Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board

He "has no real choice," n'est-ce pas?

wrote:
He "has no real choice," n'est-ce pas?

s/h/b

He has "no real choice," n'est-ce pas?

:-)

Perhaps Sloan and S. Polgar discussed the _Poetics_, which is "not
entirely Platonic" (indeed, not at all....)

I cannot answer these questions because my hard drive crashed and,
although a donor gave me money to buy a new computer, I still cannot
get access to the confidential board BINFOS (Mike Nolan says that there
is a technical problem that he has not been able to solve) so I cannot
recover the text of the motion made by Bill Goichberg or the
acrimoneous debate that followed (in which I did not participate).

I would appreciate it if somebody can locate and post the two lengthy
letters Bill Goichberg wrote to the USCF's attorney, Michael Matsler,
asking "How to get rid of Sam Sloan". One of these letters was dated on
about August 25, 2006. Also, the two three page letters Michael Matsler
wrote back (for which the USCF was no doubt charged at least a thousand
dollars) should be posted.

I believe that the members have a right to know how their membership
dues are being spent and that the USCF President, Bill Goichberg, and
the VP of Finance, Joel Channing, have spent a tremendous amount of the
board's time and the USCF's money trying to get rid of a duly elected
board member, me.

To begin with, all the "Confidential" emails on this subject should be
made public.

Sam Sloan

wrote in message
ups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
His "stupid" remark would qualify as unprofessional in a public forum
(was
this email part of public discussions?), but mere testiness in a private
meeting among peers.

His stupid "stupid" remark was made in a non-confidential BINFO post.
Anyone that is a member of the USCF can read it.

Is this all there is?

No. You quoted another part of it which was Sloan lying about
candidates not having filed election fees.

An accusation is not a lie if the accuser has reason to believe the charge
is true. According to your logic every public prosecutor who loses a case
should be tried for malpractice.

Sam Sloan's chess life, writing, and whistle-blowing is conducted "on the
edge." Sometimes he is fabulously wrong, as when he reported the death of
Peter Leko. Sometimes, as with the Tanner incident, he is so dead-on that
you have to wonder about people who have disparaged him over the years, and
what their agendas might be.

One thing is for certain: he loves chess, and he does not conduct his chess
affairs with the expectation of financial reward. That's a pretty good start
for a USCF board member.

I didn't vote for him last time (I didn't vote for anyone, actually). Next
time I will campaign for him.

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:10:13 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:


Sam Sloan's chess life, writing, and whistle-blowing is conducted "on the
edge." Sometimes he is fabulously wrong, as when he reported the death of
Peter Leko.

Hell, even this has been blown out of proportion. He was trying for a
newsgroup scoop, and repeated what may have been a deliberate hoax. He
admitted his mistake and corrected himself the next day. If only the
Federation's errors were put right this fast....

Sometimes, as with the Tanner incident, he is so dead-on that
you have to wonder about people who have disparaged him over the years, and
what their agendas might be.

People like to stay with the business-as-usual comfort zone for
personal and financial reasons. Plus, it's hard to play the role of
dignified international "sports" personality when there's a ferret in
your shorts. And some are honestly offended by his personal life and
publications.

One thing is for certain: he loves chess, and he does not conduct his chess
affairs with the expectation of financial reward. That's a pretty good start
for a USCF board member.

I didn't vote for him last time (I didn't vote for anyone, actually). Next
time I will campaign for him.

Parr remarked some time ago that we wouldn't want all Sloans on the
board, but one's not such a bad idea.

Sam Sloan wrote (7 Dec 2006 02:23:42 -0800):

7 ... I still cannot get access to the confidential board BINFOS
7 (Mike Nolan says that there is a technical problem that he has
7 not been able to solve) so I cannot recover the text of the
7 motion made by Bill Goichberg or the acrimoneous debate
7 that followed (in which I did not participate). ...

_
See Binfos: 200603576, 200603577, 200603579, 200603580,
200603581, 200603583, 200603584, 200603585, 200603586,
200603587, 200603588, 200603594, 200603600, 200603601,
200603602, 200603603, 200603604, 200603605, 200603606,
200603607, 200603615, 200603618, 200603619, 200603620,
200603698, 200603701

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:10:13 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:


Sam Sloan's chess life, writing, and whistle-blowing is conducted "on the
edge." Sometimes he is fabulously wrong, as when he reported the death of
Peter Leko.

