Yes, and those who misread the past and think they have it right, are
condemned to look like fools. I could give a few prime examples, but The
Hanken has
entered his mellowhood! Cheers and enjoy life as I am. "Grow old along
with
me, the best is yet to be, the last of life for which the first was made!"
Yeah, really. .The old lion in winter, Jerry Hanken



I can only note that the subject matter has disappeared entirely, which is
neither to read nor misread the past, and instead is an admonition to admire
Jerry in his dreamy dotage.

The real issue was of representation.

Non-USCF members are often encouraged to join up, and to make their voices
heard from the inside - but this is seen to be a sham-bolic idea when
members at USCF's forum Nolanland actually do so! - and ask for
accountability or some sort of bench-mark to assess the result of yet
another 'award'.

In this instance Vaughn falsely attacked Sloan [on his points, he should
have attacked Marinello], and though apologising twice for being
over-the-top on the issue, then Vaughn abandoned the issue entirely! openly
stating he would attack Sloan off-topic. This is as-plain-as-you-like
politics, and nothing at all to do with Sloan! Neither is it the slightest
endorsement of Sloan, since in this instance he is merely Marinello's
water-carrier.

And these off-topic attacks [remember the topic is Marinello's one of
accountability] continue with USCF's president jumping in to attack Sloan
/on some other issue/, and all without the slightest demurrer by
Nolandland-moderati.

The only thing left unexamined at Nolanland are the twin ISSUES of political
largesse in (a) awarding first $50,000 without bid process and without any
measurement for the communications make-over, then this instance of (b)
awarding $10,000 without bid process or measurement criteria for
fund-raising.

This later issue is the one B. Marinello originally raised, since its the
current 'revelation' out of the dark from USCF's Official Secrets Group, and
the award was initiated by board members Channing and Goichberg - who both
wrote justifying their choice of candidate, but 'not noticing' that this was
not exactly the point of accounting for a mere 10 grand, this time.

The members issue had less to do with the person selected to receive the
money, who is generally thought to be a good choice, or as good as any, but
nevertheless has not been required to make any accounting for the money
received by USCF. As such these awards are 'serial', and in 2006 have
amounted to $60,000.

Members want to know why no standards are in place?

Whether admonished to join USCF or CJA for purported member benefits of
representation, what we get instead is Bill'sWay or Jerry's Way. Both appear
to be the real-politik notions of doing what is personally expedient,
without recourse to anything more - shall we give it a name? - democratic.

Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever;
Do noble things, not dream them, all day long.

/Charles Kingsley, A Farewell

And the choice appears to be to fitfully dream away the decade as fit
farewell, or...


Phil Innes

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT):
7 ... the nominal topic of more USCF 'awards' by board
7 members without any accounting, which was first
7 reported by Beatriz Marinello, then Sam Sloan was
7 'blamed' for, even by Bill Goichberg whose own
7 diversion was on Sloan's 'history' rather than his own
7 part in initiating the current 'history' ...
7 ...
7 ... The issues again:
7 ...
7 In the fund raising instance, blaming Sloan with the
7 more than apparent encouragement of Goichberg,
7 for Marinello's revelations
_
I wrote (18 Dec 2006 00:37:52 -0800):
7 On Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm, Bill Goichberg wrote:
7
7 "Korenman was selected because he made a
7 proposal to USCF regarding a four month
7 period when he would be available. Because
7 his fundraising results in the past have been
7 spectacular, I supported this proposal.
7
7 This arrangement involved work other than
7 fund raising, and it is possible that sponsorship
7 will still result from his efforts, but I am
7 disappointed that no definite sponsorship has
7 resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun
7 Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm)
7
7 I do not see anything there or anywhere else in
7 the thread about blaming Sam Sloan for the "award".
7 ...
7 I have already quoted the Bill Goichberg reaction to
7 the discussion of "Marinello's revelations". I do not
7 see any way in which it can be plausibly argued that
7 it enouraged blaming Sam Sloan for anything. Indeed,
7 Sam Sloan was not even mentioned in the note. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):

7 ... Non-USCF members are often encouraged to join up,
7 and to make their voices heard from the inside - but this is
7 seen to be a sham-bolic idea when members at USCF's
7 forum Nolanland actually do so! - and ask for accountability
7 or some sort of bench-mark to assess the result of yet
7 another 'award'.
7
7 In this instance Vaughn falsely attacked Sloan [on his
7 points, he should have attacked Marinello],

_
I am not sure what Herbert Vaughn note Phil Innes is
writing about. I did find this:
_
"... Implying wrong doing by some unnamed
'candidate' and refusing to provide any
details is a slimy business. ..." - Herbert
Vaughn (Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:19 pm)
_
If that is what Phil Innes had in mind, I see no reason
for saying that "on his points, he should have attacked
Marinello". After all, it was Sam Sloan, not Beatriz
Marinello, who wrote:
_
"... Without naming names, Joe [Lux] raises
above an issue about one declared candidate
who recently received an estimated $10,000
from the USCF and has produced little or
nothing to show for it. ..." - Sam Sloan (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
_
"The exact details about this transaction need
to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall ..."
- Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):

7 and though apologising twice for being over-the-top
7 on the issue,

_
What I see are Herbert Vaughn apologies for comments
about Joe Lux and Timothy Sawmiller, NOT apologies
for comments about Sam Sloan.
_
Notice, by the way, that Herbert Vaughn's "issue" was
not "accountability or some sort of bench-mark to assess
the result of yet another 'award'."

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):

7 then Vaughn abandoned the issue entirely! openly
7 stating he would attack Sloan off-topic. This is as
7 -plain-as-you-like politics, and nothing at all to do with
7 Sloan! Neither is it the slightest endorsement of Sloan,
7 since in this instance he is merely Marinello's water
7 -carrier.

_
Again, I do not know what, specifically, Phil Innes is
writing about. I found this sort of thing:
_
"... Tanstaafl a/k/a Herbert Vaughn has
been attacking me for nearly one year, long
before I was elected to the board. ..." - Sam
Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:13 pm)
_
"... Name ONE CHARGE that I've made
against you that isn't literally true! I'll provide
evidence to back my comment and you provide
evidence to show I'm wrong. ..." - Herbert
Vaughn (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm)
_
To me, it looks as though Herbert Vaughn was
RESPONDING to "off-topic" general commentary
about the conflict between Herbert Vaughn and
Sam Sloan.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):

7 And these off-topic attacks [remember the topic
7 is Marinello's one of accountability] continue with
7 USCF's president jumping in to attack Sloan
7 /on some other issue/, and all without the slightest
7 demurrer by Nolandland-moderati.

_
Bill Goichberg, for example, responded (Thu Dec 14, 2006
12:40 pm) to a Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:48 am Sam Sloan
note that had publically accused "Joel Channing" of
"trying to squeeze" Sam Sloan "financially to make it
difficult for" SS "to get to Chicago so that" he "would
not be able to take office on the board." This sort of
thing is no reason to accuse Bill Goichberg of being
"off-topic". After all, it was Sam Sloan who started
attacking Joel Channing about expenses for the trip
to Chicago.
_
Notice, by the way, that Phil Innes now does not
mention his previous charge (Sun, 17 Dec 2006
13:09:44 GMT) about Bill Goichberg apparently
encouraging others to blame Sam Sloan "for Marinello's
revelations".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):

7 The only thing left unexamined at Nolanland are the
7 twin ISSUES of political largesse in (a) awarding first
7 $50,000 without bid process and without any
7 measurement for the communications make-over,
7 then this instance of (b) awarding $10,000 without
7 bid process or measurement criteria for fund-raising.
7
7 This later issue is the one B. Marinello originally raised,
7 since its the current 'revelation' out of the dark from
7 USCF's Official Secrets Group, and the award was
7 initiated by board members Channing and Goichberg
7 - who both wrote justifying their choice of candidate,
7 but 'not noticing' that this was not exactly the point of
7 accounting for a mere 10 grand, this time.
7
7 The members issue had less to do with the person
7 selected to receive the money, who is generally
7 thought to be a good choice, or as good as any, but
7 nevertheless has not been required to make any
7 accounting for the money received by USCF. ...

