When the May Chess Life article by Stan Booz and myself was published
which reported on the loss of over $1.7 million by USCF over 7 years,
Don Schultz said that he was going to have the figures reviewed by
other accountants. What I am asking is whether they disagreed with the
numbers, which were taken from the annual audits of the USCF, for the 3
fiscal years when Don Schultz was USCF President and Bill Goichberg was
USCF Vice President. The auditors' reports showed that for the year
ending May 31
1997 USCF Operations lost $238,143
1998 USCF Operations lost $104,244
1999 USCF Operations lost $374,538
Total loss by USCF Operations over 3 years of the Schultz-Goichberg
Board $716,925.
Since the Executive Board establishes the policies and makes the major
decisions affecting USCF Operations, it is fair to consider what
happened on a past USCF Executive Board that Schultz and Goichberg
controlled when deciding whether to vote for the Goichberg/ Schutz
slate in this election (although I believe that if they prevail
Goichberg will be the next USCF President).
The past financial record of a Shultz/Goichberg controlled board is one
of the reasons I am voting for Randy Bauer, George John, Elizabeth
Shaugnessy and Steve Shutt in this election. Dr. Leroy Dubeck, Past
Presdient USCF

2 questions for Dr. Dubeck:

1. How many members did the USCF lose under Beatriz Marinello?

FACT: The USCF lost the most members ever under Beatriz Marinello. It's
the worst record by any president.

2. How much money did Beatriz Marinello and Elizabeth Shaughnessy make
for signing a deal with Natrol for selling BrainSpeed pills to kids? If
they didn't then why don't they tell us who signed the stupid deal with
Natrol? Cat got their tongues?

FACT: Both are making a living in scholastic chess and both endorsed a
dumb deal to sell chess wonder pills to kids. What does that say about
their judgment?

These are two of the reasons why I will vote for myself 4 times.

If you need me, contact me through Bill Brock.



LWDubeck wrote:
When the May Chess Life article by Stan Booz and myself was published
which reported on the loss of over $1.7 million by USCF over 7 years,
Don Schultz said that he was going to have the figures reviewed by
other accountants. What I am asking is whether they disagreed with the
numbers, which were taken from the annual audits of the USCF, for the 3
fiscal years when Don Schultz was USCF President and Bill Goichberg was
USCF Vice President. The auditors' reports showed that for the year
ending May 31
1997 USCF Operations lost $238,143
1998 USCF Operations lost $104,244
1999 USCF Operations lost $374,538
Total loss by USCF Operations over 3 years of the Schultz-Goichberg
Board $716,925.
Since the Executive Board establishes the policies and makes the major
decisions affecting USCF Operations, it is fair to consider what
happened on a past USCF Executive Board that Schultz and Goichberg
controlled when deciding whether to vote for the Goichberg/ Schutz
slate in this election (although I believe that if they prevail
Goichberg will be the next USCF President).
The past financial record of a Shultz/Goichberg controlled board is one
of the reasons I am voting for Randy Bauer, George John, Elizabeth
Shaugnessy and Steve Shutt in this election. Dr. Leroy Dubeck, Past
Presdient USCF

Let's assume it takes a while for the policies of an administration to
have an impact. The Marinello Adminstration started in August of 2003.
If we look at the Regular Membership numbers (the single most
important number for the USCF, IMO) we see the following:

June 2004 20,977
June 2005 20,931 (an annual loss of 46 members)

That doesn't strike me as an alarming loss. We do need to get this
number back up though. It's peak value was 33,075 in August 1995.

For fun, I thought it might be fun to see how the last two years of the
Schultz/Goichberg Administration did WRT to Regular Members (since the
thread is in part about their administration).

Granting a similar "bye" to the beginning of their term (1996-99), I
looked at June 1997 to June 1999:

June 1997 29,997
June 1999 28,529 (an annual loss of 734 members)

So, using Mr. Sloan's 'reasoning' one might conclude that the
Schultz/Goichberg administration performance in the critical area of
Regular Memberships was significantly poorer than the Marinello
administration.

But, as we all know, this is a highly complicated subject. My analysis
is only the beginning of what a proper analysis should be. The key
here is do not be mislead by the "sound bites" on this subject.

The majority of the membership losses under the Marinello
Administration have been scholastics. This comes as no surprise since
a relatively high percentage scholastic dues increase went into effect
January 1, 2003 with no offsetting increase in services.
While the dues increases passed at the 2002 Board of Delegates meeting
may have been absolutely necessary for the survival of the USCF, there
is no question that dues are too high relative to the quality of
services. The "hurdle rate" for many potential members is far too
high. This hurts small clubs the most.

I don't know what the answer is to these issues, but if elected I do
intend to study the problem closely with others, to see if we can come
up with some good solutions to get the membership numbers back up by
doing a better job of keeping the members we have, winning back some we
have lost, and attracting more new players. In part, to do this we
have to either get the dues lowered and/or the perceived value higher.
We have "right-sized" the office, and have been implementing
excellent upgrades to software systems. That should get costs down,
and dues can probably follow, and/or we can spend money on improvements
to "Chess Life" that will bring real value to the membership. Both
can work. The questions that remain are how much and how.

