow-ups, first is since we have qualifying
14 events, the players have to declare their
15 intention to compete for the U.S.
16 Championship at the time they register. And
17 they have to pay a $75 fee now for that to
18 the SCF. So it seems that the organizers of
19 those events should also have these residency
20 forms on the scene, to be done at that time.
21 Does that sound reasonable?
22 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: That sounds very
23 reasonable. At the present time I expect --
24 expect to personally be at least five of the
0158
1
2 six events. I already have plans to attend
3 the U.S. Masters and the National Open. I
4 will probably go to Foxwoods and the World
5 Open, and I will certainly be at the U.S.
6 Open. The only one that I expect to miss at
7 this point in time would be the Chicago open.
8 And I would be very happy to provide
9 residency forms for Bill to distribute there.
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I think that
11 would avoid a lot of the confusion. People
12 would know right up front. If you want to
13 play, you do all of this right now, or else
14 it's over.
15 MR. GOICHBERG: I still think the
16 green card issue is a problem. I know in
17 discussing this with various players, there
18 seemed to be a pretty strong sentiment that
19 if somebody is not legally in the country, in
20 other words an adult but no green card --
21 none of this kids, college student
22 complication -- everybody seemed to believe
23 that that person should not be allowed to
24 represent the United States. It seems kind
0159
1
2 of absurd that someone could represent the
3 United States and theoretically could be
4 deported in the middle of a tournament.
5
6 (Laughter)
7
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, at that
9 point they become ineligible. Steve.
10 MR. SHUTT: Yes, I just wanted to
11 comment on that too. Because the word
12 "legally" should put extra burden on you.
13 You -- the burden of proof shouldn't be on
14 you to determine they are here illegally.
15 But if someone determines they are here
16 illegally and presents evidence, they should
17 be withdrawn. You shouldn't have to go out
18 and find out if they are illegal. Same as in
19 the national scholastics events. You don't
20 go out and track down each kid and make sure
21 he's from the school he purports to be.
22 MR. GOICHBERG: Most people that
23 have green cards, I would ask for the green
24 cards. Then if they say well, I have no
0160
1
2 green card, but there's some ongoing
3 situation like Beatriz described, then I
4 would tend to give them the benefit of the
5 doubt. But the one player I have in mind has
6 nothing. He doesn't have any ongoing
7 situation. He's just here illegally. And I
8 don't think that should be allowed.
9 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I think I know
10 who you're referring to, and the one player
11 who I believe you're referring to has
12 submitted a marriage certificate as his
13 proof. And I accepted his marriage
14 certificate.
15 MR. GOICHBERG: He didn't say
16 anything about that.
17 MS. MARINELLO: Tom, that is not
18 good enough. Because people have to go to
19 immigration and fill out all the papers.
20 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: This is part of
21 the reason I don't want to deal with whether
22 they are legally in the country or not.
23 MR. SHUTT: Unless you're at the
24 reception of course.
0161
1
2 PRESIDENT McCRARY: To clarify the
3 points being made, I think the residency form
4 that we already have requires one of these
5 things.
6 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Yes.
7 MS. MARINELLO: A green card.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: So it's a
9 matter of verifying it. If the person is a
10 strong player and they are not here legally,
11 someone is likely to find it out and report
12 it anyway.
13 But I thought I heard something
14 about the under 20 business, nothing required
15 for that. Is that an issue that should be
16 required for everyone, or?
17 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: The policy right
18 now -- and I'm not proposing that we change
19 it.
20 MS. MARINELLO: I think that is
21 what I was suggesting, Tom, to require for
22 players under 20 proof of residency as well.
23 Because it could be an exchange student.
24 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Bill, did you
0162
1
2 comment on that?
3 MR. GOICHBERG: I mentioned under
4 20, but I wasn't suggesting any change. If
5 we're through with that, though, there's
6 another part of this I wanted to comment on.
7 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, we are
8 not quite through with that. Comments on
9 that issue?
10 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: All right, I do
11 want to comment on the issue. I mean I know
12 that some members of the board are interested
13 in reducing the three-year requirement, be
14 that as it may. I have no strong feelings.
15 But whatever the requirement is, I think
16 there should be some type of exception for
17 junior players. I mean if you're an
18 18-year-old kid, and you come to this country
19 and you have to wait three years before you
20 can get invitations, it's not just you're
21 waiting three years. You're completely
22 losing your opportunity to compete ever in a
23 U.S. Junior Championship.
24 MS. MARINELLO: I agree with you.
0163
1
2 I'm just suggesting we should request a proof
3 of green card that they are legally in the
4 country. Because they could be exchange
5 students, or they can have a student visa.
6 It's a different situation.
7 MR. GOICHBERG: The way this is
8 worded, exchange students are allowed. Maybe
9 we want to allow them.
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay. Steve
11 Shutt.
12 MR. SHUTT: I just want to ask,
13 isn't the fact that they are a full-time
14 student sufficient? The way it is written in
15 here, isn't that -- wouldn't that take care
16 of it?
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: The issue I
18 think was exchange students, are they
19 residents?
