| |
Main
Date: 09 Dec 2008 09:59:12
From: samsloan
Subject: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
Mike Neitman was circulating petitions at the US Open in Dallas, so he
is definitely running.
I have already collected enough signatures but I will collect some
more before I send them in, so I am running too.
Petitions are being circulated by others on behalf of Bill Goichberg
and Jim Berry and I assume that they are authorized.
Nobody here has addressed the big issue: The decision at the Dallas
Meeting to make Chess Life optional for the members. Anybody in favor
of that should be strongly opposed, in my opinion.
I think that Goichberg will have a tougher time getting elected.
Goichberg has not been a good president in my opinion and the current
litigation is a direct and forseeable consequence of the bad decisions
Goichberg made.
Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer. However, do
not worry as he will not be running again.
Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does. I
understand that Chuck Unruh is thinking about running too.
As for good candidates, look back at previous elections and some of
the losers. Arthur Bisguier would have been an excellent board member
but he ran and lost. Ralph Bowman would have been a great board member
but he lost too when he ran,
Of course, the dynamics of the situation is affected by two certain
people who are on the board. For example, if they are still on the
board and have not been thrown off by that time, I will have to
support Goichberg for re-election even though I do not think he has
been a good president.
Susan is actively trying to recruit candidates to run on her slate. As
least two well known chess personalities have told her that they are
not willing to run on her slate. That does not necessarily mean that
they are not running. It just means that they are not running on her
slate.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2008 15:46:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
> [quote=3D"Allen"]Mr. Sloan,
> But rather than stand to the side and yell, I have chosen to apply the
> ts, education and training that I have to try to work with people
> who want to work together. I don't know if these matters can be fixed
> any time soon. =A0The governance mess has to be straightened out or I
> fear the continued in-fighting, exemplified by the quick resort to
> legal action, and treating the governance of the USCF as if it were
> some sort of grand chess game, will destroy it all.
>
> Allen[/quote]
Here is something funny.
Allen, who stated above that he has "chosen to apply the ts,
training and education that" he has to solve the USCF's problems, has
a USCF rating of 654.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12874976
He has played in 13 tournaments starting in 2002 up until the present
date and his rating has consistently fluctuated above or below 600.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2008 15:30:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
Former USCF President Tim Redman sent a letter to the board and to me
two days ago about this issue. It will appear in the BINFOS in three
more days, so I feel it is OK to quote it here. Here is the pertinent
part:
"What Sam seems to be talking about is the figure that shows up in the
half-page of the statement, called "Noncash (income) and Expenses."
There you find an income item called "Life Member Prior Years
Deferred." That figure is reported as (48,366), which is to say that
it
is reported as income but no cash is coming in.
"The point is that it doesn't really matter what the accountants agree
to or disagree to as long as everyone realizes that the resulting
$100,000 that was credited to income last year and will be credited to
income this fiscal year doesn't exist. We shouldn't claim that is real
income or plan as though we have it.
"I thought we had solved the problem in Cherry Hill by changing our
amortization period for Life Members from 20 yeaers to 40 years, which
would have had the effect of lowering the imaginary income received
from $100,000 to $50,000, but that's a relatively trivial matter.
"The important point is the the Executive Board, the Board of
Delegates,
and Operations all realize that the figure is "Noncash." If we act as
though it really exists, the next thing that will happen is that we
will be paying salaries from it, and people can start reporting
noncash
income (which means no income at all, which we all have in abundance)
to the IRS.
"Cordially,
"Tim Redman"
As Dr. Redman explains above, the "cap" of $50,000 that was put on the
so-called"imaginary money" was done as follows:
In 1999, the USCF had about 10,000 life members and about $2 million
in the LMA.
The assumption was made that the average life member would live 20
years.
Therefore, $2 million divided by 20 would be paid to operations every
year. Thus, operations would receive $100,000 per year.
At the 2007 meeting in Cherry Hill, it was decided that, with
increased life expectancy, the average life member lives a lot longer
than 20 years. Therefor, the amortization figure was changed to 40
years. This means that the USCF operations would get $50,000 per year.
This is called "imaginary money" because the money does not exist. It
was all gone and completely spent by August 2003 when the Beatriz
Marinello took office and discovered that the money was all gone.
Since Allen is the one who says that he has "chosen to apply the
ts, education and training that" that he has, but the rest of us
fail to have, to solve this problem, perhaps he can explain to us what
is wrong with this. What is wrong with the 40 year figure? Why is this
not in accordance with GAAP? Why did the USCF President and the USCF
Executive Director continue to use the 20 year figure, and thereby
include $100,000 of this non-existent imaginary money into the 2008
income statement, when the delegates clearly told them not to do that
any more.
Better yet, rather than have Allen, who probably does not know,
explain this, why cannot Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall tell us why they
put $100,000 of imaginary money into the cash received section of the
2007-2008 financial statements, when the delegates told them at the
2007 meeting to stop doing that?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2008 18:01:57
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
samsloan wrote:
> Mike Neitman was circulating petitions at the US Open in Dallas, so he
> is definitely running.
<snip >
> Sam Sloan
As a matter of interest, what does this have to do with computer chess?
If noting (as I suspect), is there any real need to post it to
rec.games.chess.computer?
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2008 09:08:12
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
[quote="Allen"]Mr. Sloan,
It is a cash flow budget matter. Had you not started shouting about
"fake money" or whatever else it was that you were trying to say when
I had the floor and you were out of order, then I would have been able
to further explain that such budgeted income must be disregarded in
the cash flow planning - which is the same point I have been making to
the finance committee and management.
This organization has serious financial problems, not the least of
which is a continuing drain due to lawsuits filed against the
organization by current and former EB members. Dropping the lawsuits
won't fix all the financial ills, but it sure wouldn't hurt. And then
the organization still faces a need to rebuild financial strength in
difficult economic times. It will take a long time in the best of
circumstances to fully restore the financial health of the USCF - and
these aren't the best of circumstances.
But rather than stand to the side and yell, I have chosen to apply the
ts, education and training that I have to try to work with people
who want to work together. I don't know if these matters can be fixed
any time soon. The governance mess has to be straightened out or I
fear the continued in-fighting, exemplified by the quick resort to
legal action, and treating the governance of the USCF as if it were
some sort of grand chess game, will destroy it all.
Allen[/quote]
Just to explain: I never shouted "fake money" or anything else while
Allen was speaking. I was never out of order during the entire
meeting. I was at the very back of the room, at the last table,
whereas Allen was at the front of the room.
I have little doubt that somebody did shout "fake money" at Allen
while he was speaking. Many delegates are aware of the "imaginary
money issue" and when Allen rose and spoke to the issue supporting the
decision of the Executive Director and the President to put $100,000
in imaginary money back into the income statement, in defiance of a
delegates resolution at the 2007 meeting in Cherry Hill which limited
the imaginary money to $50,000 per year, it would not be surprising
that somebody would shout "fake money" at Allen. However, it was not
me who did it.
Regarding the "quick resort to legal action", many of the issues in my
lawsuit are very long standing issues. The USCF has been spiraling
downward since 1996. With the exception of brief breaks, the same
group has been in power since 1996 and virtually every year has been a
financial loss, whereas in all the years up to 1996 there had been a
surplus.
There have been constant threats of lawsuits all this time. The
problems have long been there. Nobody wanted to file a case in court
fearing that it would destroy the organization.
However, during the past year is has become evident that unless
something is done to change the management, the USCF will be history.
This past year the USCF lost more than $250,000. The numbers are
plainly there. Yet, our president continues to insist that everything
is hunky dory because we lost, according to him, "only" $70,000.
It is this sort of unwillingness to admit that things are going
completely wrong, plus the adamant refusal of management to take
corrective action or to make any changes at all that made the filing
of lawsuits the only way out.
In any serious business organization, a CEO who loses money is fired
on the spot, the first year. Our current management has lost money in
6-figures every year for the last four years and yet they just gave
him a new two year contract.
Allen, who is new to the USCF and unfamiliar with its history, speaks
of "working together" and "cooperating with" those who have lost all
this money and who are still refusing to change.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2008 04:18:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
[quote="Allen"]Mr. Sloan,
Of course I knew, and know, who you are. Your comments about me and
the meeting are so far from accurate it is hard to know where to
start. But to engage in any kind of discussion with you is worse than
pointless. As a southerner we have a saying -
If you wrestle in the mud with a pig, you get dirty and the pig just
likes it.
