Everybody seems to have overlooked this quote by Donna.

The fact is that the USCF has been heavily promoting Polgar not only
during 2003, but right up to the present day. Her name is mentioned in
a favorable way in every issue of Chess Life. One would not imagine
that Polgar has played very little and done very little since 1996
other than promote herself. Polgar has played in only four major or
significant rated chess events since 1996. All of the publicity she
gets in Chess Life are promotions of her self. Meanwhile, there is no
mention of our top women chess players who actually PLAY chess and do
not just pose for pictures taken by her husband. How many have noticed
that Irina Krush has gained rating points in each of her last seven
tournaments and that Irina Krush defeated US Champion Shabalov in her
last outing? Krush has almost caught up to the inactive Polgar and may
pass her soon.

This is also not to mention the fact that Polgar picked up a lot of
her rating points by playing matches against grandmasters on the
Internet where she won every game, but then she was accused of
cheating in those Internet chess matches. These facts too are being
suppressed.

In short, Susan Polgar is a serious candidate for election only
because the USCF shamelessly promoted her by helping her to create the
image that is now the one the public sees today, and now Ms. Polgar
attacks the very same people, including myself, who were helping to
provide her with that promotion.

Sam Sloan

On Jun 22, 7:25 am, samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACP Pertaining to the SPF - Niro conflict of interest... The significant part of the issue is that USCF received a legal opinion pertaining to a contract that Mr. Niro signed with Ms. Polgar or one of her organizations pertaining to the Olympiad. When that opinion was requested, the Executive Board did not know that Mr. Niro was a director for the SPF. That was only recently discovered. Would the legal opinion have been different had the attorney known of the potential conflict of interest? Would the attorney have asked a different set of questions? It's a little late in the game to play Monday Morning quarterback to get those answers. The cost to obtain them could very well be more than the settlement that was made.

Nothing wrong at all. Just sour grapes now.


Everybody seems to have overlooked this quote by Donna.

The fact is that the USCF has been heavily promoting Polgar not only
during 2003, but right up to the present day. Her name is mentioned in
a favorable way in every issue of Chess Life. One would not imagine
that Polgar has played very little and done very little since 1996
other than promote herself. Polgar has played in only four major or
significant rated chess events since 1996. All of the publicity she
gets in Chess Life are promotions of her self. Meanwhile, there is no
mention of our top women chess players who actually PLAY chess and do
not just pose for pictures taken by her husband. How many have noticed
that Irina Krush has gained rating points in each of her last seven
tournaments and that Irina Krush defeated US Champion Shabalov in her
last outing? Krush has almost caught up to the inactive Polgar and may
pass her soon.

How many of the other women have someone of Paul Truong's skill
promoting them?
Again, you assertation is flawed.

This is also not to mention the fact that Polgar picked up a lot of
her rating points by playing matches against grandmasters on the
Internet where she won every game, but then she was accused of
cheating in those Internet chess matches. These facts too are being
suppressed.

Lies generally die a quick death these days except when they are
promoted by you Sam.

In short, Susan Polgar is a serious candidate for election only
because the USCF shamelessly promoted her by helping her to create the
image that is now the one the public sees today, and now Ms. Polgar
attacks the very same people, including myself, who were helping to
provide her with that promotion.

Sam Sloan

LOL. Don't you wish? She is a serious canidate because she has an
interest beyond the short term petty politics you so enjoy.

Susan and Paul, Randy and Mr Korenman are what is needed. Visionaries
and honest administrators.
Rob

Rob wrote:

Directorships in many non-profit foundations are mearly honoary. hey
have no pay and the boards simple rubber stamp things. I would say
Niro probably had very little actual activity in the foundations daily
running.

Except they are there to specifically align interest, show support, and
or provide marketing.

It doesn't matter if they *do* anything.

The problem here is in it's undisclosed nature, and the fact that money
was changing hands.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with mutual interest.
Especially about something like promoting chess.

The problem comes from lack of transparency, and the more the interests
are intertwined, the more important transparency is.

On Jun 22, 10:35 am, JohnnyT wrote:
Rob wrote:
Directorships in many non-profit foundations are mearly honoary. hey
have no pay and the boards simple rubber stamp things. I would say
Niro probably had very little actual activity in the foundations daily
running.

Except they are there to specifically align interest, show support, and
or provide marketing.

It doesn't matter if they *do* anything.

The problem here is in it's undisclosed nature, and the fact that money
was changing hands.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with mutual interest.
Especially about something like promoting chess.

The problem comes from lack of transparency, and the more the interests
are intertwined, the more important transparency is.

