"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...

I have only one vote on the board. I have not been able to stop the
improper payments and the financial hemorrhaging. Optimists on the
board say we will lose ONLY $50,000 this year.

Which optimists?

I say unless immediate
measures are taken, we will lose AT LEAST $150,000 and possibly
considerably more.

What measures?

In meetings with the board, I have consistently advocated specific
changes that must be made RIGHT NOW to stop losses by increasing
revenues and reducing expenses.

What could those be?

Other board members

Who?

say it is
POLITICALLY

What does that word mean in this context? Some unnamed board member[s] do
not wish to raise the issue of staff performance because it will have
adverse effect on their own prospects?

If there is something to do, that can specifically be done, then by all
means be as specific in your reporting of it - otherwise it all to do with
'others' and nothing to do with poor you! This, quite often is what others
say too, they say it is others problem.

UNACCEPTABLE to make any changes now and this must wait
until after the election.

AFTER THE ELECTION will be too late!!

I am a man of action. Everybody who knows me will tell you I get
things done.

What any electorate is looking for are people who will get things done - but
the tone of this missive is you cannot get things done because of the vague
postures you suggest of the others, about the vague issues you raise,
without mentioning what is to be done.

I can point that out from here.

Phil Innes

Two things we need to do are expand scholastic chess and
elderly chess. As people age, they want to keep their minds active.
Tournament chess would be an ideal way to help them accomplish this.
The baby boomers are a vast pool of potential members.

You will have seen strident attacks by some of my election opponents
and their anonymous Internet trolls. You should ask yourself, "Why do
all these people keep attacking Sam Sloan? Is it because he really is
one of the worst people in the world, or is it because, since he was
elected last year, their gravy train has slowed?"

Most of the other candidates and continuing board members are
insiders, the same people who were there when the USCF lost $2
million. Are you going to keep them there or return them to power? Are
you going to believe they will bring prosperity to the USCF if
elected, when their actual record is one of milking the membership
funds for their own benefit?

I have specific plans and programs which I believe will bring
prosperity back to the USCF. I am available by phone or email to
discuss this at any time. Are you going to give the USCF a chance to
prove that it can be done, or are you going to return control of your
federation to the same crusty curmudgeons who lost the $2 million in
the first place?