_
Here is some of what was actually written about the
$10,000:
_
"... Certainly spending $10.000 of limited USCF
funds for a fundraiser who generated no funds
shows some disappointing results on some
decisions: attempts at a band-aid approach to
generate funds. ..." - Joe Lux (Sat Dec 09, 2006
7:27 pm)
_
_
"... Without naming names, Joe raises above an
issue about one declared candidate who recently
received an estimated $10,000 from the USCF
and has produced little or nothing to show for it.
This raises important issues which the members
need to learn more about before voting." - Sam
Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
_
_
"Who did we give this money to, what were we
expecting to receive, and who decided to spend
the money? ..." - Herbert Vaughn (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 8:26 am)
_
_
"The exact details about this transaction need
to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall (the two
Bills). Let us hope that they clarify this matter
soon.
_
Will they tell us, or will this be just another
cover-up of a wasteful expenditure by the USCF?
..." - Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)
_
_
"... Mikhail Koreman ... was paid $10,000 to do
fundraising over the summer and produced no
positive results.
_
Mr. Koreman was moving to Chicago and had
no job when the EB approved these funding for
him. A $2000 per month plus $500 per month in
expenses. A total of $10,000. ..." - Beatriz
Marinello (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:49 am)
_
_
"I voted in favor of giving the money to Mikhail
because I was so impressed with what he had
achieved in Kansas. In retrospect I believe I
made a mistake, but that does not take away
from his proven brilliance as a chess promoter
and organizer." - Joel Channing (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm)
_
_
"As a delegate, I, too, would like more
information on why Mr. Korenman was selected
to do this fundraising. I recall reading about it at
the time and honestly, this is the type of
decision making that bothered me then and
bothers me now.
_
Why was he selected to do the fundraising? Did
the USCF put out an open bid to its membership
or publish in Chess Life that it was soliciting bids
for fundraising? Did USCF ask for and receive a
resume detailing his experience as a fundraiser?
Did the USCF establish a contract with
benchmarks for results and dates by which to
achieve them in order to determine whether the
fundraising contract was successful? If so, has
the fundraising met those objectives?
_
When the USCF begins to function more as an
independent business with open bidding,
contracts, and goals with measureable results,
then it will have a chance of becoming a
successful organization.
_
All of the questions above are no reflection on
Mr. Korenman. I know nothing about him and
have no political agenda in this regard. They
are simply questions that the general
membership has a right to know the answers
on especially in light of Beatriz's last post."
- Donna Alarie (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm)
_
_
"Benchmarks for results and review dates? It's
not the USCF way. It's why USCF buys
snake-oil over and over and over again.
...
The $10K in moving expenses to somone's
buddy is your USCF dues hard at work." - Allan
Fifield (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:43 pm)
_
_
"Korenman was selected because he made a
proposal to USCF regarding a four month
period when he would be available. Because
his fundraising results in the past have been
spectacular, I supported this proposal.
_
This arrangement involved work other than
fund raising, and it is possible that
sponsorship will still result from his efforts, but
I am disappointed that no definite sponsorship
has resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm)
_
_
"[1]
... 'Fundraising' is obviously a gamble. One
cannot force a successful outcome. ...
_
[2]
A.Karpov was not mentioned in the earlier
posts. Yet it is natural to wonder how much
of Mr. Korenman's success in Lindsborg KA
was due in part to A.Karpov's fame and
involvement. Is it accurate to say Karpov
deserves some of the credit?
_
[3]
I wish the E.B. would modify its perspective
away from 'fundraising' and toward 'marketing'.
Fundraising has a place, but it sounds like
asking for charity. Fundraising is not a growth
channel, it is not even self-sustaining.
_
In contrast, 'marketing' searches for 'win-win'
situations for both the sponsor and chess or
the USCF. Marketing aims at increasing the
appeal of chess to the untapped public."
- Gene Milener (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:36 pm)
_
_
"... You are quite correct here. I believe the
appropriate avenue for the USCF is to cease
the fundraising aspect and engage actively in
searching for marketing / advertising
sponsorships.
_
For the past 2 years I have been actively
working on securing marketing/advertising
sponsorships and I can say it is not an
simple job but significantly a larger pool than
the fundraising/charity angle.
_
Corporate foundations are very specific in
what they will provide donations to and while
chess has the educational aspect to it many
corporate foundations will not entertain chess
as a viable educational outlet. Additionally
these foundations are limited - remember
these foundations are tax shelters also for
the corporation but the tax shelter is limited
so the funds do run out (and relatively quickly).
_
Marketing / Advertising dollars are quite
different. First they are controlled in two steps
generally - national/international budgets and
local/regional budgets. While the national
budget may not have any opportunities,
local/regional may and generally its easier to
go that route. Secondly - the sponsorship is
no longer only about doing good to the
community - it's about how you can help
them reach new markets and generate sales.
It's not a charity pitch - it's a sales pitch.
Finally - marketing/advertising dollars can be
replenished at various times of the year, not
just at the beginning when budgets become
fresh - foundation dollars are stuck where
they are at year round.
_
So marketing/advertising sponsorship is the
way to go, not corporate foundations. Of
course that is my opinion." - Sevan Muradian
(Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:02 pm)
_
_
"Out of curiosity, what were [Mr. Korenman's]
spectacular fund raising results?" - Kevin
Bachler (Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:16 am)
_
_
"I'm sure there were others, but one area where
he was successful was getting grant funding
from the State of Kansas, I believe through
their department of economic development.
This was different than other chess grant
funding efforts through government, which
generally rely on chess' educational value. In
this instance, he went with the approach that
'chess tournaments appeal to people as being
intellectual and full of smart people, and with
strong national publicity, Kansas will benefit
from being associated with them.' I think he
also tied in the Karpov angle, again giving the
City and State a 'worldly' image.
_
He did get a lot of publicity for some high
impact events, including national coverage. I
had some professional curiosity about the
State actually providing this kind of funding
and spoke with some colleagues in Kansas
about it, and my general recollection is that
the State was satisfied with the outcomes."
- Randy Bauer (Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 pm)
_
_
"National evening/nightly news coverage as I
recall. My wife called me out of my office to
see it because one of the networks was
interviewing him." - David Hood (Tue
Dec 12, 2006 2:19 pm)
_
_
"I was curious in part, because, from some
of the press articles I read about when he left,
it sounded more like a failing business than
successful fundraising.
_
Someone made a comment about being on
national news. But really all that would take is
us spending time on PR. Heck, our our 5th
grade chess team was on CNN a few years
ago, and that was just a matter of performing
well.
_
I'm not trying to downplay what he might have
accomplished, but so far, I haven't seen $$
amounts, programs completed, etc. so that
right now I don't know that he accomplished
anything other than promoting himself. And
what he has done in Illinois certainly has been
controversial at best (apparently helping to
increase the expenses of this year's state
championship with no real benefit)...so that
right now my skepticism is up. My suggestion
would be that if he is a real candidate and a
good candidate is that he needs to get some
hard information out soon." - Kevin Bachler
(Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:35 pm)
_
_
"Here's an article that ran in National
Geographic on Korenman and chess in
Kansas.
_
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature6/
_
Reading this, it would seem that Korenman
has gotten some good PR for chess in the
mainstream press and has been a successful
organizer. This explains why the USCF board
was willing to back him." - Maret Thorpe (Wed
Dec 13, 2006 1:28 pm)
_
_
"... Anyone that has tried fundraising can tell
you that it is a rare occurance when you can
walk into a meeting with a proposal, and walk
out with a large check. Quite often, a proposal
has to be put into the budget and will be given
out the following fiscal year. So it is premature
to call his efforts a failure.
_
Korenman has previously received a 250K grant.
He has generated quite a bit of publicity in both
print and television media. He has organized
master events and scholastics. He has served
on the scholastic council. I would rather see
someone get elected or not based on their
merits and actions. Based on Mr. Korenman's
actions, I think he makes a fine candidate."
- Glenn Panner (Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:31 pm)
_
_
"... $10,000 to a fund raiser who raised no funds and
who is a political ally of Bill Goichberg. Fund Raisers
are normally paid a percentage of the funds they raise,
which in this case was zero. ..." - Sam Sloan (Fri
Dec 29, 2006 3:36 pm)
_
_
"... The $10k for the fundraiser. This begs the bigger
question. Whenever money is authorized to be spent
by the EB, it has to come out of the budget from
Somewhere. Since that impinges upon the ED's
decisions, that expense really needs to generate
offsetting revenue or be approved by the delegates by
way of placing the expense in the budget in advance.
Or like Sam said, most fundraisers take percentage
of funds raised.
...
It might be helpful to keep in mind that our Executive
Board are all unpaid volunteers who forked up $250
of their personal money just so they could devote
inordinate amounts of time to our organization and
have every decision they ever made second guessed
by numerous members. I for one would like to take
this time to thank all of them for at least trying to do
what they thought was the best for USCF whether or
not I always agreed with their decisions. ..." - Donna
Alarie (Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:42 pm)
_
_
"... I think this was a bad decision. It's one I choose
not to berate the board members for. I think they
basically got greedy. They thought they'd end up
paying more in the long run if they gave up a
percentage. But it's easy to point out mistakes like
this in HINDSIGHT -- at the time they must have
thought it was a reasonable idea. And I really have
to question the term 'fundraiser' also -- my
understanding is that only PART of the effort was
fundraising. I don't think it's fair to attribute the
ENTIRE $10K to fundraising. My understanding is
that he was hired to do multiple tasks. ..." - Herbert
Vaughn (Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:21 am)
_
_
By the way, Donna Alarie was one of the "2 members" to
whom Phil Innes was referring back on Wed, 13 Dec 2006
15:52:36 GMT when he wrote that they "almost certainly
.... would not renew their subscriptions".