20 MR. GOICHBERG: They are allowed.
21 MS. MARINELLO: The thing is
22 someone who is an illegal immigrant or
23 illegal alien can go to the school full time,
24 can register in the school. The schools
0164
1
2 don't require any proof of residency. It's
3 discriminatory; something that is not
4 allowed. So that means that someone can say
5 I'm a full-time student, but could be that
6 person is not a legal alien in the country.
7 MR. SHUTT: They have a long
8 commute, in other words.
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, my
10 thought is I think Beatriz's points are well
11 taken. I'm a little hesitant to make
12 something more restrictive if so far there
13 have been no complaints. Generally, I'm more
14 comfortable making them less restrictive.
15 MS. MARINELLO: We should just keep
16 an eye on it I think.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: If there are
18 complaints, perhaps at that point it should
19 be addressed.
20 Okay, Bill, what did you have?
21 MR. GOICHBERG: I wanted to say
22 something about the Olympiad. I heard that
23 the new U.S. champion, Larry Christianson,
24 expressed disappointment that the U.S.
0165
1
2 champion is not automatically part of the
3 Olympic team. And I think it is kind of
4 absurd that we say this is such a prestigious
5 and important thing but yet you don't even
6 become one of the six people on the Olympic
7 team. So I think that should be changed.
8 And at least the winner and the women's
9 champion also should automatically be part of
10 the Olympic team.
11 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Personally I
12 would agree with that, because I think that's
13 consistent with what the SCF is trying to do,
14 to elevate the status of the title. Do you
15 have comments on that?
16 MR. NIRO: I just want to make sure
17 they don't automatically get seeded as board
18 one, because there was discussion about that.
19 They are automatically a member but --
20 MR. GOICHBERG: I don't think they
21 should automatically be board one.
22 PRESIDENT McCRARY: All right,
23 there seems to be agreement on that.
24 I have a question. Were we to
0166
1
2 reduce the requirement to two years,
3 effective immediately, so that we would
4 anticipate the U.S. Masters for this cycle,
5 would that pose any practical or
6 insurmountable difficulties?
7 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I do not see that
8 posing any practical or even surmountable or
9 insurmountable difficulties. In fact, the
10 SCF is holding back on printing their
11 brochure because they are aware that you
12 might be considering doing such a thing.
13 MS. MARINELLO: Think it's a good
14 idea.
15 PRESIDENT McCRARY: To reduce it to
16 two years? Bill.
17 MR. NIRO: So do I.
18 MR. GOICHBERG: Is it possible that
19 this might, you know, be strongly opposed by
20 a lot of our existing players? Obviously
21 they have a reason to do that.
22 MR. NIRO: I'm not aware of anybody
23 who would oppose it. I have gotten a lot of
24 e-mails regarding this past cycle from a
0167
1
2 variety of people, and they all seem to
3 support making it easier for somebody to get
4 in and not more difficult. We discussed this
5 the other night, because the U.S.
6 Championship is now 56 instead of 12, we
7 assumed it would produce less opposition for
8 that event. Now whether it affects other
9 events it might be a different question.
10 We have a former U.S. champion in
11 the room if he wishes to comment he's welcome
12 to do so.
13 MR. ARTHUR BISGUIER: Not
14 particularly. The comment I would make is
15 the U.S. Chess Trust champion never
16 automatically had to play first board. When
17 I was U.S. champion I was happily seeded to
18 Sam Reshevsky, who was a better player, both
19 in going to Moscow and also in Helsinki.
20 PRESIDENT McCRARY: That was Art
21 Bisguier.
22 We don't want you to be identified
23 as "unknown U.S. champion" in the record.
24 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: And for some
0168
1
2 reason our stenographer foolishly does not
3 read every issue of Chess Life and didn't see
4 you on the cover. So.
5 PRESIDENT McCRARY: It could
6 potentially be an issue for some of the other
7 events, because I assume we are looking at
8 all of the events to change and not just the
9 U.S. Chess Trust Championship. What comments
10 do we have on that?
11 MR. NIRO: I would recommend then
12 that we vote a residency requirement for the
13 U.S. Chess Trust Championship because the
14 time is of the essence, given the starting of
15 the process and that we seek further input
16 from the strong players and appropriate
17 committees regarding the suitability of that
18 provision for other tournaments.
19 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I object to the
20 idea that somebody might be eligible to play
21 in the U.S. Chess Trust Championship but not
22 eligible to play in other U.S. Chess Trust
23 invitational events. That seems extremely
24 strange to me.
0169
1
2 MR. NIRO: But what I'm saying is
3 there's no need to declare it. You may be
4 very right, and everybody may agree with
5 that, but rather than cast it in concrete
6 today, I don't think that's necessary.
7 Personally.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, Tom has a
9 good point, if someone has two years, they
10 win the U.S. Chess Trust title and then they
11 are ineligible for the Olympiad team because
12 they don't have three, it could come up.
13 MR. NIRO: True.
14 MR. CAMARATTA: I think it should
15 be uniform.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Any other
17 comments from the board members?
