What I complained about in August was your claim that $39,000 was paid
to Paul Truong because he "had contracts," including $20,000 because
of Diane Reese's erroneous invitation and $19,000 towards the Olympiad
Training Program.

--0--

Sam Sloan uses the word 'erroneously' in the context of a staff member
authorised to contract, and supervised by another staff member, the
then
executive director, Bill Goichberg. What Sam Sloan can mean by this is
unknown! I understood that in fact Bill Goichberg had two goes at this
Olympiad team contract. Is this what is meant by 'erroneus'? Payment
of $19k
is hardly a casual affair in any business and Board-member Sloan
should make
clear whatever his meaning is.

From the above it would seem to be a matter of very basic yet essential
competencies at USCF, and therefore, that is the place to look.
Mention of
other parties is politiking, and so absolutely fall over insincere!

As to the matter of getting paid, Sam Sloan should also make clear
if USCF
should honour its legal contracts, or if any vendor or partner, in his
opinion, should have to refer to the law while dealing with this
organisation?

Phil Innes
vermont

Phil,

Perhaps you have misunderstood my confusing posting.

The statement at the top, starting with the words "What I complained
about in August was your claim that $39,000 was paid" was written by
Bill Goichberg. After that, I responded to what he said.

Also, I have something that you do not have, which is the actual
contract Frank Niro signed regarding the Woman's Olympiad Team. That
contract DOES NOT STATE that the USCF will pay Polgar $50,000 or
indeed any money at all.

Thus, it is not a question of honoring contracts. There really is no
enforcable contract.

I wish I could show you the actual contract but Bill Goichberg has
forbidden me to show it to anybody outside the board.

Sam Sloan

---
LOL more official secrets? Is there anything that is NOT a secret at USCF,
no matter how much money is involved? $50k awarded for a napkin make-over
and no bidding! $10k for fund-raising with no performance measures or
benchmarks, and here is another $19k of which we are allowed to know nothing
about USCF's role and responsibilty.

If you are at all sincere, the place to avert blowing $79,000 in 2007 in the
most facetious manner, is right at home. What are 30 salaried people
doing!??? When you've cleaned up that stable, then take a look in the
ratings department and see if you can find anyone responsible for approving
Tanner's rating history, and if anyone bothered to even look at that before
awarding him a life title - after all, staff people are getting paid for
this! If the process is none too clear, then it is unlikely he is the only
recipient of an award, no? And if no one has looked at the issue, then its
going to happen again in 2007.

Then find out who authorised a ton of old Chess Life magazines to be moved
from New York to Tennessee and mixed up with both the [unindexed!]historical
archive and current business papers.

There is plenty of work for board members to do in their own shop, and even
a primary responsibility for them to attend to just that. Having sorted
those things out, then, and only then, can the role of other parties be even
known, nevermind fairly assessed.

If this secret [lol, not completely secret] contract cannot be shown in
public, then what is the value of this vast excursion involving other
parties - its politiks! nothing other than the most obvious sort of
remonstration against the aspirations of other parties - the point of these
messages is WHY it is not shown, and WHY therefore, the matter is still
exhibited in public?

I also note that my question about USCF's role in 'erroneous' contracting
has gone unanswered - but maybe no one cares but me [and all the absent
sponsors these past 10 years?]

Whose responsibility is it to oversee contracts; did they perform their job
responsibly; and if not, what /systemic/ measures have been taken to correct
these matters from happening in 2007?

None of those involve anyone else but USCF, and kiting the issue around
without attending to what /can/ be addressed is as if to declare complete
lack of care and responsibility. So what's new?

USCF lurches forward until the next scandal, never admitting its own role in
its own fate, nevermind doing anything about it. This scandalising has to
stop otherwise no further 'opinions' can be seen as the least sincere
attention to what the USCF board is charged to do. The dearth of sponsors
and partners is NOT an unrelated subject.

So you guys should get your heads down and fix your own systemic sieve which
leaks money, good will and any effort to amplify a pretty weak signal.

My biggest personal concern in USCF engaging any stronger forces in chess is
that it will let any resulting increase bleed away.

Thus the value of deploying someone such as S. Polgar within USCF is
problematic. She is not just a very strong figure on the US chess scene, but
also on the world scene. People should get some sense of proportion here,
and by all means clean out the stables so that any real increment to US
chess will not get mired in the muck and sloth of the past, therefore
wasted.

Do that, do your job, or resign. Don't write me more complaints.

Phil Innes