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...


7 In this instance Vaughn falsely attacked Sloan [on his
7 points, he should have attacked Marinello],

_
I am not sure what Herbert Vaughn note Phil Innes is
writing about.

Are you sure you are even in the right thread? Look harder on the forum -
there are at least two apologies by Vaughn himself.

I did find this:
_
"... Implying wrong doing by some unnamed
'candidate' and refusing to provide any
details is a slimy business. ..." - Herbert
Vaughn (Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:19 pm)
_
If that is

Of course it isn't! The main point is about accountability, period. Members
asked for it. Other writers in this forum want us to believe that they think
awarding $50,000 then $10,000 with no performance criteria is hardly worth
comment. Certainly Louis Blair does not think it worth any of his own, and
so the rest of this is some diversion with Louis picking spurious citations
to 'refute' a synopsis. zzz

what Phil Innes had in mind, I see no reason
for saying that "on his points, he should have attacked
Marinello". After all, it was Sam Sloan, not Beatriz
Marinello, who wrote:
_
"... Without naming names, Joe [Lux] raises
above an issue about one declared candidate
who recently received an estimated $10,000
from the USCF and has produced little or
nothing to show for it. ..." - Sam Sloan (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
_
"The exact details about this transaction need
to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall ..."
- Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):

7 and though apologising twice for being over-the-top
7 on the issue,

_
What I see are Herbert Vaughn apologies for comments
about Joe Lux and Timothy Sawmiller, NOT apologies
for comments about Sam Sloan.

This seems to be /Louis Blair's/ inference.

Notice, by the way, that Herbert Vaughn's "issue" was
not "accountability or some sort of bench-mark to assess
the result of yet another 'award'."

Of course it wasn't - that was by the members, and Vaughn did not actually
attempt an "issue".

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):

7 then Vaughn abandoned the issue entirely! openly
7 stating he would attack Sloan off-topic. This is as
7 -plain-as-you-like politics, and nothing at all to do with
7 Sloan! Neither is it the slightest endorsement of Sloan,
7 since in this instance he is merely Marinello's water
7 -carrier.

_
Again, I do not know what, specifically, Phil Innes is
writing about. I found this sort of thing:
_
"... Tanstaafl a/k/a Herbert Vaughn has
been attacking me for nearly one year, long
before I was elected to the board. ..." - Sam
Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:13 pm)
_
"... Name ONE CHARGE that I've made
against you that isn't literally true! I'll provide
evidence to back my comment and you provide
evidence to show I'm wrong. ..." - Herbert
Vaughn (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm)
_
To me, it looks as though Herbert Vaughn was
RESPONDING to "off-topic" general commentary
about the conflict between Herbert Vaughn and
Sam Sloan.

Yes to you.

Instead of what you can't see, and these diversions about your own contexts
not mine = what about the issue of accountability? Do you notice those?

And why are you writing them in this thread, which is off-topic?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):

7 And these off-topic attacks [remember the topic
7 is Marinello's one of accountability] continue with
7 USCF's president jumping in to attack Sloan
7 /on some other issue/, and all without the slightest
7 demurrer by Nolandland-moderati.

_
Bill Goichberg, for example, responded (Thu Dec 14, 2006
12:40 pm) to a Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:48 am Sam Sloan
note that had publically accused "Joel Channing" of
"trying to squeeze" Sam Sloan "financially to make it
difficult for" SS "to get to Chicago so that" he "would
not be able to take office on the board." This sort of
thing is no reason to accuse Bill Goichberg of being
"off-topic". After all, it was Sam Sloan who started
attacking Joel Channing about expenses for the trip
to Chicago.

Again Louis choses the text of his choice to illustrate what he hasn't
looked at, can't find. The last thing he will find are the members' comments
about accountability [the rest is politics on all sides!]

Notice, by the way, that Phil Innes now does not
mention his previous charge (Sun, 17 Dec 2006
13:09:44 GMT) about Bill Goichberg apparently
encouraging others to blame Sam Sloan "for Marinello's
revelations".

But do these things mean; 'now does not' ?
How many points should I make about Jerry Hanken?
Did I ever mention the central issue of why members were very concerned?

Should I have mentioned Joe McCarthy?

Maybe Louis found a point below? Who knows?

Phil Innes

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):

7 The only thing left unexamined at Nolanland are the
7 twin ISSUES of political largesse in (a) awarding first
7 $50,000 without bid process and without any
7 measurement for the communications make-over,
7 then this instance of (b) awarding $10,000 without
7 bid process or measurement criteria for fund-raising.
7
7 This later issue is the one B. Marinello originally raised,
7 since its the current 'revelation' out of the dark from
7 USCF's Official Secrets Group, and the award was
7 initiated by board members Channing and Goichberg
7 - who both wrote justifying their choice of candidate,
7 but 'not noticing' that this was not exactly the point of
7 accounting for a mere 10 grand, this time.
7
7 The members issue had less to do with the person
7 selected to receive the money, who is generally
7 thought to be a good choice, or as good as any, but
7 nevertheless has not been required to make any
7 accounting for the money received by USCF. ...

