Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board

Can someone say what specific Standards of Conduct
violations are being cited as Censured? PI
********************************
You can find a complete copy of the Standards of
Conduct he

http://uschess.org/org/govern/conduct.html

The Channing e-mail (partially copied below) lists the
sections where violations are claimed.

Note that a censure from the Executive Board is not
the same thing as a censure from the Ethics Committee.
The former is a mere opinion of the EB, while the
latter is a formal finding carrying greater weight, as
well as an automatic probationary period of one year.


Thanks Hal!

As a completely non-partisan observer on the personality level [a rarity] I
am still trying to connect the conduct censure with the specific
activities - can it be mention of the Tanner Ethics issue? Perhaps there are
multiple issues here, though from what I have read, Mr. Tanner seemed
disinclined to note the ethics finding - and I personally find the
combination of the subject of ethics and secrecy to be oxymoronic.

I can't imagine what is censurable about disclosing cheating, especially
since the individual named was himself on a Fide Ethics committee.

Would it not have been better to differentiate one censured topic from
another? - the cited material below does seem to range widely. I can see
some objectionable elements in them, but cannot understand others.

The unfortunate, and perhaps unintended effect of admixing them, is to seem
to achieve a board censure of Sam Sloan for disclosing board member ethical
violations. This, indeed, is now the popular perception of the board's
actions.

Rather than perceive Mr. Sloan as worthy of censure where it seems due, that
is lost in a sense of persecuting what is considered a just exposition,
thus, if I wanted to actually enhance Mr. Sloan's image prospects, I would
act just as the board has done.

Phil Innes


-- Hal Terrie
**************************************

The following motion by Joel Channing has passed
by a vote of 3-0 with
Channing, Goichberg and Hough in favor and Sloan,
Marinello, Schultz and
Tanner abstaining.

Bill Goichberg


November 29, 2006:

I move that the Executive Board of the USCF
censure Sam Sloan for his
failures to adhere to the Standards of Conduct as
highlighted and noted in
the attached emails.

Joel Channing

Violations of (1c), (2e), (3), (3b) & (3d)

Chess One wrote:
As a completely non-partisan observer on the personality level [a rarity] I

Prevarication right off the bat. There's a good start.

am still trying to connect the conduct censure with the specific
activities - can it be mention of the Tanner Ethics issue?

The motion was clear. Sloan defamed various USCF officials and
members, lied about candidates regarding payment of fees, etc... What
about this is not clear to you? Of course, if you were a member then
you could look at the original motion on the USCF Forum or in the
BINFOs.

But you are not, are you?

So what the hell does it matter to you? Go away.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:
As a completely non-partisan observer on the personality level [a rarity]
I

Prevarication right off the bat. There's a good start.

Prevarication! But not of what.

am still trying to connect the conduct censure with the specific
activities - can it be mention of the Tanner Ethics issue?

The motion was clear. Sloan defamed various USCF officials and
members, lied about candidates regarding payment of fees, etc... What
about this is not clear to you? Of course, if you were a member then
you could look at the original motion on the USCF Forum or in the
BINFOs.

I am aware of what's written which is as vague as your post. If you hadn't
snipped my comments that it wouldn't be necessary to make yours yawn

And I can read the Forum, anyway
I simply resent the idea of having to say I am a member of the smelly-foot
society, in order to notice that some people's feet stink.

But you are not, are you?

So what the hell does it matter to you? Go away.

Up yours too! This is a public forum, if you don't like it, you go away to
the nice edited, but supremely boring monitored one at USCF.

Quondam Aquarius, Phil Innes

If the truth ever comes out, which will require all the confidential
board emails to be published, and will require the tapes and
transcripts to be posted, which has not happened thus far although it
is required by the by-laws, it will be seen that the real situation is
that the Mr. Channing and Mr. Goichberg have consumed tremendous
amounts of board time by attacking me.

