"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
oups.com...
Was Bill's exit message fairly described?

"At the end of December 2004,
our operating account now has
enough to pay our bills with
about $250,000 left over." - Bill
Goichberg (February 2005 issue
of Chess Life)

"... the statement ... that as of
December 31 we had a $250,000
profit (exclusive of the sale of the
building) ..." - Stanley N. Booz
and Dr. Leroy Dubeck (May 2005
issue of Chess Life)

You missed the sentence from the Feb 2005 CL directly before your
quote:

They don't call him The Parser for nuttin.


"When I began as Office Manager in November of 2003, USCF owed about
$400,000 more than we had in the bank, and faced constant pressure from
creditors."

So the claim made was that from 11/03 to 12/04 the USCF went from
-$400,000 to +$250,000 or a "profit" of $650,000.

In addition, later in that article concerning B&E outsourcing:

"Most of the first year's sales income is not due until April, so is
not yet reflected in our financial reports"

which seems to suggest that additional "profits" would eventually be
attributed to this period.

In one sense the quote from the May issue may not be entirely correct.
Since the sale of the building and the income associated from that was
not mentioned anywhere in the Feb article, they were very generous in
not stating the February claim as $650,000 rather than just $250,000.

- Tom Martinak

I wrote (8 May 2005 08:53:17 -0700):
Like it or not, Booz/Dubeck referred to a
February "statement" about "profit (exclusive
of the sale of the building)" being $250,000
(as of December 31). To judge the
accuracy of this, one must decide whether
or not there was such a statement. Tom
Martinak has not even produced a sentence
with the word, "profit", so it would seem
that he can not produce a statement of
the sort that Booz/Dubeck described.

_
Vince Hart wrote (8 May 2005
09:34:43 -0700):

I believe that Tom Martinak more than
adequately laid out his basis for believing
that what Goichberg wrote could
reasonably be considered a
"statement" about "profits" and
why readers would reasonably
understand it so.

_
The truth of the matter is apparent from
Tom Martinak's own word choice: "implied"
"infer".
_
I have yet to see Tom Martinak (or Vince
Hart for that matter) identify a specific
Bill Goichberg quote as a February
"statement" about "profit (exclusive of
the sale of the building)" being $250,000
(as of December 31).

_
Vince Hart wrote (8 May 2005
09:34:43 -0700):

Rather than deal with the substance
of Martinak's position, Louis Blair
sidesteps the issue by narrowly
focusing on specific words and
throwing out the incredibly vague
accusation that Martinak has
"inappropriately adjust[ed] the
issue."

_
I think that I have been pretty specific
about what I have in mind. If Tom
Martinak wants to defend what Booz
/Dubeck actually wrote, he needs to
identify a specific Bill Goichberg quote
as a February "statement" about "profit
(exclusive of the sale of the building)"
being $250,000 (as of December 31).
_
If Tom Martinak wants to claim that the
inaccuracy was unimportant, that is
certainly something that can be
discussed, but the first step in such
a discussion is to acknowledge
the inaccuracy directly. Only time
will tell whether or not Tom Martinak
takes that step.

"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
oups.com...

I appreciate that you've put the word profit in
quotes, but the claim is not a statement about
profit, it is a claim about cash reserves, with
implications about solvency. The cash might come
from profits, recapitalization, or balance sheet
management. Profit has a specific meaning, and
using it otherwise creates ambiguity, even with
the quotes.

You might want to look at the entire Feb 2005 article and also consider
it from the standpoint of non-accountants. Nowhere does it include the
phrase "cash reserves", "recapitalization", "balance sheet management"
or any information on cash recieved from the sale of the building.
Instead the quotes given were immediatley preceeded by:

"After seven straight years in the red, with losses of over $200,000 in
most of them, fiscal 2003-4 was the best year in the Federation's
history with an audited surplus of $285,000. Fiscal 2004-5, which ends
May 31, seems on track for another good result."

Surplus is the correct term if you're splitting hairs. Nonprofits never have
profits. In David's analogy, the proper term is positive cash flow.

Bill had zip to do with any of this. The surplus and resulting increase in
cash flow was a direct result of the furloughs and the decision to
outsource. He is patting himself on the back with someone else's hand.

wrote in message
ups.com...

.... much better for all relavent emails to be available to all

NOW you've got it.

Bill Smythe

And that is exactly what my ADM will do.

Your administration?

I said And that is exactly what my ADM will do.

Stan Booz said: Your administration?

My reply: No Stan! ADM means Advanced Delegate Motion! It is the role
of delegates to submit ADMs. How could you possibly not know that? You
have been a committee chair. Committee chairs should review ADMs that
affect their areas of responsibility.

Don Schultz

wrote in message
oups.com...

My reply: No Stan! ADM means Advanced Delegate Motion! It is the role
of delegates to submit ADMs. How could you possibly not know that? You
have been a committee chair. Committee chairs should review ADMs that
affect their areas of responsibility.

I'm not a delegate.