_
Here is some of what was actually written about the
$10,000:
_
"... Certainly spending $10.000 of limited USCF
funds for a fundraiser who generated no funds
shows some disappointing results on some
decisions: attempts at a band-aid approach to
generate funds. ..." - Joe Lux (Sat Dec 09, 2006
7:27 pm)
_
_
"... Without naming names, Joe raises above an
issue about one declared candidate who recently
received an estimated $10,000 from the USCF
and has produced little or nothing to show for it.
This raises important issues which the members
need to learn more about before voting." - Sam
Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
_
_
"Who did we give this money to, what were we
expecting to receive, and who decided to spend
the money? ..." - Herbert Vaughn (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 8:26 am)
_
_
"The exact details about this transaction need
to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall (the two
Bills). Let us hope that they clarify this matter
soon.
_
Will they tell us, or will this be just another
cover-up of a wasteful expenditure by the USCF?
..." - Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)
_
_
"... Mikhail Koreman ... was paid $10,000 to do
fundraising over the summer and produced no
positive results.
_
Mr. Koreman was moving to Chicago and had
no job when the EB approved these funding for
him. A $2000 per month plus $500 per month in
expenses. A total of $10,000. ..." - Beatriz
Marinello (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:49 am)
_
_
"I voted in favor of giving the money to Mikhail
because I was so impressed with what he had
achieved in Kansas. In retrospect I believe I
made a mistake, but that does not take away
from his proven brilliance as a chess promoter
and organizer." - Joel Channing (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm)
_
_
"As a delegate, I, too, would like more
information on why Mr. Korenman was selected
to do this fundraising. I recall reading about it at
the time and honestly, this is the type of
decision making that bothered me then and
bothers me now.
_
Why was he selected to do the fundraising? Did
the USCF put out an open bid to its membership
or publish in Chess Life that it was soliciting bids
for fundraising? Did USCF ask for and receive a
resume detailing his experience as a fundraiser?
Did the USCF establish a contract with
benchmarks for results and dates by which to
achieve them in order to determine whether the
fundraising contract was successful? If so, has
the fundraising met those objectives?
_
When the USCF begins to function more as an
independent business with open bidding,
contracts, and goals with measureable results,
then it will have a chance of becoming a
successful organization.
_
All of the questions above are no reflection on
Mr. Korenman. I know nothing about him and
have no political agenda in this regard. They
are simply questions that the general
membership has a right to know the answers
on especially in light of Beatriz's last post."
- Donna Alarie (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm)
_
_
"Benchmarks for results and review dates? It's
not the USCF way. It's why USCF buys
snake-oil over and over and over again.
...
The $10K in moving expenses to somone's
buddy is your USCF dues hard at work." - Allan
Fifield (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:43 pm)
_
_
"Korenman was selected because he made a
proposal to USCF regarding a four month
period when he would be available. Because
his fundraising results in the past have been
spectacular, I supported this proposal.
_
This arrangement involved work other than
fund raising, and it is possible that
sponsorship will still result from his efforts, but
I am disappointed that no definite sponsorship
has resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm)
_
_
"[1]
... 'Fundraising' is obviously a gamble. One
cannot force a successful outcome. ...
_
[2]
A.Karpov was not mentioned in the earlier
posts. Yet it is natural to wonder how much
of Mr. Korenman's success in Lindsborg KA
was due in part to A.Karpov's fame and
involvement. Is it accurate to say Karpov
deserves some of the credit?
_
[3]
I wish the E.B. would modify its perspective
away from 'fundraising' and toward 'marketing'.
Fundraising has a place, but it sounds like
asking for charity. Fundraising is not a growth
channel, it is not even self-sustaining.
_
In contrast, 'marketing' searches for 'win-win'
situations for both the sponsor and chess or
the USCF. Marketing aims at increasing the
appeal of chess to the untapped public."
- Gene Milener (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:36 pm)
_
_
"... You are quite correct here. I believe the
appropriate avenue for the USCF is to cease
the fundraising aspect and engage actively in
searching for marketing / advertising
sponsorships.
_
For the past 2 years I have been actively
working on securing marketing/advertising
sponsorships and I can say it is not an
simple job but significantly a larger pool than
the fundraising/charity angle.
_
Corporate foundations are very specific in
what they will provide donations to and while
chess has the educational aspect to it many
corporate foundations will not entertain chess
as a viable educational outlet. Additionally
these foundations are limited - remember
these foundations are tax shelters also for
the corporation but the tax shelter is limited
so the funds do run out (and relatively quickly).
_
Marketing / Advertising dollars are quite
different. First they are controlled in two steps
generally - national/international budgets and
local/regional budgets. While the national
budget may not have any opportunities,
local/regional may and generally its easier to
go that route. Secondly - the sponsorship is
no longer only about doing good to the
community - it's about how you can help
them reach new markets and generate sales.
It's not a charity pitch - it's a sales pitch.
Finally - marketing/advertising dollars can be
replenished at various times of the year, not
just at the beginning when budgets become
fresh - foundation dollars are stuck where
they are at year round.
_
So marketing/advertising sponsorship is the
way to go, not corporate foundations. Of
course that is my opinion." - Sevan Muradian
(Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:02 pm)
_
_
"Out of curiosity, what were [Mr. Korenman's]
spectacular fund raising results?" - Kevin
Bachler (Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:16 am)
_
_
"I'm sure there were others, but one area where
he was successful was getting grant funding
from the State of Kansas, I believe through
their department of economic development.
This was different than other chess grant
funding efforts through government, which
generally rely on chess' educational value. In
this instance, he went with the approach that
'chess tournaments appeal to people as being
intellectual and full of smart people, and with
strong national publicity, Kansas will benefit
from being associated with them.' I think he
also tied in the Karpov angle, again giving the
City and State a 'worldly' image.
_
He did get a lot of publicity for some high
impact events, including national coverage. I
had some professional curiosity about the
State actually providing this kind of funding
and spoke with some colleagues in Kansas
about it, and my general recollection is that
the State was satisfied with the outcomes."
- Randy Bauer (Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 pm)
_
_
"National evening/nightly news coverage as I
recall. My wife called me out of my office to
see it because one of the networks was
interviewing him." - David Hood (Tue
Dec 12, 2006 2:19 pm)
_
_
"I was curious in part, because, from some
of the press articles I read about when he left,
it sounded more like a failing business than
successful fundraising.
_
Someone made a comment about being on
national news. But really all that would take is
us spending time on PR. Heck, our our 5th
grade chess team was on CNN a few years
ago, and that was just a matter of performing
well.
_
I'm not trying to downplay what he might have
accomplished, but so far, I haven't seen $$
amounts, programs completed, etc. so that
right now I don't know that he accomplished
anything other than promoting himself. And
what he has done in Illinois certainly has been
controversial at best (apparently helping to
increase the expenses of this year's state
championship with no real benefit)...so that
right now my skepticism is up. My suggestion
would be that if he is a real candidate and a
good candidate is that he needs to get some
hard information out soon." - Kevin Bachler
(Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:35 pm)
_
_
"Here's an article that ran in National
Geographic on Korenman and chess in
Kansas.
_
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature6/
_
Reading this, it would seem that Korenman
has gotten some good PR for chess in the
mainstream press and has been a successful
organizer. This explains why the USCF board
was willing to back him." - Maret Thorpe (Wed
Dec 13, 2006 1:28 pm)
_
_
"... Anyone that has tried fundraising can tell
you that it is a rare occurance when you can
walk into a meeting with a proposal, and walk
out with a large check. Quite often, a proposal
has to be put into the budget and will be given
out the following fiscal year. So it is premature
to call his efforts a failure.
_
Korenman has previously received a 250K grant.
He has generated quite a bit of publicity in both
print and television media. He has organized
master events and scholastics. He has served
on the scholastic council. I would rather see
someone get elected or not based on their
merits and actions. Based on Mr. Korenman's
actions, I think he makes a fine candidate."
- Glenn Panner (Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:31 pm)
_
_
"... $10,000 to a fund raiser who raised no funds and
who is a political ally of Bill Goichberg. Fund Raisers
are normally paid a percentage of the funds they raise,
which in this case was zero. ..." - Sam Sloan (Fri
Dec 29, 2006 3:36 pm)
_
_
"... The $10k for the fundraiser. This begs the bigger
question. Whenever money is authorized to be spent
by the EB, it has to come out of the budget from
Somewhere. Since that impinges upon the ED's
decisions, that expense really needs to generate
offsetting revenue or be approved by the delegates by
way of placing the expense in the budget in advance.
Or like Sam said, most fundraisers take percentage
of funds raised.
...
It might be helpful to keep in mind that our Executive
Board are all unpaid volunteers who forked up $250
of their personal money just so they could devote
inordinate amounts of time to our organization and
have every decision they ever made second guessed
by numerous members. I for one would like to take
this time to thank all of them for at least trying to do
what they thought was the best for USCF whether or
not I always agreed with their decisions. ..." - Donna
Alarie (Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:42 pm)
_
_
"... I think this was a bad decision. It's one I choose
not to berate the board members for. I think they
basically got greedy. They thought they'd end up
paying more in the long run if they gave up a
percentage. But it's easy to point out mistakes like
this in HINDSIGHT -- at the time they must have
thought it was a reasonable idea. And I really have
to question the term 'fundraiser' also -- my
understanding is that only PART of the effort was
fundraising. I don't think it's fair to attribute the
ENTIRE $10K to fundraising. My understanding is
that he was hired to do multiple tasks. ..." - Herbert
Vaughn (Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:21 am)
_
_
By the way, Donna Alarie was one of the "2 members" to
whom Phil Innes was referring back on Wed, 13 Dec 2006
15:52:36 GMT when he wrote that they "almost certainly
... would not renew their subscriptions".