Best regards,

George John

"Sam Sloan" writes:

These are two of the reasons why I will vote for myself 4 times.

Good idea, that way we can invalidate your ballot for failing to follow
instructions.
--
Mike Nolan

I see a space for write-in candidates. I wish there were a space for
write-outs...Sam would definitely get all four of my write-out votes...

I wish there was a way to cast a subtractive vote, too.

Best regards,

George John

"...if elected I do intend to study the problem closely with others, to
see if we can come
up with some good solutions to get the membership numbers back up by
doing a better job of keeping the members we have, winning back some we
have lost, and attracting more new players." (George John)
===========
With regard to adult chess, you and the rest of the USCF will go
nowhere fast until the USCF installs a Mensa styled treatment whereby
metro level umbrella orgs are substantially funded from a share of the
national dues. This capitalization ($10 per regular adult; $5 full
youth) would be used to steadily drive chess in each metro market.

The main advantages of the Mensa treatment a
1) Transfers heavy financial risk away from one lone individual
promoter who usually cannot make a profit to the "associative form"
where the risk is spread lightly among all who would contribute.
2) Steady annual funding... would allow the rapid buildup of chess
oriented working capital at the basic market for organized chess...
exactly the level you'd want capitalized. Individual promoters rarely
if ever steadily add working capital to their promotions, particularly
if they've had a difficult year. Most of them are gone in those
circumstances anyway.
3) No more dead areas; the players would have at their fingertips a
mechanism to revive and sustain activity.
4) Although the faces that ran the Metro District umbrella might change
from time to time, the organization sinew (money and structure) would
stay in place ready to be put to use by the new District crew. In our
traditional system, when an organizer-promoter quits, he takes what is
left of his working capital away from the local chess world and River
City goes dead.. often for long periods of time.

You can diddle with Chess Life and School Mates all you wish, but
without effect. If that's all you've got to offer then you aren't
needed on the Board.

Old Haasie

wrote:
"...if elected I do intend to study the problem closely with others, to
see if we can come
up with some good solutions to get the membership numbers back up by
doing a better job of keeping the members we have, winning back some we
have lost, and attracting more new players." (George John)

This is your brain.

===========
With regard to adult chess, you and the rest of the USCF will go
nowhere fast until the USCF installs a Mensa styled treatment whereby
metro level umbrella orgs are substantially funded from a share of the
national dues. This capitalization ($10 per regular adult; $5 full
youth) would be used to steadily drive chess in each metro market.

The main advantages of the Mensa treatment a
1) Transfers heavy financial risk away from one lone individual
promoter who usually cannot make a profit to the "associative form"
where the risk is spread lightly among all who would contribute.
2) Steady annual funding... would allow the rapid buildup of chess
oriented working capital at the basic market for organized chess...
exactly the level you'd want capitalized. Individual promoters rarely
if ever steadily add working capital to their promotions, particularly
if they've had a difficult year. Most of them are gone in those
circumstances anyway.
3) No more dead areas; the players would have at their fingertips a
mechanism to revive and sustain activity.
4) Although the faces that ran the Metro District umbrella might change
from time to time, the organization sinew (money and structure) would
stay in place ready to be put to use by the new District crew. In our
traditional system, when an organizer-promoter quits, he takes what is
left of his working capital away from the local chess world and River
City goes dead.. often for long periods of time.

You can diddle with Chess Life and School Mates all you wish, but
without effect. If that's all you've got to offer then you aren't
needed on the Board.

This is your brain on Natrol. Any questions?

Sam Sloan wrote:
2 questions for Dr. Dubeck:

1. How many members did the USCF lose under Beatriz Marinello?

FACT: The USCF lost the most members ever under Beatriz Marinello. It's
the worst record by any president.

2. How much money did Beatriz Marinello and Elizabeth Shaughnessy make
for signing a deal with Natrol for selling BrainSpeed pills to kids? If
they didn't then why don't they tell us who signed the stupid deal with
Natrol? Cat got their tongues?

FACT: Both are making a living in scholastic chess and both endorsed a
dumb deal to sell chess wonder pills to kids. What does that say about
their judgment?

These are two of the reasons why I will vote for myself 4 times.

If you need me, contact me through Bill Brock.

I did not write this, as anybody can see my looking at the headers.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:
Sam Sloan wrote:
2 questions for Dr. Dubeck:

1. How many members did the USCF lose under Beatriz Marinello?

FACT: The USCF lost the most members ever under Beatriz Marinello. It's
the worst record by any president.

2. How much money did Beatriz Marinello and Elizabeth Shaughnessy make
for signing a deal with Natrol for selling BrainSpeed pills to kids? If
they didn't then why don't they tell us who signed the stupid deal with
Natrol? Cat got their tongues?

FACT: Both are making a living in scholastic chess and both endorsed a
dumb deal to sell chess wonder pills to kids. What does that say about
their judgment?

These are two of the reasons why I will vote for myself 4 times.

If you need me, contact me through Bill Brock.

I did not write this, as anybody can see my looking at the headers.

Sam Sloan

Look at this! He has slipped up.

This fake Sam Sloan posting and several other fake postings were all
written by Ray Gordon (or by somebody pretending to be Ray Gordon)!!!

Sam Sloan