| |
Main
Date: 09 Apr 2008 06:58:12
From: samsloan
Subject: Don Schultz defends "Internet Insurance"
|
Yes the EB approved it but the stakes are now higher - the loss of an
important Board member, who has opportunities in the oven and the fact
that at least one Board member feels that the very existence of the
USCF is at risk because of the potential magnitude of legal
developments. Personally I agree with that assessment. Right or wrong,
Susan's potential marketability is enormous and its destruction and
counter action by Susan could destroy the USCF as well. 3 or 4 Board
members should not, IMO unilaterally make this assessment no matter
what the reasons were when the insurance was first purchased.
Don Schultz
The above posting by Don Schultz, dated April 4, 2008, appears in the
BINFOS today.
This posting is in opposition to the pending motion to cancel the
"Internet Insurance" that is costing the USCF $13,000 per year. So
far, there are three votes to cancel the insurance. The vote is 3-0 to
cancel the insurance. Channing, Polgar and Truong have spoken against
the motion but have not actually voted against it. As the motion was
made on April 3, the board members have 7 days to vote. If there are
no more votes by the end of the day on April 10, the motion passes.
Channing has stated that he is resigning effective immediately upon
the passage of this motion.
The argument by Don Schultz, who is NOT a board member but gets his
views posted anyway, is interesting. He says that the "stakes are
high" because of the "loss of an important board member", referring to
Channing's threat to resign if the motion passes. (We should give
Governor Spitzer his girl back.) Channing writes that he wants his
"assets protected" by the insurance. When Channing ran for the board
in 2005 we were told that he was an enormously wealthy man. We thought
that he was going to provide some of his great wealth to the USCF.
That is why he was elected. Now, we are told that we have to spend
$13,000 that we would otherwise not have to spend just to keep him on
the board. Meanwhile, he has not provided one thin dime to the USCF
since he has been on the board. Every time he drinks a cup of coffee,
he charges it to the USCF.
Channing writes, in connection with the above motion, "I am not
willing to remain on the USCF Board unless we have a severely
moderated Forum." From this quote, we see that what he really wants is
a "severely moderated Forum" so that people like Sam Sloan who have
been critical of Channing will not be allowed to post there. Indeed,
Sam Sloan has just been banned for one year almost entirely because of
making remarks critical of Channing.
In the quote above, Don Schultz also writes, "counter action by Susan
could destroy the USCF". This reflects one fear of the board, that
Susan Polgar will start attacking the USCF even more. Channing is the
last ally that Polgar and Truong have on the board. If Channing
leaves, their dreams of taking control of the USCF Treasury will have
ended and they might leave too.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2008 20:28:47
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Don Schultz defends "Internet Insurance"
|
Larry Parr is over in Malaysia and does not know what is going on over
here.
Channing has been on the board nearly three years, since August 2005.
In that three years he has not done one good thing. Everything he has
done has turned out to be bad.
That is the reason why many of us are hoping that he will keep his
promise to resign.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2008 20:16:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Don Schultz defends "Internet Insurance"
|
JOEL CHANNING
>In every professional area I was in, electing some rich guy
to the Board of the school or society or whatever was always
seen as a magic bullet, and they always ended up costing more
than they provided to the organization. It's a fool's solution. > --
SBD
A comment on Sam Sloan and Dr.Dowd's comments re
Joel Channing.
First, to Sam. Joel Channing IS rich -- very
rich. He got that way by LOVING money not merely
for what it does but for what it is. If you don't love it
per se, you may nonetheless go very far in the
wealth race, but there is no doubt that this Mammon
mooning, which is not often the same thing as greed
among the rich, helps.
Channing came to the Board promising to improve
the Federation by employing his expertise. He does
not believe in handing out money. Like Maurice
Wertheim, the fabulously rich investment banker and
chess angel of the 1930s and 1940s, Channing probably
believes that social organizations need to prove that
they deserve to exist by doing well -- and not merely
by doing good.