18 MR. NIRO: Can I comment again just
19 further?
20 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes.
21 MR. NIRO: I still think we owe a
22 courtesy to our strong players to get input
23 from them when we can. In fact, we'll
24 probably be seeking input from them for the
0170
1
2 whole proposal if time were not of the
3 essence, given the World Championship cycle.
4 So while we would like to do that, it's not
5 practical for us to comply with that now for
6 the U.S. Championship, and I'm just
7 suggesting why should we forego that input
8 opportunity, why is that necessary? I would
9 rather seek their input and say we want your
10 input; we apologize for not doing it on the
11 championship because time was of the essence,
12 but we still want your input.
13 MR. CAMARATTA: Well, suppose they
14 say okay, three years is what we want. Do we
15 go back and change that?
16 MR. NIRO: That would be up to the
17 board.
18 PRESIDENT McCRARY: It's possible
19 it could be changed next year with a lot of
20 confusion, because someone might be
21 anticipating elegibility and not getting it.
22 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: My concern here
23 is that we say what we do and that we do what
24 we say. Right now we have printed
0171
1
2 invitational requirements that do not come
3 close to matching what we do, particularly
4 with the U.S. Chess Trust Championship. And
5 we are saved by the final paragraph, which
6 says -- the final sentence which says the
7 USCF reserves the right -- somewhere we say
8 we reserve the right to change these -- maybe
9 it's early at the beginning -- I forget where
10 it says that.
11 MR. BISGUIER: At the bottom, at
12 the very last spot.
13 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I thought it was,
14 yes.
15 MR. BISGUIER: To change criteria
16 without advance notice.
17 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Yes, it is the
18 final sentence, thank you. We are saved by
19 that, otherwise, I mean we are simply not
20 doing -- especially with regard to the U.S.
21 Chess Trust Championship what we publish that
22 we are doing. So I'm trying to get some
23 invitations or regulations that more closely
24 match what we are really doing and what the
0172
1
2 board has already approved in previous
3 Executive Board meetings.
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: We do have at
5 least some representation. I did ask Grand
6 Master Seirwan a few weeks ago his opinion,
7 and he thought they were fine like they were.
8 However, I didn't sense a strong objection to
9 changing it. Earlier he had been very
10 flexible in the case that had been brought to
11 his attention. We have Grand Master Bisguier
12 here, and we have a major organizer here. We
13 have some representation. We have a very
14 strong woman player here.
15 MS. MARINELLO: May I make a
16 comment? I understand that Yusupov just
17 moved to the U.S. Chess Trust.
18 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Who is that?
19 MS. MARINELLO: Yusupov. He's
20 living in Brooklyn. That may change the
21 sense of the other players because he could
22 be the top.
23 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Well, there are
24 several players who would be affected by any
0173
1
2 changes. Onischuk is very strong, Novikov is
3 very strong. Yudasin hasn't submitted a
4 residency form.
5 MR. BISGUIER: What happens to
6 these people in Texas, he is invited to play.
7 They play on the Texas, they enrolled him in
8 the university.
9 MR. NIRO: They are over 20. So
10 they have to meet the criteria that anyone
11 else would.
12 MR. BISGUIER: They are. Blehm I
13 was referring to.
14 MR. NIRO: He's over 21. And
15 somebody else.
16 MR. GOICHBERG: I'm surprised by
17 some of the input that's been reported.
18 Because I was really under the impression the
19 change from three years to two years would be
20 controversial and would be opposed by some of
21 the leading players. And especially if it
22 was done on short notice, that there might be
23 some bad feelings, you know, why weren't we
24 consulted.
0174
1
2 But you know, I don't know who
3 you're getting this input from. But you
4 know, it seems to me that all the top players
5 should be consulted and perhaps this
6 shouldn't be done at this time. You also
7 might have the problem that if it's done now
8 that some players will complain that they
9 would have played in the U.S. Chess Trust
10 Masters, but except they didn't know about
11 this, and therefore they didn't play or
12 things like this. And of course, you can try
13 to avoid that problem by immediately
14 contacting everybody right after this
15 meeting, but you know, it might be difficult.
16 For one thing, a foreign Grand Master is not
17 required to be a member of the USCF. So you
18 may not have everybody's address. You know,
19 they could play in tournaments without being
20 members.
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: So are any of
22 the e-mails you received from top
23 professionals, Frank?
24 MR. NIRO: Just Yasser's e-mail.
0175
1
2 But you said you had input from Joel Benjamin
3 also.
4 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I've spoken with
5 Joel about these matters. Joel I think, as
6 most people know, is an advocate for
7 stringent residency requirements. So I mean
8 the top players would disagree on the
9 residency issues. Some of them will come out
10 in favor of reducing it, and some of them
11 will be strongly opposed to reducing it.
12 MR. GOICHBERG: I think Joel's
13 feeling is pretty much -- you know, I worked
14 hard to become as good as I am, and if I had
15 known all these Russians were going to come
16 over and take all the prize money maybe I
17 would have gone into some other field.