Hell, even this has been blown out of proportion. He was trying for a
newsgroup scoop, and repeated what may have been a deliberate hoax. He
admitted his mistake and corrected himself the next day. If only the
Federation's errors were put right this fast....

I agree. Newspapers make mistakes like this, and worse, all the time and we
still buy them.

Sometimes, as with the Tanner incident, he is so dead-on that
you have to wonder about people who have disparaged him over the years,
and
what their agendas might be.

People like to stay with the business-as-usual comfort zone for
personal and financial reasons. Plus, it's hard to play the role of
dignified international "sports" personality when there's a ferret in
your shorts. And some are honestly offended by his personal life and
publications.

One thing is for certain: he loves chess, and he does not conduct his
chess
affairs with the expectation of financial reward. That's a pretty good
start
for a USCF board member.

I didn't vote for him last time (I didn't vote for anyone, actually). Next
time I will campaign for him.

Parr remarked some time ago that we wouldn't want all Sloans on the
board, but one's not such a bad idea.

Great point.

Let's face it, the Tanner fiasco exposed a lot more than the alleged
misdeeds of one individual. Think about everyone who must have known
something was fishy and didn't say anything.

Sam is not good for the status quo. He raises issues about salaries,
contracts, and all that sweet stuff that's been the fiefdom of entrenched
USCF interests since I was a kid.

GO SAM!

Without reproducing all the quoting, here is an attempt to
indicate what people wrote in the previously listed binfos.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:06:49 EDT

To the Board:

We have discussed the proposed resolution suggested by our
attorney Mike Matsler in closed session. From this discussion
it is not clear what action the Board wishes to take, and further
discussion in open session appears both necessary and
supported by most Board members who have taken part in the
closed session discussion.

To prepare for open session discussion, I am making the
material below (an email I sent to the Board Sept 15) a public
binfo.

Bill Goichberg

Dear Board:

This is a follow up on the advice we received from Mike Matsler
in August, which was

"At least one of the e-mail letters you have provided me contain
Bill Goichberg's request to the executive board member to remove
the photograph. If the request is not honored, then arguably Ms.
Polgar in some states such as California and perhaps New York
could have a legal cause of action against the executive board
member; and could conceivably decide to sue USCF or the
executive board as well, even though in our view she would not
have a valid cause of action against the organization or the
executive board, in that an organization and its board are not
legally responsible for the private acts of its directors unless it
can be shown that the organization or its board in some manner
approved, ratified or acquiesced in the conduct. Accordingly,
prudence would dictate that your executive board issue a clear
statement to the board member that the posting of the
photograph, and any other specific conduct or statements of
concern to the board, are not in the best interests of the
organization, and that the board member does not have any
authority, right or permission to engage in any conduct which
could in any way be construed as being done within the scope
of the board member's authority as a board member of USCF."

I submitted the following possible resolution for Matsler's opinion:

Moved, that the Executive Board notifies Sam Sloan of the
following:

1. We believe that your refusal to remove the photo of Susan
Polgar from your website is not in the best interests of the
USCF.

2. We believe that your internet post alleging that USCF paid
$39,000 to Paul Truong is false and not in the best interests
of the USCF.

3. We believe that various internet attacks you have made on
USCF staff, committee members, and delegates are not in the
best interests of USCF.

4. We believe that your failure to remove your web sites,
http://www.samsloan.com/ and http://www.ishipress.com/, is
not in the best interests of USCF.

5. You do not have any authority, right or permission to engage
in any conduct which could in any way be construed as being
done within the scope of the board member's authority as a
board member of USCF.

Matsler asked what the purpose of this resolution was and I
replied that the main purposes I intended we

1. To make it clear that the Board disapproves of the actions
listed, in order to protect the Federation from legal action, as
you suggested would be prudent in your previous letter.

2. To report to the delegates and members regarding issues
(Sloan's behavior and indecent websites) that many have
expressed concern about.

We have now received a reply from Matsler in the form of a
suggested resolution. I will forward this to the Board separately.

Bill Goichberg
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:17:21 EDT

In reply to Don's request regarding the Matsler Resolution,
following are the previous comments I sent to Matsler through
Bill Hall, which are in response to Matsler's prior statements
(also shown here). Note that my #1 stated purpose was to
be prudent and protect the Federation from legal action, and
that in further comment below I specifically brought up Don's
concern that a motion might increase USCF's potential liability.
Matsler's reply to what I wrote below was the resolution that is
now before us.

