Tom,

I am very impressed about your analysis of Bill Goichberg. Most people
do not see Bill's tremendous conflict of interest and motivations.

Many people may be wondering why all these political battles and
attacks. Everything started when the Executive ratified the decision
to relocation the USCF HQ to Crossville, TN.

Previously, I mentioned in another posting that when in 2003 we were
contemplating the concept of outsourcing the B&E business, the only way
to neutralize Bill Goichberg's group opposition was by putting Bill in
the position of implementing the decision.

While Bill Goichberg was Executive Director he tried to undermine me as
President and the members of the Executive Board, many times I found
out about what was going on in the office through Don Schulz. In April
2004, I had a private conversation with Goichberg and Schulz about
this. Bill Goichberg promised to improve the communication with the
President and Vice-president of Finances.

I have my theory about why Bill Goichberg wanted to become Executive
Director, for once he was truly sincere about helping the organization,
because he knows its in his business interest that the USCF is alive.
On the other hand, thinking about his psychological profile, in the
late 60s and early 70s Bill Goichberg used to work for the USCF office
in the Rating Department, when Edmondson decided to relocate the USCF
office from NYC to Newburght, NY. Bill lost his job..

Concerning your point about Goichberg hand picking Committee members, a
good exemple is the Publications Committee. When Glenn Peterson had a
heart attack. When I went to the office in New Windsor, my first
reaction was to work with Publication's Committee, I looked at the name
of the Chairman of the Committee, and I immediately understood that I
needed to move very quickly and find someone who could cover for Glenn
Peterson in this emergency. Thankfully, Gerry Dullea was available to
help us. Don Schulz wanted to bring Kalev back, but he needed someone
who can manage the Department and be in the office evey day of the
week.

In my opinion, at this point Bill Goichberg is the only sure winner in
this election. Therefore, He will be seating in the Executive Board
for the next four years, Bill wants to become President of the
organization. This will be a disaster. Bill will use his position of
influence to protect his business, and block the competitors.

When I worked with the organizers of the Global Chess Challenge, I kept
the details of the agreements confidential until they were ready to
offer a concrete deal to the USCF and this proposal could be presented
to the Executive Board. You must be wondering why organizers did no
want to deal with Bill Goichberg when he was Executive Director. Even
Fred Gruenberg, did not want to deal with him, after Bill Goichberg in
violation to the contact with Fred Gruenberg decided not to give the
National Open a back cover and instead move their advertising to page
3.

Tom, I am afraid that our members will be electing Bill Goichberg to
the Board. Hopefully, the decision making process will be transparent
enough not to allow any wrong doing against CCA's competitors and the
Executive Board members will have enough common sense not to making him
President.

All the best,

Beatriz Marinello






Tom Klem wrote:
You have a right to be in a snit about anything you want.

Both sides have a right to manipulate the facts to their advantage.

I'm just sick of the pigs running the hen house.

Both sides have their problems. For my money, Goichberg controls the USCF
through hand picked delegates and committee seats. He is little more than a
Boss Tweed or an old style Tammany politician, except he takes our dues and
turns it into gold bullion for the CCA. People both admire and are afraid of
Goichberg. Clearly, he is a personnage to be reckoned with at the USCF.

As voter/owners, we should make it as hard as possible for Goichberg to
operate our organization for the profit of Continental Chess and to his own
benefit.

We should make it clear that even though we know that Goichberg runs
everything, there is a sea change coming due to the past gross governance
gotchas which were foisted upon our hobby by a greedy Goichberg solely to
promote his own business, and to destroy the businesses of potential
competitors.

Goichbergs penchant for using the governance of the USCF to destroy
competitors, and commit the same kinds of offences he gets his friends on
the committees to ignore, must have a noticeable price, if these abuses are
to stop.

If the voters turn a blind eye to his abusive nature and porcupine
mentality, then the USCF will once again turn into his private preserve,
where promotion of Chess as an element of culture in the United States,
takes a back seat to building the Bill and Brenda retirement fund.

Goichberg and his friends have coopted the USCF for their own ends and to
profit themselves. They are only interested in what is profitable to
themselves and not promoting a larger Chess organization for the membership.

In my opinion, they are as dirty as the day is long and regulary pull dirty
tricks on competitors, use unlawful business practices, and get away with
all sorts things which making the light of day would make a mafia don blush.

