The following email was sent to the Executive Board today:

Dear Executive Board:

The May issue of Chess Life, which just came out, includes an
"article'" which is little more than political propaganda, surely
extremely inappropriate, probably one of the greatest misuses of power
in USCF history.

This "article" by "Stanley N. Booz, CPA, Co-Chair Finance Committee and
Dr. Leroy Dubeck, Chair LMA Committee" appears prominently on page 7,
not far from the Executive Board candidates' statements which begin on
page 12. The "article" is perfectly timed to avoid the possibility of
a response in Chess Life in time for the election; had it appeared one
month earlier in the April issue, even though it would still have
represented a gross abuse of power, at least there would have been
plenty of time for a reply in the June issue that will contain the
ballots.

Even if this "article" was entirely factual, it would be improper, as
it praises "the majority on the Executive Board" (three of whom are
candidates) and attacks a candidate, myself. However, the "article" is
far from being factually correct.

Booz and Dubeck say in this article, "However, the statement in the
February Chess Life by former Acting Executive Director Bill Goichberg
that as of December 31 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 is an outrageous lie! My statement in the February Chess Life
said no such thing! What it did say was that "At the end of December
2004, our operating account now has enough to pay our bills with about
$250,000 left over." Most of this surplus was already there at the end
of the 2003-4 fiscal year in May, though, and did not represent a
2004-5 fiscal year profit. The only profit or surplus I referred to in
my statement was the 2003-4 fiscal year audited surplus of $285,000.
(NOTE: my error, should have said "The only profit I referred to...")

Also, my official title was "Executive Director," not "Acting Executive
Director." I applied for the job of "Executive Director" and the Board
accepted my application, and did not refer to me as "acting" or
"interim." When we had past EDs who were Acting or Interim, this was
reflected on our masthead. When I was in charge, the masthead said
"Executive Director."

Incidentally, my $250,000 estimate was based on what I heard from our
outgoing CFO, but shortly after, the new CFO updated our bank balances
and I was advised that the number might be slightly too large, so I
revised my article to change "with about $250,000 left over" to "with a
significant surplus left over." I have a copy of an email from Jean
Bernice dated Jan 7 confirming that the article would read "significant
surplus" and not "about $250,000." However, someone must have made a
mistake, because when the issue appeared, the old "about $250,000"
wording was there instead of "significant surplus."

The Booz/Dubeck "article" also says, "Acting Executive Director Bill
Goichberg felt that $2 million would be a conservative projection since
2004 membership revenues were expected to exceed $2 million. Past
President Leroy Dubeck made a more conservative estimate to the
Executive Board of $1.8 million, based on the assumption that
membership declines would likely continue for much of the year.
President Marinello and the Board majority chose the $1.8 million
estimate. As of this writing, 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 dollar estimate. Had the larger estimate been
adopted in the budget, we could be facing another operational deficit
this year."

Once again, this is an attack that would be outrageous even if
factually correct. However, it is incorrect that the Board chose
between my suggested number of $2 million and Leroy's number of $1.8
million. The truth is that $2 million was my initial suggestion based
on current year numbers I was looking at through 2/04, but shortly
after, the 3/04-4/04 membership numbers became available, they showed
less income than I expected, and I agreed to the $1.8 million number.
Thus, it is false to claim that the Board chose between my $2 million
number and Leroy's $1.8 million.

On May 20, two days before the Board's budget meeting, I wrote the
following to Leroy with copies to the Board:

I now have figures for March and April membership income. In March
we took in $182,340.65 for one year memberships, $10,477 two year
($5238.50 with an equal amount deferred) and $19,443 three year ($6481
with the balance deferred). This totals $194,060.15 not counting the
deferred amounts. In April we collected $128,720.90 one year, $14,365
two year ($7182.50 with an equal amount deferred) and $20,913 three
year ($6971 with the balance deferred). This comes to $142,874.40 not
counting the deferred amounts.

The membership total revenue for 11 months is now $1,803,299 which is
a bit less than I expected. The total for the year seems likely to be
only $1,940,000 to $1,950,000, which makes your $1,800,000 estimate for
next year look better.

And once again, this attack incorrectly refers to me as the "Acting
Executive Director." Of course, my correct official former title,
"Executive Director," is more prestigious, and the use of a fictitious
title in Chess Life around election time is not a trivial matter.