I am quite willing to state my opinion that
Booz/Dubeck wrote something that was
inaccurate. It has to be noted that Tom
Martinak feels obliged to put qualifications
on his discussion of inaccuracy. It appears
that he also perceives that Booz/Dubeck
wrote something inaccurate.

I've already answered your original question, stated my opinion and
why: That the only inaccuracy was that the February article actually
claimed much more profit than the May article discussed.

But again you avoid what I feel is the real issue: "Reading the entire
relevent paragraph in the February 2005 column in CL, would a
reasonable person infer that there was a profit of $250,000 or more
during the period 11/03-12/04?"

And I certainly am willing to state my opinion that this is true. So
I've been answering your question and stating my opinion on mine. But
you are only willing to state your opinion on your own question. Why
are you avoiding answering my question?

I've been willing to answer your questions in the past and as soon as
you answer mine, I will be willing to continue doing that. But as long
as you avoid the issue that I think is important, I am only going to
make comments on your posts and not answer any questions. After all, a
discussion requires give and take and so far you have only been willing
to take.

- Tom Martinak

Louis Blair wrote:
I wrote (8 May 2005 08:53:17 -0700):
Like it or not, Booz/Dubeck referred to a
February "statement" about "profit (exclusive
of the sale of the building)" being $250,000
(as of December 31). To judge the
accuracy of this, one must decide whether
or not there was such a statement. Tom
Martinak has not even produced a sentence
with the word, "profit", so it would seem
that he can not produce a statement of
the sort that Booz/Dubeck described.

_
Vince Hart wrote (8 May 2005
09:34:43 -0700):

I believe that Tom Martinak more than
adequately laid out his basis for believing
that what Goichberg wrote could
reasonably be considered a
"statement" about "profits" and
why readers would reasonably
understand it so.

_
The truth of the matter is apparent from
Tom Martinak's own word choice: "implied"
"infer".
_
I have yet to see Tom Martinak (or Vince
Hart for that matter) identify a specific
Bill Goichberg quote as a February
"statement" about "profit (exclusive of
the sale of the building)" being $250,000
(as of December 31).

No you have seen it. You just have yet to admit it. Tom Martinak
quoted Bill's use of the term "audited surplus" which is synonymous
with "profit." Bill then projected the following year as "another good
result" with the word "another" referring back to the audited surplus
of the prior year.



_
Vince Hart wrote (8 May 2005
09:34:43 -0700):

Rather than deal with the substance
of Martinak's position, Louis Blair
sidesteps the issue by narrowly
focusing on specific words and
throwing out the incredibly vague
accusation that Martinak has
"inappropriately adjust[ed] the
issue."

_
I think that I have been pretty specific
about what I have in mind.

Yes and its idiotic.

If Tom
Martinak wants to defend what Booz
/Dubeck actually wrote, he needs to
identify a specific Bill Goichberg quote
as a February "statement" about "profit
(exclusive of the sale of the building)"
being $250,000 (as of December 31).
_
If Tom Martinak wants to claim that the
inaccuracy was unimportant, that is
certainly something that can be
discussed, but the first step in such
a discussion is to acknowledge
the inaccuracy directly.

I disagree completely. I think that the burden should be on you to
show that "inaccuracies" that you allege are something more than
trivialities and irrelevancies. That way the discussions might have a
chance to move forward rather than getting bogged down in nonsense like
whether someone "inappropriately adjust[ed] the issue."


Only time
will tell whether or not Tom Martinak
takes that step.

I think that I have been pretty specific
about what I have in mind. If Tom
Martinak wants to defend what Booz
/Dubeck actually wrote, he needs to
identify a specific Bill Goichberg quote
as a February "statement" about "profit
(exclusive of the sale of the building)"
being $250,000 (as of December 31).

As I said before, the question of whether the May article fairly
describes the February article depends upon what the February article
means. I have answered your question and explained why I felt it was
fair. You are certainly free to disagree with my views and may disagree
with my reasons for those views, but you need to answer my question
before I will feel there is any purpose to answering yours.

If Tom Martinak wants to claim that the
inaccuracy was unimportant, that is
certainly something that can be
discussed, but the first step in such
a discussion is to acknowledge
the inaccuracy directly. Only time
will tell whether or not Tom Martinak
takes that step.

But first I am waiting for you answer my question. Until I know what
information you think the February article actually conveyed to the
readers, it is not worthwhile for me to try to again explain my
position. Whether Louis Blair will answer my question (after I have
already been willing to answer his), only time will tell.

If Louis Blair wants to claim that the May article accurately described
the essence of the February article, but used a term which wasn't used
in the February article, then we could discuss whether that is
important. But the first step in such a discussion is to acknowledge
the inaccurate writing in the February column and the fair description
of that in May.

- Tom Martinak

All, Tom Martinak May 7, 1:20 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: "Tom Martinak" - Find messages by
this author
Date: 7 May 2005 10:20:29 -0700
Local: Sat,May 7 2005 1:20 pm
Subject: Misuse of Chess Life for Political Purposes
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



I appreciate that you've put the word profit in
quotes, but the claim is not a statement about
profit, it is a claim about cash reserves, with
implications about solvency. The cash might come
from profits, recapitalization, or balance sheet
management. Profit has a specific meaning, and
using it otherwise creates ambiguity, even with
the quotes.