Bill did not reveal this, but he made a previous motion to reprimand or
censure me back in August, 2006. After a lengthy and divisive debate,
that motion passed by 4-2, with Don Schultz and Beatriz Marinello
voting against and me not voting at all.

Since then, there has been little substantive discussion by the board
on any subject. Indeed, the three emails for which they censured me
constitutes virtually the only real commentary on the important US
Championship issue.

As for my requests taking up the time of the office, my requests have
all been reasonable and for documents which should have been readily
available. At my first meeting of the board, I asked for copies of the
Truong contracts and the AF4C contracts. I was told that they were lost
along with almost all the other financial records and important
documents from New Windsor. As a result of my persistent requests for
these documents, one month later they were finally located in the
lawyer's office. The originals in the USCF files still have not been
located. Also, all the original Chess Life word processing files in
Quark Express have been lost and are said to be in the Crossville
Landfill.

In addition, for nearly one month from about August 25 to late
September 2006, I received few emails from the board because, they
claimed, my email address was not working. This was a lie. My email
address worked fine. They were accidentally on purpose sending all the
emails to a non-existent address.

With this background, plus Joel Channing yelling and screaming at me
during the meeting in Stamford, it is obvious that the motion to
censure me was done for political purposes.

Sam Sloan

Bill did not reveal this, but he made a previous motion to reprimand
or censure me back in August, 2006. After a lengthy and divisive
debate, that motion passed by 4-2, with Don Schultz and Beatriz
Marinello voting against and me not voting at all.

What was the alleged justification for this first censure motion?

wrote:
Bill did not reveal this, but he made a previous motion to reprimand
or censure me back in August, 2006. After a lengthy and divisive
debate, that motion passed by 4-2, with Don Schultz and Beatriz
Marinello voting against and me not voting at all.

What was the alleged justification for this first censure motion?

All four of the allegations of the original motion by Bill Goichberg
had to do with Polgar.

One cited my refusal to remove the picture of me with Polgar from my
website. (No mention was made of the fact that a picture of me with
Susan Polgar, taken in 1986, has been on my website since 1996. A
similar picture of me with Susan is in Laszlo Polgar's book published
in Budapest.)

Another of the four allegations was that I should not have said that
the USCF had paid Polgar $39,000. I confess and admit that I was wrong
on that one. Polgar was paid more than $39,000. I admit that it was
improper of me to short-change her.

The other two allegations also had to do with Polgar, but since my hard
drive crashed, I cannot recover them.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote (6 Dec 2006 19:02:16 -0800):

7 ... One cited my refusal to remove the picture of me with
7 Polgar from my website. ...

_
Is Sam Sloan perhaps thinking of the resolution quoted in
Binfo 200603607? I quoted this resolution in a note that
I posted here on 10 Oct 2006 09:12:15 -0700. (It contains
the word, "whereas", and should not be hard to find with
Google.)

Thank you.

Also, were you the author of the deleted BINFO 200603590 (cited below)?


Other than partial redaction of email addresses, does the text appear
to be correct and complete?

*********

BEGIN QUOTATION

BINFO 200603590
Date 2006-09-25
From samsloan

Status Standard Release
Release Date 2006-10-03
Subject Resolution of the Executive Board

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Subject: Resolution of the Executive Board
From: Sam Sloan samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:47:41 -0400
Cc: Joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Beatchess@xxxxxxx, Rtannerae@xxxxxxx,
randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, CHESSJOEL@xxxxxxx,
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, Chessdon@xxxxxxx, pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx,
queencapa@xxxxxxx , USCF BINFO System, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
In-reply-to: 3.0.6.32.20060925110012.01f13280@xxxxxxxxxxxx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 11:00 AM 9/25/2006 -0400, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:I move in open
session that the Board approve the following resolutionwritten by our
attorney, Mike Matsler. I vote yes.
Bill GoichbergI am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill, acting like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public forum by making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System, as a result of which this matter will disseminated and the entire world will know about it in due course.The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar (who now calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been discrete
and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close friends the true
nature of
our prior relationship, until now. Now, Bill's public motion
effectively forces me to reveal what really happened those many years
ago. This will do no good either to me, Zsuzsa,
Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real choice
but to tell the whole story. Sam Sloan