To Dr.Dowd, my experience of observing very rich
people on Boards is the precise opposite. They often
contribute a great deal in terms of financial wisdom
and business savvy.
The problem with a Channing-type giving a few
million to the USCF or to the Chess Trust, for that
matter, is that it would be the equivalent of dropping
raw meet in a river teeming with killer snakeheads or
piranhas. The problem with lavishing contributions on
the USCF is identical with the problem of sending
humanitarian foreign aid to African kleptocracies.
The local cut-throats end up fighting each other over
the manna from hell and start buying modern weapons
for civil wars to win the loot for their own pockets.
Are the hungry maws of the chess community in
New York City comparable with snakeheads and
anthropophagic despots? There are some differences
in style and even actual conduct, but the similarities
are more significant.
Yours, Larry Parr
SBD wrote:
> On Apr 9, 8:58 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > That is why he was elected. Now, we are told that we have to spend
> > $13,000 that we would otherwise not have to spend just to keep him on
> > the board. Meanwhile, he has not provided one thin dime to the USCF
> > since he has been on the board. Every time he drinks a cup of coffee,
> > he charges it to the USCF.
>
>
> That is how rich guys get rich. They make their own, and spend other
> people's, money.
>
> In every professional area I was in, electing some rich guy to the
> Board of the school or society or whatever was always seen as a magic
> bullet, and they always ended up costing more than they provided to
> the organization. It's a fool's solution.
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2008 08:22:18
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Don Schultz defends "Internet Insurance"
|
On Apr 9, 8:58 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> That is why he was elected. Now, we are told that we have to spend
> $13,000 that we would otherwise not have to spend just to keep him on
> the board. Meanwhile, he has not provided one thin dime to the USCF
> since he has been on the board. Every time he drinks a cup of coffee,
> he charges it to the USCF.
That is how rich guys get rich. They make their own, and spend other
people's, money.
In every professional area I was in, electing some rich guy to the
Board of the school or society or whatever was always seen as a magic
bullet, and they always ended up costing more than they provided to
the organization. It's a fool's solution.
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2008 08:21:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Don Schultz defends "Internet Insurance"
|
On Apr 9, 10:24 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > If Channing leaves, their dreams of taking control of the
> > USCF Treasury will have ended and they might leave too.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> And why exactly would they want control of the treasury'
> of an effectively bankrupt mnember organization exactly?
>
> If we were talking about say the ...
>
> Kasparov Chess Foundation or
> ICC or even a neighborhood club
>
> it would make more sense. I just fail to see any possible
> upside given the liabilities of the USCF relative to it's
> virtually complete lack of assets aside from the member
> information.
Perhaps you are not aware that the USCF has $3.2 million in annual
revenues.
A nice piece of change, sufficient for a comfortable retirement to
Vietnam.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2008 07:24:40
From:
Subject: Re: Don Schultz defends "Internet Insurance"
|
> If Channing leaves, their dreams of taking control of the
> USCF Treasury will have ended and they might leave too.
>
> Sam Sloan
And why exactly would they want control of the treasury'
of an effectively bankrupt mnember organization exactly?
If we were talking about say the ...
Kasparov Chess Foundation or
ICC or even a neighborhood club
it would make more sense. I just fail to see any possible
upside given the liabilities of the USCF relative to it's
virtually complete lack of assets aside from the member
information.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Apr 2008 10:44:25
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Don Schultz defends "Internet Insurance"
|
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 07:24:40 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>And why exactly would they want control of the treasury'
>of an effectively bankrupt mnember organization exactly?
>If we were talking about say the ...
>Kasparov Chess Foundation or
>ICC or even a neighborhood club
>it would make more sense. I just fail to see any possible
>upside given the liabilities of the USCF relative to it's
>virtually complete lack of assets aside from the member
>information.
A national organization that controlled certification and
credentialing of scholastic and collegiate coaches, organizers,
trainers and educators could be a money machine, and could easily
choke off the competition. Controlling the flow of information and
access to it? The only problem is ethical.
|
|