Allen [/quote]
Which means, I take it, that you are not willing to defend the
statements you made during the Delegates' Meeting in Dallas in August.
Therefore, you are relying on Mr. Goichberg to tell us what you meant
to say.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2008 08:53:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM, chessoffice <[email protected] >
wrote:
In a message dated 12/13/08 05:31:58 Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
[quote="Allen"]The legal exposure, the infighting, the time,
and one gets to pay for the privilege?
Heck my name got mentioned by someone who knows me and Mr.
Sloan goes off on an Internet rant as to my various shortcomings - and
he hasn't even ever actually met me - doesn't know me from Adam. Now
I realize that Mr. Sloan is not representative of many in the chess
community, and I've been called worse by better, but there are enough
who act like this is all some sort of fight to the death that has to
have a winner and a loser when the only thing that will work is
finding ways to cooperate.
And it is a surprise when folks don't want to do this? :roll:
Allen [/quote]
I assume that the Allen here is the same person as the Allen
who spoke at length to every issue at the USCF Delegates Meeting in
Dallas on August 9-10, 2008. If my assumption is correct, than I have
met Allen, although he did not know who I was.
Allen is wrong because it is a fight to the death, to the
death of the USCF, because at the meeting in Dallas Allen spoke in
favor of ignoring the rule passed by the delegates at the previous
annual meeting in Cherry Hill NJ in August 2007 requiring that the
USCF claim no more than $50,000 in "imaginary money". "Imaginary
money" is so called because it is money that is projected that the
USCF operations should receive from the Life Members to service those
members. Since the money is not actually received but nevertheless it
goes into the income statement as having been received, it is called
"imaginary money".
The money was not imaginary, it was actually received for life
memberships in the past, and a portion of what was received each year
was deferred towards future years, just as most of the money received
currently for life memberships is deferred and will be reported as
income for future years. This is all in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, which our bylaws state are used by
USCF.
If we violate GAAP by considering money deferred to the current
year to be nonexistent (while continuing to defer money collected now
to the future), of course we can make the current finances look worse
than they really are.
I doubt that Allen knows anything about these issues since, as
far as I am aware, he had never attended a USCF meeting before. He
must think he is a lot smarter than all of the rest of us, because in
Dallas he spoke repeatedly on these issues he obviously knew nothing
about.
Allen is a CPA, and he knows that under GAAP, if money is
collected, that income must be reported.
If life membership income is collected each year during, say,
1988-2007, and a portion of the money each year is not reported for
that year but is deferred until 2008, and then when we get to 2008 we
say we are not going to report that money for 2008 either, "because it
was lost" during 1988-2007, then overall we are reporting that we lost
money that was never collected! How can you lose or spend money that
you didn't take in?
And yes, it is a fight to the death because the USCF will die
if people like Allen keep ignoring the continuing huge financial
losses the USCF suffers every year and remain unwilling to make any
changes or to do anything about it.
But the delegates did something about it in Dallas, changing our
dues structure, and you were vehemently opposed to the changes!
Continue to oppose them if you wish, but don't pretend we ignored the
problem and refused to make any changes.
Bill Goichberg
The "change in the dues structure" that Bill Goichberg now so proudly
gives himself credit for was to eliminate Chess Life magazine for all
regular members of the USCF. Most members of the USCF do not know
about this yet but they will find out when they renew and discover
that they are no longer receiving the magazine in the mail.
The issue of the "Imaginary Money" was extensively debated first
during the Board Meeting in Stillwater, Oklahoma on May 17-18, 2007
and then during the Delegates meeting in Cherry Hill NJ in August
2007. This was the most acrimoneous issue of the entire 2007 Delegates
Meeting and the debate lasted well over an hour.
Bill Goichberg, along with Bill Hall argued then, as he does now, that
they fact that the money the USCF was supposed to get in 2007-2008 was
completely spent in 2001-2003 and therefore will not be received
should still be carried on the books as having been received in 2007
even though it was not received.
The 2007 Delegates were well informed on this issue, especially since
the original LMA money of $2 million had been built up when the so-
called "New Jersey Chess Mafia" was in control of the USCF and the
USCF Treasurer was Tony Cottell of New Jersey who insisted that
regular deposites be made by the USCF into the LMA account.
By the time that Cottell was voted out of office, the USCF had a
treasure chest of $2 milion in the LMA account. So, naturally,
subsequent boards started dipping into and spending this money.
By 2003, the last of this $2 million was spent by Frank Niro, who had
the unfortunate habit of playing in very high stakes poker games in
Foxwoods Casino. Frank Niro changed the accounting system to hide the
fact that all this money had been lost and then disappeared. When the
Marinello Board took power, they were shocked to discover that none of
the $2 million was left. This is why they took the extreme measure of
laying-off 17 employees in one day.
At the 2007 meeting in Cherry Hill NJ, Goichberg and Hall argued, as
they do above, that even though the money was lost and completely gone
by 2003, it should still be counted as having been received in 2007
because that was when the now non-existant LMA money was supposed to
have been paid to USCF operations. This issue was debated at length
and Goichberg and Hall lost the vote. In order to give them something,
the delegates agreed to give them $50,000 in fake money, but not a
penny more.
By the 2008 meeting, the New Jersey Chess Mafia had already become
aware that the delegate mandate of 2007 had been ignored by Bill
Goichberg and Bill Hall and therefore they had put $120,000 of
imaginary money back in to the received section of the balance sheet.
After the long debate in 2007, the New Jersey Chess Mafia was in no
mode to travel to Dallas to contest the issue again, feeling that
there was no point since the decisions of the delegates were being
ignored anyway. Therefore, the New Jersey Chess Mafia decided to
boycott the 2008 meeting.
But I came. When I tried to inform the delegates that this meeting was
being boycotted by New Jersey, which explained the sea of unfamiliar
faces in the meeting room, Goichberg called time on me and would not
allow me to speak.
However, Goichberg allowed Allen to speak as often and as long as he
wanted to speak on every issue. Here is my complaint with Allen. Not
one word in any of the lengthy speechs by Allen did he indicate any
familiarity with any of the above issues, including especially the
imaginary money issue. So, when Allen got up and droaned on about why
we should keep the fake money in the balace sheet because "it is
required by GAAP", I doubt that he understood the issue. The well
known expression is: If you don't know about something, you should
keep your mouth shut.
Now, we have another election and Goichberg is running again. The
question here is: At the 2007 Meeting in Cherry Hill, Bill Goichberg
and Bill Hall lost the vote on the imaginary money issue. Then,
instead of accepting the decision of the delegates, they simply
ignored it and went ahead and put $120,000 in imaginary money in the
2008 financial statements anyway
Should we re-elect a USCF President who simply ignores the decisions
of the delegates?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2008 08:00:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
From: chessoffice <[email protected] >
Date: Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
To: Sam Sloan <[email protected] >
- Hide quoted text -
In a message dated 12/13/08 05:31:58 Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
[quote="Allen"]The legal exposure, the infighting, the time, and
one gets to pay for the privilege?
Heck my name got mentioned by someone who knows me and Mr. Sloan
goes off on an Internet rant as to my various shortcomings - and he
hasn't even ever actually met me - doesn't know me from Adam. Now I
realize that Mr. Sloan is not representative of many in the chess
community, and I've been called worse by better, but there are enough
who act like this is all some sort of fight to the death that has to
have a winner and a loser when the only thing that will work is
finding ways to cooperate.
And it is a surprise when folks don't want to do this? :roll:
Allen [/quote]
I assume that the Allen here is the same person as the Allen who
spoke at length to every issue at the USCF Delegates Meeting in Dallas
on August 9-10, 2008. If my assumption is correct, than I have met
Allen, although he did not know who I was.
Allen is wrong because it is a fight to the death, to the death of
the USCF, because at the meeting in Dallas Allen spoke in favor of
ignoring the rule passed by the delegates at the previous annual
meeting in Cherry Hill NJ in August 2007 requiring that the USCF claim
no more than $50,000 in "imaginary money". "Imaginary money" is so
called because it is money that is projected that the USCF operations
should receive from the Life Members to service those members. Since
the money is not actually received but nevertheless it goes into the
income statement as having been received, it is called "imaginary
money".