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT):
7 ... the nominal topic of more USCF 'awards' by board
7 members without any accounting, which was first
7 reported by Beatriz Marinello, then Sam Sloan was
7 'blamed' for, even by Bill Goichberg ...
7 ...
7 ... The issues again:
7 ...
7 In the fund raising instance, blaming Sloan with the
7 more than apparent encouragement of Goichberg, for
7 Marinello's revelations
_
I wrote (18 Dec 2006 00:37:52 -0800):
7 On Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm, Bill Goichberg wrote:
7
7 "Korenman was selected because he made a
7 proposal to USCF regarding a four month
7 period when he would be available. Because
7 his fundraising results in the past have been
7 spectacular, I supported this proposal.
7
7 This arrangement involved work other than
7 fund raising, and it is possible that sponsorship
7 will still result from his efforts, but I am
7 disappointed that no definite sponsorship has
7 resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun
7 Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm)
7
7 I do not see anything there or anywhere else in the
7 thread about blaming Sam Sloan for the "award".
7 ...
7 ... I do not see any way in which it can be plausibly
7 argued that [Bill Goichberg's Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm
7 note] enouraged blaming Sam Sloan for anything.
7 Indeed, Sam Sloan was not even mentioned in the note.
7 ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):
7 ... Non-USCF members are often encouraged to join up,
7 and to make their voices heard from the inside - but this is
7 seen to be a sham-bolic idea when members at USCF's
7 forum Nolanland actually do so! - and ask for accountability
7 or some sort of bench-mark to assess the result of yet
7 another 'award'.
7
7 In this instance Vaughn falsely attacked Sloan [on his
7 points, he should have attacked Marinello],
_
I wrote (5 Jan 2007 01:41:55 -0800):
7 I am not sure what Herbert Vaughn note Phil Innes is
7 writing about. I did find this:
7
7 "... Implying wrong doing by some unnamed
7 'candidate' and refusing to provide any
7 details is a slimy business. ..." - Herbert
7 Vaughn (Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:19 pm)
7
7 If that is what Phil Innes had in mind, I see no reason for
7 saying that "on [Herbert Vaughn's] points, he should
7 have attacked Marinello". After all, it was Sam Sloan,
7 not Beatriz Marinello, who wrote:
7
7 "... Without naming names, Joe [Lux] raises
7 above an issue about one declared candidate
7 who recently received an estimated $10,000
7 from the USCF and has produced little or
7 nothing to show for it. ..." - Sam Sloan (Sun
7 Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
7
7 "The exact details about this transaction need
7 to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall ..."
7 - Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):

7 Are you sure you are even in the right thread? Look
7 harder on the forum - there are at least two apologies by
7 Vaughn himself.

_
As I mentioned, I see Herbert Vaughn apologies for
comments about Joe Lux and Timothy Sawmiller. (The
dates are Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:19 pm and Mon
Dec 11, 2006 3:35 pm.)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):

7 If that is
7
7 Of course it isn't! The main point is about accountability,
7 period. Members asked for it. Other writers in this forum
7 want us to believe that they think awarding $50,000 then
7 $10,000 with no performance criteria is hardly worth
7 comment. Certainly Louis Blair does not think it worth
7 any of his own, and so the rest of this is some diversion
7 with Louis picking spurious citations to 'refute' a
7 synopsis. zzz

_
It was Phil Innes who chose to tell us that "... Vaughn
falsely attacked Sloan [on his points, he should have
attacked Marinello] ...". I would have discussed the
specific Herbert Vaughn note that Phil Innes had in
mind, but, so far, I have not seen PI identify a specific
HV note that fits the description that PI posted.
Perhaps this is about as real as the supposed "more
than apparent" Bill Goichberg "encouragement"
(reported by Phil Innes) of others to blame Sam Sloan
"for Marinello's revelations".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):
7 and though apologising twice for being over-the-top
7 on the issue,
_
I wrote (5 Jan 2007 01:41:55 -0800):
7 What I see are Herbert Vaughn apologies for comments
7 about Joe Lux and Timothy Sawmiller, NOT apologies
7 for comments about Sam Sloan.
7
7 Notice, by the way, that Herbert Vaughn's "issue" was
7 not "accountability or some sort of bench-mark to
7 assess the result of yet another 'award'."

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):

7 What I see are Herbert Vaughn apologies for
7 comments about Joe Lux and Timothy Sawmiller,
7 NOT apologies for comments about Sam Sloan.
7
7 This seems to be /Louis Blair's/ inference.

_
Does Phil Innes dispute this "inference"? If so, what
specifically, does HE claim that Herbert Vaughn was
apologizing for?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):

7 Of course [Herbert Vaughn's issue was not
7 accountability or some sort of bench-mark to assess
7 the result of yet another 'award'] - that was by the
7 members, and Vaughn did not actually attempt an
7 "issue".

_
It seems to me that Herbert Vaughn wrote about the
matter of "... implying wrong doing by some unnamed
'candidate' and refusing to provide any details ...".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):
7 then Vaughn abandoned the issue entirely! openly
7 stating he would attack Sloan off-topic. This is as-plain
7 -as-you-like politics, and nothing at all to do with Sloan!
7 Neither is it the slightest endorsement of Sloan, since
7 in this instance he is merely Marinello's water-carrier.
_
I wrote (5 Jan 2007 01:41:55 -0800):
7 Again, I do not know what, specifically, Phil Innes is
7 writing about. I found this sort of thing:
7
7 "... Tanstaafl a/k/a Herbert Vaughn has
7 been attacking me for nearly one year, long
7 before I was elected to the board. ..." - Sam
7 Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:13 pm)
7
7 "... Name ONE CHARGE that I've made
7 against you that isn't literally true! I'll provide
7 evidence to back my comment and you provide
7 evidence to show I'm wrong. ..." - Herbert
7 Vaughn (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm)
7
7 To me, it looks as though Herbert Vaughn was
7 RESPONDING to "off-topic" general commentary about
7 the conflict between Herbert Vaughn and Sam Sloan.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):

7 Yes to you.
7
7 Instead of what you can't see, and these diversions
7 about your own contexts not mine = what about the
7 issue of accountability? Do you notice those?
7
7 And why are you writing them in this thread, which is
7 off-topic?

_
It was Phil Innes who chose, in this thread, to comment
on "off-topic" writing by Herbert Vaughn. In view of that
decision by Phil Innes, it seems appropriate to raise the
question of whether or not Herbert Vaughn was
RESPONDING to "off-topic" commentary that had
already appeared in the USCF Forum thread.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):
7 And these off-topic attacks [remember the topic is
7 Marinello's one of accountability] continue with USCF's
7 president jumping in to attack Sloan /on some other
7 issue/, and all without the slightest demurrer by
7 Nolandland-moderati. ...
_
I wrote (5 Jan 2007 01:41:55 -0800):
7 Bill Goichberg, for example, responded (Thu
7 Dec 14, 2006 12:40 pm) to a Thu Dec 14, 2006
7 10:48 am Sam Sloan note that had publically accused
7 "Joel Channing" of "trying to squeeze" Sam Sloan
7 "financially to make it difficult for" SS "to get to
7 Chicago so that" he "would not be able to take office
7 on the board." This sort of thing is no reason to
7 accuse Bill Goichberg of being "off-topic". After all, it
7 was Sam Sloan who started attacking Joel Channing
7 about expenses for the trip to Chicago.
7
7 Notice, by the way, that Phil Innes now does not
7 mention his previous charge (Sun, 17 Dec 2006
7 13:09:44 GMT) about Bill Goichberg apparently
7 encouraging others to blame Sam Sloan "for
7 Marinello's revelations". ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):

7 Again Louis choses the text of his choice to illustrate
7 what he hasn't looked at, can't find.

_
I would have discussed a specific Bill Goichberg
"off-topic attack", identified by Phil Innes, but, so far, I
have not seen PI identify a specific example. Again,
in the example that I examined, Bill Goichberg was
understandably responding to an accusation that Sam
Sloan had already posted in the USCF Forum thread.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):

7 The last thing [Louis] will find are the members'
7 comments about accountability [the rest is politics on
7 all sides!]

_
More than once, I have posted a long list of comments
on the $10,000. I do not see Phil Innes identifying any
specific USCF Forum comment (about the $10,000)
that I should not have omitted.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):

7 Notice, by the way, that Phil Innes now does not
7 mention his previous charge (Sun, 17 Dec 2006
7 13:09:44 GMT) about Bill Goichberg apparently
7 encouraging others to blame Sam Sloan "for
7 Marinello's revelations".
7
7 But do these things mean; 'now does not' ?
7 How many points should I make about Jerry Hanken?
7 Did I ever mention the central issue of why members
7 were very concerned?
7
7 Should I have mentioned Joe McCarthy?
7
7 Maybe Louis found a point below? Who knows?