The "article" also says, "President Marinello and the majority on the
Executive Board that supported her braved much criticism by making
those painful decisions. The authors believe that the membership owes
them a sincere debt of gratitude for taking the responsibility to make
these decisions." Whether this is true or not, it is a political
statement inappropriate in the magazine a month before the election
(and the truth is that the painful decision was to slash staff in
August 2003, and NONE of the incumbents now running for re-election
voted for those staff cuts- Shutt voted no, and the other two were not
even on the Board yet.)

The "article" also has a chart at the bottom supposedly showing USCF's
increase/decrease in net assets each fiscal year since 1997, together
with the name of the USCF President at year end (but not the name of
the ED, which has usually been included in such presentations in the
past.) This chart says, "Table based on audited financials from 1996
to 2004," but it presents long discredited figures from the 2001
audited report when Tim Redman (now, I believe, a Marinello supporter)
was President (that was the year that a fortune in unpaid invoices not
reported to the auditors was later discovered in the desk of CFO Jeff
Loomis.) The 2002 audited report restated USCF's net assets at the end
of the 2001 fiscal year downward by $268,353, yet Booz and Dubeck
choose to ignore this.

It is especially surprising that Booz should include the seriously
distorted 2001 audited numbers in his report, since he has publicly
ridiculed these numbers. For example, on March 22, 2002, Booz posted
the following on the newsgroup:

wrote in message
You saying Loomis deliberately concealed invoices to make
the
numbers look better?


I'm saying that last year's "profit" was overstated because not all the

accounts payable were recorded. It appears that there was some
negligence at the very least.

StanB


And on Nov 12, 2002, Booz posted the following:

Sorry but I have no confidence in anything Loomis and DeFeis issued.
Reason: The hiding of accounts payable, the sloppy condition of the
books, and the 350,000 of prior period adjustments discovered since the
dismissal of them there two quacks.

StanB

But now that it is election time, Booz apparently thinks it is OK to
present those 2001 numbers to the membership in a "report," numbers
that he once rightly ridiculed.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE NOW?

What should be done? How can some fairness be restored to the election
after this outrageous breach of ethical conduct? I suggest the
following:

1. Who was responsible for the publication of this garbage? I don't
think that Editor Glenn Petersen would have ever done such a thing, but
he has been seriously ill since the middle of March and out of the
office. I think the members have a right to know how this "article"
got into the May Chess Life. Who instructed staff to put it in?

2. I know it is very late and inconvenient, but think it is still
possible to get something into the June Chess Life, the one with the
ballots, and this would be the only fair way to correct the injustice
that has occurred. I believe that either I should be given some space
there to reply to Booz/Dubeck, or at least there should be a notice
there stating something like the following (after, of course, an
appropriate Board vote

"The Executive Board has decided to inform the membership that 'Report
on the Finances of the U.S. Chess Federation' by Stanley Booz and Leroy
Dubeck, which appeared in the May issue, contained serious
misstatements of fact regarding former Executive Director Bill
Goichberg. We regret that this article appeared, especially one month
before the Executive Board election in which he is a candidate."

3. If nothing can be put in the June Chess Life, that is quite unfair,
because it will result in many voters casting ballots based on the
improperly inserted and false Booz/Dubeck article. The outcome of the
election might even be challenged as a result. However, in this event
I suggest the following two steps as the next best course of action:

A. The remedy I suggest above for the June Chess Life be implemented
using the July Chess Life instead. This will still reach some members
before they vote.

and

B. The remedy I suggest above for the June Chess Life also be
implemented using the home page of the USCF website. This will reach
many members in time, but far from all who read the Booz/Dubeck
"article."

Please consider this serious matter as soon as you can and let me know
what action you will take. I realize that half of you are candidates
and thus benefitting from the Booz/Dubeck "article," but here's your
chance to show that you believe in playing fair and will not tolerate
this type of clearly improper activity.

Thanks for your consideration of this request.