Bill Goichberg

In a message dated 8/30/2006 6:05:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight
Time, bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Bill: I have reviewed Bill Goichberg's draft motion regarding
Mr. Sloan and Mr. Channing's proposed revisions as you
have requested, as well as Don Schultz' comments, in our
role as general counsel to the organization. As a preliminary
procedural point, it is not entirely clear what the purpose of
the motion is.

The first four points would have the executive board express
its position that Mr. Sloan's conduct is not in the best
interests of the corporation; the last point would be to give
notice that Mr. Sloan is to not engage in (unspecified) conduct
which the board does not authorize. Generally, a board has
an implied power to vote on motions of censure, that is, to put
on record that the board does not approve of specified acts or
conduct, and to adopt motions setting forth the board's position
with respect to specified matters, as well as to formulate policy.
If those items are what Bill Goichberg wishes to place before
the board, I would suggest the motion be revised accordingly.

The draft motion as written suggests that the purpose of the
motion is to clarify and express the board's policy with respect
to certain matters.

If any board member thereafter fails to comply with any policy,
then the board can notify the member of such failure and
request compliance.

We do not believe that Mr. Channing's suggested revisions
would be beneficial.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Mike Matsler

In a message dated 8/30/2006 6:47:51 PM Eastern Daylight
Time, Chessoffice writes:

The main purposes [of the motion] I intend a

1. To make it clear that the Board disapproves of the actions
listed, in order to protect the Federation from legal action, as
you suggested would be prudent in your previous letter.

2. To report to the delegates and members regarding issues
(Sloan's behavior and indecent websites) that many have
expressed concern about.

I don't understand what type of revision is being called for here
[in the second paragraph of the above Mike Matsler message].
If you are suggesting that the board call such a motion a
"censure," I think Don and possibly other board members
would find this language too strong.

[Clarifying and expressing the board's policy with respect to
certain matters] is one purpose [of the motion].

[Notifying the member of failure to comply with policy and
requesting compliance] would appear to me a third purpose
of the motion in addition to the two listed above.

Don Schultz is concerned that the motion would, rather than
decreasing USCF's potential liability, possibly increase it by
assuming responsibility for some of Sloan's actions. What
is your opinion of this argument, and would the revision you
are suggesting affect the issue of potential liability?

Bill Goichberg
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:48:47 EDT

I move in open session that the Board approve the following
resolution written by our attorney, Mike Matsler. I vote yes.