- Hide quoted text -
The money was not imaginary, it was actually received for life
memberships in the past, and a portion of what was received each year
was deferred towards future years, just as most of the money received
currently for life memberships is deferred and will be reported as
income for future years. This is all in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, which our bylaws state are used by
USCF.
If we violate GAAP by considering money deferred to the current year
to be nonexistent (while continuing to defer money collected now to
the future), of course we can make the current finances look worse
than they really are.
During the fiscal year 2007-2008, the USCF financial statements
recorded the receipt of $120,000 of this imaginary money. Since it did
not actually get this money, this means that instead of losing the
reported $70,000, USCF actually lost $190,000. However, it lost even
more than that because the financial statements also included an
"accounts receivable" of approximately $85,000 from Hanon Russell. It
was already known by the time of the meetings in Dallas that Hanon
Russell was refusing to pay this amount. This has been confirmed by
the lawsuit that Hanon Russell filed against the USCF last month, so
the real loss for the 2007-2008 fiscal year was $275,000, unless, of
course, the USCF wins a money judgment and collects from Hanon
Russell.
The portion of the receivable disputed by Russell was far less than
$85,000.
All this is still being ignored by the USCF President. In a
posting I wrote that has not been allowed to appear on the USCF Issues
Forum but will appear in the BINFOS shortly, I stated that the USCF
has consistently lost $250,000 per year except for the one year that I
was on the board. Bill Goichberg wrote back denying this, saying that
the USCF has only lost $250,00 one year and that was back in the
beginning of 2000 when Goichberg was neither on the board nor
Executive Director. He also claimed big profits when he was executive
director, ignoring the fact that most of those "profits" came from the
sale of the USCF's building in New Windsor NY. Since the building
which had been owned by the USCF since the early 1970s had been
depreciated down to almost nothing, the full revenues received from
the sale of the building was recorded as a "profit", even though we
had to spend more to build a smaller building in Crossville TN.
In each year 2003-04 and 2004-05, USCF had a surplus of over
$200,000. It's true that a huge surplus (over $1 million) was
reported for 2004-05 and that this is misleading because it included
the sale of the depreciated building, however the profit listed from
the building sale was only $370,000. Another $264,000 gain was
included to represent the value of the land USCF was given in
Crossville, and there was a ChessCafe receivable that was later partly
written off, but even if we subtract all three of these things, there
was a surplus that year of well over $200,000.
I doubt that Allen knows anything about these issues since, as far
as I am aware, he had never attended a USCF meeting before. He must
think he is a lot smarter than all of the rest of us, because in
Dallas he spoke repeatedly on these issues he obviously knew nothing
about.
Allen is a CPA, and he knows that under GAAP, if money is collected,
that income must be reported.
If life membership income is collected each year during, say,
1988-2007, and a portion of the money each year is not reported for
that year but is deferred until 2008, and then when we get to 2008 we
say we are not going to report that money for 2008 either, "because it
was lost" during 1988-2007, then overall we are reporting that we lost
money that was never collected! How can you lose or spend money that
you didn't take in?
And yes, it is a fight to the death because the USCF will die if
people like Allen keep ignoring the continuing huge financial losses
the USCF suffers every year and remain unwilling to make any changes
or to do anything about it.
But the delegates did something about it in Dallas, changing our dues
structure, and you were vehemently opposed to the changes! Continue
to oppose them if you wish, but don't pretend we ignored the problem
and refused to make any changes.
Bill Goichberg
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2008 07:55:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
From: <[email protected] >
Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
To: [email protected],
- Hide quoted text -
In a message dated 12/9/2008 5:11:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
On Dec 9, 1:32 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sam, I really hope you sit this election out At present, you
are a
> distraction that we don't need. Another year perhaps, but not
now.
I disagree.
Right now the USCF is losing an average of $250,000 per year. This
has been the case for the past decade EXCEPT FOR the one year that I
was on the board. In that one year it showed a small profit.
Sam, the last fiscal year in which USCF lost over $200,000 was
2002-2003. There was a profit of over $200,000 in 2003-2004 and an
even larger profit in 2004-2005. You were not on the board either
year. I was Executive Director or Office Manager for 7 months during
2003-2004 and Executive Director for 7 months during 2004-2005.
This was at least in part because of me making a big issue over
the continuing losses, and my watch doggery over the financial
matters.
Also, for every year in recent years the USCF membership has gone
down EXCEPT FOR the one year that I was on the board. I certainly
cannot take all the credit for the increase in membership while I was
on the board, but I deserve some of the credit.
You are actually right that membership increased slightly while you
were on the board, but I don't recall anything you did that might have
caused this. A more likely cause of the increase was the $39 adult
dues sale which took place during that year.
While I was on the board, I made specific suggestions at every
meeting about how to increase revenues and cut expenses. None of the
other board members made any specific proposals on how to accomplish
these things.
The minutes do not support this version of history.
Since I was voted off the board, all discussion has stopped
regarding how to get the USCF back into the Black.
Such discussion has not stopped, for example, last year it resulted in
the dues changes approved by the delegates, which you keep foaming at
the mouth about.
Instead,,discussion centers on the various wars that are going on.
Although Truong and Polgar are the main guilty parties, it must be
remembered that Goichberg put them there. In every issue of Chess Life
during the first two years that Goichberg was USCF President, a
picture of Susan Polgar appeared, even though she had accomplished
almost nothing worthy of a picture.
The Chess Life Editor decides whose picture goes into the magazine,
not the USCF President, and I have never had a discussion with the
Editor about this. If Polgar's picture was appearing in every issue
for awhile, it was probably because she was writing a regular column.
I believe her picture did appear along with her column for a few years
before I became President. During the first two years that I was
President, the Editor actually stopped running her picture every
month, not that I deserve credit for that.
In the approximately 13 years since she came to America she has
never played in the US Championship or the US Woman's Championship.
She has represented the US in exactly one event, the 1996 World Chess
Olympiad, and then she said that she would never play again unless her
list of demands were met.
Polgar played for the US in the Olympiad in 2004, not 1996.
She also demanded to be paid $50,000 for "training" the Woman's
Olympiad team and then demanded another $20,000 for playing plus she
demanded about $5,000 for expired and worthless chess calenders and
thousands more for her books and a bunch of other stuff that the USCF
had to trash or sell at a loss.
There is some truth here on the calendars, but this is mostly greatly
exaggerated or wrong.
Goichberg knew all about this, as this had been going on since
2002, yet every issue of Chess Life proclaimed her to be a "Gold
Patron", although she has never paid any money for anything at all to
the USCF.
No issues have proclaimed anyone to be a "Gold Patron." You are
probably referring to "Gold Affiliate" status, which costs $350 per
year. Polgar has paid to have two Gold Affiliates.
Goichberg also knew that Polgar and Truong had stolen the USCF's
laptop computer on August 20, 2003.
I know of no such thing, and find this accusation of theft with no
evidence to be outrageous
Goichberg even secretly paid her $13,358.36 in October 2003
thereby disobeying the direct order of the USCF V-P of Finance who
told Goichberg "Don't pay them a penny", and then Goichberg blamed
this unauthorized payment on a low level clerk named Linda, until I
proved that Goichberg had signed the check. This happened just two
months after the USCF had been forced to lay-off 17 employees because
it could not make payroll.
The VP of Finance, Tim Hanke, never said anything like that, nor did
he or any other board member instruct me that this payment should not
be made, nor was there anything "secret" about the payment. The "low
level clerk named Linda" you refer to was Linda Legenos, CFO of the
USCF. When I took over as Office Manager in November 2003, which was
three (not two) months after the layoffs, Linda had already scheduled
this payment, and there was no reason for me to stop it, so it went
forward.
Why did Goichberg do all these things, even though he knew the
fragile condition of the USCF? He did it to use Polgar and Truong to
attack me, Sam Sloan. It is a complete mystery to me why he wanted to
attack me, because I have been a supporter of his for more than 40
years, but nevertheless the fact is that he did. It is clear that
Goichberg knew all along that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. Even
after the Mottershead Report became public, Goichberg continued to
support Polgar and Truong against me until February 2008 when the
USCF's attorney, Proskauer Rose, said that he could no longer
represent Polgar and Truong due to their non-cooperation.
You are probably the only one who thinks I supported Truong after the
Mottershead Report became public. You have also claimed I backed him
in the election, which is nonsense.
