[quote="tsawmiller"]No. It is not. Members have to be allowed to ask questions, even
embarrassing questions, on this forum.

It is an accepted fact by everybody, with no disagreement, that two
million dollars of USCF membership money has gone missing since 1999.
I know nothing about the Meeting Link money or the financial situation
of the 2007 US Open, but I do know that these sort of problems have
come up every year and I and I believe a majority of USCF members
would like to find out more about this without interference from or
warnings from the moderators.

Sam Sloan

[quote="tsawmiller"]There won't be any interference or warnings from
moderators if questions are fact based and asked without innuendo...[/
quote]

Kindly tell me where in the AUG it says that "innuendos" are not
allowed.

Is it your mandate to protect the corrupt or incompetent entrenched
insiders from "innuendos"?

Sam Sloan

I am astounded to read this because I feel certain that this is not
true.

I never even heard the name "Meeting Link" before the current scandal
started a few days ago. Also, Bill Hall had no connection with the
USCF prior to 2005 so I do not see how he could have known that. Also,
there seem to be several companies with nearly the same name,
including meetinglink.com meetingslink.com and meeting-link.com .

I am not allowed to use the l-word so I would suggest that this is
just another example of incompetence.

Sam Sloan

The debate about this is raging over on the USCF Issues Forum but I
will try to explain here briefly what this is all about.

In early 2005, the USCF contracted to hold the 2007 US Open
Championship in Cherry Hill NJ. Accordingly, a contract was signed by
the New Jersey State Chess Federation with the leading hotel there to
provide a playing site for the tournament.

After the August 2005 USCF elections, a new board took power. Under
the new board, Diane Reese was the Events Manager. She contacted the
hotel and negotiated a slightly better deal.

Diane Reese had an exceptionally high salary by USCF standards,
especially for a stay-at-home job, and there were complaints about
this in a thread entitled "The Golden Girls".

In about March 2007, Diane Reese resigned as Events Manager just
before the major events, namely the national scholastic championships
which were her primary job to manage, were to be held. Questions were
raised about the fact that she had gotten a big check during the
months when she had nothing to do but now that she had something to do
she had resigned.

After the 2007 US Open was over, it was noticed that a "rebate check"
for $5600 was being paid to the USCF. When questions arose about this,
it came out that this was part of the fee that a previously unknown
organization named "Meeting Link" had received for arranging to have
the 2007 US Open held at the hotel in Cherry Hill.

Since the New Jersey State Chess Federation, and not the USCF, had
organized the 2007 US Open in Cherry Hill NJ, they felt that the New
Jersey State Chess Federation should get all or part of that $5600.

But the bigger question is how did "Meeting Link" get involved in
this. Why are they entitled to receive money out of this? It is said
that an older version of the Meeting Link website shows Diane Reese
working there. Is she double-dealing, getting paid by both the USCF
and Meeting Link, for arranging the locations for USCF Tournaments?

The US Open is a small event compared with the four National
Scholastic Tournaments. The National Elementary Championship gets over
2000 players. Counting the players and their parents, this may come to
over 5,000 room nights. It seems that Meeting Link may get a cut from
all of these room nights and there is or may be a long term contract
by the USCF with Meeting Link to provide these services.

Unfortunately, Bill Hall and the board members have been unresponsive
to questions about this. The fact that Bill Hall is being quoted as
saying that the USCF has had relations with Meeting Link since 2001,
which is absolutely not true, adds to the concerns about this.

By the way, this is the one scandal that I did not uncover. Others
uncovered this one. I am simply summarizing what others have
uncovered.

Sam Sloan

YET ANOTHER SCANDAL

Thanks to Sam for sharing this latest with us.
No surprise. The issue is which insiders have been
raking in payoffs.

Brian Lafferty: here, I believe, is an issue
that could merit police intervention.

Yours, Larry Parr



samsloan wrote:
The debate about this is raging over on the USCF Issues Forum but I
will try to explain here briefly what this is all about.

In early 2005, the USCF contracted to hold the 2007 US Open
Championship in Cherry Hill NJ. Accordingly, a contract was signed by
the New Jersey State Chess Federation with the leading hotel there to
provide a playing site for the tournament.

After the August 2005 USCF elections, a new board took power. Under
the new board, Diane Reese was the Events Manager. She contacted the
hotel and negotiated a slightly better deal.

Diane Reese had an exceptionally high salary by USCF standards,
especially for a stay-at-home job, and there were complaints about
this in a thread entitled "The Golden Girls".

In about March 2007, Diane Reese resigned as Events Manager just
before the major events, namely the national scholastic championships
which were her primary job to manage, were to be held. Questions were
raised about the fact that she had gotten a big check during the
months when she had nothing to do but now that she had something to do
she had resigned.

After the 2007 US Open was over, it was noticed that a "rebate check"
for $5600 was being paid to the USCF. When questions arose about this,
it came out that this was part of the fee that a previously unknown
organization named "Meeting Link" had received for arranging to have
the 2007 US Open held at the hotel in Cherry Hill.

Since the New Jersey State Chess Federation, and not the USCF, had
organized the 2007 US Open in Cherry Hill NJ, they felt that the New
Jersey State Chess Federation should get all or part of that $5600.

But the bigger question is how did "Meeting Link" get involved in
this. Why are they entitled to receive money out of this? It is said
that an older version of the Meeting Link website shows Diane Reese
working there. Is she double-dealing, getting paid by both the USCF
and Meeting Link, for arranging the locations for USCF Tournaments?

The US Open is a small event compared with the four National
Scholastic Tournaments. The National Elementary Championship gets over
2000 players. Counting the players and their parents, this may come to
over 5,000 room nights. It seems that Meeting Link may get a cut from
all of these room nights and there is or may be a long term contract
by the USCF with Meeting Link to provide these services.

Unfortunately, Bill Hall and the board members have been unresponsive
to questions about this. The fact that Bill Hall is being quoted as
saying that the USCF has had relations with Meeting Link since 2001,
which is absolutely not true, adds to the concerns about this.

By the way, this is the one scandal that I did not uncover. Others
uncovered this one. I am simply summarizing what others have
uncovered.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

In early 2005, the USCF contracted to hold the 2007 US Open
Championship in Cherry Hill NJ. Accordingly, a contract was signed by
the New Jersey State Chess Federation with the leading hotel there to
provide a playing site for the tournament.


After the August 2005 USCF elections, a new board took power. Under
the new board, Diane Reese was the Events Manager. She contacted the
hotel and negotiated a slightly better deal.


False. Reese held that title at least as far back as 2002.


Diane Reese had an exceptionally high salary by USCF standards,
especially for a stay-at-home job, and there were complaints about
this in a thread entitled "The Golden Girls".


Not exactly false, but grossly misleading. _You_ were the only one to
complain (or to use that insult). You can prove a lot of things if
you're allowed to use yourself as a source.

I don't have enough data to critique your other claims, but based on
the above, your credibility is low. Despite the evidence, I will not
call you an habitual liar. You're probably just a muttonhead.