David Heiser sent me a Facebook "friend" request some weeks ago, I turned it down, as I generally do when I get a request from a person I believe to be of low character. But I held my tongue at the time.
Today, I touched David on the shoulder. (In retrospect, a big mistake, I know, as Sheila Heiser had made it clear she had no interest in talking: but I hadn't heard that from David.). David threatened to "lay me on the ground."
As the folks at the office said, "This is all about chess?"
I sincerely believe that the ICA proposal for Chicago Public Schools is far stronger than the Renaissance Knights proposal. But I believe in the transformational power of chess in the schools strongly enough that, for all my misgivings, I'd be willing to back the Renaissance Knights proposal. After all, the children in Chicago Public Schools should come first. That's all I wanted to say.
After the meeting, I'm standing outside City Hall chatting with GM Yury Shulman and Paul Kash, the Whitney Young coach, about ten yards north of the LaSalle Street entrance to City Hall. David and Sheila walk out the door. I motion for them to come to me, without approaching them. They scurry back in:: Sheila yells, "I'm calling the police!"
25 comments:
You are obviously a very scary dude, Bill.
Should I go back to the Petroff?
8-|
" 8-| "
OK, how about the 3.d4 Petroff ...Nxa1 lines? (Aggressive cowardice.)
The main line played in the Timman-Yusupov match has been busted, but there is a sideline that may get Black to a tenable ending.
Call the police?
I will vouch for my friend Bill: He's a pacifist and a tree-hugger (note picture at left), and he presents absolutely no physical threat to anyone.
Isn't David a police officer? She was already with the police!
Tell the full story, Bill. Tell how you were told to be quiet in the meeting when you began attacking RK with irrelevant questions regarding the make up of RK's board of directors and salaries(permitted in any non-profit). Did the leader of the meeting, from the Mayor's office, tell you to leave or she would call the police? I understand Ms. Myers did.
Tell us about the phone call you made to The chief of Police where David Heiser works as a PO. Apparently the Chief wanted to know who the lunatic was who called him and told Heiser he exercised excellent judgment by not bringing you down and cuffing you.
I suggest that you consult a criminal attorney regarding the law of assault and battery in Illinois. A mere touch??? The witnesses apparently have another story. You should be concerned about civil and criminal charges coming at you.
My concern is that you, as a board member of the USCF Illinois state affiliate have embarrassed the USCF by your behavior. I am asking Bill Hall to investigate this and to take appropriate action to protect the image and interests of the USCF.
Hi, Brian.
As long as you're here:
1. Who are the members of the board of Renaissance Knights Foundation?
2. Who are the paid employees of Renaissance Knights Foundation (and affiliated entities, if any)?
These are the questions that the leader of the meeting found out of line and that David Heiser refused to answer. The Emanuel administration is for reform, but this is Chicago, and change comes slowly.
I have nothing against family businesses, but sunshine is good, and required for 501(c)(3) organizations, which are generally not family businesses.
The Heisers intimidate, backstab, and spread falsehoods about the character of others. A person who isn't intimated by their low conduct is problematic for them.
Mr. Lafferty, have you not apologized to me for circulating false innuendoes about my conduct fed to you by the Heisers? That's their M.O., Mr. Lafferty. Yes, the leader of the meeting was taken in by the Heisers' dramatic skills. If I assaulted David Heiser, then Mitt Romney assaulted
Rick Perry.
And my general point stands: Chicago needs a program for Title I schools. David and Sheila know precious little about chess, so they won't be in the classroom. Their instructors are excellent.
One might ask the leader of the meeting whether (after voicing my litany of complaints about the conduct of RK principals), I then said that I was prepared to support an RK program under certain conditions.
Getting chess into Title I schools is that important.
And let's talk turkey: which organization has consistently fostered excellence, RK or ICA?
This is all relative: Illinois still lags New York, Texas....
Let's stick to the facts of what transpired at the meeting in question.
1. ICA made a proposal at the meeting.
2. RK also made a proposal(s).
3. You started asking RK who was on their board and about salaries of board members. David Heiser correctly refused to answer questions you were out of line asking under those circumstances, especially where there was no indications presented of any illegality or impropriety on the part of RK and its board of directors.
4. You were apparently told by the meeting chair to desist.
5. You later began in the same vein
prompting the mayoral aid running the meeting to tell you to leave or the police would be called.
6. Outside the meeting, you apparently interrupted a conversation in progress between the Heisers and another, demanding that the Heisers speak with you. They refused leading to events that may be viewed as possible assault and battery by you on David Heiser and assault on Shelia Heiser.
7. You called the Chief of Police where David Heiser is a PO. You apparently made a fool of yourself, but I only hear that second hand. There were no witnesses as there were at the meeting.
