Dear Tom: You should have been a presidential speech writer! (Oh, that's right; you are a Presidential speech writer! LOL)  However, your patented verbose rhetoric, which usually includes many contradictions and curious spins, always somehow seems to become a diversion from the important questions at hand and ultimately ends up as a personal counter-assault against me?! Don't worry Dude, I can handle it... Anyway, shouldn't the President be responding, himself? Some members would like to see just how he performs under fire! In my opinion, his silence is a cop out. A "corporate charter" is not a constitution, nor a set a bylaws nor a mission statement. And, according to Ken Baxter, we may be a corporation, but we are NOT a 501c3 status non-profit organization.   The "hail of bullets" and "sniping and griping" that you speak of are legitimate concerns that affect each member of the NCCA. Your rhetoric contains the statement, "since Victor has chosen to ignore your verbal lashings" and "It would have been all too easy for Victor to snipe back, but I'm glad he chose to not engage on that level"?? Look, Beaman hasn't engaged me on any level. And, I am beginning to believe that he simply doesn't possess the capability of properly expressing himself by using the printed word? How about just simply attempting to answer the questions? I "privately" e-mailed my first concisely written interrogatory letter to him only to wait for some time to receive a vague two sentence answer which did not specifically address any of my concerns at all?? And, in response to your statement that "You sent me copies of the "discussion" with the other officers," it did not include the design of the Grand Prix. Beaman's choice to publish his proposal in PDF form prevented me, and others, from observing his "new" system. (Why couldn't it have been originally submitted in "HTML" for all to observe?) My computer would not allow me to open the "PDF" file until I finally upgraded my system.) By that time, apparently the decision to chose his new design had already been made?! But, when I finally did observe his "Grand Prix proposal, I was stunned by it's sloppy form, incomplete descriptions, poor syntax and many grammatical errors?!  His following "finished copy" was posted on the NCCA website: "What is it? The North Carolina Grand Prix is a [sic] similar to the USCF grand prix system. Points are awarded for tournament participation and good performance." (How many points, how are they calculated and how are they awarded?) "Why do [sic] a grand prix? The NCGP is designed to help encourage NCCA Membership, as well as draw excitement to the game of chess in North Carolina." "Who is it open to?" [sic] "Any adult membership paying [sic] NCCA member [sic], that [sic] is a resident of North Carolina.  (Does that mean that students from out-of-state and military personel are forbidden to participate?) "How are the points calculated, how are they payout, [sic] and how is [sic] the funds to be used?" "A basic, simple table that calculates payout, section participation, and section. [sic] See below:" (Needless to say, there is nothing simple about the confusing table which he presents nor does he provide an "example" of how the "simple" calculations are made? A 6 year old child could easily figure out his point standing, and that of all of his friends, by using my old system - without the assistance of a calculator?) And, again you are wrong. Beaman never offered me the opportunity to include Quark tournaments promoted by the CCC. Additionally, quickly arranged quads are not listed on the NCCA website but all other events are. (His reasoning for not including "weekly" tournaments is still up for debate). Another one of your contradictions is your statement "I myself debated with him over the need for something simpler... taking into account tournament size, payouts, finishing place and ultimate fund distribution"??! There are far too many variables associated with his formula. Did it take him 5 minutes to calculate the GP points for everyone, or for only one player? If only one, that's one hour for calculating 12 players, 2 hours for 24, etc. No exact formula nor example is posted anywhere for the members to examine. If he had contacted "many past presidents and directors" he would have discovered my older version and made comparisons. This he apparently did not do. My 25 year old system is far simpler to understand, and far more fair to everyone. In another of your contradictions, you state, "The advantage to Master level competitiors such as yourself is not overwhelming." This proves that there is, in fact, an edge for higher rated players which makes the system unfair. So much for the Grand Prix... in my opinion, there are many other problems which the NCCA should address first. And, the President of our "Corporation" should have the courtesy to promptly answer all questions posed by any member of the NCCA, including me. So far, he has not done that... For everyone's information, of the over 300+ names listed, there are actually only 132 regular members listed on the NCCA list whose memberships have not expired?! (there are also 26 Life Members listed). To paraphrase what I recommended in an earlier message, "A membership list will be created. Expired members will be immediately deleted and new members, including their E-mail address, expiration date, rating and city (not physical address) will be added to the list as they join. The updated list will be published monthly on the NCCA website." (The reason for publishing the name, E-mail address, rating and city of a member would be to assist all members in finding other players who live in their vicinity in order to meet, play and form other clubs! After all, isn't that what this organization is all about?!) I also included the following statement in a previous message. "In addition, for transparency sake, a complete breakdown of all financial business should be continually updated and published monthly, ie. the balance of our accounts, receipts, check paid, to whom, for what reason, etc. All members have a right to observe this information."  I actually sent an E-mail to NCCA Secretary/Treasurer Gerbin Hoekstra many weeks ago asking why the expired members had not been deleted. I am disappointed to say, thus far, I have received no answer from him? Furthermore, even Ken Baxter strongly recommended that this information be made available for all to see on the NCCA website. (Uh, the minutes of the last business meeting should contain the Sec/Treas report; why not publish them?!... now, they do have the minutes, don't they?) That brings me to this final idea. The job of President of the NCCA is far more complicated than meets the eye. The President must possess the skills, experience and maturity to do the job which includes the ability to communicate. There is no question that over the past couple of years, chess has flourished in North Carolina! And, Beaman's efforts as a promoter and director have not gone unnoticed. But, for my money, he is still too young and inexperienced to do the job effectively. More valuable have been the extraordinary efforts of Gary Newsom and Tom Hales who equally deserve most of the credit for our statewide increased activity. That is why I recommended  Newsom and then you run for President! Each of you had your personal reasons for not seeking the position. But, please allow me to remind you of something. It is not unprecedented for a "newly elected" slate of officers to "shuffle" their positions in order to more effectively serve for the best interests of the NCCA! I strongly recommend that they consider that alternative. There is nothing embarrassing about it; it's simply the right thing to do.   I remain, NM Leland Fuerstman