George John effectively ptroves my case below. He admits that at the
2003 Delegates Meeting all that was presented was a "planning budget"
which was a budget to make a plan. The delegates did not approve or
vote upon a move to Crossville.

Also, further down, George John quotes "There was no decision made to
prevent a move to Crossville, only that other options were to be
considered first."

So, clearly, the matter was just under consideration. No final
decision had been made.

Then, still further down, George John contradicts himself by writing
"after the 2003 Board of Delegates ratified the McCrary Board's
decision to move to Crossville". But since there was no vote or even a
debate or discussion of the issue, how was the decision ratified?

It is also significant that by the conclusion of the of the August
2003 Delegates Meeting, four of the seven members of the Board either
resigned or there terms were up and the Executive Director also
resigned. The newly elected board included Tim Hanke who had
campaigned strongly in opposition to the move to Crossville. Thus, as
far as everyone was concerned, the Crossville Deal was either dead or
at the most under consideration. At the next meeting of the Board in
fact the Crossville Delegation complained that the board refused even
to talk to them. Later on, in 2004, as George John admits, the board
voted to receive bids, which meant that no decision had been made
regarding a move. For this reason, the issue did not come up during
the August 2004 delegate's meeting.

It was only after the City of Crossville wrote a letter in August 2004
threatening to file suit against the board that the board suddenly
voted in October 2004 to move to Crossville. The Delegates were never
given an opportunity to vote on this.

George John has not come to grips with the fact that he finished last
in the election, which means that the membership has rejected his
version of the events,

Sam Sloan

On 10 Aug 2005 11:19:02 -0700, "George John"
wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:
On 10 Aug 2005 08:50:04 -0700, "George John"
wrote:

[SNIP]

The 2003 Board of Delegates explicitly ratified the 2003 McCrary
board's decision to move to Crossville. Additionally, they approved a
distinct Crossville move budget.

No they did not. There was a budgetary item drawn up by Frank
Camaratta who was VP of Finance at the time but the move to Crossville
was never discussed, debated or put up for a vote.

I will let the readers draw their own conclusions by quoting from the
minutes of that meeting (see below). Note: the June 9 meeting
mentioned in the quote is where the 2003 McCrary board voted to move to
Crossville. The decision to move to Crossville was *explicitly*
discussed *during* the ratification motion. If the Board of Delegates
objected to this decision, this was the time to raise the objection,
but they did not.

I quote:

"Next to be considered was the ratification of the actions of the
Executive Board (EB) since the last Delegates' Meeting. Minutes of a
conference call held on June 9 were handed out to the Delegates and
were added to the actions to be ratified by Harold Winston. President
John McCrary read the motions as well. He and Harry Sabine presented
information about the planned move to Crossville, TN. Brochures about
Crossville and Cumberland County were available to everyone. President
McCrary noted that neither the sale of the building in New Windsor nor
the move have been finalized as yet. [SNIP] participated in the
discussion after which the motion passed.

DM03-07 - ADM 03-07 ([SNIP]): The delegates ratify all actions of the
Executive Board appearing in Minutes published in Executive Board
Newsletters and the Delegates' Call, since the conclusion of the 2002
Delegates' Meeting and the minutes of the Executive Board conference
call of June 9, 2003 that have been distributed to the USCF Delegates
at this meeting. PASSED"

"Delegates were given a printed report that included both as well as a
one page summary of the capital planning budget for the move to
Crossville, which will be considered separately after the approval of
the budget for operations."

"DM03-13 - NDM 03-40 - ([SNIP]): Moved, that the planning budget for
the Crossville move be adopted. PASSED"

By the time of the delegates meeting in 2004 it had already been
decided not to move to Crossville.

There was no decision made to prevent a move to Crossville, only that
other options were to be considered first. Nothing prevented an
Executive Board from reaffirming the 2003 McCrary Board's decision as
ratified by the 2003 Board of Delegates to move to Crossville.

That is why it was not discussed at
that meeting.

If the 2004 Board of Delegates did not want the USCF to move to
Crossville, they could have explicitly directed the Executive Board to
not move there. They did not. Therefore the Executive Board was
completely in its power to reaffirm the decision made by the 2003
McCrary board as ratified by the 2003 Board of Delegates.

[SNIP]


IMO, the first Marinello Board (2003-04) may have acted improperly when
they reopened the bidding, especially since it was done with *no*
justification. IMO, the reasons would have had to have been
compelling. To date I have seen no case made that there were
compelling reasons to look elsewhere.

The point is that they did re-open the bidding, which meant that they
had decided to reconsider the move to Crossville. There was nothing
improper about that.

That depends upon one's interpretation of the 2003 Board of Delegate
motion to ratify the McCrary Board's actions. There is sharp
disagreement on this, which has not been resolved to my satisfaction.

The second Marinello Board (2004-05) undid the mistake of the first
Marinello Board by reaffirming the move passed by the McCrary Board and
ratified by the 2003 Board of Delegates. IMO, this action was
necessary and proper.

Wrong, as usual. This question should have been presented to the
delegates, who would have voted against it.

IMO, after the 2003 Board of Delegates ratified the McCrary Board's
decision to move to Crossville, a later action of the Board of
Delegates would have been necessary *only* if an Executive Board wanted
to move to somewhere other than Crossville.

[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John

So, are you then claiming that if the Delegates take no action on the
matter this weekend at the meeting then they have NOT given their
approval?

Since USCF is IN Crossville right now, are you suggesting that the
Delegates never approved of them going there?

Is it your claim that the Board moved the entire office to Crossville
in a rogue move and that the delegates are outraged enough about it
that they intend to reverse this decision this coming weekend?