8. You have opened yourself up to potential criminal and civil actions due to your interactions with the Heisers.
Now, the issue of non-profit board member compensation is a red herring, and I think, as a CPA, you know that. If you look at RK's form 990s, you will see listed board members names and addresses and any remuneration received.
The remainder of your attempted deflection is not worth a nanosecond's worth of time in answering.
The fact are, you were ejected from a meeting run by the Chicago Mayor's representative. You appear to have committed simple assault and batters on one RK director and possibly assault on another.
In my opinion, your behavior was an embarrassment to chess in Chicago and, by reason of your status as a board member of the USCF Il affiliate (ICA) an embarrassment to the USCF. Shame.
I'm certain the mayor's representative was most impressed by your voiced "support" of RK despite your apparently baseless attacks on RK--an embarrassment to you, not RK.
@Brian - How are things in Massachusetts? Hope all is going well for you, especially in your scholastic chess endeavors.
Did you attend the Chicago meeting? The extreme confidence of your tone leads me to believe that you cannot be relying on second-hand accounts, but had to have been there yourself.
You have long been an advocate for open air and transparency...thus I am extremely puzzled by your vitriol against Bill. Normally, you would be standing up for someone who is advocating openness and transparency. Why not this time?
@Bill - I love your passion for the game, and for promoting the game. Moreover, I have seen your desire for the good of the kids and the organization prevail in previous conflicts. I think you will be able to do the same again.
I do not understand why questions of organizational leadership and financial interests could possibly be deemed unimportant--especially when the city schools are involved. Better that the chess community figure these things out than a reporter from the Tribune.
Best regards and good chess,
Numbers 6 and 8 are particularly amusing.
Thanks for the kind words, Chris.
David and Sheila Heiser are welcome to post here. Their comments will not be edited by me.
To Chris Falter:
1. Chess in MA is doing well. Thanks for asking.
2. Anything factually inaccurate about what I reported took place at the Chicago meeting. If so, please correct me. If you were there, that should be easy enough for you to do.
To Mr. Brock:
1. Are there any inaccuracies to what I reported occurred at the meeting, outside the meeting or regarding your phone call to the Chief?
I'm glad you find unwanted touching of another and the threat of same amusing. I suggest you consult counsel. The statute of limitations, IIRC, has a year until it runs. Good luck with all of your endeavors, "gentlemen."
:-)
As for the non-incident described in your #6, my estimate of the minimum distance between myself and the Heisers is ten yards. They were leaving the LaSalle Street entrance to City Hall (the one near the weigh scales). I was south of the entrance on LaSalle, talking to two others, as I've already noted.
The police chief had to deal with the death of a four-year-old. I noted that one of us threatened the use of force, and it wasn't me, it was David Heiser. I thanked him for his time and told him to deal with more important matters.
To Brock:
1. Ten yards at one point,but close enough to touch Heiser as you have already admitted (regardless of how YOU categorize the touch)."Today, I touched David on the shoulder." Unless you have a 30 foot reach in which case the Bulls need you.
2.We'll leave it to others to sort out the meaning of David Heiser's verbal response to your physical touching.
Keep posting. Your information will be helpful if the Heisers retain counsel on this matter.
You're mixing up two separate moments, Mr. Lafferty: one in Room 1103 (touch on shoulder) and one outside a few minutes later (ten yards). This is understandable: you're in Massachusetts.
Off to teach a volunteer class at CPS.
No. I never said anything about outside the building. I'm fulyl aware of what I'm noting. The point is that the basic facts are not at issue.
You were ejected from the meeting, you touched David Heiser under circumstances that may very well lead to legal action against you. Your actions are unfortunate for chess.
Prior to the beginning of the meeting, Shiva Maharaj touched me on the back of the shoulder (from behind, even). (He then showed me a very cool endgame study.) Should I have called the police? Sheesh, this is like a conversation with aliens.
Nice attempt a deflection, but it's bullshit and I think you know that. I suggest that if you have any more questions or defenses, you should raise them in private with counsel. My discussion here with you is now over. :-)
It's a very nice study!
@Brian - Still wondering why someone like you who has long championed open and transparency is standing behind the Heisers' refusal to disclose critical facts about their organization's governance. And you are supporting the Chicago official's decision to shut down any discussion about their governance at a public meeting, no less.
Think of it this way: substitute Truong and Polgar for the Heisers, and the Polgar Foundation for the Renaissance Knights. I remember how, during the great USCF election of 2006, you castigated Truong and Polgar loudly and frequently about the secrecy with which they conducted their affairs, with particular regard to the Susan Polgar Foundation. Eventually your persistence turned around my view on the Polgar and Truong, which in turn caused a stir on the USCF affairs forum. So what has caused this reversal in your stance on openness and transparency?
Post a Comment