You might want to look at the entire Feb 2005 article and also
consider
it from the standpoint of non-accountants. Nowhere does it include
the
phrase "cash reserves", "recapitalization", "balance sheet management"

or any information on cash recieved from the sale of the building.

"Our operating account now has enough to pay our bills with about
$250,000 left over" clearly indicates cash position (what we have) and
not profit (how we got there).

The sale of the building was not mentioned because I was talking
operating account, and the revenue from the building sale went to the
LMA, not operations.

Instead the quotes given were immediatley preceeded by:

"After seven straight years in the red, with losses of over $200,000
in
most of them, fiscal 2003-4 was the best year in the Federation's
history with an audited surplus of $285,000. Fiscal 2004-5, which ends
May 31, seems on track for another good result."


Not being an accountant, I don't know if "audited surplus" or "good
result" is the same thing as a profit, but for a non-accountant ears'
(and almost all the readers of CL will have those) it certainly sounds
like a profit.

Yes, an audited surplus is a profit, and the statement regarding the
audited profit was correct.

"On track for another good result" was also appropriate and claims no
specific number. Booz-Dubeck also expect a profit in 2004-05.

And immediately following that with the information that
the USCF went from -$400,000 to $250,000 in his year of service
(without any disclaimers of other issues) would certainly suggest that
he was still talking about "audited surplus" (or a surplus that will be

eventually audited).

Certainly not! Cash position is not the same as fiscal year profit.
Cash position comes about as a result of the cumulative profits and
losses of the entire existence of the organization.

A fuller quote from the February issue: "When I began as Office
Manager in November 2003, USCF owed about $400,000 more than we had in
the bank, and faced constant pressure from creditors. At the end of
December 2004, our operating account now has enough to pay our bills
with about $250,000 left over." This clearly is talking about cash
position (the ability to pay our bills), both the $400,000 and the
$250,000, not profit.

The idea that the administration is justified to misuse Chess Life to
attack a candidate one month before the election, in the guise of a
"financial report," because some people might confuse cash position
with profit, is truly bizarre.

The following Booz/Dubeck statement is clearly incorrect: "However, the
statement by former Acting Executive Director Bill Goichberg that as we
had a $250,000 profit (exclusive of the sale of the building) is now
known to be overstated by at least $150,000." This statement contains
three errors:

1. I made no statement at all regarding a $250,000 profit for the
2004-05 fiscal year or any other year, so saying that such a statement
"was overstated by at least $150,000" is wrong. The only number I gave
for profit was $285,000 for the 2003-04 fiscal year, and that is
correct.

2. I made no reference to "exclusive of the sale of the building." No
such reference was necessary because the proceeds of that sale went to
the LMA, and I wasn't talking about LMA finances.

3. I never was "Acting Executive Director."

You might be correct if the February 2005 article was something sent
to
the Finance Committee, Audit Committee, VP-Finance, etc, but it was
instead sent to the general membership.

It is the Booz-Dubeck "report," not my farewell message, that contains
misinformation. Here is some mo

4. Booz-Dubeck claim that I presented the Board with a $2 million dues
revenue estimate. The truth is that was a preliminary estimate and
after obtaining better 2004 numbers two days before the budget meeting,
I lowered my estimate.

5. Booz-Dubeck claim that "President Marinello and the Board majority
chose the $1.8 million estimate." This is misleading as the
implication is that the ED and other Board members opposed $1.8 million
and supported $2 million. The truth is that everyone at the meeting
supported $1.8 million.

6. Booz-Dubeck write, "As of the writing of this article, an
extrapolation of present dues received suggests that we will realize a
total of slightly more than $1,800,000 in the current fiscal year and
thus nearly $200,000 less than the $2 million estimate. Had the larger
estimate been adopted in the budget, we could be facing another
operational deficit this year." The current USCF CFO, Grant Perks,
wrote me a few days ago to say, "With regard to membership revenue,
through March we are at $1.6 million. Annualized, about $1.96 million.
Closer to $2 million than $1.8."

7. The Booz-Dubeck "Net Assets" chart shows a $46,515 loss for
operations in fiscal 2001. This is based on the audited report, but
subsequently a huge total of accounts payable was discovered that had
not been reported to the auditor. The following year, the auditor made
a "prior periods adjustment" of $268,000. Booz-Dubeck mention neither
the hidden invoices nor the prior periods adjustment. The effect of
omitting these facts is to make the results of Tim Redman's presidency
look much better than they actually were.

The above seven statements all seem clearly wrong. Do you think any of
them are correct, Tom? Which ones, and why?

Note also that the Finance Committee has co-chairs, Stan Booz and Jon
Haskel. Why was this "report" written only by just one Finance
co-chair plus the LMA chair, both of whom are partisans? Why was the
other Finance co-chair Jon Haskel, who I believe to be fair and
nonpolitical, not asked to be part of writing the "report?"

Bill Goichberg

- Tom Martinak