wrote:
WPraeder Jun 27, 5:37 am show options


LWDubeck wrote:
Getting back to the topic of the post--namely the financial losses for
USCF under the Schultz-Goichberg Board of 1997-1999, I do not see
anyone disagreeing with the sudited numbers for the losses that USCF
Operations suffered--which totaled $716,925. Not an impressive record
for Bill Goichberg to run for another term on the Executive Board. Dr.
Dubeck


Leroy,

More is needed to properly measure organizational performance than just
looking at financials. However, the USCF has institutionalized the idea
of taking credit for what goes well on ones watch and placing blame
elsewhere for poor performance. Even improper behavior is rationalized
for the good of the organization. When nonprofit directors accept
little personal accountability, activities other than governance of the

organization may get more of their attention, particularly when those
other activities have built-in rewards (e.g., self-dealing, conflict of
interest).


It is a common principle that by the articles of incorporation required
of all nonprofit organizations, the board is held responsible for the
organization. The board as a whole, and its individual members, are
answerable for all that the organization does, and how it does it. The

board therefore is the locus of accountability.


Candidates are running for the Executive Board not Executive Director.
That being said, past board performance and behavior is a good
predictor of future performance and behavior.


Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://www.snpo.org/samples/V1?80613.pdf
http://www.foundationnews.org/?CME/a...2459&issueI?D=

It is fair to assign me part of the responsibility for 1997-1998 and
1998-1999, but not the entire blame. USCF did well while I was on the
Board in 1989-1990, 1990-1991, 1991-1992 and 1996-1997. Yes, the
latter year there was a large loss overall, but all of it and more
occurred in the first part of the fiscal year, before I was on the
Board; there was a surplus during my Board service in that fiscal year
and it came despite difficult conditions.

As for the argument that it is irrelevant that USCF showed a large
surplus 11/03-12/04 while I was Office Manager and Executive Director,
this seems rather bizarre, as it is far more difficult to run the
office than to be a Board member. An average ED is likely qualified to
be a good Board member, but an average Board member is unlikely to make
an adequate ED.

Bill Goichberg

Bill,

I suspect you may have overlooked the references I provided but,
regarding the membership, as an elected board member you can take all
the credit and you must also accept all the blame. Excuses don't count.

Note I did not make any argument that it is irrelevant that USCF showed
a large surplus 11/03-12/04 while you were Office Manager and Executive
Director. To my written point, do you disagree that more is needed to
properly measure organizational performance than just looking at
financials? In that vein, perhaps you would care to share your
performance measurements and evaluation with us from when you were
Office Manager and Executive Director?

I would still submit regarding the current crop of candidates, past
board performance and behavior is a good predictor of future
performance and behavior.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://journals.aol.com/betteruscf/O...ss/entries/564

That's why you must vote for me. I'm the only qualified candidate.
Bulldyke Marinello and her mistress Shaughessy can't be trusted. They
lost more than 10,000 members under their watch. They must have been
busy doing some hanky panky stuff under the sheets with Leroy
Douchebeck to bring the US Open to NJ. Did they get $50,000 for
brainspeed chess pills? If you vote for me, I promise not to sue the
USCF anymore. Hugs and kisses to all of you.

Sam Sloan

IT'S NOT SAM

Everyone should vote for me four times. Even Bill Brock will vote for
me after I kicked his ass in Chicago. He loves me now. S(p)am Sloan

I think I know who has been posting in Sam' Sloan's name. By
which I mean, it is not Sam himself in the case of the anonymice
messages using his name.

Since Bill Goichberg only seems to want to talk about his record as ED,
I am happy to accomodate him--but that should be a separate thread
since that is not the office he is running for.