Bill Goichberg

RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF
THE UNITED STATES CHESS FEDERATION
..
WHEREAS, the Executive Board of the United States
of America Chess Federation ("US Chess Federation")
recognizes its obligation to further the mission and goals of
the US Chess Federation in all areas in which it is active,
including the fields of education and scholastic chess;
promoting tournaments and competitions; and expanding
public awareness of the world of chess; and reconfirms its
commitment to the policies and standards set forth in the
US Chess Federation By-Laws, Code of Ethics, and
Standards of Conduct for the Executive Board; and
disapproves of conduct which is inimical to the said policies
and standards or to the organization; its financial and legal
affairs, or otherwise harmful or damaging to the good
reputation of the US Chess Federation; and
..
WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the
Executive Board that an Executive Board Member has
posted on the Member's personal web site one or more
photographs of a prominent member of the US Chess
Federation, contrary to the wishes of said member, which
has resulted in threats of legal action against US Chess
Federation and has otherwise damaged or risks damaging
the relationship between US Chess Federation and such
member; and has otherwise publicly disseminated on the
Board Member's web site photographs and/or statements
which many members of the US Chess Federation,
supporters of the US Chess Federation including schools
and other educational institutions, and members of the
chess playing public generally find objectionable and
which, in the opinion of the Executive Board, risk
damaging the reputation of the US Chess Federation as
well as its business and financial health;
..
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
..
RESOLVED, that Executive Board Members shall
at all times act in a manner consistent with the US Chess
Federation By-Laws, Code of Ethics, and Standards of
Conduct and shall not, whether in their official capacity
as an Executive Board Member, delegate, general
member of the US Chess Federation, or in their personal
capacity, engage in any conduct which is inimical to the
mission, reputation, or business of the US Chess
Federation; and it is further
..
RESOLVED, that the Executive Board deems it to
be a violation of the Code of Ethics and the Standards of
Conduct for any Executive Board Member to disseminate
or publish, whether on the member's personal web site or
otherwise, pornographic material, defamatory statements,
confidential US Chess Federation information, trade
secrets or proprietary data, or photographs of US Chess
Federation members or supporters who have notified the
Executive Board Member that they do not consent to
have their photographs published or posted or that they
revoke any prior permission or authorization; and it is
further
..
RESOLVED, that no Executive Board Member, in
the conduct of the members' personal life, business, or
affairs, shall represent, whether expressly or impliedly, to
any person or third party that the Member is acting in the
Member's official capacity as an Executive Board Member
of the US Chess Federation or is otherwise acting under
the authority or approval of the US Chess Federation; and
it is further
..
RESOLVED, that any conduct by any Executive
Board Member contrary to the within resolution including
without limitation the posting of unauthorized photographs
or other material damaging to US Chess Federation on the
members' personal web site is disavowed by the US Chess
Federation as contrary to its policies and standards, and in
such cases, the Executive Board may, in its discretion,
advise the Board Member in question to comply with the
standards and policies of the US Chess Federation, in
default of which charges of misconduct may be referred to
the Ethics Committee, or the Board of Delegates for further
action consistent with the standards, policies, and By-Laws
of the US Chess Federation; provided, however, that the
Executive Board shall have no obligation to take any
affirmative steps to monitor or review Executive Board
Members' activities that are outside the scope of the
Executive Board Members' duties; and it is further
..
RESOLVED, that the official web site of the US Chess
Federation shall set forth the following disclaimer: "This is
the sole and official web site of the United States of America
Chess Federation. No other web site is authorized to
represent itself or otherwise hold itself out, whether
expressly or impliedly, as being an authorized United
States of America Chess Federation web site or otherwise
as being approved or affiliated with the United States of
America Chess Federation. The United States of America
Chess Federation disclaims any responsibility or liability
for any statements or materials on any web site other than
the official United States of America Chess Federation web
site."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:19:20 -0700 (PDT)

I vote yes.

Randy
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:17:59 EDT

I move to substitute the following motion for the reasons stated
below the substitute motion:

SUBSTITUTE MOTION:

WHEREAS, the Executive Board of the United States of America
Chess Federation ("US Chess Federation") recognizes its
obligation to further the mission and goals of the US Chess
Federation in all areas in which it is active, including the fields
of education and scholastic chess; promoting tournaments and
competitions; and expanding public awareness of the world of
chess; and reconfirms its commitment to the policies and
standards set forth in the US Chess Federation By-Laws, Code
of Ethics, and Standards of Conduct for the Executive Board;
and disapproves of conduct which is inimical to the said policies
and standards or to the organization; its financial and legal affairs,
or otherwise harmful or damaging to the good reputation of the
US Chess Federation; and

RESOLVED, that the official web site of the US Chess Federation
shall set forth the following disclaimer: "This is the sole and
official
web site of the United States of America Chess Federation. No
other web site is authorized to represent itself or otherwise hold
itself out, whether expressly or impliedly, as being an authorized
United States of America Chess Federation web site or otherwise
as being approved or affiliated with the United States of America
Chess Federation. The United States of America Chess
Federation disclaims any responsibility or liability for any
statements or materials on any web site other than the official
United States of America Chess Federation web site;" and it is
further

RESOLVED, that Executive Board Members who have their own
web sites are requested to set forth thereon the following
disclaimer: "Materials on this web site are put there by (Board
Member's Name) and in no way should they be interpreted as
representing or coming from the USCF."

Don Schultz

The difference between Bill's motion and my substitute is that
the substitute is not aimed directly or implicitly at any one
individual. It disassociates the USCF from Board Member web
site statements and other independent actions by Board
Members. I call it the "disassociation version."

The substitute motion leaves out condemnation. One reasons
for this is that there already are Ethics Committee actions and
a recall procedure under way. I want to avoid immersing the EB
as a group in those debates and I believe Bill's "condemnation
motion" would do that.

A second reason is that the condemnation motion is general.
To imply or assert condemnation without detail is in my opinion
wrong. Just as the Ethics Committee will insist on and debate
specifics, IMO we would have to do the same and spell out
exactly what we are condemning. It is near impossible for
anyone to defend against generalities and regardless how any
of us may or may not feel regarding any particular Board
member, we must remember they were fairly elected and
represent a constituency of voting members. They are entitled
to due process if we are to condemn either explicit or implicit.

