E-Letter #2-by Board Candidate Bruce Draney

Happy Independence Day to anyone reading this letter. It's the 4th of July and I decided to compose another e-letter to outline some of my final positions as we await the arrival of the ballots which were mailed on July 2nd.

Here is a summary of some of my main ideas and views about what I would like to see happen in the event you honor me with your vote for the Board.

A. A consensus based long range strategic plan is developed that takes into account the concerns of a significant portion of the membership and not merely the feelings of 4 or 5 people who think they know what everyone else wants.

B. The development of scientific and researched based methods of determining the opinions of our members on a host of critical issues facing the organization in the next decade.

C. The completion of our software/computer system upgrade in the next 3 years so that it is fully operational by 2003.

D. An ongoing study of the profitability of our online play arrangement with Games Parlor. I would like to see us armed with many facts and figures when this deal expires in 2003, so that whoever is on the Board at the time will be able to make the best decision for USCF as to online play and online capability.

E. Restoration of small incentives that encourage local growth and interest in USCF and over the board chess. This includes at least a small commission on the sale of adult memberships as well as a restoration of fair and reasonable TLA rates.

F. A serious approach over the next 12 months towards granting voting rights to any full dues paying member of the USCF who expresses the interest or the desire to vote directly in Board elections. If a filtering device is needed, my suggestion is to use registration as a filter and not membership price.

G. Establishment of a network of regional contact people that new members of USCF may telephone or e-mail in order to get information about our organization or local activity. I'm recommending at least one RCP in each region, but understand that more than one or even one per state would be desirable

H. A greater degree of openness, honesty and accountability from our leadership both elected and salaried. Secrecy should only be an option for matters that are critical to protecting the USCF from litigation or involve the termination or actions taken against USCF employees. Hiding the contents of already signed contracts seems highly inappropriate. We should apply the same standards to everyone and not merely the people we dislike, or happen to hold power that we disagree with.

I. Improved communication is essential. Communication has been abominable. Office and Board actions in the past, have been capricious, arbitrary and seemingly without regard for anyone's concerns or objections. When people criticize or react angrily they are accused of attempting to micromanage. Hardly. The surest way to get micromanagement however is to make unannounced, arbitrary decisions and then to ignore criticism for 6 months out of stubbornness. Under our bylaws, the Delegates' authority is absolute, yet recently our present Board made the unprecedented decision to not share the contents of a signed contract unless forced to by Delegate vote. This action in my opinion is outrageous and is possibly deserving of Delegate censure, particularly since the document in question was then leaked to numerous political figures that are enemies of members of the Board Majority who promptly posted its contents on a website so that everyone could read it anyway.

J. Fundraising-I suggest the 21st Century campaign which will solicit donations of $100.00 or more from as many of our members or their families as possible. I see no other way that our organization can shore up its finances, pay its debts and replenish the LMA fund which is now down to only about $800,000.

K. IOC-Olympics-Drug Testing-Drug testing is offensive to some of our players. Many feel that any attempts to require drug testing should be met with fierce opposition, particularly if drug testing becomes a regular requirement of any players participating in events such as the U.S. Open or U.S. Championship. I agree that blanket drug testing should not be required of players who object on principle. Having said that, I feel that chess' inclusion in the Olympic games presents a huge opportunity to expand interest and funding for our activity. The Olympics should embody the spirit of amateurism. I do not feel that Olympic trials should necessarily be the U.S. Championship or U.S. Open. If possible I would like Olympic qualifying events open to players who are interested and enthusiastic in representing our country. Anyone who doesn't want to drug test, would simply not participate in the qualifying events. It seems outrageous to me that zealots would deny chess players willing to undergo the drug testing in exchange for the opportunity to represent the United States in chess as an Olympian the chance to do so. I would rather see a team of U.S. Experts or A-players who really wanted to be there participating than a bunch of GM's or IM's who are angry about having to be tested for substances against their will. This issue is often emotionalized by extremists who hate FIDE and assume that drug testing would be imposed on American professional chessplayers, denying them the opportunity to play in traditional events where such testing has never been required. If in fact this is what materializes then certainly the U.S.C.F. could opt out of sponsoring an American team and leave this to the US Olympic Committee to do in our stead.

