![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: brings, controversies, ernie, four, part, schlich |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Controversy Number Four
Ernie Schlich collected the signatures on Company Time. Ernie Schlich collected the signatures while on the USCFs time-clock. Ernie collected the signatures while he was working as director of the National Junior High School Championship in Louisville, Kentucky, which was held April 7-9, 2006. Ernie Schlich was employed by the USCF to be a director of that tournament. So, he did not merely collect the signatures during a period of time when he was an employee. He collected the signatures while he was a USCF official working for the USCF at a USCF event. http://www.uschess.org/tournaments/2006/jhs/ http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain....641.0-10212995 This seems to clearly violate the bylaw which states: Section 4: "An employee of the USCF may not be nominated for election to the Executive Board". This raises ethical questions as well. Can a person use his position as director of an official USCF national event to get players in that event to sign his petition to run for office? This is in addition to the fact that Ernie has been working in the USCF office in Crossville training new hires to do the job he did as a regular staff member. Grant Perks, who is also a candidate, but is in a questionable position because he works for the USCF as an accountant, but seasonally, defends Ernie by saying that Ernie may have collected the signatures while on his lunch break! This, however, is hardly the point. Ernie was at the event as a USCF official. Here is an official asking a player in a tournament to sign a petition to nominate himself as a candidate. This is clearly improper. At 10:10 AM 4/27/2006 -0500, Mike Nolan wrote: TDs at national events are not considered employees, they do not receive benefits, there are no taxes withheld from their checks, they are not eligible for worker's compensation. They do not receive a W-2. (If they receive $600 or more during the course of a calendar year, they do receive a 1099 as an independent contractor, as required by law.) All of the members of the Election Committee have responded to the poll questions in the negative, that neither Ernie Schlich nor Grant Perks were USCF employees and thus ineligible to run for the Board. No member of the Bylaws Committee has said otherwise. I consider this a closed issue. -- Mike Nolan, Chair, USCF Election Committee Co-Chair, USCF Bylaws Committee _______________________________________________ uscf-election site list http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/uscf-election Mr. Nolan, Can you cite any specific provision of the USCF by-laws or rules or any IRS Rule or any provision of Kentucky or Tennessee Law which exempts an employee of the USCF from being an employee just because he is working as a TD at a National Tournament? Since Ernie Schlich works as a TD at virtually every national chess event, it is likely that he earned more than $600 last year. Can you tell us how much money was reported on the 1099 form that Ernie Schlich received from working for the USCF in 2005? You seem to be sliding down a slippery slope here. Everybody will agree that simply organizing or directing a USCF rated tournament does not constitute employment by the USCF. However, there are a few tournaments, although not many, which the USCF directly runs. I believe that the US Open is awarded to bidders, so the paycheck Ernie would be receiving would come from the successful bidder, not from the USCF. However, the National Junior High School Championship in Louisville where Ernie circulated a petition and collected the signatures to run was one of the few events which the USCF directly runs and does not bid out. Therefore, Ernie got paid directly by the USCF. I am not aware of any provision in the USCF by-laws which says that his working there was exempt. Can you cite one? Sam Sloan At 12:00 PM 4/27/2006 -0500, Mike Nolan wrote: Can you cite any specific provision of the USCF by-laws or rules or any IRS Rule or any provision of Kentucky or Tennessee Law which exempts an employee of the USCF from being an employee just because he is working as a TD at a National Tournament? TDs are not USCF employees, Sam. They aren't on the payroll, they receive a fee for specific contracted services, which is why they get a 1099. Since both the Code of Conduct and the Delegate Actions of Continuing Interest place some limitations upon the extent to which Executive Board members may serve as TDs at national events, BUT DO NOT PROHIBIT IT, it is clear that the Delegates did not consider Executive Board members employees when passing those motions. -- Mike Nolan Sorry Mike but I just do not see how it is possible that a person who does work for the USCF and is paid by the USCF is not an employee, irrespective of whether he receives a 1099 Form rather than a W-2 Form. Let us take the case of Mike Nolan for example. You do a lot of work for the USCF including writing this letter to me. You also do computer work such as designing and maintaining the website and the MSA and the TLAs. I am sure that you are adequately paid for your services, or at least I hope that you are. I suspect that at the end of the year you receive a 1099 Form, not a W-2 Form. If that is the case, according to your interpretation and analysis, you could run for USCF Office. In addition, Dan Lucas could run, Paul Hoffman could run, Glenn Petersen could run, and indeed everybody except for a few hourly workers in Crossville could run. In short, the rule that employees cannot run would be meaningless. Let me just pause to say that you are doing a wonderful job especially with the MSA and enabling online submission of tournament results. (That was a task that Ernie Schlich was never able to get done when he had that job, by the way.) You are also doing great work on the searchable TLAs. However, I do not think it would be proper for you or for Ernie Schlich to run for the board. Sam Sloan At 04:12 PM 4/27/2006 -0700, lawrence cohen wrote: --- Sam Sloan wrote: At 12:00 PM 4/27/2006 -0500, Mike Nolan wrote: Can you cite any specific provision of the USCF by-laws or rules or any IRS Rule or any provision of Kentucky or Tennessee Law which exempts an employee of the USCF from being an employee just because he is working as a TD at a National Tournament? Please see: Delegate Actions Of Continuing Interest #13. This limits EB members from being a TD at more than 1 National Tournament. It specifically states that PRIOR to election to the EB does not count! -Larry Cohen Thank you. Very good point. I will use this because Ernie Schlich is the TD at ALL the National Tournaments. Almost any time there is a major tournament, especially a tournament directly run by the USCF, Ernie Schlich will be working there as a TD. This is exactly the problem. Most USCF members will see Ernie Schlich working at a tournament, but will rarely if ever see any of the other candidates there. This gives Ernie an unfair and insurmountable advantage. It also gives him the opportunity to campaign while directing. Sam Sloan Sorry Mike but I just do not see how it is possible that a person who does work for the USCF and is paid by the USCF is not an employee, irrespective of whether he receives a 1099 Form rather than a W-2 Form. If I hire a carpenter to fix my front door, he is not an employee, he is an independent contractor. He does a specific task for a fee. There are around 30 employees of the USCF, they are not eligible to run for the Board while they are USCF employees. But Ernie Schlich is not a USCF employee, nor is Grant Perks. I'm not sure if Grant was ever on the payroll but Ernie was, some years ago, and Randy Hough some years before that. However, at this point none of them are on the USCF payroll. If they work as TDs at a national event they are independent contractors, just like my carpenter. I'm an independent contractor as well, I receive a 1099 from the USCF. However, I am not running for the Board. -- Mike Nolan |
| Ads |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
The distinction between an independent contractor is a well established
legal concept, which would explain why Sam in not familiar with it. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Scam Sloan is doing is called a smear.
We expect 1. more smears from Scammie once the election heats up 2. silence from Larry Parr concerning Scammie's many lies and misstatements (while at the same time excoriating others for alleged mistakes that, even if true, are less than 1/10th the magnitude of Scammie's). And so it goes. "Vince Hart" wrote in message oups.com... The distinction between an independent contractor is a well established legal concept, which would explain why Sam in not familiar with it. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | 4 | May 1st 06 12:06 PM |
| Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | 3 | May 1st 06 12:06 PM |
| Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies, part 2 | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | 4 | April 29th 06 12:51 AM |
| Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies, part 2 | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | 4 | April 29th 06 12:51 AM |
| Ernie Schlich brings on Four Controversies, part 3 | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | 2 | April 28th 06 11:17 PM |