A third reason is that my substitute motion goes beyond Bill
G's motion in that it addresses disassociation statements on
Board member web sites (I believe there are three, Sam
Sloan's, Bill G and me).

A fourth reason is that I believe that both Bill G's motion and
my alternative will not decrease the likelihood of USCF
involvement in legal action though either should help USCF
prevail in such actions.

A fifth reason is that some of us like me advocated other
choices than Sam in the recent EB elections. It seems to
me, "condemnation" would be an action aimed at undoing a
fair election because it did not come out as we would have
preferred.

The substitute motion also uses wording proposed by
attorney Matsler.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:41:28 EDT

Many members and potential members will judge USCF
partially by the conduct of its Executive Board members,
regardless of any disassociation statements. We have a
Board member whose website contains inappropriate material
harmful to the interests of USCF. The Board should make it
clear to all that we strongly disapprove of the content of this
website and that we request that the site be taken down.

The EB has a responsibility to report to the members and
delegates regarding important matters such as these. We
should not be afraid of speaking out because the issues are
controversial, and we should do so regardless of any other
actions that may be originated by members or delegates.

The Ethics Committee, if it decides to hear the case, will
consider the recommendation of possible penalties and it
is therefore appropriate that it spell out specific charges
and findings in detail.

The Executive Board, on the other hand, is not considering
the imposition or recommendation of any penalties. Rather,
we are making a public statement to announce to the chess
world that we disapprove of material "which many members
of the US Chess Federation, supporters of the US Chess
Federation including schools and other educational
institutions, and members of the chess playing public
generally find objectionable."

Is it your position that our resolution should be so vague that
some will not understand which issues we are addressing,
but failing this, it should be so detailed that we cite in the
motion internet links to help readers can find objectionable
material of a sexist, racist, defamatory or pornographic
nature? Our attorney obviously does not feel that our
resolution need to be that specific.

The Board member in question is part of this debate and
will be copied on all its emails, and has the opportunity to
defend himself. Should he maintain that nothing on his
website is generally found objectionable by USCF
members, supporters and the chess playing public, I will
be glad to provide links to objectionable material on his
website. But such links, while appropriate to refer to in
debate, need not be part of the Board Resolution itself.

I can accept the paragraph regarding Board member web
sites as an addition to my motion.

Even if [the Don Schultz fourth reason is] true, I don't see
why this would be a reason to approve a substitute motion.
Before submitting his resolution, Matsler had asked me what
the purpose of a Board motion would be, and my response
was as follows:

1. To make it clear that the Board disapproves of the
actions listed, in order to protect the Federation from legal
action, as you suggested would be prudent in your previous
letter.

2. To report to the delegates and members regarding issues
(Sloan's behavior and indecent websites) that many have
expressed concern about.

Even if Board members had actively supported other candidates,
I can't agree that as a result, the Board is now unable to criticize
one of its members for inappropriate content on his website, or
that such criticism represents an attempt to undo the results of
the election. Actually, there was an unusually low level of
political activity by Board members in the last election. I did not
campaign, and I now regret that.

[The substitute motion] deletes the great majority of [attorney
Matsler's] wording, and drastically weakens his resolution.

Bill Goichberg
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:01:17 EDT

We haven't been doing email voting long enough to have a
good understanding of it, and here is a procedural issue.

If this was an in person meeting, the substitute motion would
now be on the floor. However, in an email vote, it is usual to
consider more than one motion at the same time. It may also
be desirable, as otherwise a succession of proposed substitutes
and/or amendments could cause a long delay.

I believe that both the original motion and the motion to
substitute should now be on the floor simultaneously, however
since they are incompatible, no Board member may vote for
both. If the original motion passes, the motion to substitute is
defeated, while if the motion to substitute passes, the original
motion is no longer on the table.

If anyone disagrees, please let me hear your arguments and I
will reconsider.

Bill Goichberg
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:15:39 -0400

Personally, I'd rather pass Don's resolution (with a couple of
legalistic changes that I've sent him for his consideration) and
then I'd be more favorably inclined to deal with the Sam-specific
issues separately as a "Sense of the Board" motion. Joel
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:02:22 EDT

I do not believe EB members should judge the personal
activities of each other. It is a dangerous precedent. IMO, we
should tend to the business for which we were elected however
strong the distaste we may have for the life style of a fellow
Board member. We have an Ethics Commission and a recall
procedure both of whom are in the process of addressing this
situation.