18 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, my
19 thought is that even if there were objections
20 on that basis, would it change our thinking?
21 Because I think that the U.S. Chess Trust
22 Championship should be for our best players.
23 And if we have a very strong player who has
24 been here two years, I think excluding the
0176
1
2 person is not necessarily consistent with
3 what we want to do. I'm sorry, Dr. Brady,
4 you were asking earlier I think.
5 DR. BRADY: Well, just looking at
6 that, I think I agree with you. I think the
7 two-year thing would be fine. But I also
8 have another question, and forgive me if
9 you've already touched upon this, Tom. But
10 players under age 20 are considered eligible.
11 So when a player reaches 20 -- I happen to
12 have a player who is under 20, who is the
13 champion, women's champion of Brazil at my
14 university. But she's only here for one
15 year. Would she be eligible to play you
16 think under that rule? Yes?
17 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: All right, first
18 of all, let me state that anyone who applies
19 for invitations from the USCF will have to
20 fill out a residency form, and we will
21 forward that to FIDE, and FIDE will then
22 proceed to change their federation. So
23 somebody who is only here for one year, if
24 that person says oh, I want to be a U.S.
0177
1
2 Chess Trust player, we are going to write to
3 FIDE and say this person wants to be a U.S.
4 Chess Trust player. So I would not advise
5 anyone who plans to be here only one year and
6 intends to return to their home country and
7 represent their home country in the future --
8 I would strongly advise such a person not to
9 pursue getting any invitations from the USCF
10 and submitting a residency form. But if --
11 to answer your question, if that person were
12 to provide proof of full-time enrollment and
13 fill out a USCF residency form on which the
14 person states: I intend to be a U.S. Chess
15 Trust resident for the foreseeable future,
16 yes, that would be acceptable. Although if
17 the person really plans to return to their
18 home country in a year, the person would
19 basically be lying by signing the residency
20 form.
21 DR. BRADY: True.
22 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, let me
23 poll the board then. Who would favor, having
24 heard all of this discussion, dropping it to
0178
1
2 two years and allowing the office to
3 generally revise the requirements?
4 Okay, who opposes that?
5 MR. CAMARATTA: I think that we
6 should be polling the players who it impacts.
7 I would tend to go along with -- (inaudible).
8 MR. SMITH: I agree with Frank on
9 that.
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Steve.
11 MR. SHUTT: Suppose the players
12 say let's not ever let him play. After all
13 we worked hard for this country. I mean
14 obviously there may be a tendency to want to
15 keep reducing the pool to the smallest number
16 for those that are here. They've got a
17 vested interest. Is that necessarily what we
18 envision is best for chess?
19 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Tom, off the
20 top of your head, if this change were to be
21 made today, how much impact would it have on
22 the seeded players, the list at this point?
23 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: If you were to go
24 from three years to two years?
0179
1
2 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes.
3 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I'm trying to do
4 this -- I could do it much better at the
5 office if I had my records. Novikov doesn't
6 quite make it. Goletiani would be affected.
7 Goletiani might be the only person affected
8 changing from three years to two.
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Seeded but then
10 you get the qualifying events issue.
11 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Oh, yes.
12 DR. BRADY: Just what's the
13 definition of advance notice also? What is
14 advance notice and how do we make that
15 notice?
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, the SCF
17 needs to know. So I don't think we have any
18 more time on that.
19 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: It would have
20 been nice if the board did this by objections
21 procedure, because basically the Seattle
22 Chess Foundation is waiting to publish the
23 brochure for the next U.S. Chess Trust
24 Championship based on what's decided here
0180
1
2 today.
3 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well,
4 admittedly I'm hesitant to make a change
5 based on a three to two vote, which I think
6 is what it would be.
7 MR. CAMARATTA: I didn't say I was
8 an abstention.
9 DR. BRADY: What were you?
10 MR. CAMARATTA: An abstention
11 because the options are not -- you know, I
12 think if the people whose livelihood it
13 impacts have a chance to speak, then I'm more
14 likely to cast a vote one way or another. At
15 this point I don't have sufficient
16 information to make an intelligent vote.
17 That's not a negative. It is just an
18 abstention.
19 MR. SHUTT: It is like NAFTA.
20 MR. NIRO: Tom, could you clarify.
21 Are you saying that you mentioned one name,
22 Goletiani, are you saying if we don't change
23 this, she would not be eligible?
24 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: That's correct.
0181
1
2 PRESIDENT McCRARY: As a seeded
3 player, in theory --
4 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I'm sorry to
5 interrupt. She would not be eligible period.
6 She's not a U.S. Chess Trust player.
7 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Right, except
8 in theory -- and this is getting far out
9 here -- if we were to delay the change for a
10 couple of weeks, then she could become
11 reeligible to qualify, but would not have
12 made the seeded list. But that is not
13 desirable.
14 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: That's
15 interesting.
16 MS. MARINELLO: May I make a
17 comment? I don't think she would qualify.
18 Is she a resident? As far as I know, she
19 just applied for her Social Security about
20 four months ago.