Don't make the mistake of giving them control of the USCF. Chess in the US
will continue to founder if you do.

Tom Klem

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
So you think members don't have the right to be upset about the Natrol
deal? Everyone who is upset must have political motivations? How are
we up to our eyebrows in theft, filth, and druggery? It wasn't me
supporting Natrol.

Perhaps a small point here but I don't want Gerry to think I was not
satisfied with him as the choice. I did recommend Kalev. But it was
decided not to bring him back. Only after that did Gerry's name come
into the picture and I wanted to have him named acting editor which
ultimately happened but much later. At the time of my recommendation, I
also made another proposal which nobody at all liked and that was to
bring in one month at a time three applicants who earlier had answered
our call for applicants for the job of editor. My idea was to let each
one do an issue of Chess Life as a way to show us what they could do.
Gerry would oversee them but basically they would design the issue.

Unfortunately, analysis is all I can offer these days.

Regards and the best to you in the future,
Tom Klem



wrote in message
oups.com...
Tom,

I am very impressed about your analysis of Bill Goichberg. Most people
do not see Bill's tremendous conflict of interest and motivations.

Many people may be wondering why all these political battles and
attacks. Everything started when the Executive ratified the decision
to relocation the USCF HQ to Crossville, TN.

Previously, I mentioned in another posting that when in 2003 we were
contemplating the concept of outsourcing the B&E business, the only way
to neutralize Bill Goichberg's group opposition was by putting Bill in
the position of implementing the decision.

While Bill Goichberg was Executive Director he tried to undermine me as
President and the members of the Executive Board, many times I found
out about what was going on in the office through Don Schulz. In April
2004, I had a private conversation with Goichberg and Schulz about
this. Bill Goichberg promised to improve the communication with the
President and Vice-president of Finances.

I have my theory about why Bill Goichberg wanted to become Executive
Director, for once he was truly sincere about helping the organization,
because he knows its in his business interest that the USCF is alive.
On the other hand, thinking about his psychological profile, in the
late 60s and early 70s Bill Goichberg used to work for the USCF office
in the Rating Department, when Edmondson decided to relocate the USCF
office from NYC to Newburght, NY. Bill lost his job..

Concerning your point about Goichberg hand picking Committee members, a
good exemple is the Publications Committee. When Glenn Peterson had a
heart attack. When I went to the office in New Windsor, my first
reaction was to work with Publication's Committee, I looked at the name
of the Chairman of the Committee, and I immediately understood that I
needed to move very quickly and find someone who could cover for Glenn
Peterson in this emergency. Thankfully, Gerry Dullea was available to
help us. Don Schulz wanted to bring Kalev back, but he needed someone
who can manage the Department and be in the office evey day of the
week.

In my opinion, at this point Bill Goichberg is the only sure winner in
this election. Therefore, He will be seating in the Executive Board
for the next four years, Bill wants to become President of the
organization. This will be a disaster. Bill will use his position of
influence to protect his business, and block the competitors.

When I worked with the organizers of the Global Chess Challenge, I kept
the details of the agreements confidential until they were ready to
offer a concrete deal to the USCF and this proposal could be presented
to the Executive Board. You must be wondering why organizers did no
want to deal with Bill Goichberg when he was Executive Director. Even
Fred Gruenberg, did not want to deal with him, after Bill Goichberg in
violation to the contact with Fred Gruenberg decided not to give the
National Open a back cover and instead move their advertising to page
3.

Tom, I am afraid that our members will be electing Bill Goichberg to
the Board. Hopefully, the decision making process will be transparent
enough not to allow any wrong doing against CCA's competitors and the
Executive Board members will have enough common sense not to making him
President.

All the best,

Beatriz Marinello






Tom Klem wrote:
You have a right to be in a snit about anything you want.

Both sides have a right to manipulate the facts to their advantage.

I'm just sick of the pigs running the hen house.

Both sides have their problems. For my money, Goichberg controls the
USCF
through hand picked delegates and committee seats. He is little more
than a
Boss Tweed or an old style Tammany politician, except he takes our dues
and
turns it into gold bullion for the CCA. People both admire and are
afraid of
Goichberg. Clearly, he is a personnage to be reckoned with at the USCF.