Bill Goichberg

USCF Executive Director, 1/04-12/04
USCF Office Manager, 11/03-1/04
Candidate for USCF Executive Board, 2005

If you are correct that you weren't the acting Ed but the actual ED, please
accept my humble apology. I can see where that is a very important issue.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The following email was sent to the Executive Board today:

Dear Executive Board:

The May issue of Chess Life, which just came out, includes an
"article'" which is little more than political propaganda, surely
extremely inappropriate, probably one of the greatest misuses of power
in USCF history.

This "article" by "Stanley N. Booz, CPA, Co-Chair Finance Committee and
Dr. Leroy Dubeck, Chair LMA Committee" appears prominently on page 7,
not far from the Executive Board candidates' statements which begin on
page 12. The "article" is perfectly timed to avoid the possibility of
a response in Chess Life in time for the election; had it appeared one
month earlier in the April issue, even though it would still have
represented a gross abuse of power, at least there would have been
plenty of time for a reply in the June issue that will contain the
ballots.

Even if this "article" was entirely factual, it would be improper, as
it praises "the majority on the Executive Board" (three of whom are
candidates) and attacks a candidate, myself. However, the "article" is
far from being factually correct.

Booz and Dubeck say in this article, "However, the statement in the
February Chess Life by former Acting Executive Director Bill Goichberg
that as of December 31 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 is an outrageous lie! My statement in the February Chess Life
said no such thing! What it did say was that "At the end of December
2004, our operating account now has enough to pay our bills with about
$250,000 left over." Most of this surplus was already there at the end
of the 2003-4 fiscal year in May, though, and did not represent a
2004-5 fiscal year profit. The only profit or surplus I referred to in
my statement was the 2003-4 fiscal year audited surplus of $285,000.
(NOTE: my error, should have said "The only profit I referred to...")

Also, my official title was "Executive Director," not "Acting Executive
Director." I applied for the job of "Executive Director" and the Board
accepted my application, and did not refer to me as "acting" or
"interim." When we had past EDs who were Acting or Interim, this was
reflected on our masthead. When I was in charge, the masthead said
"Executive Director."

Incidentally, my $250,000 estimate was based on what I heard from our
outgoing CFO, but shortly after, the new CFO updated our bank balances
and I was advised that the number might be slightly too large, so I
revised my article to change "with about $250,000 left over" to "with a
significant surplus left over." I have a copy of an email from Jean
Bernice dated Jan 7 confirming that the article would read "significant
surplus" and not "about $250,000." However, someone must have made a
mistake, because when the issue appeared, the old "about $250,000"
wording was there instead of "significant surplus."

The Booz/Dubeck "article" also says, "Acting Executive Director Bill
Goichberg felt that $2 million would be a conservative projection since
2004 membership revenues were expected to exceed $2 million. Past
President Leroy Dubeck made a more conservative estimate to the
Executive Board of $1.8 million, based on the assumption that
membership declines would likely continue for much of the year.
President Marinello and the Board majority chose the $1.8 million
estimate. As of this writing, 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 dollar estimate. Had the larger estimate been
adopted in the budget, we could be facing another operational deficit
this year."

Once again, this is an attack that would be outrageous even if
factually correct. However, it is incorrect that the Board chose
between my suggested number of $2 million and Leroy's number of $1.8
million. The truth is that $2 million was my initial suggestion based
on current year numbers I was looking at through 2/04, but shortly
after, the 3/04-4/04 membership numbers became available, they showed
less income than I expected, and I agreed to the $1.8 million number.
Thus, it is false to claim that the Board chose between my $2 million
number and Leroy's $1.8 million.

On May 20, two days before the Board's budget meeting, I wrote the
following to Leroy with copies to the Board:

I now have figures for March and April membership income. In March
we took in $182,340.65 for one year memberships, $10,477 two year
($5238.50 with an equal amount deferred) and $19,443 three year ($6481
with the balance deferred). This totals $194,060.15 not counting the
deferred amounts. In April we collected $128,720.90 one year, $14,365
two year ($7182.50 with an equal amount deferred) and $20,913 three
year ($6971 with the balance deferred). This comes to $142,874.40 not
counting the deferred amounts.

The membership total revenue for 11 months is now $1,803,299 which is
a bit less than I expected. The total for the year seems likely to be
only $1,940,000 to $1,950,000, which makes your $1,800,000 estimate for
next year look better.

