On Apr 3, 8:45 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

ups.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisfalter Quote: Originally Posted by SamSloan To everyone's surprise, the Executive Director reported back a few days later that Polgar had agreed to this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisfalter I have never seen Polgar act with less than 100% integrity in her financial affairs, so I am not surprised at all.

THE PROLOG

I have known Miss Polgar for 22 years.

Well, cough while that may be true, it seems she has known Sam Sloan
rather less over the same period. In a different sense I have known Michael
Adams since he was 4'12" tall, or for 40-some years. He probably wouldn't
know me from, er, Adam.

You have known her for what, three months? If indeed you know her at
all.

Who do you think knows her better?

THINKING REDUX

An interesting question. Perhaps an even better one is what amount of
'knowledge' has been digested and been converted to 'understanding'.

MEANWHILE... BACK AT THE FORUM

1) Don Schultz has made his own response on the Forum, which answer nothing,
and Bill Hall has said less [the new Openess in action!]

2) Board members bore members with 'we were not consulted' commentaries
about especially the Ex Dir, but fail to mention if they /needed/ to be
consulted, of if the Ex Dir acted outside of his contracting scope.

3) When the issue of Frank Niro's action arose, it seems that he did not act
outside his powers, and despite board 'concern' by Schultz and Marinello,
nothing actually changed in terms of his scope of contracting.

4) I keep seeing references to amounts of monies, expressed as $30,000, eg.
though understood these to be amounts /in kind/, and from my own analysis of
CL rates, represent the retail worth of space. The wholesale worth seems
more like $20,000.

ETHICS TOO!

5) Are board members or candidate members /required/ to state other position
held, for direct or indirect financial appreciation of any conflicting
interests?

Example 1: current board member Hough is a CJA official, and board
president Goichberg owns CCA. Does Mr. Hough's position inhibit fair
reporting on USCF by either favouring CJA with news, or depressing reporting
by others?

Example 2: does Mr. Goichberg's ownership of the largest tournament
entity in the USA complete with the second largest tournament entity, USCF?
He is president of both.

Example 3: what roles or relationships, if any, are held at Chesscafe,
who is the vendor for USCF's B&E business?

6) A Chessville question put to Mr. Hall, which he has declined to Answer,
addresses the responsibility he has compared with the responsibility of Mr.
Goichberg, or of their respective offices as Ex Dir and President. By not
answering the question, then whatever contracting role Mr. Hall conducts is
obscured, since it can't be known who else shares the decision making
process.

7) Laying problems of contracting at the door of the Ex Dir's office is
therefore a moot factor, since we do not know anything about his contracting
role which could range from Zero to Absolute.

8) Skating issues based on vendor-relations with USCF's miasmic organisation
is misleading! No politician at USCF has answered any of the above, which,
let's face it, is something they CAN do about fixing USCF procedures while
they are in office. It does not interest me to read what they /would/ do,
since all management is a negotiation of the art of the possible - and such
responses as from Don Schultz yesterday, that in 18 months he /would/ fix
President :: Ex Dir relationship, are replies not answers to what can be
done now.

NEW BOARD, NEW SHOES

9) The new board can continue on the same historical basis with ad hoc and
personality 'understandings' [a generous term] or they can convert the basis
of USCF's management to objective procedures and standards, which is to say,
they can adopt the right stance for any board of management, and not deploy
themselves by working IN the business, but can work ON the business. These
would indeed be new shoes to stand up in.

10) The candidate board member who most closely addresses these issues is
someone who often wrote here - Randy Bauer, who in his Chessville answers
identified these internal standards as the necessary and real foundation to
support a viable organisation, and indeed also noted that many current
practices were quite untenable to the extent that they are constant
liabilities. While I have personally not been in great accord with Mr. Bauer
over the years - I cannot fault him for taking on the least glamorous role
there is, but it terms of institutional praxis, perhaps the most important.

Phil Innes
Vermont


- Show quoted text -

Way too lucid for usenet.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Way too lucid for usenet.



Not really - we just ain't used to adult talk about chess. Anyway, several
things have evolved since yesterday, and here is another message where I ask
a couple of current board members about their own record, not their future
plans - since, after all, the two are related issues!

---


Now, for the first time I announce that I will try to
engage clubs
in partnership projects. I did this when I announced in my flyer
released
before this dialogue began.
Sincerely,
Don Schultz

OK. Let's start a civil debate on this subject.

What will these partnership projects entail?

How much money will this cost the USCF (we don't have any)?

Sam Sloan
----

Of the 3 types of question put to Mr. Hall, 3 were on finances, including
the current state thereof... Specifically the degree to which the Alarie
report [interim, Dec] was true. In effect this will evolve a budget status
for the new board.

I understand that some things are properly confidential, but under the New
Glasnost, money matters have become even more secret. Supposedly there will
be more communication by some means by unknown persons to an unknown
schedule, but what they will discuss is moot, since funding is either
unknown or completely taboo!

The budget report of March 14th, as third quarter report and last forecast,
is, it seems, even secret from the board, or sufficiently vague to allow
interpretation of from -$50k to -$300k.

P'raps if the current status can be known, which for both Don Schultz and
Sam Sloan is something they can do NOW, then future projects could be
/sensibly/ discussed: which at a minimum would involve surveying clubs to
what they need [=marketing!], and if there is a fit with USCF's need [which
is as yet undefined.] This is obviously an investigation that takes place
over time, and otherwise we got Ready, Fire, Aim, but having constructed the
cannon can't afford the cannon ball.

What is not really so creditable in forward looking ventures is neglecting
current responsibilities to know what's afoot during your own watch.

So what is it? Will the new board members start at either -$50k or -$300k in
the hole, and will this not require actually sacrificing some current
activity to stay level, nevermind starting new ones?

I say again - chess managers are in the business of the art of the possible,
and should be assessed on their performance, which at a minimum includes
knowing to the nearest quarter million dollars how the ship floats.

Phil Innes

Postscript: [I reserve a further note for Eric Johnson, and a potential
conversation on contracting, since that has proved contentious before, to
the extent that responsibility for policy and implementation have resulted
in law-suits, and as a contracting party USCF engages in those unsound and
dangerous practices I noted yesterday, in paraphrasing Randy Bauer - and
which cannot recommend it to any partner.]