7 We should not be afraid of speaking out because the issues
7 are controversial, and we should do so regardless of any
7 other actions that may be originated by members or
7 delegates.

Bill, in all fairness, the fact is that your condemnation and
disassociation motion is more popular motion than my
disassociation substitute. Conversely, I therefore could say:
we should not be afraid of standing on the side of the unpopular
side of this issue, but I won't. I won't because I know you and
other EB members who disagree with me are sincere and
respect you all for that. I simply disagree and am supporting a
substitute which, in my opinion, when all things are considered,
is in the best interest of the USCF.

I believe your motion puts the federation on record as judging
this matter.

Going the path specified in our bylaws provides due process
and avoids setting dangerous precedents.

I am not for vagueness. My substitute motion makes it very
clear that we are disassociating ourselves from potential legal
liabilities.

Condemnation must be specific, disassociation can be general.

[Matsler] did what you asked; he replied with a condemnation
and disassociation motion.

Others regret not campaigning as well. I will always regret not
supporting Woody Harris years ago when he ran against Butler.
C'est la vie! We must proceed now and vote now on what we
each think to be in the best interest of the USCF.

Matsler simply gave us what you asked for: a motion of
condemnation and disassociation. My motion deletes the
condemnation part and strengthens the disassociation part, a
change which, you have now endorsed.

Lastly, I ask Board members to withhold their vote until
arguments both ways, including any advanced by Sam, are
aired. We certainly have a right to disagree but we also have
an obligation to listen to each other.

Don Schultz
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:08:13 EDT

[Bill Goichberg's proposed email voting procedure]
Makes sense to me.

Don
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:10:10 EDT

Bill another idea, procedurally, could be to divide the question
- I defer to however you wish to handle it.

Don
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:19:56 -0400

At 11:48 PM 9/25/2006 EDT, CHESSJOEL@xxxxxxx wrote:

Sam,

Given that the issues that some people have with you concern
behavior that they deem unworthy of an official of USCF, what
does this email accomplish except to help make their case? I
believe you would be well advised to rethink this action and
recant and apologize immediately.

Joel Channing

Who do you want me to apologize to and what do you want
me to apologize for?

Sam Sloan
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:52:52 EDT

Joel Channing has suggested the following slightly revised
version of the Matsler motion, which I find acceptable. So I
move that the Board approve the following resolution instead
of the one previously submitted, and I vote yes on the motion.

Bill Goichberg

RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF
THE UNITED STATES CHESS FEDERATION
..
WHEREAS, the Executive Board of the United States
of America Chess Federation ("US Chess Federation")
recognizes its obligation to further the mission and goals of
the US Chess Federation in all areas in which it is active,
including the fields of education and scholastic chess;
promoting tournaments and competitions; and expanding
public awareness of the world of chess; and reconfirms its
commitment to the policies and standards set forth in the
US Chess Federation By-Laws, Code of Ethics, and
Standards of Conduct for the Executive Board; and
disapproves of conduct which is inimical to the said
policies and standards or to the organization; its financial
and legal affairs, or otherwise harmful or damaging to the
good reputation of the US Chess Federation; and
..
WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the
Executive Board that an Executive Board Member has
posted on the Member's personal web site one or more
photographs of a prominent member of the US Chess
Federation, contrary to the wishes of said member, which
has resulted in threats of legal action against US Chess
Federation and has otherwise damaged or risks damaging
the relationship between US Chess Federation and such
member; and has otherwise publicly disseminated on the
Board Member's web site photographs and/or statements
which many members of the US Chess Federation,
supporters of the US Chess Federation including schools
and other educational institutions, and members of the
chess playing public generally find objectionable and which,
in the opinion of the Executive Board, risk damaging the
reputation of the US Chess Federation as well as its
business and financial health;
..
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
..
RESOLVED, that Executive Board Members shall at
all times act in a manner consistent with the US Chess
Federation By-Laws, Code of Ethics, and Standards of
Conduct and shall not, whether in their official capacity as
an Executive Board Member, delegate, general member of
the US Chess Federation, or in their personal capacity,
engage in any conduct which is inimical to the mission,
reputation, or business of the US Chess Federation; and
it is further
..
RESOLVED, that the Executive Board deems it to be
a violation of the Code of Ethics and the Standards of
Conduct for any Executive Board Member to disseminate
or publish, whether on the member's personal web site or
otherwise, pornographic material that demeans women or
children; defamatory statements, confidential US Chess
Federation information, trade secrets or proprietary data; or
photographs of US Chess Federation members or supporters
who have notified the Executive Board Member that they do
not consent to have their photographs published or posted
or that they revoke any prior permission or authorization;
and it is further
..
RESOLVED, that no Executive Board Member, in the
conduct of the members' personal life, business, or affairs,
shall represent, whether expressly or impliedly, to any person
or third party that the Member is acting in the Member's
official capacity as an Executive Board Member of the US
Chess Federation or is otherwise acting under the authority
or approval of the US Chess Federation; and it is further
..
RESOLVED, that any conduct by any Executive Board
Member contrary to the within resolution including without
limitation the posting of unauthorized photographs or other
material damaging to US Chess Federation on the members'
personal web site is disavowed by the US Chess Federation as
contrary to its policies and standards, and in such cases, the
Executive Board may, in its discretion, advise the Board
Member in question to comply with the standards and policies
of the US Chess Federation, in default of which charges of
misconduct may be referred to the Ethics Committee, or the
Board of Delegates for further action consistent with the
standards, policies, and By-Laws of the US Chess Federation;
provided, however, that the Executive Board shall have no
obligation to take any affirmative steps to monitor or review
Executive Board Members' activities that are outside the
scope of the Executive Board Members' duties; and it is
further
..
RESOLVED, that the official web site of the US Chess
Federation shall set forth the following disclaimer: "This is the
sole and official web site of the United States of America
Chess Federation. No other web site is authorized to
represent itself or otherwise hold itself out, whether expressly
or impliedly, as being an authorized United States of America
Chess Federation web site or otherwise as being approved or
affiliated with the United States of America Chess Federation.
The United States of America Chess Federation disclaims
any responsibility or liability for any statements or materials
on any web site other than the official United States of
America Chess Federation web site.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:58:35 -0400