And once again, this attack incorrectly refers to me as the "Acting
Executive Director." Of course, my correct official former title,
"Executive Director," is more prestigious, and the use of a fictitious
title in Chess Life around election time is not a trivial matter.

The "article" also says, "President Marinello and the majority on the
Executive Board that supported her braved much criticism by making
those painful decisions. The authors believe that the membership owes
them a sincere debt of gratitude for taking the responsibility to make
these decisions." Whether this is true or not, it is a political
statement inappropriate in the magazine a month before the election
(and the truth is that the painful decision was to slash staff in
August 2003, and NONE of the incumbents now running for re-election
voted for those staff cuts- Shutt voted no, and the other two were not
even on the Board yet.)

The "article" also has a chart at the bottom supposedly showing USCF's
increase/decrease in net assets each fiscal year since 1997, together
with the name of the USCF President at year end (but not the name of
the ED, which has usually been included in such presentations in the
past.) This chart says, "Table based on audited financials from 1996
to 2004," but it presents long discredited figures from the 2001
audited report when Tim Redman (now, I believe, a Marinello supporter)
was President (that was the year that a fortune in unpaid invoices not
reported to the auditors was later discovered in the desk of CFO Jeff
Loomis.) The 2002 audited report restated USCF's net assets at the end
of the 2001 fiscal year downward by $268,353, yet Booz and Dubeck
choose to ignore this.

It is especially surprising that Booz should include the seriously
distorted 2001 audited numbers in his report, since he has publicly
ridiculed these numbers. For example, on March 22, 2002, Booz posted
the following on the newsgroup:

wrote in message
You saying Loomis deliberately concealed invoices to make
the
numbers look better?


I'm saying that last year's "profit" was overstated because not all the

accounts payable were recorded. It appears that there was some
negligence at the very least.

StanB


And on Nov 12, 2002, Booz posted the following:

Sorry but I have no confidence in anything Loomis and DeFeis issued.
Reason: The hiding of accounts payable, the sloppy condition of the
books, and the 350,000 of prior period adjustments discovered since the
dismissal of them there two quacks.

StanB

But now that it is election time, Booz apparently thinks it is OK to
present those 2001 numbers to the membership in a "report," numbers
that he once rightly ridiculed.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE NOW?

What should be done? How can some fairness be restored to the election
after this outrageous breach of ethical conduct? I suggest the
following:

1. Who was responsible for the publication of this garbage? I don't
think that Editor Glenn Petersen would have ever done such a thing, but
he has been seriously ill since the middle of March and out of the
office. I think the members have a right to know how this "article"
got into the May Chess Life. Who instructed staff to put it in?

2. I know it is very late and inconvenient, but think it is still
possible to get something into the June Chess Life, the one with the
ballots, and this would be the only fair way to correct the injustice
that has occurred. I believe that either I should be given some space
there to reply to Booz/Dubeck, or at least there should be a notice
there stating something like the following (after, of course, an
appropriate Board vote

"The Executive Board has decided to inform the membership that 'Report
on the Finances of the U.S. Chess Federation' by Stanley Booz and Leroy
Dubeck, which appeared in the May issue, contained serious
misstatements of fact regarding former Executive Director Bill
Goichberg. We regret that this article appeared, especially one month
before the Executive Board election in which he is a candidate."

3. If nothing can be put in the June Chess Life, that is quite unfair,
because it will result in many voters casting ballots based on the
improperly inserted and false Booz/Dubeck article. The outcome of the
election might even be challenged as a result. However, in this event
I suggest the following two steps as the next best course of action:

A. The remedy I suggest above for the June Chess Life be implemented
using the July Chess Life instead. This will still reach some members
before they vote.

and

B. The remedy I suggest above for the June Chess Life also be
implemented using the home page of the USCF website. This will reach
many members in time, but far from all who read the Booz/Dubeck
"article."

Please consider this serious matter as soon as you can and let me know
what action you will take. I realize that half of you are candidates
and thus benefitting from the Booz/Dubeck "article," but here's your
chance to show that you believe in playing fair and will not tolerate
this type of clearly improper activity.

Thanks for your consideration of this request.