As voter/owners, we should make it as hard as possible for Goichberg to
operate our organization for the profit of Continental Chess and to his
own
benefit.

We should make it clear that even though we know that Goichberg runs
everything, there is a sea change coming due to the past gross
governance
gotchas which were foisted upon our hobby by a greedy Goichberg solely
to
promote his own business, and to destroy the businesses of potential
competitors.

Goichbergs penchant for using the governance of the USCF to destroy
competitors, and commit the same kinds of offences he gets his friends
on
the committees to ignore, must have a noticeable price, if these abuses
are
to stop.

If the voters turn a blind eye to his abusive nature and porcupine
mentality, then the USCF will once again turn into his private preserve,
where promotion of Chess as an element of culture in the United States,
takes a back seat to building the Bill and Brenda retirement fund.

Goichberg and his friends have coopted the USCF for their own ends and
to
profit themselves. They are only interested in what is profitable to
themselves and not promoting a larger Chess organization for the
membership.

In my opinion, they are as dirty as the day is long and regulary pull
dirty
tricks on competitors, use unlawful business practices, and get away
with
all sorts things which making the light of day would make a mafia don
blush.

Don't make the mistake of giving them control of the USCF. Chess in the
US
will continue to founder if you do.

Tom Klem

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
So you think members don't have the right to be upset about the Natrol
deal? Everyone who is upset must have political motivations? How are
we up to our eyebrows in theft, filth, and druggery? It wasn't me
supporting Natrol.

NATROL, NIKKEN, NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

I have fully disclosed my knowledge on the subject. As soon as the
deal was made public (which is how I learned about it) I started
getting emails on it. I immediately and consistently labeled it a
mistake and said I would work to get the policy reversed. It was, and
it has, and I fail to see what more I can contribute to this
discussion. Randy Bauer

We are at the beginning of a long process to achieve full
disclosure.

The first line of defense is to answer questions that were not
asked. That is where we stand, more or less, at this moment.

The second line of defense will be that I am not a USCF member,
and when members ask the same questions, they will be ignored.

The third line of defense will be that I am a dirt farmer who
deals in muck (e.g., when I revealed to you that Cross-to-Bear
architect famished Phil Elmore was to get $60,000 for putting up a
building then estimated to cost $300,000 or when I told you the real
cost of the small new building would be a minimum of $650,000 for a
building about 40% the size of the New Windsor facility; or when I
asked about the results of borings into bedrock and radon content --
still being hushed up).

The fourth line of defense will be that I know Sam Sloan or Sam Sloan
knows me.

The fifth line of defense will be that someone is leaking
information to me, though by this time there will be no denial of the
veracity of said information.

Finally, as with the cost of the small, new building, there will
be an Executive Board meeting, and readers will learn that my reports
were essentially true.

We will then be told by one of the claque that it is "time to
move on."

Now, then, Mr. Bauer's response tells us, once again, that he
was opposed to the Natrol deal, which is not the issue at hand.

He then tries a counterattack by claiming I assumed he was part
of a cover-up, which once again, has nothing at all to do with his
being opposed to the deal beforehand.

Loyal troops carry water.

However, we do have an answer of a kind from Randy Bauer which
becomes part of the public record -- later to be consulted. He tells
us, "I have fully disclosed my knowledge on the subject."

I take his avowal to mean the following:

1. Mr. Bauer does not know whether the new executive director Bill
Hall worked in some capacity with Natrol while working with Nikken;

2. Mr. Bauer has no knowledge of any contacts and discussions (if
not business deals) between Mrs. Marinello and Mr. Hall regarding
Natrol before the announcement of, if memory serves, May 25, 2005.
Which is to say, he has learned nothing on this latter subject since
that announcement. We shall see.

DID THE NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WORK WITH OR HAVE SOME
RELATIONSHIP WITH NATROL DIRECTLY OR THROUGH NIKKEN?

No answer as yet.

DID BEATRIZ MARINELLO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS DEAL WITH THE
MAN WHO BECAME THE NEW ED BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DEAL?

No answer as yet.

Here is the "coincidence" that we are being asked to accept at
the moment: the new ED came on board about the time of the Natrol deal
(small payment of $5,000) having worked for or with a company called
Nikken, dealing with Natrol.