If you will do the math you will realize that one of the main
reasons that the USCF loses money year after year is because of all
the money that has been paid to Polgar and Truong.
Now, Goichberg is keeping Tim Sawmiller as moderator of the USCF
Issues Forum because it is Sawmiller who blocks my postings from
appearing there, including this one.
Moderators are appointed and removed by Bill Hall.
Now, back to finances: What we need to do is expand scholastic
chess because that is where the USCF has been growing and has the
potential to grow further. Until now the USCF's involvement in
scholastic chess has been passive. The kiddies send in their money and
the USCF cashes their checks. There is absolutely no promotion of
scholastic chess. Have you ever seen any publicity or a news
announcement regarding a scholastic event? Do not you find it
remarkable that sometimes more than 4,000 (four thousand) ,kids show
up for a scholastic chess tournament that the USCF has never
advertised or done anything to promote? Think of how many more kids
would come if they knew about these events.
What I find remarkable is your assumption that because you are not
aware of promotion, there must be none, and that if only you were in
charge, scholastics would be well publicized. How many scholastics
have you run? How did you promote them? How many players did you
attract? How many kids did you sign up as USCF members?
I raised this issue at every meeting I attended of the board. What
did Goichberg say in response? He claimed that I had "stolen" the idea
and that it was "already being done". Yet, since I left the board not
one word has been spoken by any of the remaining board members about
promoting scholastic chess.
You attended a board meeting at which our existing experimental
scholastic bulk membership sales program was described, and later
claimed you invented the program.
Goichberg's idea to cut expenses is to cut Chess Life and Chess
Life for Kids magazines. This has to be the worst idea imaginable. The
magazines are the only benefit that most members get.
And they still get this benefit if they want it, your announcements
that the magazines were being discontinued not withstanding. They
also now have the option to obtain this benefit online and pay less.
What we need to do it cut unnecesssary expenses, including staff.
But first, before cutting staff, we need to find out how much staff we
have. When I was on the board, I repeatedly asked one simple question:
How many employees do we have and what do they do? I was never able
to get the answer to that one simple question. I wonder if anybody
knows the answer. My best guess is that the USCF has between 23 and 28
employees plus contractors. What is amazing is that the number of
employees has increased since the move to Crossville, in spite of the
substantial savings that should be realized due to automation, with
the memberships, rating services and Chess Life production outsourced
or online.
The employees and their positions have long been listed on page 4 of
each issue of Chess Life. The number of employees has decreased since
the move, not increased.
By the way, during my one year on the board, Goichberg refused to
schedule a board meeting in the Crossville Office even though I and
all of the other board members requested it. Goichberg did not want me
to see the Crossville Office because it would show how ridiculous the
USCF's operations there have become.
If all the other board members had requested it, they would have had 6
votes and we would have met there. .
Now you say above that having me on the board would be a
"distraction". I am proud to be called a distraction if I am
distracting attention away from the money losing games the board
members keep playing and I am helping the USCF return to a profitable
business operation, as it was before the Goichberg group took over.
I think the idea is that you being a candidate might distract some
voters from important issues, not that you would get elected..
I have been a member of the USCF since 1956 and I want it to stay
in business. I wonder if I am the only one left who wants this
organization to survive.
OK, you have me beat there, I have only been a member since 1961.
Have you signed up tens of thousands of USCF members?
Bill Goichberg
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2008 05:48:46
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 13, 7:37=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 13, 5:26=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And yes, it is a fight to the death because the USCF will die if
> > people like Allen keep ignoring the continuing huge financial losses
> > the USCF suffers every year and remain unwilling to make any changes
> > or to do anything about it.
>
> =A0 Mr. Sloan seems to have forgotten the fact
> that he himself informed the readers of rgc
> that while he was on the USCF board, he
> was -- so he told us -- unable to get anything
> done (because his ideas were quashed by
> the BG clan). =A0 =A0Now then, how is it that we
> are now supposed to believe that Mr. Sloan
> saved the USCF money by doing nothing, as
> he told us? =A0 And what is to prevent the BG
> clan from stopping Mr. Sloan once again, if
> he were to somehow get re-elected? =A0 This
> sort of self-contradiction is the hallmark of
> a very confused mind-- a delusional mind.
>
> =A0 I dismiss the alternate explanation -- that
> Mr.Sloan is just a liar -- on the grounds that
> a few others gave precisely the same
> description of their own experiences on the
> USCF board; these were quite independent
> of Mr. Sloan's, and back him remarkably
> well as to his comments regarding being
> /unable to get anything done/.
>
> =A0 We don't really need another Unable on
> the board of the USCF. =A0 What is needed
> is someone who is big enough to push out
> the BG clan; my guess is that if we could
> somehow get Larry Parr elected to the
> board, the current members would no
> longer fit; they would be crowded out by
> virtue of a lack of physical space. =A0(It's just
> a theory.)
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Even though I was never in the majority, it was me harping all the
time that the USCF was losing money that impelled them to produce a
(bogus) financial statement showing that the USCF had made a profit of
$3,000 (three thousand dollars) during the one year that I was on the
board.
Goichberg is running for re-election and plans on another four years
of a Goichberg Presidency. He obviously plans on being President for
Life.
The good news is that Randy Hough is not running for re-election. It
was the fact that Hough always voted with Goichberg, even when he
admitted privately that Goichberg was wrong, that made it difficult to
get anything done that was opposed by Goichberg.
The other favorable development is that Joel Channing is gone and good-
riddance. Channing always voted with Goichberg on every contested
issue until the Trollgars got elected. Then, Channing usually voted
with the Trollgars and against Goichberg.
It was because Goichberg always had three votes in his hip pocket and
the board had only six members that it was impossible to get anything
past Goichberg.
With Hough and Channing gone it will much more difficult for Goichberg
to keep the USCF under his control.
The bad news is that the Trollgars will be running a slate although we
do not know who will be on it. If they can escape criminal indictment,
there is a good chance that they will take control of the USCF and
they are truly evil. Goichberg is merely mistaken and incompetent. He
wants good things for the USCF. He just does not know how to deliver
them.
One would hope that after four years as president, four years of
failure, Goichberg would be willing to step aside and allow someone
else to hold the reins. There is little or no chance that that will
happen however. Also, there is no realistic chance of Goichberg being
defeated, as he will just mail another 17,000 postcards to insure his
re-election.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2008 04:37:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 13, 5:26=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> And yes, it is a fight to the death because the USCF will die if
> people like Allen keep ignoring the continuing huge financial losses
> the USCF suffers every year and remain unwilling to make any changes
> or to do anything about it.
Mr. Sloan seems to have forgotten the fact
that he himself informed the readers of rgc
that while he was on the USCF board, he
was -- so he told us -- unable to get anything
done (because his ideas were quashed by
the BG clan). Now then, how is it that we
are now supposed to believe that Mr. Sloan
saved the USCF money by doing nothing, as
he told us? And what is to prevent the BG
clan from stopping Mr. Sloan once again, if
he were to somehow get re-elected? This
sort of self-contradiction is the hallmark of
a very confused mind-- a delusional mind.
I dismiss the alternate explanation -- that
Mr.Sloan is just a liar -- on the grounds that
a few others gave precisely the same
description of their own experiences on the
USCF board; these were quite independent
of Mr. Sloan's, and back him remarkably
well as to his comments regarding being
/unable to get anything done/.
We don't really need another Unable on
the board of the USCF. What is needed
is someone who is big enough to push out
the BG clan; my guess is that if we could
somehow get Larry Parr elected to the
board, the current members would no
longer fit; they would be crowded out by
virtue of a lack of physical space. (It's just
a theory.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2008 02:26:40
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
[quote="Allen"]The legal exposure, the infighting, the time, and one
gets to pay for the privilege?
Heck my name got mentioned by someone who knows me and Mr. Sloan goes
off on an Internet rant as to my various shortcomings - and he hasn't
even ever actually met me - doesn't know me from Adam. Now I realize
that Mr. Sloan is not representative of many in the chess community,
and I've been called worse by better, but there are enough who act
like this is all some sort of fight to the death that has to have a
winner and a loser when the only thing that will work is finding ways
to cooperate.
And it is a surprise when folks don't want to do this? :roll:
Allen [/quote]
I assume that the Allen here is the same person as the Allen who spoke
at length to every issue at the USCF Delegates Meeting in Dallas on
August 9-10, 2008. If my assumption is correct, than I have met Allen,
although he did not know who I was.