On 11 Aug 2005 07:38:29 -0700, "Bruce" wrote:

So, are you then claiming that if the Delegates take no action on the
matter this weekend at the meeting then they have NOT given their
approval?

Since USCF is IN Crossville right now, are you suggesting that the
Delegates never approved of them going there?

Is it your claim that the Board moved the entire office to Crossville
in a rogue move and that the delegates are outraged enough about it
that they intend to reverse this decision this coming weekend?

Actually, the USCF is NOT entirely in Crossville.

The claim that the USCF is entirely in Crossville is just propaganda
put out by the Marinello Gang.

The Chess Life magazine production and archives are still in New
Windsor.

Mike Nolan is doing the rating system from his burnt out home near
Omaha.

Most of the membership services are online now.

I am not sure how many people are in Crossville and what they are
doing, but I believe that there is a staff of seven there and they are
operating out of the basement of an abandoned church.

Sam Sloan

But you didn't answer the question. You said the Crossville deal is
"dead". Does that mean you believe USCF is returning to New Windsor?

Do you believe the new Board is definitely going to refuse to build the
building in Crossville?

Do you believe the Delegates will order the board to look to move
elsewhere? Why don't you make some specific predictions so we can see
how accurate they prove to be?

Did Mike Nolan move his home near Omaha after a fire in it? LMAO!

On 11 Aug 2005 12:28:46 -0700, "Bruce" wrote:

But you didn't answer the question. You said the Crossville deal is
"dead". Does that mean you believe USCF is returning to New Windsor?

Yes and No. The USCF is still in New Windsor. The magazine will stay
there for the time being. I think the USCF will ultimately find a new
home which will be neither New Windsor nor Crossville.

Do you believe the new Board is definitely going to refuse to build the
building in Crossville?

Yes. I am sure that the building will never be built.

Do you believe the Delegates will order the board to look to move
elsewhere? Why don't you make some specific predictions so we can see
how accurate they prove to be?

I believe that the delegates will vote to allow the new board to
decide what to do next.

Did Mike Nolan move his home near Omaha after a fire in it? LMAO!

I thought he always lived near Ohama.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:

[SNIP]

I thought he always lived near Ohama.

I thought he always lived near Yomama.

Big grin,

George

Sam Sloan wrote:

[SNIP]

Yes. I am sure that the building will never be built.

Let's engage in the unthinkable and assume for a moment that Sam Sloan
is correct. What would this possibly mean?

1) The loss of an asset appraised at $256,000
2) The possible loss of free rent until the building is complete
3) The $45,000 paid to the architect will likely be a waste
4) Whatever has been already paid to the construction company will be
lost, and depending on how far along the construction is there may be
demolition costs
5) We will likely have to pay sizable cancellation fees
6) We likely won't get a building custom made to our needs which will
likely adversely impact employee productivity
7) We will have short circuited a plan that had the support of two very
different Executive Boards
8) It will make it easier for insiders to move the USCF to a different
location, an expensive and disruptive proposition
9) We will have bailed out on one of the biggest and most public deals
of the USCF's history, damaging the organization's public image, and
making it less attractive to other businesses to partner with or
sponsor.

Best regards,

George John

On 11 Aug 2005 15:35:41 -0700, "George John"
wrote:


Sam Sloan wrote:

[SNIP]

Yes. I am sure that the building will never be built.

Let's engage in the unthinkable and assume for a moment that Sam Sloan
is correct. What would this possibly mean?

1) The loss of an asset appraised at $256,000
2) The possible loss of free rent until the building is complete
3) The $45,000 paid to the architect will likely be a waste
4) Whatever has been already paid to the construction company will be
lost, and depending on how far along the construction is there may be
demolition costs
5) We will likely have to pay sizable cancellation fees
6) We likely won't get a building custom made to our needs which will
likely adversely impact employee productivity
7) We will have short circuited a plan that had the support of two very
different Executive Boards
8) It will make it easier for insiders to move the USCF to a different
location, an expensive and disruptive proposition
9) We will have bailed out on one of the biggest and most public deals
of the USCF's history, damaging the organization's public image, and
making it less attractive to other businesses to partner with or
sponsor.

Best regards,

George John

All of these terrible things will be much better than spending more
than $600,000 to build a building that will be virtually worthless and
unsalable once built.

Plus, we can always sue Beatriz, Harry Sabine JH Graham and the City
of Crossville for our money back, although I realize that the courts
in Crossville would not be well receptive to such a suit.

Sam Sloan

Just out of curiosity what is the total amount of dollar damages that a
USCF lawsuit has ever netted?

I seem to recollect that duly elected officers of a Board could not be
sued for actions taken while acting as Board members. I'm not a lawyer
though and I still don't play one on tv either.

I think most likely the person's suing will be Crossville for breach of
contracts, if Sam's predictions turn out correct, but that's a topic
for a whole other discussion.

On 12 Aug 2005 00:44:21 -0700, "Bruce" wrote:

Just out of curiosity what is the total amount of dollar damages that a
USCF lawsuit has ever netted?

Zero

I seem to recollect that duly elected officers of a Board could not be
sued for actions taken while acting as Board members. I'm not a lawyer
though and I still don't play one on tv either.

Not true at all. Board members of corporations are often sued. Any
person who takes membership on any corporate board can expect to be
sued frequently.

I think most likely the person's suing will be Crossville for breach of
contracts, if Sam's predictions turn out correct, but that's a topic
for a whole other discussion.

I agree. I persionally doubt that Crossville will sue, but they
certainly might.

I would not recommend that the USCF file suit over this, just as I
always recommend against filing any suit, unless there is absolutely
no alternative.

Sam Sloan