21 PRESIDENT McCRARY: You were saying
22 what now?
23 DR. BRADY: She may not be a
24 resident.
0182
1
2 MS. MARINELLO: I'm saying I'm not
3 sure she's a resident.
4 MR. GOICHBERG: Supposedly she has
5 a green card.
6 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: She has submitted
7 a residency form with supporting
8 documentation, which I accepted.
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Bob, you raised
10 your hand, but I don't recall you verbalizing
11 a comment.
12 MR. SMITH: My concern is are we
13 changing the rules to accommodate one person?
14 Is that fair?
15 PRESIDENT McCRARY: No, my thought
16 was to change the rules to accommodate a lot
17 of people. Because there are a lot of people
18 coming in as immigrants now. There's a lot
19 more movement in the world. And I think
20 three years is truly too long. My only
21 concern is notice.
22 MR. SMITH: Yeah.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: As far as
24 consultation with the players. That's my
0183
1
2 reason.
3 MR. SMITH: Okay.
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: But I'm a
5 little hesitant to go into potentially
6 controversial or unforeseen waters with a
7 divided board also.
8 DR. BRADY: What is the three two?
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, Bob and
10 Frank are unwilling to support the vote at
11 this point. Frank may abstain, so.
12 MR. CAMARATTA: Well, what is your
13 vote, Bob? I thought Bob voted for.
14 PRESIDENT McCRARY: No, he was
15 opposed.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, well,
17 I'll defer it to the other members of the
18 board. At this point I'm not going to make a
19 motion to make the change, because of the
20 issues raised, the consultation and so on.
21 If someone else wishes to make the motion,
22 they can do so.
23 DR. BRADY: Just a point of order.
24 Does Mr. Niro have a vote?
0184
1
2 MR. NIRO: No.
3 PRESIDENT McCRARY: No.
4 DR. BRADY: So the vote really is
5 not necessarily a completely divided board.
6 It is the vote will be four one, not three
7 two.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I thought Bob
9 was opposed.
10 DR. BRADY: Oh, you're opposed?
11 MR. SMITH: I'm opposed, and Frank
12 is abstaining.
13 DR. BRADY: I got it.
14 MR. NIRO: The other Frank. Too
15 many Franks here.
16 DR. BRADY: Too many Franks here.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Does anyone
18 else wish to make this motion? I'm not going
19 to offer it.
20 Now, my next question would be of
21 Tom. Does the board need to affirm your
22 right to make these changes do you think?
23 Have there been board motions in the past
24 that have affirmed some of these regulations?
0185
1
2 If so, perhaps we should.
3 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I don't feel that
4 I have the authority to change the
5 regulations.
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I will offer
7 this motion.
8 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: If I do, I don't
9 know about it.
10 MR. CAMARATTA: This is policy.
11 PRESIDENT McCRARY: The Executive
12 Board authorizes the executive director to
13 make changes in the USCF invitational event
14 requirements.
15 MR. NIRO: Consistent with what was
16 presented here by Tom.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I'm assuming
18 that would be the case.
19 MR. NIRO: Yes.
20 PRESIDENT McCRARY: That's
21 understood, of course that Tom would be the
22 principle input, but it would be under
23 Frank's authority.
24 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: That's fine.
0186
1
2 There was a suggestion that the U.S. champion
3 should automatically qualify for the Olympic
4 team. Is it my understanding that the board
5 did endorse that?
6 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes, yes,
7 that's correct.
8 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Okay.
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, this
10 motion is on the floor. The Executive Board
11 authorizes the Executive Director to make
12 changes in the USCF invitational requirements
13 consistent with discussion held on this date.
14 Is there any discussion by board members?
15 MR. NIRO: May I speak to you off
16 the record for a second, is that possible,
17 just to speak privately.
18 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes, just don't
19 hear it, okay.
20
21 (Discussion off the record.)
22
23 MR. NIRO: I apologize for that.
24 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, any
0187
1
2 discussion by the board?
3 MR. SMITH: What does this cover?
4 Just to give him blanket authority?
5 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, I added
6 the words "consistent" with the discussion on
7 this date.
8 MR. SMITH: What about the two
9 years?
10 DR. BRADY: That's not in here.
11 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I was not
12 advocating the change from three to two
13 years, and that was not part of my proposal.
14 MR. SMITH: Okay, okay.
15 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Perhaps I
16 should reword it as consistent with
17 recommendations of the scholastic director,
18 would that be acceptable?
19 MR. SMITH: Yeah, okay.
20 PRESIDENT McCRARY: That might be
21 clearer. Okay, so it has been amended. The
22 Executive Board authorizes the Executive
23 Director to make changes in the USCF
24 invitational event requirements consistent
0188
1
2 with the recommendations of the scholastic
3 director.
4 MR. CAMARATTA: Well, do you want
5 to put refer to the specific document as
6 revised February 2002, just to be specific
7 that we're talking about this particular
8 piece of paper? Because you call it the USCF
9 invitational event requirements, you know, as
10 revised February 2002.
11 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, I think
12 he didn't revise them. These are recommended
13 changes.