Allen is wrong because it is a fight to the death, to the death of the
USCF, because at the meeting in Dallas Allen spoke in favor of
ignoring the rule passed by the delegates at the previous annual
meeting in Cherry Hill NJ in August 2007 requiring that the USCF claim
no more than $50,000 in "imaginary money". "Imaginary money" is so
called because it is money that is projected that the USCF operations
should receive from the Life Members to service those members. Since
the money is not actually received but nevertheless it goes into the
income statement as having been received, it is called "imaginary
money".
During the fiscal year 2007-2008, the USCF financial statements
recorded the receipt of $120,000 of this imaginary money. Since it did
not actually get this money, this means that instead of losing the
reported $70,000, USCF actually lost $190,000. However, it lost even
more than that because the financial statements also included an
"accounts receivable" of approximately $85,000 from Hanon Russell. It
was already known by the time of the meetings in Dallas that Hanon
Russell was refusing to pay this amount. This has been confirmed by
the lawsuit that Hanon Russell filed against the USCF last month, so
the real loss for the 2007-2008 fiscal year was $275,000, unless, of
course, the USCF wins a money judgment and collects from Hanon
Russell.
All this is still being ignored by the USCF President. In a posting I
wrote that has not been allowed to appear on the USCF Issues Forum but
will appear in the BINFOS shortly, I stated that the USCF has
consistently lost $250,000 per year except for the one year that I was
on the board. Bill Goichberg wrote back denying this, saying that the
USCF has only lost $250,00 one year and that was back in the beginning
of 2000 when Goichberg was neither on the board nor Executive
Director. He also claimed big profits when he was executive director,
ignoring the fact that most of those "profits" came from the sale of
the USCF's building in New Windsor NY. Since the building which had
been owned by the USCF since the early 1970s had been depreciated down
to almost nothing, the full revenues received from the sale of the
building was recorded as a "profit", even though we had to spend more
to build a smaller building in Crossville TN.
I doubt that Allen knows anything about these issues since, as far as
I am aware, he had never attended a USCF meeting before. He must think
he is a lot smarter than all of the rest of us, because in Dallas he
spoke repeatedly on these issues he obviously knew nothing about.
And yes, it is a fight to the death because the USCF will die if
people like Allen keep ignoring the continuing huge financial losses
the USCF suffers every year and remain unwilling to make any changes
or to do anything about it.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2008 20:11:20
From:
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Dec 10, 9:25=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > On Dec 10, 7:54 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > The Historian wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 9, 8:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > > > > If you really care about the welfare of the USCF, your logical =
course
> > > > > > of action would be to shut up and vote for respectable candidat=
es who
> > > > > > agree with at least some of your positions. Most of us believe =
that
> > > > > > you're a deranged malignant narcissist.
> >
> > > > > To be fair, the bar for sitting on the EB is very, very low thank=
s to
> > > > > the First Couple, the Trolgars. The last three words I've quoted =
above
> > > > > apply equally to Truong.
> >
> > > > Perhaps, but he's not running for election. If he runs again in 201=
1,
> > > > by all means vote against him. It's also worth noting that Polgar a=
nd
> > > > Truong, whatever their faults -- and I agree they have many, though=
we
> > > > might differ on the details -- have solid achievements behind them.
>
> > > > John Hillery
> >
> > > Would you kindly enlighten us as to what those solid achievements are=
?
> >
> > How many GM tournaments have you organized? How many tournaments of
> > any kind have you organized? How many full-time chess clubs have you
> > started and managed? How many times have you played for the World
> > Championship or in an Olympiad? Challenging Polgar on this basis just
> > makes you look like an idiot. (Of course, you _are_ an idiot, but most
> > people would try to conceal the fact rather than advertise it.)
>
> > John Hillery
>
> In 15 years since 1993, Susan Polgar has played in exactly one
> Olympiad (2004) and one world championship (1996). In the last 15
> years, she has played in only one open tournament where she did not
> get to chose her opponents in advance. That was the 2005 US Amateur
> Team East where she lost to a Class B player and ended with an expert
> performance.
>
> Nevertheless, she constantly trumpets her performances, claiming that
> she won titles and events that she did not win, such as her claim that
> she has won the "Triple Crown" in chess.
>
> Susan Polgar is the world's most self-promoted chess player.
>
> Meanwhile, we have active players with a solid record of
> accomplishments who win tournaments all the time and yet receive
> little or no publicity, such as Irina Krush for example. How many here
> know that Irina defeated US Champion Alexander Shabalov in a recent
> tournament game?
>
> You can be certain that Susan Polgar will not be sitting down at the
> board to play a game of chess against Irina Krush any time soon. Susan
> would rather brag about the imaginary titles she says she has won
> rather than actually play a game.
>
> How many here know that the second highest rated girl in the world is
> an American girl who is also stunningly beautiful? Yet, her picture
> has never appeared in Chess Life. The only higher rated girl in the
> world is the Chinese prodigy.
>
> Instead of hearing about the second highest rated girl in the world
> and seeing her picture, we are bombarded with literally thousands of
> pictures in Chess Life and all over the Internet of Susan Polgar,
> where she is bragging about achieving things that she probably could
> have achieved but never did achieve because she never tried.
>
> Sam Sloan
This is known as "begging the question," Sam. It's a debating
technique used by the dishonest or stupid. Which one are you?
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2008 04:43:28
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 10, 9:25=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 7:54 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > The Historian wrote:
> > > > On Dec 9, 8:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > If you really care about the welfare of the USCF, your logical co=
urse
> > > > > of action would be to shut up and vote for respectable candidates=
who
> > > > > agree with at least some of your positions. Most of us believe th=
at
> > > > > you're a deranged malignant narcissist.
>
> > > > To be fair, the bar for sitting on the EB is very, very low thanks =
to
> > > > the First Couple, the Trolgars. The last three words I've quoted ab=
ove
> > > > apply equally to Truong.
>
> > > Perhaps, but he's not running for election. If he runs again in 2011,
> > > by all means vote against him. It's also worth noting that Polgar and
> > > Truong, whatever their faults -- and I agree they have many, though w=
e
> > > might differ on the details -- have solid achievements behind them.
> > > John Hillery
>
> > Would you kindly enlighten us as to what those solid achievements are?
>
> How many GM tournaments have you organized? How many tournaments of
> any kind have you organized? How many full-time chess clubs have you
> started and managed? How many times have you played for the World
> Championship or in an Olympiad? Challenging Polgar on this basis just
> makes you look like an idiot. (Of course, you _are_ an idiot, but most
> people would try to conceal the fact rather than advertise it.)
> John Hillery
In 15 years since 1993, Susan Polgar has played in exactly one
Olympiad (2004) and one world championship (1996). In the last 15
years, she has played in only one open tournament where she did not
get to chose her opponents in advance. That was the 2005 US Amateur
Team East where she lost to a Class B player and ended with an expert
performance.
Nevertheless, she constantly trumpets her performances, claiming that
she won titles and events that she did not win, such as her claim that
she has won the "Triple Crown" in chess.
Susan Polgar is the world's most self-promoted chess player.
Meanwhile, we have active players with a solid record of
accomplishments who win tournaments all the time and yet receive
little or no publicity, such as Irina Krush for example. How many here
know that Irina defeated US Champion Alexander Shabalov in a recent
tournament game?
You can be certain that Susan Polgar will not be sitting down at the
board to play a game of chess against Irina Krush any time soon. Susan
would rather brag about the imaginary titles she says she has won
rather than actually play a game.
How many here know that the second highest rated girl in the world is
an American girl who is also stunningly beautiful? Yet, her picture
has never appeared in Chess Life. The only higher rated girl in the
world is the Chinese prodigy.
Instead of hearing about the second highest rated girl in the world
and seeing her picture, we are bombarded with literally thousands of
pictures in Chess Life and all over the Internet of Susan Polgar,
where she is bragging about achieving things that she probably could
have achieved but never did achieve because she never tried.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 18:04:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 10, 2:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 12:42=A0pm, "joelux" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does.
>
> > While I thank you for your good wishes, Sam, any association with you
> > or endorsement by you is about as welcome as a bite from a rattler.
>
> > I am sure you understand.
>
> > Joe Lux
>
> > P.S. I sincerely hope you do not stand for the election.