Beatriz Marinello, unbeknownst to the new ED, was dealing with
Natrol even as he was in the process of being hired. She then took it
upon herself without consulting the board eo enter into a contract with
Natrol. Her chief advistor Stan Booz then publicly went on record to
accuse Don Schultz of being behind the deal and offered to take a lie
detector test -- which he later ducked when his bluff was called.

The answers will be forthcoming at some point. That much is
certain.

The only issue now is how much pain will be endured before
there is full disclosure.

Parr's undisclosed source has a point here--this is a striking
coincidence and deserves followup.

There is the intermediate possibility that Marinello and Hall discussed
the contract but that Hall was not instrumental in doing the deal.

********

Now, Larry, kindly get back to us on Sam Sloan's racism.

In your eyes, is racial prejudice a good thing for a USCF Board member?
Or is it a really good thing?

You think the correct number of racist, child-molesting, porn-peddling
felons for the Board is "one."

I think it is zero.

I also think Larry Parr's integrity is zero. And I don't know why
anyone in USCF gives you the time of day.

If a Board member felt the information was best leaked, then it could
have been leaked to a person of integrity.

"Mike Nolan" wrote

...I think the above sentences explain why the USCF has been so inept at
finding sponsors over
the nearly 20 years I've been involved at the national level.

That's not the only reason. There's been a general lack of creativity, and
of urgency. I've been screaming for years about our marketing potential,
Mike, and you've been the proverbial cold, wet blanket.

The real problem has been our lack of marketing professionalism. A good
marketeer can find a sponsor for anything worth doing.

Look at how the American public has cultivated an interest in poker,
particularly Texas Hold-Em (the most boring game ever invented). Somebody
made a sport out of Hold 'Em. Someone could do the same for chess.

I know a really good way to attract outside sponsorship, Angelo.

1. Make sure the board is totally divided by factionalism, so that the
feud itself saps all creative energy.

2. Make sure that a racist ex-con who markets porn to kids and brags
about deflowering teenage prostitutes plays a key role in your
organization.

Seriously, you're right. If the board ever got its act together
(heh-heh-heh), there's real potential here.

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"Randy Bauer" writes:

That depends on how they wish to market chess and their
relationship with
the USCF. Educational, recreational, social?

Randy, this is not intended as a criticism of you, but I think the
above
sentences explain why the USCF has been so inept at finding sponsors
over
the nearly 20 years I've been involved at the national level.

The USCF is not a charity, it shouldn't be limiting itself to just
charitable sponsorships.

The USCF runs itself as a club for a small
and generally unlikeable group of eccentrics -
there's nothing remotely charitable about
it.

snipped

Here's a list of the sponsors at the bottom of the littleleague.org
website:

Musco Lighting, Capri Sun beverages, Wilson Sporting Goods,
Snickers,
Upper Deck, Cingular, Ace Hardware.

All of them fall into either the category of marketers of baseball
equipment
or makers of things that people who play baseball are likely to buy.

It seems like most of these do *not* have
any specific product designed especially
for baseball players. The point is that
Little League is well-known and highly
regarded by baseball players and the
community as a whole, whereas the USCF
has chosen to be completely invisible
outside of chess and poorly regarded
by chess players.

The lack of judgement shown in the brainSpeed
tie-in is sadly not an aberration, but rather business
as usual for an insular and clueless crowd.

DK

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
news:AU2ye.130228$nG6.75699@attbi_s22...

I have stated over and over, and from the very beginning, that the Natrol
partnership was a mistake, and I favor a Board policy that limits our
involvement to organizations or groups who wish to market chess as a
social, recreational, or educational activity. I had absolutely no prior
knowledge of the partnership -- the first I knew of it was when the press
release was quoted on the newsgroups, and I originally thought it was a
hoax. I have two school age chess-playing daughters, and I would never
support a partnership that suggests that the way to improve your chess is
through taking drugs.

Sorry Randy, in Larry Parr's kangaroo court you are convicted of the crime
through the law of "guilt by association".

wrote in message
oups.com...

We are at the beginning of a long process to achieve full
disclosure.

The first line of defense is to answer questions that were not
asked. That is where we stand, more or less, at this moment.

Larry, did you ever get to the bottom of the Carol Jarecki scandal of
several years back? You remember, you wanted to know why she was given two
checks for 1,500 each and why one was considered an expense reimbursement.