14 MR. CAMARATTA: Okay, I just wanted
15 to make sure we were referring to this piece
16 of paper, which you are, correct?
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes.
18 MR. CAMARATTA: This document has a
19 name, that's all.
20 MR. NIRO: And we may want made one
21 amendment to it which was the one concerning
22 the U.S. men and women champion automatically
23 qualifying for a spot on the Olympiad, that
24 wasn't part of his presentation.
0189
1
2 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, well, I
3 can add that to the motion. Any other
4 discussion?
5 MR. SHUTT: Yeah, I wanted to ask,
6 since we are not recommending the change from
7 three years to two years because of the time
8 element, is it possible for that
9 recommendation to be put in for some future
10 date that would give ample time; could that
11 be -- would that fit in with passing it now
12 for some future time frame?
13 MR. NIRO: I would prefer to poll
14 the the higher rated players in the country
15 who would be affected by this and report back
16 to the board at some future date. But as a
17 practical matter I don't think it would
18 affect the regulations until next year's
19 cycle, certainly for the U.S. Championship.
20 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: I would like to
21 point out that in my opinion I think this is
22 a good time of year to make changes. You
23 happen to catch everything right between
24 cycles. So I would encourage, if you're
0190
1
2 envisioning more changes, wait until this
3 time again next year, so that you don't do
4 something in the middle of the U.S.
5 Championship qualifier. I don't like the
6 idea of changing the rules for the U.S.
7 Championship in the middle of the
8 qualification cycle. I don't think that's a
9 very nice thing to do.
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, let me
11 just write this down so we share what we
12 have.
13 MR. GOICHBERG: I think changes in
14 the middle of the cycle, but only to apply to
15 the following cycle and everybody has plenty
16 of knowledge.
17 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: That's possible,
18 to make a change in the beginning of the year
19 to be effective in the next year.
20 MR. NIRO: Delegates do that all
21 the time.
22 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Why don't you
23 go ahead.
24 MR. NIRO: I had two things I
0191
1
2 wanted to follow up on yesterday's discussion
3 that perhaps I could do while the President
4 is writing that motion. One is regarding the
5 Games Parlor U.S. Chess Live ad in Chess
6 Life. We discussed that black and white ad
7 that was inserted in the magazine yesterday,
8 and Jamie was kind enough to share with me
9 the new proposed ad by Games Parlor. And
10 I'll pass it to the Executive Board members.
11 But if we print it in color it is much more
12 attractive. But even if not for color, it
13 has the flag in the background, and it has
14 the knight positioned differently.
15 So the follow-up yesterday I was
16 going to discuss this with Joel Berez on our
17 meeting on the 12th, and I just wanted to
18 share that with the board members. If any of
19 you have further input, you can give that to
20 me privately between now and my meeting with
21 Joel. But at least my sense is that the new
22 ad is much more attractive than the one that
23 was found to be distasteful yesterday.
24 MR. CAMARATTA: It almost had to
0192
1
2 be.
3 MR. NIRO: The second thing I
4 wanted to follow up on, if there's no further
5 discussion on that, is the issue of the quick
6 ratings. I met subsequently with a member of
7 the ratings committee, Bill Goichberg, and
8 talked briefly with Frank Camaratta who is
9 the board liaison to the ratings committee,
10 and my proposal as a follow-up is the
11 following: That effective immediately, as
12 soon as we can, certainly the April Chess
13 Life and May Chess Life and beyond, we will
14 clearly notify the membership that we are
15 dual rating all game 30 to game 60 events as
16 both quick rated tournaments and regular
17 rated tournaments with the following
18 exceptions or provisions. And that is that
19 if they are submitted electronically we will
20 automatically dual rate if we know the time
21 control that was used. No special action
22 would have to be taken on the part of the
23 organizer or the tournament director.
24 However, if it's submitted on paper, we will
0193
1
2 only rate it one way, if there's one rating
3 fee. And the organizer can choose whether
4 that should be quick rated or whether it
5 should be regular rated. If they don't
6 choose, we'll rate it as a regular rated
7 tournament, if it's over game 29.
8 If they want it to be rated twice,
9 they have to indicate that. In the case of a
10 paper submitted rating report, they have to
11 indicate they want it rated both ways and pay
12 a double rating fee. The only way around
13 that that we can see as a practical matter is
14 for them to get another organizer who might
15 provide the service for them to convert it to
16 electronic submission and then we will accept
17 it. Presumably, especially with large
18 events, an organizer could get somebody to
19 convert it for an electronic submission for
20 less than what the second rating fee would
21 be. So I think that's a good compromise. I
22 think it balances the work load of the staff
23 and the desire of the ratings committee to
24 have the quick ratings be more consistent and
0194
1
2 up to date. And based on more events than
3 was done previously.
4 MR. CAMARATTA: Frank.
5 MR. NIRO: Both of you consulted
6 with me, so if I got it wrong.
7 MR. CAMARATTA: No, just the
8 addition that the players have to understand
9 how that's going to be rated. So it is going
10 to be up to the tournament director to make
11 sure the players understand it is going to be
12 rated this, this or both.