>
> I just spoke to Joe Lux on the telephone and he says that he did not
> write this.
>
> Is there a Fake Joe Lux?
>
> Sam Sloan
The impersonation of Joe Lux comes from dizum.com. We should have
realized this earlier:
Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.wiretrip.org!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!
mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
References: <be778633-225e-4ea9-989c-
[email protected] >
From: "joelux" <[email protected] >
X-Organization: http://groups.google.com
In-Reply-To: <be778633-225e-4ea9-989c-
[email protected] >
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.158.179.194
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:22:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 ISAS
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
X-Trace: posting.google.com 8868930429 29653 127.0.0.1 (09 Dec 2008
18:22:01 GMT)
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-Injection-Info: 14g2000cws.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=3D209.158.179.194; posting-account=3D-yk8uA0AAABVW6Ilx44PCuHPaC2bTbFX
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:17:24 +0100
Mail-To-News-Contact: [email protected]
Organization: [email protected]
On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does.
While I thank you for your good wishes, Sam, any association with you
or endorsement by you is about as welcome as a bite from a rattler.
I am sure that you will understand.
Joe Lux
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 11:24:12
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 10, 12:42=A0pm, "joelux" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does.
>
> While I thank you for your good wishes, Sam, any association with you
> or endorsement by you is about as welcome as a bite from a rattler.
>
> I am sure you understand.
>
> Joe Lux
>
> P.S. I sincerely hope you do not stand for the election.
I just spoke to Joe Lux on the telephone and he says that he did not
write this.
Is there a Fake Joe Lux?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 19:35:42
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Dec 10, 12:42 pm, "joelux" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does.
>> While I thank you for your good wishes, Sam, any association with you
>> or endorsement by you is about as welcome as a bite from a rattler.
>>
>> I am sure you understand.
>>
>> Joe Lux
>>
>> P.S. I sincerely hope you do not stand for the election.
>
> I just spoke to Joe Lux on the telephone and he says that he did not
> write this.
>
> Is there a Fake Joe Lux?
>
> Sam Sloan
I just got off the phone with Joe Lux. He told me that the post above
is not his and that he has decided not to run. I have asked him to keep
the option to run open until January. He also told me some other very
interesting news that, if verified, will be most interesting and
informative. Later.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 20:17:24
From: joelux
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does.
While I thank you for your good wishes, Sam, any association with you
or endorsement by you is about as welcome as a bite from a rattler.
I am sure that you will understand.
Joe Lux
P.S. I sincerely hope you do not stand for the election, for all of
the reasons already stated, plus a few more.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 10:48:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
What I believe that Joe Lux is saying concerns the fact that for many
years the scholastic group has been threatening either to break away
from the USCF or to take over the USCF.
This is a serious threat and a danger. Take for example the American
Chess Foundation and the Manhattan Chess Club. They were the primary
sponsors of Grandmaster chess in America. They provided the money to
hold the US Championship and to send the US Team to the World Chess
Olympiads.
Fan Adams, who had become the patron of both organizations, died in
March 1999. Soon thereafter, the scholastic groups took over. The
Manhattan Chess Club closed down. The American Chess Foundation became
Chess-in-the-Schools. The money left in the wills of Fred Cramer and
other benefactors was now devoted to teaching chess to elementary
school kids. This is the reason it has been so difficult to obtain the
funding required to hold the US Championship ever since.
We all want to encourage the development of scholastic chess but we do
not want the scholastic group to be able to take over the USCF, which
is what they would like to do.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 18:42:41
From: joelux
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does.
While I thank you for your good wishes, Sam, any association with you
or endorsement by you is about as welcome as a bite from a rattler.
I am sure you understand.
Joe Lux
P.S. I sincerely hope you do not stand for the election.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 18:16:00
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
joelux wrote:
> On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does.
>
> While I thank you for your good wishes, Sam, any association with you
> or endorsement by you is about as welcome as a bite from a rattler.
>
> I am sure you understand.
>
> Joe Lux
>
> P.S. I sincerely hope you do not stand for the election.
>
Joe, your candidacy would be a much needed breath of fresh air.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 17:26:30
From:
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Dec 9, 1:32=EF=BF=BDpm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sam, I really hope you sit this election out =EF=BF=BDAt present, you a=
re a
> > distraction that we don't need. =EF=BF=BDAnother year perhaps, but not =
now.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Right now the USCF is losing an average of $250,000 per year. This has
> been the case for the past decade EXCEPT FOR the one year that I was
> on the board. In that one year it showed a small profit.
>
> This was at least in part because of me making a big issue over the
> continuing losses, and my watch doggery over the financial matters.
>
> Also, for every year in recent years the USCF membership has gone down
> EXCEPT FOR the one year that I was on the board. I certainly cannot
> take all the credit for the increase in membership while I was on the
> board, but I deserve some of the credit.
>
> While I was on the board, I made specific suggestions at every meeting
> about how to increase revenues and cut expenses. None of the other
> board members made any specific proposals on how to accomplish these
> things.
>
> Since I was voted off the board, all discussion has stopped regarding
> how to get the USCF back into the Black. Instead,,discussion centers
> on the various wars that are going on. Although Truong and Polgar are
> the main guilty parties, it must be remembered that Goichberg put them
> there. In every issue of Chess Life during the first two years that
> Goichberg was USCF President, a picture of Susan Polgar appeared, even
> though she had accomplished almost nothing worthy of a picture. In the
> approximately 13 years since she came to America she has never played
> in the US Championship or the US Woman's Championship. She has
> represented the US in exactly one event, the 1996 World Chess
> Olympiad, and then she said that she would never play again unless her
> list of demands were met. She also demanded to be paid $50,000 for
> "training" the Woman's Olympiad team and then demanded another $20,000
> for playing plus she demanded about $5,000 for expired and worthless
> chess calenders and thousands more for her books and a bunch of other
> stuff that the USCF had to trash or sell at a loss.
>
> Goichberg knew all about this, as this had been going on since 2002,
> yet every issue of Chess Life proclaimed her to be a "Gold Patron",
> although she has never paid any money for anything at all to the USCF.
> Goichberg also knew that Polgar and Truong had stolen the USCF's
> laptop computer on August 20, 2003.
>
> Goichberg even secretly paid her $13,358.36 in October 2003 thereby
> disobeying the direct order of the USCF V-P of Finance who told
> Goichberg "Don't pay them a penny", and then Goichberg blamed this
> unauthorized payment on a low level clerk named Linda, until I proved
> that Goichberg had signed the check. This happened just two months
> after the USCF had been forced to lay-off 17 employees because it
> could not make payroll.
>
> Why did Goichberg do all these things, even though he knew the fragile
> condition of the USCF? He did it to use Polgar and Truong to attack
> me, Sam Sloan. It is a complete mystery to me why he wanted to attack
> me, because I have been a supporter of his for more than 40 years, but
> nevertheless the fact is that he did. It is clear that Goichberg knew
> all along that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. Even after the
> Mottershead Report became public, Goichberg continued to support
> Polgar and Truong against me until February 2008 when the USCF's
> attorney, Proskauer Rose, said that he could no longer represent
> Polgar and Truong due to their non-cooperation.
>
> If you will do the math you will realize that one of the main reasons
> that the USCF loses money year after year is because of all the money
> that has been paid to Polgar and Truong.
>
> Now, Goichberg is keeping Tim Sawmiller as moderator of the USCF
> Issues Forum because it is Sawmiller who blocks my postings from
> appearing there, including this one.
>
> Now, back to finances: What we need to do is expand scholastic chess
> because that is where the USCF has been growing and has the potential
> to grow further. Until now the USCF's involvement in scholastic chess
> has been passive. The kiddies send in their money and the USCF cashes
> their checks. There is absolutely no promotion of scholastic chess.
> Have you ever seen any publicity or a news announcement regarding a
> scholastic event? Do not you find it remarkable that sometimes more
> than 4,000 (four thousand) ,kids show up for a scholastic chess
> tournament that the USCF has never advertised or done anything to
> promote? Think of how many more kids would come if they knew about
> these events.
>
> I raised this issue at every meeting I attended of the board. What did
> Goichberg say in response? He claimed that I had "stolen" the idea and
> that it was "already being done". Yet, since I left the board not one
> word has been spoken by any of the remaining board members about
> promoting scholastic chess.