I was referring to the Susan Polgar FOundation.
I do not know, but I suspect the he may have been asked to serve as a
non compensated director in her foundations board after he was ED of
the USCF. UNless his contract strictly forbids him from serving on the
board of a not for profit, I don't see any problem. It's just another
Sloan smoke and mirror trick!
Rob

Rob wrote:

I was referring to the Susan Polgar FOundation.
I do not know, but I suspect the he may have been asked to serve as a
non compensated director in her foundations board after he was ED of
the USCF. UNless his contract strictly forbids him from serving on the
board of a not for profit, I don't see any problem. It's just another
Sloan smoke and mirror trick!
Rob


You do not see why board membership should be undisclosed from one board
to another where they have contractual relationships? Really? Wow.

Ok, I do not share your view of the world. And I don't think many
others will either.

"JohnnyT" wrote in message
. ..
Rob wrote:

I was referring to the Susan Polgar FOundation.
I do not know, but I suspect the he may have been asked to serve as a
non compensated director in her foundations board after he was ED of
the USCF. UNless his contract strictly forbids him from serving on the
board of a not for profit, I don't see any problem. It's just another
Sloan smoke and mirror trick!
Rob


You do not see why board membership should be undisclosed from one board
to another where they have contractual relationships? Really? Wow.

A fair point.

Ok, I do not share your view of the world. And I don't think many others
will either.

Yet the President of USCF runs the largest competition to its own
tournaments, the CCA. This is by no means placed into any blind-trust of
management issues, and the President can even recommend his own employee to
the board, Mr. Lux, without even disclosing his relationship to him or to
his own business.

I'm with you, if you are saying that business relationships with non-profits
should have some oversight - but you should know that this is a MASSIVE joke
at present, since it would be the first time this was ever encountered at
USCF as anything actually considered as a policy measure

What measures do you, Johnny, think should be in place to defeat any
potential self-dealing by board members?

Cordially, Phil Innes

The difference is everybody knew that Bill Goichberg was president of
the CCA and they elected him anyway.

Nobody knew that Frank Niro was a director and founder of the Susan
Polgar Foundation while at the same time he was paying Polgar under
the table with USCF Funds.

Sam Sloan

Chess One wrote:
"JohnnyT" wrote in message
. ..
Rob wrote:

I was referring to the Susan Polgar FOundation.
I do not know, but I suspect the he may have been asked to serve as a
non compensated director in her foundations board after he was ED of
the USCF. UNless his contract strictly forbids him from serving on the
board of a not for profit, I don't see any problem. It's just another
Sloan smoke and mirror trick!
Rob

You do not see why board membership should be undisclosed from one board
to another where they have contractual relationships? Really? Wow.

A fair point.

Ok, I do not share your view of the world. And I don't think many others
will either.

Yet the President of USCF runs the largest competition to its own
tournaments, the CCA. This is by no means placed into any blind-trust of
management issues, and the President can even recommend his own employee to
the board, Mr. Lux, without even disclosing his relationship to him or to
his own business.

I'm with you, if you are saying that business relationships with non-profits
should have some oversight - but you should know that this is a MASSIVE joke
at present, since it would be the first time this was ever encountered at
USCF as anything actually considered as a policy measure

What measures do you, Johnny, think should be in place to defeat any
potential self-dealing by board members?

Cordially, Phil Innes




Actually Phil, I have very little problem with self-dealing. Self
dealing is often the most straightforward way to get something done, and
aligning of interests is often reasonable. It is often really hard or
expensive to do it any other way.

The problem is transparency. All self-dealers should stand up to the
fact, and be examined. Often it will be just fine, and the results
would be good. Transparency will make it more difficult to act
malevolently, which is the part that is bad.

Preventing self-dealing means that the watchdogs are too lazy, or the
players too evil to act in the right way. Simply having sunshine rules
is simple enough, then the membership can decide.

On Jun 22, 5:14 pm, samsloan wrote:
The difference is everybody knew that Bill Goichberg was president of
the CCA and they elected him anyway.

Nobody knew that Frank Niro was a director and founder of the Susan
Polgar Foundation while at the same time he was paying Polgar under
the table with USCF Funds.

Sam Sloan

Was he a board member BEFORE or after he was USCF director? Bring us
FACTS Sam, not conjecture.

ANd I have to say I serve on several non- profit boards and I have no
reason to disclose that to anyone. Now, If I had a contract that said
I must disclose, then I would. BUt the fact is, all that is being done
is damning someone without facts,trial or defense. It is all a clever
red herring to distract from the real issues.
ANd the real issues are what has the current board done to prosper
chess and meet it's mission statement? What constructive actions has
Mr. Sloan made?

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:46:27 -0700, Rob wrote:

On Jun 22, 5:14 pm, samsloan wrote:
The difference is everybody knew that Bill Goichberg was president of
the CCA and they elected him anyway.

Nobody knew that Frank Niro was a director and founder of the Susan
Polgar Foundation while at the same time he was paying Polgar under
the table with USCF Funds.

Sam Sloan

Was he a board member BEFORE or after he was USCF director?

WHILE.