13 MR. NIRO: Well, what I'm saying is
14 we are automatically going to do it both if
15 it is electronically submitted.
16 MR. CAMARATTA: Yes.
17 MR. NIRO: And we are going to put
18 that in Chess Life. Right now it is my
19 judgment that the tournament directors, many
20 of them don't even know we are doing both.
21 MR. CAMARATTA: I think the intent
22 of what I said was at least for a period of
23 time that it's fully understood, and maybe we
24 advertise it somehow that these are duly
0195
1
2 rated tournaments.
3 MR. GOICHBERG: It is not enough
4 for the director to advertise it. I think
5 people need to know when they see the TLA.
6 And also maybe inadvertently you're offering
7 an option there which was never anticipated
8 by the rating committee and I'm not sure we
9 want to offer it, and that is to have a
10 tournament at game 45 or something like that
11 quick rated and not regular rated. And I
12 don't think anybody ever discussed that.
13 MR. NIRO: No, I didn't say that.
14 MR. GOICHBERG: You said they would
15 have their choice.
16 MR. NIRO: For game 20 -- only for
17 game 29 or lower.
18 MR. GOICHBERG: Game 29 or lower
19 they don't have any choice. It has to be
20 quick rated.
21 MR. NIRO: You're right, okay.
22 MR. BROWNSCOMBE: Only quick rated.
23 MR. GOICHBERG: It seems to me for
24 30 through 60 I think the choice should be
0196
1
2 between regular and both. I would recommend
3 not offering the choice of quick only,
4 because I think it is just going to confuse
5 things and that very few people will choose
6 that.
7 MR. NIRO: I agree, I misstated
8 that. You're right.
9 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, any other
10 discussion on that point? Is that
11 acceptable?
12 MR. NIRO: Thank you.
13 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Frank, that's
14 acceptable?
15 MR. CAMARATTA: Yes.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: All right,
17 we'll return to our previous agenda item. I
18 have the following motion on the floor. The
19 Executive Board authorizes the Executive
20 Director to make changes in the USCF
21 invitational event requirements consistent
22 with the recommendations of the USCF
23 scholastic director that were offered to the
24 scholastic board on this date. The U.S.
0197
1
2 champion and U.S. women's champion will be
3 automatically invited to play on the U.S.
4 Olympiad team and the U.S. women's Olympiad
5 team respectively.
6 Any discussion? Okay, those in
7 favor raise your hands. That passes five to
8 nothing.
9 I have one more motion, and this
10 will resolve our last agenda item, unless the
11 board has others. Very simply, before I read
12 the motion, we have a few recommended changes
13 in committee structure. Frank Camaratta has
14 discussed with his committees certain changes
15 in the structure of the computer, Internet
16 and correspondence committees, which would be
17 similar, except I think that Internet and
18 e-mail chess would be put into a separate
19 fourth committee, is that correct?
20 MR. CAMARATTA: Yeah, would you
21 like me to address it or are you?
22 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Well, what I
23 was going to suggest is that if the board has
24 questions on the details of that, they ask.
0198
1
2 Otherwise, I would be inclined to let the
3 liaison make that decision. Did you want to
4 go ahead?
5 MR. CAMARATTA: I'll give you a
6 real quick one. The original idea to have
7 correspondence Internet chess, which is the
8 play of chess in one committee, was kind of
9 having one form and break it off. There's no
10 reason to do that at this point. So you'll
11 have a correspondence chess committee which
12 exists as it does today. This is called
13 Internet chess; which is the play of Internet
14 chess, a separate committee dealing with
15 rules issue and play of chess issues. You'll
16 have effectively an MIS committee,
17 information systems, something that deals
18 with information systems. And we will advise
19 particularly the office on those issues. And
20 finally one to deal with website management,
21 which seemed to be the natural breakouts.
22 DR. BRADY: Excellent I think.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: The only other
24 changes in committees are that when Doris and
0199
1
2 Helen resigned, all of their committees that
3 they have been liaisons to obviously needed
4 liaisons. I took those positions for the
5 most part for myself just for convenience,
6 since the minutes are ready to be issued.
7 But I wondered if anyone wished to assume any
8 of the other liaison positions.
9 MR. CAMARATTA: Well, I think the
10 one we split between Doris and myself has
11 gone back together I assume.
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Yes, the ones
13 that you were already co-liaison are yours;
14 so that was done.
15 MR. CAMARATTA: Okay.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: The ones that I
17 assumed temporarily, let me run through the
18 list and see if anyone on the board wants to
19 volunteer. Affiliate Affairs Committee.
20 Anybody wants to speak up?
21 MR. SMITH: I will.
22 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Bob. Okay,
23 we'll change that to Bob Smith. Club
24 Development Committee.
0200
1
2 MR. SMITH: I'll take that one too.
3 It's pretty close.
4 PRESIDENT McCRARY: All right.
5 That's changed to Bob Smith. Ethics
6 Committee. I'm a former chair of Ethics, so
7 that I might a logical person, unless
8 somebody else wants it.