_
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT, Phil Innes
indicated that one of "the issues" was the "blaming"
of "Sloan with the more than apparent encouragement
of Goichberg, for Marinello's revelations". On
18 Dec 2006 00:37:52 -0800, I expressed doubt about
this matter. On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT,
while writing about Bill Goichberg's contribution to the
USCF Forum thread, Phil Innes chose not to mention
the previous "encouragement" claim. As long as Phil
Innes continues to avoid discussing it, everyone else
will just have to come to their own conclusion as to
whether or not Phil Innes was referring to something
that does not exist.
_
Here again is some of what was actually written about
the $10,000 at the USCF Forum:
_
"... Certainly spending $10.000 of limited USCF
funds for a fundraiser who generated no funds
shows some disappointing results on some
decisions: attempts at a band-aid approach to
generate funds. ..." - Joe Lux (Sat Dec 09, 2006
7:27 pm)
_
_
"... Without naming names, Joe raises above an
issue about one declared candidate who recently
received an estimated $10,000 from the USCF
and has produced little or nothing to show for it.
This raises important issues which the members
need to learn more about before voting." - Sam
Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
_
_
"Who did we give this money to, what were we
expecting to receive, and who decided to spend
the money? ..." - Herbert Vaughn (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 8:26 am)
_
_
"The exact details about this transaction need
to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall (the two
Bills). Let us hope that they clarify this matter
soon.
_
Will they tell us, or will this be just another
cover-up of a wasteful expenditure by the USCF?
..." - Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)
_
_
"... Mikhail Koreman ... was paid $10,000 to do
fundraising over the summer and produced no
positive results.
_
Mr. Koreman was moving to Chicago and had
no job when the EB approved these funding for
him. A $2000 per month plus $500 per month in
expenses. A total of $10,000. ..." - Beatriz
Marinello (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:49 am)
_
_
"I voted in favor of giving the money to Mikhail
because I was so impressed with what he had
achieved in Kansas. In retrospect I believe I
made a mistake, but that does not take away
from his proven brilliance as a chess promoter
and organizer." - Joel Channing (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm)
_
_
"As a delegate, I, too, would like more
information on why Mr. Korenman was selected
to do this fundraising. I recall reading about it at
the time and honestly, this is the type of
decision making that bothered me then and
bothers me now.
_
Why was he selected to do the fundraising? Did
the USCF put out an open bid to its membership
or publish in Chess Life that it was soliciting bids
for fundraising? Did USCF ask for and receive a
resume detailing his experience as a fundraiser?
Did the USCF establish a contract with
benchmarks for results and dates by which to
achieve them in order to determine whether the
fundraising contract was successful? If so, has
the fundraising met those objectives?
_
When the USCF begins to function more as an
independent business with open bidding,
contracts, and goals with measureable results,
then it will have a chance of becoming a
successful organization.
_
All of the questions above are no reflection on
Mr. Korenman. I know nothing about him and
have no political agenda in this regard. They
are simply questions that the general
membership has a right to know the answers
on especially in light of Beatriz's last post."
- Donna Alarie (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm)
_
_
"Benchmarks for results and review dates? It's
not the USCF way. It's why USCF buys
snake-oil over and over and over again.
...
The $10K in moving expenses to somone's
buddy is your USCF dues hard at work." - Allan
Fifield (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:43 pm)
_
_
"Korenman was selected because he made a
proposal to USCF regarding a four month
period when he would be available. Because
his fundraising results in the past have been
spectacular, I supported this proposal.
_
This arrangement involved work other than
fund raising, and it is possible that
sponsorship will still result from his efforts, but
I am disappointed that no definite sponsorship
has resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm)
_
_
"[1]
... 'Fundraising' is obviously a gamble. One
cannot force a successful outcome. ...
_
[2]
A.Karpov was not mentioned in the earlier
posts. Yet it is natural to wonder how much
of Mr. Korenman's success in Lindsborg KA
was due in part to A.Karpov's fame and
involvement. Is it accurate to say Karpov
deserves some of the credit?
_
[3]
I wish the E.B. would modify its perspective
away from 'fundraising' and toward 'marketing'.
Fundraising has a place, but it sounds like
asking for charity. Fundraising is not a growth
channel, it is not even self-sustaining.
_
In contrast, 'marketing' searches for 'win-win'
situations for both the sponsor and chess or
the USCF. Marketing aims at increasing the
appeal of chess to the untapped public."
- Gene Milener (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:36 pm)
_
_
"... You are quite correct here. I believe the
appropriate avenue for the USCF is to cease
the fundraising aspect and engage actively in
searching for marketing / advertising
sponsorships.
_
For the past 2 years I have been actively
working on securing marketing/advertising
sponsorships and I can say it is not an
simple job but significantly a larger pool than
the fundraising/charity angle.
_
Corporate foundations are very specific in
what they will provide donations to and while
chess has the educational aspect to it many
corporate foundations will not entertain chess
as a viable educational outlet. Additionally
these foundations are limited - remember
these foundations are tax shelters also for
the corporation but the tax shelter is limited
so the funds do run out (and relatively quickly).
_
Marketing / Advertising dollars are quite
different. First they are controlled in two steps
generally - national/international budgets and
local/regional budgets. While the national
budget may not have any opportunities,
local/regional may and generally its easier to
go that route. Secondly - the sponsorship is
no longer only about doing good to the
community - it's about how you can help
them reach new markets and generate sales.
It's not a charity pitch - it's a sales pitch.
Finally - marketing/advertising dollars can be
replenished at various times of the year, not
just at the beginning when budgets become
fresh - foundation dollars are stuck where
they are at year round.
_
So marketing/advertising sponsorship is the
way to go, not corporate foundations. Of
course that is my opinion." - Sevan Muradian
(Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:02 pm)
_
_
"Out of curiosity, what were [Mr. Korenman's]
spectacular fund raising results?" - Kevin
Bachler (Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:16 am)
_
_
"I'm sure there were others, but one area where
he was successful was getting grant funding
from the State of Kansas, I believe through
their department of economic development.
This was different than other chess grant
funding efforts through government, which
generally rely on chess' educational value. In
this instance, he went with the approach that
'chess tournaments appeal to people as being
intellectual and full of smart people, and with
strong national publicity, Kansas will benefit
from being associated with them.' I think he
also tied in the Karpov angle, again giving the
City and State a 'worldly' image.
_
He did get a lot of publicity for some high
impact events, including national coverage. I
had some professional curiosity about the
State actually providing this kind of funding
and spoke with some colleagues in Kansas
about it, and my general recollection is that
the State was satisfied with the outcomes."
- Randy Bauer (Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 pm)
_
_
"National evening/nightly news coverage as I
recall. My wife called me out of my office to
see it because one of the networks was
interviewing him." - David Hood (Tue
Dec 12, 2006 2:19 pm)
_
_
"I was curious in part, because, from some
of the press articles I read about when he left,
it sounded more like a failing business than
successful fundraising.
_
Someone made a comment about being on
national news. But really all that would take is
us spending time on PR. Heck, our our 5th
grade chess team was on CNN a few years
ago, and that was just a matter of performing
well.
_
I'm not trying to downplay what he might have
accomplished, but so far, I haven't seen $$
amounts, programs completed, etc. so that
right now I don't know that he accomplished
anything other than promoting himself. And
what he has done in Illinois certainly has been
controversial at best (apparently helping to
increase the expenses of this year's state
championship with no real benefit)...so that
right now my skepticism is up. My suggestion
would be that if he is a real candidate and a
good candidate is that he needs to get some
hard information out soon." - Kevin Bachler
(Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:35 pm)
_
_
"Here's an article that ran in National
Geographic on Korenman and chess in
Kansas.
_
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature6/
_
Reading this, it would seem that Korenman
has gotten some good PR for chess in the
mainstream press and has been a successful
organizer. This explains why the USCF board
was willing to back him." - Maret Thorpe (Wed
Dec 13, 2006 1:28 pm)
_
_
"... Anyone that has tried fundraising can tell
you that it is a rare occurance when you can
walk into a meeting with a proposal, and walk
out with a large check. Quite often, a proposal
has to be put into the budget and will be given
out the following fiscal year. So it is premature
to call his efforts a failure.
_
Korenman has previously received a 250K grant.
He has generated quite a bit of publicity in both
print and television media. He has organized
master events and scholastics. He has served
on the scholastic council. I would rather see
someone get elected or not based on their
merits and actions. Based on Mr. Korenman's
actions, I think he makes a fine candidate."
- Glenn Panner (Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:31 pm)
_
_
"... $10,000 to a fund raiser who raised no funds and
who is a political ally of Bill Goichberg. Fund Raisers
are normally paid a percentage of the funds they raise,
which in this case was zero. ..." - Sam Sloan (Fri
Dec 29, 2006 3:36 pm)
_
_
"... The $10k for the fundraiser. This begs the bigger
question. Whenever money is authorized to be spent
by the EB, it has to come out of the budget from
Somewhere. Since that impinges upon the ED's
decisions, that expense really needs to generate
offsetting revenue or be approved by the delegates by
way of placing the expense in the budget in advance.
Or like Sam said, most fundraisers take percentage
of funds raised.
...
It might be helpful to keep in mind that our Executive
Board are all unpaid volunteers who forked up $250
of their personal money just so they could devote
inordinate amounts of time to our organization and
have every decision they ever made second guessed
by numerous members. I for one would like to take
this time to thank all of them for at least trying to do
what they thought was the best for USCF whether or
not I always agreed with their decisions. ..." - Donna
Alarie (Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:42 pm)
_
_
"... I think this was a bad decision. It's one I choose
not to berate the board members for. I think they
basically got greedy. They thought they'd end up
paying more in the long run if they gave up a
percentage. But it's easy to point out mistakes like
this in HINDSIGHT -- at the time they must have
thought it was a reasonable idea. And I really have
to question the term 'fundraiser' also -- my
understanding is that only PART of the effort was
fundraising. I don't think it's fair to attribute the
ENTIRE $10K to fundraising. My understanding is
that he was hired to do multiple tasks. ..." - Herbert
Vaughn (Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:21 am)
_
_
By the way, Donna Alarie was one of the "2 members" to
whom Phil Innes was referring back on Wed, 13 Dec 2006
15:52:36 GMT when he wrote that they "almost certainly
.... would not renew their subscriptions".