Bill Goichberg

USCF Executive Director, 1/04-12/04
USCF Office Manager, 11/03-1/04
Candidate for USCF Executive Board, 2005

On 4 May 2005 12:29:09 -0700, wrote:

The following email was sent to the Executive Board today:

Dear Executive Board:

The May issue of Chess Life, which just came out, includes an
"article'" which is little more than political propaganda, surely
extremely inappropriate, probably one of the greatest misuses of power
in USCF history.

This "article" by "Stanley N. Booz, CPA, Co-Chair Finance Committee and
Dr. Leroy Dubeck, Chair LMA Committee" appears prominently on page 7,
not far from the Executive Board candidates' statements which begin on
page 12. The "article" is perfectly timed to avoid the possibility of
a response in Chess Life in time for the election; had it appeared one
month earlier in the April issue, even though it would still have
represented a gross abuse of power, at least there would have been
plenty of time for a reply in the June issue that will contain the
ballots.

Bill Goichberg

USCF Executive Director, 1/04-12/04
USCF Office Manager, 11/03-1/04
Candidate for USCF Executive Board, 2005

This is a very serious matter, vastly more serious than the campaign
letter Beatriz mailed out from the office last week.

Something similar happened in the 1991 campaign when Redman was
president. The Election Issue of Chess Life included an article by Jim
Pechac on USCF finances. As it turned out Pechac lost the election
anyway.

In the current issue in Chess Life and no doubt the next issue as well
it is clearly improper to publish campaign statements disguised as
articles. It is especially objectionable that they keep saying that
they have "saved" the USCF when no such thing has occured.

Another problem is that the Board majority fired the Chess Life editor
Kalev Pehme and replaced him with the long time editor Glenn Petersen
(who had been fired by Redman in 2000). However, within a few days of
being told not to publish my candidates statement in Chess Life,
Petersen suffered a major heart attack. This leaves Chess Life with no
editor and Beatriz Marinello can have anything she wants published in
Chess Life.

If Glenn Petersen were well and working we can be sure that this
objectionable material would never have been published in Chess Life.

Some people have suggested that I should play Mr. Nice Guy and drop my
suit against the USCF. However, this latest infranction convinces me
that I had better go full blast. They can buy this election with their
improper campaign ads and I might have to ask the federal courts to
overturn the election.

Sam Sloan

Stan you continue to disappoint. 500 well-thought out words, many good
points, and you respond to the most inconsequential one.


"StanB" wrote in message
news
If you are correct that you weren't the acting Ed but the actual ED,
please accept my humble apology. I can see where that is a very important
issue.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The following email was sent to the Executive Board today:

Dear Executive Board:

The May issue of Chess Life, which just came out, includes an
"article'" which is little more than political propaganda, surely
extremely inappropriate, probably one of the greatest misuses of power
in USCF history.

This "article" by "Stanley N. Booz, CPA, Co-Chair Finance Committee and
Dr. Leroy Dubeck, Chair LMA Committee" appears prominently on page 7,
not far from the Executive Board candidates' statements which begin on
page 12. The "article" is perfectly timed to avoid the possibility of
a response in Chess Life in time for the election; had it appeared one
month earlier in the April issue, even though it would still have
represented a gross abuse of power, at least there would have been
plenty of time for a reply in the June issue that will contain the
ballots.

Even if this "article" was entirely factual, it would be improper, as
it praises "the majority on the Executive Board" (three of whom are
candidates) and attacks a candidate, myself. However, the "article" is
far from being factually correct.

Booz and Dubeck say in this article, "However, the statement in the
February Chess Life by former Acting Executive Director Bill Goichberg
that as of December 31 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 is an outrageous lie! My statement in the February Chess Life
said no such thing! What it did say was that "At the end of December
2004, our operating account now has enough to pay our bills with about
$250,000 left over." Most of this surplus was already there at the end
of the 2003-4 fiscal year in May, though, and did not represent a
2004-5 fiscal year profit. The only profit or surplus I referred to in
my statement was the 2003-4 fiscal year audited surplus of $285,000.
(NOTE: my error, should have said "The only profit I referred to...")

Also, my official title was "Executive Director," not "Acting Executive
Director." I applied for the job of "Executive Director" and the Board
accepted my application, and did not refer to me as "acting" or
"interim." When we had past EDs who were Acting or Interim, this was
reflected on our masthead. When I was in charge, the masthead said
"Executive Director."