>
> Goichberg's idea to cut expenses is to cut Chess Life and Chess Life
> for Kids magazines. This has to be the worst idea imaginable. The
> magazines are the only benefit that most members get. What we need to
> do it cut unnecesssary expenses, including staff. But first, before
> cutting staff, we need to find out how much staff we have. When I was
> on the board, I repeatedly asked one simple question: How many
> employees do we have and what do they do? I was never able to get the
> answer to that one simple question. I wonder if anybody knows the
> answer. My best guess is that the USCF has between 23 and 28 employees
> plus contractors. What is amazing is that the number of employees has
> increased since the move to Crossville, in spite of the substantial
> savings that should be realized due to automation, with the
> memberships, rating services and Chess Life production outsourced or
> online.
>
> By the way, during my one year on the board, Goichberg refused to
> schedule a board meeting in the Crossville Office even though I and
> all of the other board members requested it. Goichberg did not want me
> to see the Crossville Office because it would show how ridiculous the
> USCF's operations there have become.
>
> Now you say above that having me on the board would be a
> "distraction". I am proud to be called a distraction if I am
> distracting attention away from the money losing games the board
> members keep playing and I am helping the USCF return to a profitable
> business operation, as it was before the Goichberg group took over.
>
> I have been a member of the USCF since 1956 and I want it to stay in
> business. I wonder if I am the only one left who wants this
> organization to survive.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam, quite aside from my personal contempt for you, there are two
compelling reasons why you ought not to run again.
1) You have no realistic chance of being elected. Thus, every vote for
you will be a vote taken away from a viable candidate. If you really
want better people on the EB, running yourself would be
counterproductive, the act of an egotist or a spoiler.
2) Any candidate who shares any of your positions will be tainted by
the association. ("He believes the same things as that crazy guy
Sloan. Must be another crank.") Not all of your positions are absurd.
I think you're generally wrong on the issues, but those issues deserve
a fair debate. That won't happen if they're associsted with a
notorious nutter like you.
If you really care about the welfare of the USCF, your logical course
of action would be to shut up and vote for respectable candidates who
agree with at least some of your positions. Most of us believe that
you're a deranged malignant narcissist. Here's your chance -- probably
your last chance -- to prove us wrong.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 14:01:10
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 9, 3:50=A0pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 11:59=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
> > in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Being called the worst board member by Sam Sloan is like being called
> ugly by a frog.
>
> Randy Bauer
Since you seem to disagree, can you name one thing, JUST ONE THING, of
a positive nature that Joel Channing accomplished during his nearly
three years on the board.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 13:59:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 9, 1:32=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sam, I really hope you sit this election out =A0At present, you are a
> distraction that we don't need. =A0Another year perhaps, but not now.
I disagree.
Right now the USCF is losing an average of $250,000 per year. This has
been the case for the past decade EXCEPT FOR the one year that I was
on the board. In that one year it showed a small profit.
This was at least in part because of me making a big issue over the
continuing losses, and my watch doggery over the financial matters.
Also, for every year in recent years the USCF membership has gone down
EXCEPT FOR the one year that I was on the board. I certainly cannot
take all the credit for the increase in membership while I was on the
board, but I deserve some of the credit.
While I was on the board, I made specific suggestions at every meeting
about how to increase revenues and cut expenses. None of the other
board members made any specific proposals on how to accomplish these
things.
Since I was voted off the board, all discussion has stopped regarding
how to get the USCF back into the Black. Instead,,discussion centers
on the various wars that are going on. Although Truong and Polgar are
the main guilty parties, it must be remembered that Goichberg put them
there. In every issue of Chess Life during the first two years that
Goichberg was USCF President, a picture of Susan Polgar appeared, even
though she had accomplished almost nothing worthy of a picture. In the
approximately 13 years since she came to America she has never played
in the US Championship or the US Woman's Championship. She has
represented the US in exactly one event, the 1996 World Chess
Olympiad, and then she said that she would never play again unless her
list of demands were met. She also demanded to be paid $50,000 for
"training" the Woman's Olympiad team and then demanded another $20,000
for playing plus she demanded about $5,000 for expired and worthless
chess calenders and thousands more for her books and a bunch of other
stuff that the USCF had to trash or sell at a loss.
Goichberg knew all about this, as this had been going on since 2002,
yet every issue of Chess Life proclaimed her to be a "Gold Patron",
although she has never paid any money for anything at all to the USCF.
Goichberg also knew that Polgar and Truong had stolen the USCF's
laptop computer on August 20, 2003.
Goichberg even secretly paid her $13,358.36 in October 2003 thereby
disobeying the direct order of the USCF V-P of Finance who told
Goichberg "Don't pay them a penny", and then Goichberg blamed this
unauthorized payment on a low level clerk named Linda, until I proved
that Goichberg had signed the check. This happened just two months
after the USCF had been forced to lay-off 17 employees because it
could not make payroll.
Why did Goichberg do all these things, even though he knew the fragile
condition of the USCF? He did it to use Polgar and Truong to attack
me, Sam Sloan. It is a complete mystery to me why he wanted to attack
me, because I have been a supporter of his for more than 40 years, but
nevertheless the fact is that he did. It is clear that Goichberg knew
all along that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. Even after the
Mottershead Report became public, Goichberg continued to support
Polgar and Truong against me until February 2008 when the USCF's
attorney, Proskauer Rose, said that he could no longer represent
Polgar and Truong due to their non-cooperation.
If you will do the math you will realize that one of the main reasons
that the USCF loses money year after year is because of all the money
that has been paid to Polgar and Truong.
Now, Goichberg is keeping Tim Sawmiller as moderator of the USCF
Issues Forum because it is Sawmiller who blocks my postings from
appearing there, including this one.
Now, back to finances: What we need to do is expand scholastic chess
because that is where the USCF has been growing and has the potential
to grow further. Until now the USCF's involvement in scholastic chess
has been passive. The kiddies send in their money and the USCF cashes
their checks. There is absolutely no promotion of scholastic chess.
Have you ever seen any publicity or a news announcement regarding a
scholastic event? Do not you find it remarkable that sometimes more
than 4,000 (four thousand) ,kids show up for a scholastic chess
tournament that the USCF has never advertised or done anything to
promote? Think of how many more kids would come if they knew about
these events.
I raised this issue at every meeting I attended of the board. What did
Goichberg say in response? He claimed that I had "stolen" the idea and
that it was "already being done". Yet, since I left the board not one
word has been spoken by any of the remaining board members about
promoting scholastic chess.
Goichberg's idea to cut expenses is to cut Chess Life and Chess Life
for Kids magazines. This has to be the worst idea imaginable. The
magazines are the only benefit that most members get. What we need to
do it cut unnecesssary expenses, including staff. But first, before
cutting staff, we need to find out how much staff we have. When I was
on the board, I repeatedly asked one simple question: How many
employees do we have and what do they do? I was never able to get the
answer to that one simple question. I wonder if anybody knows the
answer. My best guess is that the USCF has between 23 and 28 employees
plus contractors. What is amazing is that the number of employees has
increased since the move to Crossville, in spite of the substantial
savings that should be realized due to automation, with the
memberships, rating services and Chess Life production outsourced or
online.
By the way, during my one year on the board, Goichberg refused to
schedule a board meeting in the Crossville Office even though I and
all of the other board members requested it. Goichberg did not want me
to see the Crossville Office because it would show how ridiculous the
USCF's operations there have become.
Now you say above that having me on the board would be a
"distraction". I am proud to be called a distraction if I am
distracting attention away from the money losing games the board
members keep playing and I am helping the USCF return to a profitable
business operation, as it was before the Goichberg group took over.
I have been a member of the USCF since 1956 and I want it to stay in
business. I wonder if I am the only one left who wants this
organization to survive.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 13:17:04
From:
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
I don't think Sam S. should run either.
Russell Miller, Camas WA
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 13:01:12
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
I agree that Sam should not run, but that is extremely unlikely to
affect his decision. On the other hand, I would love to see many of
the posters her run - Mike Murray would be right up there in my book.
Jerry Spinrad
On Dec 9, 2:21=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 1:42=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:32:37 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Sam, I really hope you sit this election out =A0At present, you are a
> > >distraction that we don't need. =A0Another year perhaps, but not now.