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT):
7 ... the nominal topic of more USCF 'awards' by board
7 members without any accounting, which was first
7 reported by Beatriz Marinello, then Sam Sloan was
7 'blamed' for, even by Bill Goichberg ...
7 ...
7 ... The issues again:
7 ...
7 In the fund raising instance, blaming Sloan with the
7 more than apparent encouragement of Goichberg, for
7 Marinello's revelations
_
I wrote (18 Dec 2006 00:37:52 -0800):
7 On Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm, Bill Goichberg wrote:
7
7 "Korenman was selected because he made a
7 proposal to USCF regarding a four month
7 period when he would be available. Because
7 his fundraising results in the past have been
7 spectacular, I supported this proposal.
7
7 This arrangement involved work other than
7 fund raising, and it is possible that sponsorship
7 will still result from his efforts, but I am
7 disappointed that no definite sponsorship has
7 resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun
7 Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm)
7
7 I do not see anything there or anywhere else in the
7 thread about blaming Sam Sloan for the "award".
7 ...
7 ... I do not see any way in which it can be plausibly
7 argued that [Bill Goichberg's Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm
7 note] enouraged blaming Sam Sloan for anything.
7 Indeed, Sam Sloan was not even mentioned in the note.
7 ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):
7 ... Non-USCF members are often encouraged to join up,
7 and to make their voices heard from the inside - but this is
7 seen to be a sham-bolic idea when members at USCF's
7 forum Nolanland actually do so! - and ask for accountability
7 or some sort of bench-mark to assess the result of yet
7 another 'award'.
7
7 In this instance Vaughn falsely attacked Sloan [on his
7 points, he should have attacked Marinello],
_
I wrote (5 Jan 2007 01:41:55 -0800):
7 I am not sure what Herbert Vaughn note Phil Innes is
7 writing about. I did find this:
7
7 "... Implying wrong doing by some unnamed
7 'candidate' and refusing to provide any
7 details is a slimy business. ..." - Herbert
7 Vaughn (Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:19 pm)
7
7 If that is what Phil Innes had in mind, I see no reason for
7 saying that "on [Herbert Vaughn's] points, he should
7 have attacked Marinello". After all, it was Sam Sloan,
7 not Beatriz Marinello, who wrote:
7
7 "... Without naming names, Joe [Lux] raises
7 above an issue about one declared candidate
7 who recently received an estimated $10,000
7 from the USCF and has produced little or
7 nothing to show for it. ..." - Sam Sloan (Sun
7 Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
7
7 "The exact details about this transaction need
7 to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall ..."
7 - Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):
_
7 Are you sure you are even in the right thread? Look
7 harder on the forum - there are at least two apologies by
7 Vaughn himself.
_
_
As I mentioned, I see Herbert Vaughn apologies for
comments about Joe Lux and Timothy Sawmiller. (The
dates are Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:19 pm and Mon
Dec 11, 2006 3:35 pm.)
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):
_
7 If that is
7
7 Of course it isn't! The main point is about accountability,
7 period. Members asked for it. Other writers in this forum
7 want us to believe that they think awarding $50,000 then
7 $10,000 with no performance criteria is hardly worth
7 comment. Certainly Louis Blair does not think it worth
7 any of his own, and so the rest of this is some diversion
7 with Louis picking spurious citations to 'refute' a
7 synopsis. zzz
_
_
It was Phil Innes who chose to tell us that "... Vaughn
falsely attacked Sloan [on his points, he should have
attacked Marinello] ...". I would have discussed the
specific Herbert Vaughn note that Phil Innes had in
mind, but, so far, I have not seen PI identify a specific
HV note that fits the description that PI posted.
Perhaps this is about as real as the supposed "more
than apparent" Bill Goichberg "encouragement"
(reported by Phil Innes) of others to blame Sam Sloan
"for Marinello's revelations".
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):
7 and though apologising twice for being over-the-top
7 on the issue,
_
I wrote (5 Jan 2007 01:41:55 -0800):
7 What I see are Herbert Vaughn apologies for comments
7 about Joe Lux and Timothy Sawmiller, NOT apologies
7 for comments about Sam Sloan.
7
7 Notice, by the way, that Herbert Vaughn's "issue" was
7 not "accountability or some sort of bench-mark to
7 assess the result of yet another 'award'."
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):
_
7 What I see are Herbert Vaughn apologies for
7 comments about Joe Lux and Timothy Sawmiller,
7 NOT apologies for comments about Sam Sloan.
7
7 This seems to be /Louis Blair's/ inference.
_
_
Does Phil Innes dispute this "inference"? If so, what
specifically, does HE claim that Herbert Vaughn was
apologizing for?
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):
_
7 Of course [Herbert Vaughn's issue was not
7 accountability or some sort of bench-mark to assess
7 the result of yet another 'award'] - that was by the
7 members, and Vaughn did not actually attempt an
7 "issue".
_
_
It seems to me that Herbert Vaughn wrote about the
matter of "... implying wrong doing by some unnamed
'candidate' and refusing to provide any details ...".
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):
7 then Vaughn abandoned the issue entirely! openly
7 stating he would attack Sloan off-topic. This is as-plain
7 -as-you-like politics, and nothing at all to do with Sloan!
7 Neither is it the slightest endorsement of Sloan, since
7 in this instance he is merely Marinello's water-carrier.
_
I wrote (5 Jan 2007 01:41:55 -0800):
7 Again, I do not know what, specifically, Phil Innes is
7 writing about. I found this sort of thing:
7
7 "... Tanstaafl a/k/a Herbert Vaughn has
7 been attacking me for nearly one year, long
7 before I was elected to the board. ..." - Sam
7 Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:13 pm)
7
7 "... Name ONE CHARGE that I've made
7 against you that isn't literally true! I'll provide
7 evidence to back my comment and you provide
7 evidence to show I'm wrong. ..." - Herbert
7 Vaughn (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm)
7
7 To me, it looks as though Herbert Vaughn was
7 RESPONDING to "off-topic" general commentary about
7 the conflict between Herbert Vaughn and Sam Sloan.
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):
_
7 Yes to you.
7
7 Instead of what you can't see, and these diversions
7 about your own contexts not mine = what about the
7 issue of accountability? Do you notice those?
7
7 And why are you writing them in this thread, which is
7 off-topic?
_
_
It was Phil Innes who chose, in this thread, to comment
on "off-topic" writing by Herbert Vaughn. In view of that
decision by Phil Innes, it seems appropriate to raise the
question of whether or not Herbert Vaughn was
RESPONDING to "off-topic" commentary that had
already appeared in the USCF Forum thread.
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT):
7 And these off-topic attacks [remember the topic is
7 Marinello's one of accountability] continue with USCF's
7 president jumping in to attack Sloan /on some other
7 issue/, and all without the slightest demurrer by
7 Nolandland-moderati. ...
_
I wrote (5 Jan 2007 01:41:55 -0800):
7 Bill Goichberg, for example, responded (Thu
7 Dec 14, 2006 12:40 pm) to a Thu Dec 14, 2006
7 10:48 am Sam Sloan note that had publically accused
7 "Joel Channing" of "trying to squeeze" Sam Sloan
7 "financially to make it difficult for" SS "to get to
7 Chicago so that" he "would not be able to take office
7 on the board." This sort of thing is no reason to
7 accuse Bill Goichberg of being "off-topic". After all, it
7 was Sam Sloan who started attacking Joel Channing
7 about expenses for the trip to Chicago.
7
7 Notice, by the way, that Phil Innes now does not
7 mention his previous charge (Sun, 17 Dec 2006
7 13:09:44 GMT) about Bill Goichberg apparently
7 encouraging others to blame Sam Sloan "for
7 Marinello's revelations". ...
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):