END QUOTATION

REVENGE -- PURE AND SIMPLE

There ought to be a motion thanking Sam
Sloan He was censured in revenge for dragging
down insider Robert Tanner.


samsloan wrote:
If the truth ever comes out, which will require all the confidential
board emails to be published, and will require the tapes and
transcripts to be posted, which has not happened thus far although it
is required by the by-laws, it will be seen that the real situation is
that the Mr. Channing and Mr. Goichberg have consumed tremendous
amounts of board time by attacking me.

Bill did not reveal this, but he made a previous motion to reprimand or
censure me back in August, 2006. After a lengthy and divisive debate,
that motion passed by 4-2, with Don Schultz and Beatriz Marinello
voting against and me not voting at all.

Since then, there has been little substantive discussion by the board
on any subject. Indeed, the three emails for which they censured me
constitutes virtually the only real commentary on the important US
Championship issue.

As for my requests taking up the time of the office, my requests have
all been reasonable and for documents which should have been readily
available. At my first meeting of the board, I asked for copies of the
Truong contracts and the AF4C contracts. I was told that they were lost
along with almost all the other financial records and important
documents from New Windsor. As a result of my persistent requests for
these documents, one month later they were finally located in the
lawyer's office. The originals in the USCF files still have not been
located. Also, all the original Chess Life word processing files in
Quark Express have been lost and are said to be in the Crossville
Landfill.

In addition, for nearly one month from about August 25 to late
September 2006, I received few emails from the board because, they
claimed, my email address was not working. This was a lie. My email
address worked fine. They were accidentally on purpose sending all the
emails to a non-existent address.

With this background, plus Joel Channing yelling and screaming at me
during the meeting in Stamford, it is obvious that the motion to
censure me was done for political purposes.

Sam Sloan

wrote:
REVENGE -- PURE AND SIMPLE

There ought to be a motion thanking Sam
Sloan He was censured in revenge for dragging
down insider Robert Tanner.


You may be correct.

But I still haven't received an answer to my questions from Sloan. The
answer has a direct bearing on the propriety of Sloan's conduct as a
Board member.

1. Does Sloan acknowledge authorship of deleted BINFO 200603590?

2. Does Sloan acknowledge the text below as the text of that BINFO?

These are simple questions, and Sloan claims to be an honest man.
"Yes" or "No" should suffice.


*********

BEGIN QUOTATION

BINFO 200603590
Date 2006-09-25

From samsloan

Status Standard Release
Release Date 2006-10-03
Subject Resolution of the Executive Board

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Subject: Resolution of the Executive Board
From: Sam Sloan samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:47:41 -0400
Cc: Joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Beatchess@xxxxxxx, Rtannerae@xxxxxxx,
randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, CHESSJOEL@xxxxxxx,
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, Chessdon@xxxxxxx, pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx,
queencapa@xxxxxxx , USCF BINFO System, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
In-reply-to: 3.0.6.32.20060925110012.01f13280@xxxxxxxxxxxx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 11:00 AM 9/25/2006 -0400, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:I move in open
session that the Board approve the following resolutionwritten by our
attorney, Mike Matsler. I vote yes.
Bill GoichbergI am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill, acting like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public forum by making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System, as a result of which this matter will disseminated and the entire world will know about it in due course.The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar (who now calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been discrete

and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close friends the true
nature of
our prior relationship, until now. Now, Bill's public motion
effectively forces me to reveal what really happened those many years
ago. This will do no good either to me, Zsuzsa,
Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real choice
but to tell the whole story. Sam Sloan

END QUOTATION