L. We must put adult membership growth near the top of our priorities list. It should have been near the top five years ago but people have only paid lip service to the idea and have done virtually nothing to encourage it. All membership growth plans must include the help of the local organizer, director or affiliate. Without their help and effort, membership will continue to stagnate. In past letters, I have suggested a multi-faceted approach to this problem. One is promotion on both a national and local basis. I have suggested a National Chess month in September as one idea where the entire month will be devoted to recruitment efforts. Dubbing it "the year of the over the board tournament", and then proceeding to do everything possible to discourage over the board tournament play is an ironic if not cynical action. No plan will succeed without the help, support and cooperation of players, directors, organizers and affiliate leaders. We can't do it without them and we need to restore their confidence that we care about them and what they think. I recommend specific numeric goals such as 30,000 adult members by January 1, 2003. This makes it very clear that we have very specific expectations and very specific deadlines for meeting them. I feel that similar expectations should be imposed for completion of our technology and computer software.

M. Fully funding the LMA. The LMA was short of necessary funds to adequately cover its liability two years ago when it had $1.6 million. Now it has half of that and it will probably never reach the estimated needed funding of around $5-6 million without a major fundraising effort. We need to develop a long term plan to deal with this problem. Since 1998, the USCF has borrowed over $750,000 from the LMA to shore up huge budget shortfalls. We have buried ourselves and now we must develop a realistic strategy to unbury ourselves and restore the LMA to its necessary level of funding. I believe that if the 21st Century Campaign outlined above worked, that it could continue for worthwhile projects such as the LMA replenishment plan as well.

N. Long term future of the USCF-We are undergoing an identity crisis of sorts. The organization seems to be unsure of what it wants to be and where it wants to go. We have recently had another Chess Life Editor resign. His reason is that he says that the New Windsor, New York area is too expensive and adequate housing is too difficult to find for the salary he is paid by USCF. USCF salaries are kept secret, except for the salary of the ED, but it has long been common knowledge by people who applied for jobs in New Windsor but didn't accept them, that salaries other than the ED's salary are terrible, particularly for living in New York State. The issue of relocating USCF headquarters always raises people's emotional blood pressure and gets people thinking defensively, but I believe that in the next five years that USCF needs to seriously and objectively discuss the pros and cons of moving USCF headquarters to another place. If necessary an impact study should be done, investigating what it would cost over both the short and the long term for the USCF to operate in a southeastern, southwestern or midwestern city. Many states have attractive packages and tax incentives, for organizations that wish to relocate to their area. New York, unfortunately is not one of those states. The Kansas City area, the Sioux Falls area, the Dallas or Austin area, and even the Atlanta or Charlotte areas have been suggested. The important thing is that people need to think about the good of the organization and not about what serves their own best personal interests.

O. Can't we all just get along? One of our biggest problems as an organization continues to be in fighting and factionalism. Even in this election where four of the candidates have never run before, there are charges that such and such is a front person for so and so, or that this candidate is on such and such's slate, so don't vote for them. Is it any wonder that when people do get elected there is a reluctance to consider the possibility that people could actually forge good working relationships regardless of who supported them in their bid to be elected? I pride myself on working well with others. I know there are a number of other candidates who seem to be very adept at getting along with others as well. People need to look at the person and their ideas and their views, not who they think is supporting or endorsing them. None of us are being paid to be on the USCF Board. Most of us are running because we care and we think the organization is in trouble. People are always decrying the lack of "new blood", but when 4 new candidates run, we immediately see the charges start to fly that such and such is a sycophant for some former politico that "our side" hates. Can't we just all get along? I know if elected, I'll sure give it the best try I know.

I hope all of you who started reading this letter got this far. Thanks for taking the time and if you have any questions or if you would like clarifications on my views or positions, e-mail me at bdraney@novia.net