I vote yes. Joel
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:01:56 EDT

I vote yes also.

Robert
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:18:53 -0400

Bill,

You missed two of my changes. If you are OK with them,
please revise and recirculate.

Thanks,

Joel
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:50:30 EDT

I cut and pasted what you sent me, but I can accept the
changes (deleting "pornographic" and "defamatory statements.")
See below.

The paragraph in question now reads as follows:

RESOLVED, that the Executive Board deems it to be a violation
of the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Conduct for any
Executive Board Member to disseminate or publish, whether on
the member's personal web site or otherwise, material that
demeans women or children; confidential US Chess Federation
information, trade secrets or proprietary data; or photographs of
US Chess Federation members or supporters who have notified
the Executive Board Member that they do not consent to have
their photographs published or posted or that they revoke any
prior permission or authorization; and it is further

I vote yes.

Bill Goichberg
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:53:57 EDT

I vote yes on the "revised" revision.

Robert T
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:14:47 -0400

Bill,

I think I know what happened. The email I sent you showed the
resolution in blue and the proposed changes in red and,
furthermore, I used the "Strikethrough" feature on the words
"pornographic" and "defamatory statements." Perhaps you
opened it in black type and the software you opened it with didn't
have the strikethrough feature.

Sorry for the confusion.

Joel
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:47:58 -0700 (PDT)

I vote yes also.

Randy
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: Chessdon@xxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:03:25 EDT

Open Session Motion
The following is a revision to my previous motion in which I have
incorporated my rationale:
MOTION (in gold):

WHEREAS, the Executive Board of the United States of America
Chess Federation ("US Chess Federation") recognizes its obligation
to further the mission and goals of the US Chess Federation in all
areas in which it is active, including the fields of education and
scholastic chess; promoting tournaments and competitions; and
expanding public awareness of the world of chess; and reconfirms
its commitment to the policies and standards set forth in the US
Chess Federation By-Laws, Code of Ethics, and Standards of
Conduct for the Executive Board; and disapproves of conduct
which is inimical to the said policies and standards or to the
organization; its financial and legal affairs, or otherwise harmful or
damaging to the good reputation of the US Chess Federation; and

RESOLVED, that the official web site of the US Chess Federation
shall set forth the following disclaimer: "This is the sole and
official
web site of the United States of America Chess Federation. No
other web site is authorized to represent itself or otherwise hold
itself out, whether expressly or impliedly, as being an authorized
United States of America Chess Federation web site or otherwise
as being approved or affiliated with the United States of America
Chess Federation. The United States of America Chess
Federation disclaims any responsibility or liability for any
statements or materials on any web site other than the official
United States of America Chess Federation web site;" and it is
further

RESOLVED, that Executive Board Members who have their own
web sites are requested to set forth thereon the following disclaimer:
"Materials on this web site are put there by (Board Member's Name)
and in no way should they be interpreted as representing or coming
from the USCF."