Re Mr. Goichberg's comment about the 1997 USCF OPeration's loss being
due to losses that fiscal year before he took office in August, 1996,
let me remind you that the USCF was hundreds of thousands of dollars in
the red for fiscal 2004 when Beatrice Marinello assumed the presidency
in August 2003. We ended up with a huge surplus that year because she
acted: she did not wring her hands in dismay at what she inherited.
Bill Goichberg could have done the same in fiscal 1997--but he did not
and USCF Operations lost $283,143 on his watch that year. Dr. Dubeck

LWDubeck Jun 27, 11:03 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: "LWDubeck" - Find messages by this author
Date: 27 Jun 2005 20:03:02 -0700
Local: Mon,Jun 27 2005 11:03 pm
Subject: Douchebeck endorses Marinello, Shaughnessy and Harmful
Chess Drugs
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Since Bill Goichberg only seems to want to talk about his record as ED,
I am happy to accomodate him--but that should be a separate thread
since that is not the office he is running for.

As you can see at www.checkmate.us, in this campaign I have spoken
about far more issues than my record as ED. My site has looked at many
more USCF issues, and in far more detail, than the "success team" site.

Re Mr. Goichberg's comment about the 1997 USCF OPeration's loss being
due to losses that fiscal year before he took office in August, 1996,
let me remind you that the USCF was hundreds of thousands of dollars in

the red for fiscal 2004 when Beatrice Marinello assumed the presidency
in August 2003. We ended up with a huge surplus that year because she
acted: she did not wring her hands in dismay at what she inherited.

She did act, along with Hanke, Schultz and Brady, to cut staff and
deserves credit for that correct decision. But I also acted, with
programs that have proven successful in halting the dramatic decline in
adult members, with a B & E outsourcing agreement far better for USCF
than what the Board would have settled for if I wasn't there, and with
saving the Federation a lot on ED salary, among other things. To
maintain that our surplus was due only to the fact that "she acted" is
a gross, politically inspired, exaggeration.

Bill Goichberg could have done the same in fiscal 1997--but he did not
and USCF Operations lost $283,143 on his watch that year. Dr. Dubeck

USCF Operations did NOT lose $283,000 on my watch in fiscal 1997. USCF
Operations lost $238,000 (not $283,000) overall in the fiscal year
1996-7, but "on my watch" that year, USCF had a surplus. The new Board
came in with the Federation already several hundred thousand in the
hole for the fiscal year, plus an inherited six figure severance
agreement with the recently departed ED. We did well to recover some
of the losses during the part of the fiscal year that our Board was in
office, and the final deficit for the year was much lower than most
expected.

Bill Goichberg

Bulldyke Marinello is robbing the USCF blind. She has Leroy Douchbeck
and Shaughnessy helping her. You must vote for me. I'm the only one who
can stop her.

Sam Sloan

Tom Martinak Jun 28, 7:26 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: "Tom Martinak" - Find messages by
this author
Date: 28 Jun 2005 04:26:21 -0700
Local: Tues,Jun 28 2005 7:26 am
Subject: Douchebeck endorses Marinello, Shaughnessy and Harmful
Chess Drugs
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



with a B & E outsourcing agreement far better for USCF than what the Board
would have settled for if I wasn't there


What is the status of that agreement? The last I saw posted on the USCF
website was that the USCF was still owed $170,000 out of the
"guaranteed" $350,000 (And that was after the concessions at some
nationals were added to his contract).

- Tom Martinak

Renegotiation is ongoing between ChessCafe and USCF. I believe the
outcome is likely to benefit both sides, and certainly will be better
for USCF than having no minimum guaranteed payment.

Bill Goichberg

What are USCF's current annual fulfillment costs of its end of the
Chess Caf=E9 bargain? (Ads, mailing...)

Unfortunately, restructuring may have been inevitable given weak sales
& high overhead per sales dollar, but it's essential to keep net cash
flow from outsourcing positive.

Vote for me and I'll save B&E.

Sam Sloan

What are USCF's current annual fulfillment costs of its end of the
Chess Caf=E9 bargain? (Ads, mailing...)


Unfortunately, restructuring may have been inevitable given weak sales
& high overhead per sales dollar, but it's essential to keep net cash
flow from outsourcing positive.

USCF pays extra postage to mail a heavier Chess Life including the
catalog (about $40,000 per year). Ads are billed to ChessCafe at
USCF's cost.

Bill Goichberg