Incidentally, my $250,000 estimate was based on what I heard from our
outgoing CFO, but shortly after, the new CFO updated our bank balances
and I was advised that the number might be slightly too large, so I
revised my article to change "with about $250,000 left over" to "with a
significant surplus left over." I have a copy of an email from Jean
Bernice dated Jan 7 confirming that the article would read "significant
surplus" and not "about $250,000." However, someone must have made a
mistake, because when the issue appeared, the old "about $250,000"
wording was there instead of "significant surplus."

The Booz/Dubeck "article" also says, "Acting Executive Director Bill
Goichberg felt that $2 million would be a conservative projection since
2004 membership revenues were expected to exceed $2 million. Past
President Leroy Dubeck made a more conservative estimate to the
Executive Board of $1.8 million, based on the assumption that
membership declines would likely continue for much of the year.
President Marinello and the Board majority chose the $1.8 million
estimate. As of this writing, 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 dollar estimate. Had the larger estimate been
adopted in the budget, we could be facing another operational deficit
this year."

Once again, this is an attack that would be outrageous even if
factually correct. However, it is incorrect that the Board chose
between my suggested number of $2 million and Leroy's number of $1.8
million. The truth is that $2 million was my initial suggestion based
on current year numbers I was looking at through 2/04, but shortly
after, the 3/04-4/04 membership numbers became available, they showed
less income than I expected, and I agreed to the $1.8 million number.
Thus, it is false to claim that the Board chose between my $2 million
number and Leroy's $1.8 million.

On May 20, two days before the Board's budget meeting, I wrote the
following to Leroy with copies to the Board:

I now have figures for March and April membership income. In March
we took in $182,340.65 for one year memberships, $10,477 two year
($5238.50 with an equal amount deferred) and $19,443 three year ($6481
with the balance deferred). This totals $194,060.15 not counting the
deferred amounts. In April we collected $128,720.90 one year, $14,365
two year ($7182.50 with an equal amount deferred) and $20,913 three
year ($6971 with the balance deferred). This comes to $142,874.40 not
counting the deferred amounts.

The membership total revenue for 11 months is now $1,803,299 which is
a bit less than I expected. The total for the year seems likely to be
only $1,940,000 to $1,950,000, which makes your $1,800,000 estimate for
next year look better.

And once again, this attack incorrectly refers to me as the "Acting
Executive Director." Of course, my correct official former title,
"Executive Director," is more prestigious, and the use of a fictitious
title in Chess Life around election time is not a trivial matter.

The "article" also says, "President Marinello and the majority on the
Executive Board that supported her braved much criticism by making
those painful decisions. The authors believe that the membership owes
them a sincere debt of gratitude for taking the responsibility to make
these decisions." Whether this is true or not, it is a political
statement inappropriate in the magazine a month before the election
(and the truth is that the painful decision was to slash staff in
August 2003, and NONE of the incumbents now running for re-election
voted for those staff cuts- Shutt voted no, and the other two were not
even on the Board yet.)

The "article" also has a chart at the bottom supposedly showing USCF's
increase/decrease in net assets each fiscal year since 1997, together
with the name of the USCF President at year end (but not the name of
the ED, which has usually been included in such presentations in the
past.) This chart says, "Table based on audited financials from 1996
to 2004," but it presents long discredited figures from the 2001
audited report when Tim Redman (now, I believe, a Marinello supporter)
was President (that was the year that a fortune in unpaid invoices not
reported to the auditors was later discovered in the desk of CFO Jeff
Loomis.) The 2002 audited report restated USCF's net assets at the end
of the 2001 fiscal year downward by $268,353, yet Booz and Dubeck
choose to ignore this.

It is especially surprising that Booz should include the seriously
distorted 2001 audited numbers in his report, since he has publicly
ridiculed these numbers. For example, on March 22, 2002, Booz posted
the following on the newsgroup:

wrote in message
You saying Loomis deliberately concealed invoices to make
the
numbers look better?


I'm saying that last year's "profit" was overstated because not all the

accounts payable were recorded. It appears that there was some
negligence at the very least.