RATIONALE:The difference between Bill's motion and my substitute
is that mine is not aimed directly or implicitly at any one individual.
It disassociates the USCF from Board Member web site statements
and other independent actions by Board Members.

My motion leaves out condemnation. One reason for this is that
there already are Ethics Committee actions and a recall procedure
under way. I want to avoid immersing the EB as a group in those
debates and I believe Bill's "condemnation motion" would do that.

A second reason is that the condemnation motion is general. To
imply or assert condemnation without detail is in my opinion wrong.
Just as the Ethics Committee will insist on and debate specifics,
IMO we would have to do the same and spell out exactly what we
are condemning. It is near impossible for anyone to defend against
generalities and regardless how any of us may or may not feel
regarding any particular Board member, we must remember they
were fairly elected and represent a constituency of voting members.
They are entitled to due process if we are to condemn either explicitly
or implicitly.

A third reason is that I believe that both Bill G's motion and my
alternative will not decrease the likelihood of USCF involvement in
legal action though either should help USCF prevail in such actions.

A fourth reason is that some of us like me advocated other choices
than Sam in the recent EB elections. It seems to me,
"condemnation" would be an action aimed at undoing a fair election
because it did not come out as we might have preferred.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:13:02 -0400

I vote yes [on the Don Schultz motion].

Beatriz Marinello
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: Chessdon@xxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:18:40 EDT

I vote yes on my motion.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:22:12 EDT

The motion to approve the Matsler resolution has passed with
Channing, Goichberg, Hough and Tanner in favor.

The motion by Don Schultz to replace the above motion with a
substitute obtained two votes, Schultz and Marinello.

Sloan apparently obstained on both motions.

Both motions were considered simultaneously by the Board
under these conditions: no Board member could vote for both,
passage of the main motion would defeat the substitution, and
approval of the substitution would mean the main motion was
no longer on the floor.

Bill Goichberg
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 10:01:36 EDT

Bill, I suggest the first one specify that it is your motion using
Matsler recommended wording. I used a subset of that wording
for my motion.

Don
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

CONFIDENTIAL MEMOS

We recollect when Bill Goichberg moved a motion
to have the Pinkerton Detective Agency investigate
Larry Evans (without, as it turned out, even probable
cause). Now, we have expensive consultations with
lawyers about how to get rid of Sam Sloan.

Imagine: a Federation actually spying on GM
Evans. Result: GM Evans was cleared and it turned
out that a board member himsedlf was guilty of the
"crime" he tried to pin on the 5-time U.S. champion.
Suddenly the "investigation" was dropped like a
hot potato.

Tthe embarrassment was such that Board
members voting in favor of the Pinkerton investigation
of GM Evans later reimbursed the Federation out of their
own pockets for the amount wasted.

Perhaps Sam Sloan should introduce a resolution
requiring Bill Goichberg and Joel Channing to pay for
the legal bills incurred while trying to unseat Sam without
an election.


samsloan wrote:
I cannot answer these questions because my hard drive crashed and,
although a donor gave me money to buy a new computer, I still cannot
get access to the confidential board BINFOS (Mike Nolan says that there
is a technical problem that he has not been able to solve) so I cannot
recover the text of the motion made by Bill Goichberg or the
acrimoneous debate that followed (in which I did not participate).

I would appreciate it if somebody can locate and post the two lengthy
letters Bill Goichberg wrote to the USCF's attorney, Michael Matsler,
asking "How to get rid of Sam Sloan". One of these letters was dated on
about August 25, 2006. Also, the two three page letters Michael Matsler
wrote back (for which the USCF was no doubt charged at least a thousand
dollars) should be posted.

I believe that the members have a right to know how their membership
dues are being spent and that the USCF President, Bill Goichberg, and
the VP of Finance, Joel Channing, have spent a tremendous amount of the
board's time and the USCF's money trying to get rid of a duly elected
board member, me.

To begin with, all the "Confidential" emails on this subject should be
made public.

Sam Sloan