9 DR. BRADY: No.
10 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Master Affairs,
11 who would like that one? Strong players
12 speak up.
13 MR. CAMARATTA: I'll take it if you
14 want.
15 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay. You want
16 it?
17 MR. CAMARATTA: No, that wasn't
18 what I said.
19 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I didn't look
20 in your direction. That's changed to Frank
21 Camaratta.
22 Organizers Committee. Steve, you
23 want that one.
24 MR. SHUTT: All right.
0201
1
2 PRESIDENT McCRARY: We'll change
3 that to Steve Shutt. Prison Committee.
4 DR. BRADY: I guess I'll take that.
5 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, it's
6 changed to Frank Brady.
7 I would suggest abolishing of the
8 U.S. Championship Committee, because it has
9 already been subsumed under the SCF. Is that
10 agreeable?
11 DR. BRADY: Yes.
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: So that would
13 be abolished.
14 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Women's chess.
15 We have a problem here in that the one person
16 appointed previously to the chair declined.
17 So we have no members at the moment. Would
18 someone like to take the liaison position for
19 that?
20 MR. CAMARATTA: Steve, you're about
21 the only ladies man in here.
22 PRESIDENT McCRARY: How did he know
23 who he referred to? Steve, is that you?
24 MR. SHUTT: Okay.
0202
1
2 PRESIDENT McCRARY: All right,
3 that's changed to Steve Shutt.
4 MR. NIRO: Is there some
5 instruction to the office on how to get
6 members for the women's committee?
7 PRESIDENT McCRARY: I think if you
8 consult with the liaison and perhaps...
9 MR. NIRO: Polling the strongest
10 women's players about the other thing we can
11 ask them suggestions for membership.
12 PRESIDENT McCRARY: We do have one
13 of the strongest women players in the country
14 present, so perhaps we can start by asking
15 her.
16 MR. NIRO: Cultural trust.
17 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Oh, yes the
18 liaison to the Cultural Trust. I would
19 suggest that I simply do that simply because
20 it is related to the trust liaison position.
21 I have just a blanket motion which
22 would cover everything. The Executive Board
23 apoints the list of committees circulated to
24 the Executive Board on this date. That would
0203
1
2 be this list of committees with the changes
3 indicated.
4 DR. BRADY: Good.
5 PRESIDENT McCRARY: It is the same
6 list that Barb sent us earlier.
7 MR. NIRO: Just a clarification.
8 That list seems to have some committee
9 members who have resigned from those
10 committees. Are you just talking about the
11 committee structure as opposed to the actual
12 membership? For example, on finance we know
13 of two of those members who have resigned.
14 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, who are
15 they?
16 MR. CAMARATTA: Pete Chang and
17 Dubeck were not on that committee. Is Todd
18 Berry shown?
19 PRESIDENT McCRARY: No, he's not.
20 MR. SHUTT: It would be helpful to
21 have members too especially on this new
22 committee we haven't had before.
23 MR. CAMARATTA: Excuse me one
24 second. I think I'm wrong about Pete Chang.
0204
1
2 Pete Chang is on the committee.
3 MS. VANDERMARK: The one that's in
4 the EBM that went out doesn't have Leroy's
5 name in it.
6 MR. NIRO: Perhaps he's the only
7 one.
8 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, I just
9 made that one change here on this list, which
10 we'll use as the master list.
11 MR. NIRO: And I just note for the
12 record that the correspondence and Internet
13 chess committee, chaired by Harold Stenci,
14 has a misspelling in one of the members
15 names. Donald Cotton, C-o-t-t-o-n.
16 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, well,
17 what we would ask, if this is acceptable to
18 the board, is to appoint what I have on this
19 sheet, and then barb would circulate copies
20 to the board members. Would that be
21 acceptable?
22 MS. VANDERMARK: Sure.
23 PRESIDENT McCRARY: So let me read
24 the motion again. The Executive Board
0205
1
2 apoints the list of committees circulated to
3 the Executive Board on this date.
4 Discussion? Those in favor raise your hands.
5 Okay, that passes five to nothing.
6 All right, that concludes our
7 official agenda, unless board members have
8 additional items they feel should be done in
9 the regular meeting. Anyone?
10
11 (Discussion off the record.)
12
13 PRESIDENT McCRARY: Okay, is there
14 objection to adjourning the board meeting?
15 All right, hearing none, the meeting is
16 adjourned, thank you.
17
18 (Concluded at 12:57 pm)
19
20
21
22
23
24
0206
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5 I, Karen Schmieder, a Certified
6 Shorthand Reporter, Certificate No. 768, and
7 Notary Public, do hereby certify that I
8 recorded stenographically the proceedings
9 herein at the time and place noted in the
10 heading hereof, and that the foregoing
11 transcript is true and accurate to the best
12 of my knowledge, skill and ability.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
14 set my hand this ^ day of 2000.
15
16
17
KAREN SCHMIEDER, CSR, RMR
18 Registered Diplomate
Reporter
19
20
21
22
23
24
|