StanB


And on Nov 12, 2002, Booz posted the following:

Sorry but I have no confidence in anything Loomis and DeFeis issued.
Reason: The hiding of accounts payable, the sloppy condition of the
books, and the 350,000 of prior period adjustments discovered since the
dismissal of them there two quacks.

StanB

But now that it is election time, Booz apparently thinks it is OK to
present those 2001 numbers to the membership in a "report," numbers
that he once rightly ridiculed.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE NOW?

What should be done? How can some fairness be restored to the election
after this outrageous breach of ethical conduct? I suggest the
following:

1. Who was responsible for the publication of this garbage? I don't
think that Editor Glenn Petersen would have ever done such a thing, but
he has been seriously ill since the middle of March and out of the
office. I think the members have a right to know how this "article"
got into the May Chess Life. Who instructed staff to put it in?

2. I know it is very late and inconvenient, but think it is still
possible to get something into the June Chess Life, the one with the
ballots, and this would be the only fair way to correct the injustice
that has occurred. I believe that either I should be given some space
there to reply to Booz/Dubeck, or at least there should be a notice
there stating something like the following (after, of course, an
appropriate Board vote

"The Executive Board has decided to inform the membership that 'Report
on the Finances of the U.S. Chess Federation' by Stanley Booz and Leroy
Dubeck, which appeared in the May issue, contained serious
misstatements of fact regarding former Executive Director Bill
Goichberg. We regret that this article appeared, especially one month
before the Executive Board election in which he is a candidate."

3. If nothing can be put in the June Chess Life, that is quite unfair,
because it will result in many voters casting ballots based on the
improperly inserted and false Booz/Dubeck article. The outcome of the
election might even be challenged as a result. However, in this event
I suggest the following two steps as the next best course of action:

A. The remedy I suggest above for the June Chess Life be implemented
using the July Chess Life instead. This will still reach some members
before they vote.

and

B. The remedy I suggest above for the June Chess Life also be
implemented using the home page of the USCF website. This will reach
many members in time, but far from all who read the Booz/Dubeck
"article."

Please consider this serious matter as soon as you can and let me know
what action you will take. I realize that half of you are candidates
and thus benefitting from the Booz/Dubeck "article," but here's your
chance to show that you believe in playing fair and will not tolerate
this type of clearly improper activity.

Thanks for your consideration of this request.

Bill Goichberg

USCF Executive Director, 1/04-12/04
USCF Office Manager, 11/03-1/04
Candidate for USCF Executive Board, 2005

THREE PUNCHES IN A ROW

One can agree with every word written by Bill Goichberg and still
say that the message is politically irrelevant.

The opposition reminds me of a fighter who has just taken
three quick jabs to the face with his head jerking back after each jab.
First, the initial announcement of a ticket and the mailing; secondly,
the Marinello-COO letter; and the latest, the Booz-Dubeck article in
Chess Life.

Mr. Goichberg's letter is reactive. It can be likened to the
bouncing backward and forward of a fighter's head who is being jabbed.

The Board majority will not permit a response of the kind
envisioned by Mr. Goichberg. That is a given. They are in the saddle,
and they are going to ride hard. The new standard: anything is okay
if it will stand up in a courtroom.

Mr. Goichberg's idea of challenging an election result after
it's over is hopeless. It is a given that further surprises will be
coming from the ticket candidates. Perhaps there will be a further
attack on the opposition in the June issue. Who knows?

The opposition should seek a court injunction to delay the
elections so that it can be made whole. Or fohgeddaboudit.

If the ticket candidates prevail, the transition to the BMCF will
be complete, and Chess Life will ensure that they and their allies keep
control for many years to come.

wrote in message
oups.com...

It is especially surprising that Booz should include the seriously
distorted 2001 audited numbers in his report, since he has publicly
ridiculed these numbers. For example, on March 22, 2002, Booz posted
the following on the newsgroup:

wrote in message
You saying Loomis deliberately concealed invoices to make
the
numbers look better?


I'm saying that last year's "profit" was overstated because not all the

accounts payable were recorded. It appears that there was some
negligence at the very least.


I haven't yet seen the article as published so i'll delay comment on Bill's
emotional outburst. As to the above, I recieved clarification in a letter
from Loomis. It follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hey there,

I imagine you are surprised to hear from me. I hope all is well with
you. I see you are still stirring the pot. Good for you.

