However, after all these good and great wise men met, had their
deliberations and presented a proposed budget calling for a small
surplus, the Executive Board met a few days later only to discover
that Bill Hall presented a budget which showed a loss for fiscal year
2007-2008 of $105,973.

When asked why this small surplus turned into a big loss only a few
days later, it turned out that Bill Hall had decided to grant
everybody in the office a 3.2% raise plus he had decided to spend some
more money sending a delegation to the World Youth Championships in
Turkey in November, among other things.

So, in just a few days, the budget had been busted.

Still, the board rejected my proposed cut of $80,000 in personnel
costs.

Good that we saw the budget before it went to the delegates and
adjusted the figures upwards to show a $50,027 surplus.

We would not want the delegates to think that we are a bunch of fools,
buffoons and idiots, would we?

Sam Sloan

I just wonder if we could read something without spin that is not someone
else's fault and for which they are publicly blamed?

a) Is there an employment contract at USCF?
b) Is there a COLA clause?

COLA means Cost of Living Adjustment.

3.2 % is just over the current inflation rate, though possibly any COL
adjustment is not administered every year?
For example: if it is every other year, then USCF employees are, even
//with// the 3.2% 'raise' about 2% worse off than they were in 2005.

These of course are what we call facts. To interrogate the rest of this
material to its factual basis requires equal care to this COLA issue,
whether it is contracted COLA, or just Bill Hall's volunteered proposal to
achieve parity with cost of living.

Personally, I think it is his job to represent the staff in this way.

The balance of this message is so unclear as to first resent the board being
responsible to anyone else [ie, the delegates are cited] which I think is
not an entirely legal proposition under USCF bye-laws, and after talking
about 'responsibility' concluding -

"We would not want the delegates to think that we are a bunch of fools,
buffoons and idiots, would we?"


Too late?

While not wanting the board to be responsible, they should instead make a
show of things for effect?

Phil Innes
Vermont

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by joelchanning Please consider that the Financial Review Committee, most of which met with president Goichberg in Crossville to review the semi-final numbers recently included Mike Carr, Frank Camaratta, Chuck Unruh, Grant Perks, Randy Bauer, Bill Hall, Mike Nolan, Joe Nanna, and me. I can't imagine that the Delegates could find a better group. Also, in Stillwater the Board agreed that an in- depth review of the budget by a group like this one will be an annual event. Even though I know that Donna means well, I have to disagree with her proposal. It is rooted in the kind of logic that says that the voters can't be trusted and that the Delegates have to restrict the oversight role of the Board. I've never heard of any successful organization, public or private, that could survive under such fragmented responsibility. Joel Channing

However, after all these good and great wise men met, had their
deliberations and presented a proposed budget calling for a small
surplus, the Executive Board met a few days later only to discover
that Bill Hall presented a budget which showed a loss for fiscal year
2007-2008 of $105,973.

When asked why this small surplus turned into a big loss only a few
days later, it turned out that Bill Hall had decided to grant
everybody in the office a 3.2% raise plus he had decided to spend some
more money sending a delegation to the World Youth Championships in
Turkey in November, among other things.

So, in just a few days, the budget had been busted.

Still, the board rejected my proposed cut of $80,000 in personnel
costs.

Good that we saw the budget before it went to the delegates and
adjusted the figures upwards to show a $50,027 surplus.

We would not want the delegates to think that we are a bunch of fools,
buffoons and idiots, would we?

Sam Sloan