>
> > I agree. =A0
>
> > Sam, you will provide a rallying point for any slate that Polgar and
> > Truong come up with -- they won't have to talk issues or defend their
> > own past behavior - they'll just beat on the contents of your website,
> > on past statements you have made, =A0and this will play big with all th=
e
> > scholastic parent-members who aren't up on everything that's happened
> > in the last few years.
>
> I also agree with both Brian and Mike,
> Sam, why don't you really concentrate on being a volunteer and
> supporter of the USCF instead of seeking a leadership role.
> Be the watchdog - =A0serve and make productive contributions to the
> game.
> Also agree that as long as your website content is anything above G
> rated, =A0the USCF would be better off without the distraction of your
> involvement in leadership. =A0That doesn't mean you can't be a
> contributing and significant member.
>
> Mark
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 12:50:27
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 9, 11:59=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
> in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer.
>
> Sam Sloan
Being called the worst board member by Sam Sloan is like being called
ugly by a frog.
Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 12:21:58
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Dec 9, 1:42=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:32:37 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Sam, I really hope you sit this election out =A0At present, you are a
> >distraction that we don't need. =A0Another year perhaps, but not now.
>
> I agree. =A0
>
> Sam, you will provide a rallying point for any slate that Polgar and
> Truong come up with -- they won't have to talk issues or defend their
> own past behavior - they'll just beat on the contents of your website,
> on past statements you have made, =A0and this will play big with all the
> scholastic parent-members who aren't up on everything that's happened
> in the last few years.
I also agree with both Brian and Mike,
Sam, why don't you really concentrate on being a volunteer and
supporter of the USCF instead of seeking a leadership role.
Be the watchdog - serve and make productive contributions to the
game.
Also agree that as long as your website content is anything above G
rated, the USCF would be better off without the distraction of your
involvement in leadership. That doesn't mean you can't be a
contributing and significant member.
Mark
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 18:43:05
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
samsloan wrote:
> Mike Neitman was circulating petitions at the US Open in Dallas, so he
> is definitely running.
>
> I have already collected enough signatures but I will collect some
> more before I send them in, so I am running too.
>
> Petitions are being circulated by others on behalf of Bill Goichberg
> and Jim Berry and I assume that they are authorized.
>
> Nobody here has addressed the big issue: The decision at the Dallas
> Meeting to make Chess Life optional for the members. Anybody in favor
> of that should be strongly opposed, in my opinion.
>
> I think that Goichberg will have a tougher time getting elected.
> Goichberg has not been a good president in my opinion and the current
> litigation is a direct and forseeable consequence of the bad decisions
> Goichberg made.
>
> Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
> in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer. However, do
> not worry as he will not be running again.
>
> Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does. I
> understand that Chuck Unruh is thinking about running too.
>
> As for good candidates, look back at previous elections and some of
> the losers. Arthur Bisguier would have been an excellent board member
> but he ran and lost. Ralph Bowman would have been a great board member
> but he lost too when he ran,
>
> Of course, the dynamics of the situation is affected by two certain
> people who are on the board. For example, if they are still on the
> board and have not been thrown off by that time, I will have to
> support Goichberg for re-election even though I do not think he has
> been a good president.
>
> Susan is actively trying to recruit candidates to run on her slate. As
> least two well known chess personalities have told her that they are
> not willing to run on her slate. That does not necessarily mean that
> they are not running. It just means that they are not running on her
> slate.
>
> Sam Sloan
Thai is of interest from the USCF Issues Forum today:
Post: #119402 by texasrob on Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:24 pm
Richard:
I agree we need to know where we are at in a timely manner, and that
starts with a business plan, a solid realistic budget, and new revenue
streams.
I think the vacuum that would be created by everyone stepping down is no
longer an option; we have too many open law suits going, so our exposure
will still be there. I think a number of the board will be caught with
their hands in the cookie jar, from both sides.
I would like us to get some solid new blood on the board, with ample
discussion time on the forums to vet the candidates. I�m not sure how a
for profit company will give our members better services or results, if
anything it would give us less say.
I disagree that scholastic chess should be separated, or that it will
not convert to regular adult memberships. I think we have just done a
poor job on retaining scholastic members. I agree that paying for the
privilege of playing a few rated games with little chance of financial
reward is not enough to retain members, so we need to make our
tournaments more, like golf or bowling. This is where we need the
additional revenue streams for the federation to bolster our local and
state prize funds.
Promoting chess does work, it is just hard and time consuming, and is
individually driven. We need the National organization to be able to
provide material and support to the local individuals, so they do not
burn out, and let the fruit wither on the vine.
I would hope our potential candidates will address the points you have
brought up.
Robert Sturgeon
Secretary - Texas Chess Association
Alternate Delegate - Texas
Please note: Nothing I post here represents the opinions of anyone but
myself
Post: #119442 by hmb on Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:29 am
-------------------------------------------------------------------
texasrob wrote:
I think a number of the board will be caught with their hands in the
cookie jar, from both sides.
*Hal Bogner responds:*
Rob - While I agree with many of your statements, I must ask you to
speak further to this particular one.
The issues raised in USCF's lawsuit against Sue Polgar in San Francisco,
and the issues which can be seen by reading the June 2007 bankruptcy
filing by Paul Truong in New York, both involve alleged criminal acts.
In both cases, government authorities have acknowledged that criminal
investigations are in progress.
There is not a single other EB member about whom any such issue exists.
The lawsuit in Texas by Sue Polgar (and, tellingly, not also on behalf
of her husband, Paul Truong) is devoid of any actual specific
allegations against any of the EB members or other USCF members (such as
myself), and if Texas had a SLAPP law, would be actionable on that basis.
Regarding suggestions that "good people" should run for election this
spring, it should be noted that four good people who ran in recent
years, and who are currently serving, are all being sued for $25
million, and each of them has to concern himself with the possibility of
an adverse ruling, and/or years of stress, negative publicity, expense,
and so on. The prospect of being added to such a lawsuit is likely quite
daunting for anyone not yet sued, and limiting candidates to those who
are already being sued may end up being the result.
So yes, Rob - please do call for "making things better". But please also
address the facts on the ground in terms of the current climate, and do
not keep suggesting that everyone on every side are somehow all morally,
ethically, or functionally "equivalent".
Hal Bogner
[email protected]
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 18:32:37
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
samsloan wrote:
> Mike Neitman was circulating petitions at the US Open in Dallas, so he
> is definitely running.
>
> I have already collected enough signatures but I will collect some
> more before I send them in, so I am running too.
>
> Petitions are being circulated by others on behalf of Bill Goichberg
> and Jim Berry and I assume that they are authorized.
>
> Nobody here has addressed the big issue: The decision at the Dallas
> Meeting to make Chess Life optional for the members. Anybody in favor
> of that should be strongly opposed, in my opinion.
>
> I think that Goichberg will have a tougher time getting elected.
> Goichberg has not been a good president in my opinion and the current
> litigation is a direct and forseeable consequence of the bad decisions
> Goichberg made.
>
> Joel Channing was, in my opinion, the worst board member we have had
> in at least the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps even longer. However, do
> not worry as he will not be running again.
>
> Joe Lux is thinking about running and I sincerely hope he does. I
> understand that Chuck Unruh is thinking about running too.
>
> As for good candidates, look back at previous elections and some of
> the losers. Arthur Bisguier would have been an excellent board member
> but he ran and lost. Ralph Bowman would have been a great board member
> but he lost too when he ran,
>
> Of course, the dynamics of the situation is affected by two certain
> people who are on the board. For example, if they are still on the
> board and have not been thrown off by that time, I will have to
> support Goichberg for re-election even though I do not think he has
> been a good president.
>
> Susan is actively trying to recruit candidates to run on her slate. As
> least two well known chess personalities have told her that they are
> not willing to run on her slate. That does not necessarily mean that
> they are not running. It just means that they are not running on her
> slate.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam, I really hope you sit this election out At present, you are a
distraction that we don't need. Another year perhaps, but not now.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 11:42:56
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Prospective Candidates for USCF Election
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:32:37 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Sam, I really hope you sit this election out At present, you are a
>distraction that we don't need. Another year perhaps, but not now.
I agree.
Sam, you will provide a rallying point for any slate that Polgar and
Truong come up with -- they won't have to talk issues or defend their
own past behavior - they'll just beat on the contents of your website,
on past statements you have made, and this will play big with all the
scholastic parent-members who aren't up on everything that's happened
in the last few years.
|
|