7 Again Louis choses the text of his choice to illustrate
7 what he hasn't looked at, can't find.
_
_
I would have discussed a specific Bill Goichberg
"off-topic attack", identified by Phil Innes, but, so far, I
have not seen PI identify a specific example. Again,
in the example that I examined, Bill Goichberg was
understandably responding to an accusation that Sam
Sloan had already posted in the USCF Forum thread.
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):
_
7 The last thing [Louis] will find are the members'
7 comments about accountability [the rest is politics on
7 all sides!]
_
_
More than once, I have posted a long list of comments
on the $10,000. I do not see Phil Innes identifying any
specific USCF Forum comment (about the $10,000)
that I should not have omitted.
_
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:22:56 GMT):
_
7 Notice, by the way, that Phil Innes now does not
7 mention his previous charge (Sun, 17 Dec 2006
7 13:09:44 GMT) about Bill Goichberg apparently
7 encouraging others to blame Sam Sloan "for
7 Marinello's revelations".
7
7 But do these things mean; 'now does not' ?
7 How many points should I make about Jerry Hanken?
7 Did I ever mention the central issue of why members
7 were very concerned?
7
7 Should I have mentioned Joe McCarthy?
7
7 Maybe Louis found a point below? Who knows?
_
_
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT, Phil Innes
indicated that one of "the issues" was the "blaming"
of "Sloan with the more than apparent encouragement
of Goichberg, for Marinello's revelations". On
18 Dec 2006 00:37:52 -0800, I expressed doubt about
this matter. On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:21:26 GMT,
while writing about Bill Goichberg's contribution to the
USCF Forum thread, Phil Innes chose not to mention
the previous "encouragement" claim. As long as Phil
Innes continues to avoid discussing it, everyone else
will just have to come to their own conclusion as to
whether or not Phil Innes was referring to something
that does not exist.
_
Here again is some of what was actually written about
the $10,000 at the USCF Forum:
_
"... Certainly spending $10.000 of limited USCF
funds for a fundraiser who generated no funds
shows some disappointing results on some
decisions: attempts at a band-aid approach to
generate funds. ..." - Joe Lux (Sat Dec 09, 2006
7:27 pm)
_
_
"... Without naming names, Joe raises above an
issue about one declared candidate who recently
received an estimated $10,000 from the USCF
and has produced little or nothing to show for it.
This raises important issues which the members
need to learn more about before voting." - Sam
Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
_
_
"Who did we give this money to, what were we
expecting to receive, and who decided to spend
the money? ..." - Herbert Vaughn (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 8:26 am)
_
_
"The exact details about this transaction need
to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall (the two
Bills). Let us hope that they clarify this matter
soon.
_
Will they tell us, or will this be just another
cover-up of a wasteful expenditure by the USCF?
..." - Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)
_
_
"... Mikhail Koreman ... was paid $10,000 to do
fundraising over the summer and produced no
positive results.
_
Mr. Koreman was moving to Chicago and had
no job when the EB approved these funding for
him. A $2000 per month plus $500 per month in
expenses. A total of $10,000. ..." - Beatriz
Marinello (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:49 am)
_
_
"I voted in favor of giving the money to Mikhail
because I was so impressed with what he had
achieved in Kansas. In retrospect I believe I
made a mistake, but that does not take away
from his proven brilliance as a chess promoter
and organizer." - Joel Channing (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm)
_
_
"As a delegate, I, too, would like more
information on why Mr. Korenman was selected
to do this fundraising. I recall reading about it at
the time and honestly, this is the type of
decision making that bothered me then and
bothers me now.
_
Why was he selected to do the fundraising? Did
the USCF put out an open bid to its membership
or publish in Chess Life that it was soliciting bids
for fundraising? Did USCF ask for and receive a
resume detailing his experience as a fundraiser?
Did the USCF establish a contract with
benchmarks for results and dates by which to
achieve them in order to determine whether the
fundraising contract was successful? If so, has
the fundraising met those objectives?
_
When the USCF begins to function more as an
independent business with open bidding,
contracts, and goals with measureable results,
then it will have a chance of becoming a
successful organization.
_
All of the questions above are no reflection on
Mr. Korenman. I know nothing about him and
have no political agenda in this regard. They
are simply questions that the general
membership has a right to know the answers
on especially in light of Beatriz's last post."
- Donna Alarie (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm)
_
_
"Benchmarks for results and review dates? It's
not the USCF way. It's why USCF buys
snake-oil over and over and over again.
...
The $10K in moving expenses to somone's
buddy is your USCF dues hard at work." - Allan
Fifield (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:43 pm)
_
_
"Korenman was selected because he made a
proposal to USCF regarding a four month
period when he would be available. Because
his fundraising results in the past have been
spectacular, I supported this proposal.
_
This arrangement involved work other than
fund raising, and it is possible that
sponsorship will still result from his efforts, but
I am disappointed that no definite sponsorship
has resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm)
_
_
"[1]
... 'Fundraising' is obviously a gamble. One
cannot force a successful outcome. ...
_
[2]
A.Karpov was not mentioned in the earlier
posts. Yet it is natural to wonder how much
of Mr. Korenman's success in Lindsborg KA
was due in part to A.Karpov's fame and
involvement. Is it accurate to say Karpov
deserves some of the credit?
_
[3]
I wish the E.B. would modify its perspective
away from 'fundraising' and toward 'marketing'.
Fundraising has a place, but it sounds like
asking for charity. Fundraising is not a growth
channel, it is not even self-sustaining.
_
In contrast, 'marketing' searches for 'win-win'
situations for both the sponsor and chess or
the USCF. Marketing aims at increasing the
appeal of chess to the untapped public."
- Gene Milener (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:36 pm)
_
_
"... You are quite correct here. I believe the
appropriate avenue for the USCF is to cease
the fundraising aspect and engage actively in
searching for marketing / advertising
sponsorships.
_
For the past 2 years I have been actively
working on securing marketing/advertising
sponsorships and I can say it is not an
simple job but significantly a larger pool than
the fundraising/charity angle.
_
Corporate foundations are very specific in
what they will provide donations to and while
chess has the educational aspect to it many
corporate foundations will not entertain chess
as a viable educational outlet. Additionally
these foundations are limited - remember
these foundations are tax shelters also for
the corporation but the tax shelter is limited
so the funds do run out (and relatively quickly).
_
Marketing / Advertising dollars are quite
different. First they are controlled in two steps
generally - national/international budgets and
local/regional budgets. While the national
budget may not have any opportunities,
local/regional may and generally its easier to
go that route. Secondly - the sponsorship is
no longer only about doing good to the
community - it's about how you can help
them reach new markets and generate sales.
It's not a charity pitch - it's a sales pitch.
Finally - marketing/advertising dollars can be
replenished at various times of the year, not
just at the beginning when budgets become
fresh - foundation dollars are stuck where
they are at year round.
_
So marketing/advertising sponsorship is the
way to go, not corporate foundations. Of
course that is my opinion." - Sevan Muradian
(Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:02 pm)
_
_
"Out of curiosity, what were [Mr. Korenman's]
spectacular fund raising results?" - Kevin
Bachler (Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:16 am)
_
_
"I'm sure there were others, but one area where
he was successful was getting grant funding
from the State of Kansas, I believe through
their department of economic development.
This was different than other chess grant
funding efforts through government, which
generally rely on chess' educational value. In
this instance, he went with the approach that
'chess tournaments appeal to people as being
intellectual and full of smart people, and with
strong national publicity, Kansas will benefit
from being associated with them.' I think he
also tied in the Karpov angle, again giving the
City and State a 'worldly' image.
_
He did get a lot of publicity for some high
impact events, including national coverage. I
had some professional curiosity about the
State actually providing this kind of funding
and spoke with some colleagues in Kansas
about it, and my general recollection is that
the State was satisfied with the outcomes."
- Randy Bauer (Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 pm)
_
_
"National evening/nightly news coverage as I
recall. My wife called me out of my office to
see it because one of the networks was
interviewing him." - David Hood (Tue
Dec 12, 2006 2:19 pm)
_
_
"I was curious in part, because, from some
of the press articles I read about when he left,
it sounded more like a failing business than
successful fundraising.
_
Someone made a comment about being on
national news. But really all that would take is
us spending time on PR. Heck, our our 5th
grade chess team was on CNN a few