I just read Goichberg's latest tirade about the CL article that you and
Leroy wrote and finally felt that I had to set the record straight.

If any invoices were found in my desk they were put there after I left.
ALL invoices were received by and booked in Peachtree PRIOR to me or
anyone else seeing them by the accounting manager. I did not hide any
invoices, I am not THAT stupid. I won't speculate who did it but it was
probably the same person who accused me of stealing $200,000. This
person also used to run into DeFeis for anything she thought was a
transgression on my part. There are other accusations that are equally
false
but I'll leave them for another time.

If there is anything else I can help you with let me know. Like when
Camaratta raised the prices on his chess sets to USCF by about 1/3
because he didn't like the sales price we were charging and felt the only
way we would raise the prices was if the cost went up. I decided that we
wouldn't pay the new prices so I told the purchasing manager not to
order from HOS any more. I also wrote up one of his favorite employees
for repeatedly overstepping her bounds in dealing with situations not
part of her job.

If there is any other information, such as my decision to stop
Goichberg's mail from coming into the office for him to pick up or the fact
that he was constantly 2-4 months behind on his TLA and advertising bill
payments let me know. His answer was always, if you had called me I
would have paid. I guess paying when he got his invoice was too much for
him to deal with.


Best,

Jeff Loomis

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
news
Stan you continue to disappoint. 500 well-thought out words, many good
points, and you respond to the most inconsequential one.

Frankly, I haven't got my issue yet so i don't know what actually was
published. As to Bill's whining that this was political and shouldn't have
been published, what about his editorial in the Feb issue?

TIM HANKE TO BILL GOICHBERG

Bill,

I haven't seen the article and don't know anything about it.

According to you, the article says you grossly overstated our cash
position when you left office, and you don't have a clue how to budget.


To my knowledge, these statements are accurate. You DID grossly
overstate our cash position when you left office, and you DON'T have a
clue how to budget. With my own eyes and ears, I watched you repeatedly
pick budget numbers that were based on your most optimistic
assessments. Budgeting is supposed to be conservative, but you don't
understand that. I said this last May; I'm saying it again now.

Worst of all, the outsourcing deal you negotiated with Chess Cafe may
be in trouble. You were grossly over-optimistic in projecting sales, as
I said from the beginning. As a result, Chess Cafe is (I believe)
taking a bath in red ink. I knew this deal was ridiculous, I said so
the minute I saw your numbers last year, and I predicted it would lead
to trouble. It has.

In view of all the facts, I think the Booz-Dubeck article in Chess LIfe
was not hard enough on you. I think there should be a second article in
the magazine, explaining that you have actually caused much greater
problems than previously stated. However, I don't think it will do any
good. In view of your immense name recognition, I don't see how you can
avoid getting elected to the Board yet again. I look forward to two
years of slow torture during which I have to read your wordy emails and
listen to your longwinded speeches on a regular basis. I can only hope
that you will not be part of a Board majority, and that the Board
majority will be able to rein you in.

Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance

It is very sad that candidates for political office choose to make
their statements on large email lists contained in the cc field and not
the bcc field. While my address is a matter of public record, others
are not. This egregious error further invades the privacy of everyone
by exposing all of us to spam mailers (such as that person who
identifies himself as the President of Connecticutt Chess).

In this day and age of technology, I expect candidates to have a
working understanding of the internet and internet privacy. Bill
Goichberg has just failed that test.

I was on the fence regarding his candidacy in this year's election. He
has done a lot of good for the organization yet also has a significant
conflict of interest through CCA. After this blatant spam email using
a public cc list, I am not on the fence anymore.

Michael Aigner
CA/N

Thanks for your consideration of this request.

Bill Goichberg

USCF Executive Director, 1/04-12/04
USCF Office Manager, 11/03-1/04
Candidate for USCF Executive Board, 2005

The not using a bcc list is double edged. By not doing it you are not
giving youradversary the opportunity to correct any mistakes or
misrepresentations you make. If someone lies aboutme, I'd like to no
whom he lied to so I can correct it. Either way youare open to
criticism. The third alternative to let your adversary off the hook by
keeping silent could cost you the election. I see the points made about
the value of bcc - like most issues here, there are no black and whites
just grays.