The real issue here is that the rule that an employee may not be a
board member or a candidate for election to the board is not just a
USCF rule. It is a standard rule that applies generally to all not-for-
profit corporations.

Not-for-profit corporations do not have to pay taxes. If employees
could be board members and run the organization then all corporations
would convert to not-for-profit status, just to avoid the payment of
taxes.

This issue never came up until recently because in all the years that
I have been a USCF member since 1956 I do not recall it ever happening
that the lines between being a board member and an employee were ever
blurred. However, in the last few years there have been several
dubious cases, the 2006 election being one of them. In the 2006
election, two of the candidates were doing office work for the USCF.
In the 2005 election, Bill Goichberg was employed as Executive
Director and then resigned just in time to announce that he was
running for the board. In the 2007 election, Polgar claimed to have a
contract to write a monthly column in Chess Life magazine for five
years (although this turned out not to be a signed contract, but a
verbal contract based in part on email exchanges) and nevertheless ran
for the board.

These questions need to be addressed, and that is probably the reason
why Larry Cohen raised the issue in starting this thread.

Sam Sloan

In the case of the USCF, since the USCF loses money every year, it
would make no difference.

However, back when Al Lawrence was Executive Director and the USCF was
hugely profitable, I understand that there was at least one IRS
investigation of the USCF.

Let us hope that someday the USCF starts making money again and the
IRS has reason to come back.

I realize that this is the opposite of the question you are actually
asking.

Sam Sloan

As I understand it, Ernie was being paid for some of the work he did
but was not paid for some of the other work he did. In particular, he
was not paid for bringing the delinquent FIDE rating reports up to
date.

Ernie was also a long time USCF office employee. He was technical
director for many years. Other than working for the USCF, Ernie, had
no other job. His only other income was his retirement check from the
Navy.

I believe that Ernie is quite happy that he was not elected. His
campaign petition was circulated by Robert Tanner not by Ernie, and
Tanner also paid the $250 filing fee for Ernie to run. Ernie was never
very enthusiastic about running for election.

Now, the question is, who paid the $250 filing fee for Polgar and
Truong, or was it paid?

Sam Sloan

If you do not see the relevance, then kindly explain why every not-for-
profit corporation has a rule that employees cannot be a member of the
board.

Sam Sloan

Jerry Hanken wrote:


Sam knows the problems that are being dealt with. Mainly the pension plan
for which this EB had no part in creating and the investigation of the
Internet
imposter who could not have thought they could have gotten away with the
sham
without Sam' long history of reckless posts. Sam's description of the
latest EB meetings is another creation of a fevered mind.When Sam was on
the EB
for that aberrant and unfortunate year, the Board wasted half it's
deliberatetive time dealing with Sam' pet obsessions time and time
again..I just don't
have time to answer any more silly questions, Sam, give it a rest! Jerry
Hanken


Yes, Sam Sloan's obsession is obvious, and it is indeed silly. OTOH, other
alternatives, like your own milieu are simply less evident perversions to
any topic of what progresses us.

No-one, it seems, in office, or in influence, has time to say what does
further us, since that would require transcending egos, and those who pull
the strings are already reaching for the dictionary.

Phil Innes

samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolan You made the statement: Quote: If employees could be board members and run the organization then all corporations would convert to not-for-profit status, just to avoid the payment of taxes. You should explain what you mean. Corporations cannot convert to not- for-profit status just because they want it, they have to meet the IRS's requirements for the type of not-for-profit status they're applying for. And I don't see where employees being on the Board has any relevance here.

If you do not see the relevance, then kindly explain why every not-for-
profit corporation has a rule that employees cannot be a member of the
board.

Sam Sloan


Already refuted. Somehow Sloan didn't get around to crosspostingit.

Mike Nolan wrote:

Not every not-for-profit has that rule, nor is it required under
Illinois law.

The Illinois Attorney General has a web page with advice for board
members of not-for-profits (http://
www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/ ... teers.html) which includes this:

"If a board member is also an employee, compensation can be paid
but the employee/board member should not participate in setting his or
her compensation."