Help Requested from USCF Members & Delegates

by DACP on Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:06 pm #70258

For the past few months, I have not posted updates on the retirement plan
because I really thought that USCF was going to do the right thing and
resolve this issue promptly and fairly for all employees. It seemed prudent
to work within the system as best as possible.

I no longer believe that to be the case or the best course of action.

On July 24, 2007, I sent an email to USCF's attorney so that USCF could
obtain a second legal opinion on the plan.

On August 15, 2007, Mr. Hall indicated that he was expecting a legal opinion
from the attorney within a week or so.

On August 28, 2007, I asked Mr. Hall for a status of the legal opinion. He
did not reply to my email.

I discussed this issue with Charles Unruh, Chairperson of Finance several
times. He indicated that the office was still working diligently on the
problem.

On September 8, 2007, I sent an email to Randy Bauer who in turn contacted
Mr. Hall.

Mr. Hall's response on September 10, 2007 as to WHEN we might reasonably
expect a response from the USCF attorney was that he could not answer, USCF
is looking for a document which the attorney requested, and he doesn't have
a time frame. He has not said what the document is or if it has been found.

My response to that email was that the answer was unacceptable. That all I
am looking for is a timeframe for the employees.

On September 16, 2007 hearing nothing further, I contacted Randy Bauer
again. His response was that I was welcome to contact the full EB.

On September 17, 2007, I sent an email to the confidential BINFO system
anticipating that the email was sent to the full board. It doesn't work that
way. I found that out on September 20, 2007.

On September 20, 2007, I sent an email to all the EB members directly.

The response from Mr. Goichberg is along the lines of I should inform the
office of who has requested money and not been paid. That the office is
still working on the issues at hand. That any employee who hasn't been paid
should contact the EB directly.

Well, as a USCF member, I really would like to see USCF pay ALL the
employees the money that has been in the retirement plan as soon as
possible. The answer of USCF is still working on it no longer cuts it as far
as I'm concerned.

The employees have sat by waiting patiently for answers and the current
answer is USCF may or may not be looking for a document and the attorney is
working on it but we have no idea on when you can expect to be done with
USCF and get on with your lifes.

Anyone in the audience here who has suggestions for the next course of
action is welcome to contact me. It is obvious that the resolution to this
issue is not at hand.

I expect more from USCF management than has been evident. This is all about
doing the right thing. Put yourselves in the shoes of the employees who have
been waiting since 2003. Would you have waited this long? I didn't think so.
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
DACP

Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 11:30 am
Location: Massachusetts
USCFId: 12447542
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by rfeditor on Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:35 pm #70261

DACP wrote:

I expect more from USCF management than has been evident. This is all
about doing the right thing. Put yourselves in the shoes of the employees
who have been waiting since 2003. Would you have waited this long? I didn't
think so.


Can you demonstrate the existence of such employees? (I suppose that would
be former employees.) I don't want names, just evidence that one or more
individuals have properly requested payout and not received it. Would not
they be the only ones with standing to raise this question?
John Hillery
rfeditor

Posts: 2449
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:29 pm
USCFId: 10010250
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. MSNM/WLM
d.. YIM
e.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by DACP on Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:05 am #70262

If USCF management does not uphold the law and properly manage the
retirement plan of the non-profit corporation, then it will expend
membership assets in legal fees to defend itself. Personally, I don't
appreciate my membership fees being used in this way when if management was
effective and acted responsibly, there would be no reason to have to make
such an expenditure.

USCF did not make timely deposits and in fact, please look at the audited
financials for the fiscal year ended 5/31/07. Note the quote for a deposit
that should have been made for the year 2002 and was made in 2007. This
means that anyone who was paid benefits from 2002 on, would have been paid
benefits which were incorrectly calculated plus they would be entitled to
interest and probably penalties on the untimeliness of that deposit.

There are several employees who have requested payments. This issue was
brought up several months ago and at the time, Mr. Hall said that he was not
aware of this. Then at a later time, he said that the office had been
contacted and he just found out. One of USCF's employees was keeping a list
of the employees.

As far as standing goes, a non-profit has a fiduciary responsibility to its
members. I'm a USCF member.
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
DACP

Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 11:30 am
Location: Massachusetts
USCFId: 12447542
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Ron Suarez on Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:06 am #70263

You must be joking John. This issue has been a recognized one now for a
number of months. All the members of the Executive Board as well as the
staff and all Finance people are aware of this USCF debacle.

I suggest you come to the present time John.

Donna, there is obviously a real problem of communication amongst the
Executive Board members and the administrative staff.

I would personally call the ED on this. I know that you have emailed him,
talked with him personally and all. I mean to call him on this in public
view. File an Ethics complaint against the ED and the Executive Board for
not properly paying attention to their fiscal duties.

These employees and former employees are certainly due the recompense in the
form of their retirement that is owed them.
....from the Middle,

Ron Suarez
ID# 12483626
Ron Suarez

Posts: 1141
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:26 am
Location: Peoria, Illinois ... the Middle
USCFId: 12483626
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by DACP on Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:20 am #70265

Ron Suarez wrote:I would personally call the ED on this. I know that you
have emailed him, talked with him personally and all. I mean to call him on
this in public view. File an Ethics complaint against the ED and the
Executive Board for not properly paying attention to their fiscal duties.

These employees and former employees are certainly due the recompense in
the form of their retirement that is owed them.


Thank you Ron. It had been my intention to put up a motion of no confidence
in the Executive Director at the Delegates Meeting in August, but I wasn't
convinced that I would have the votes necessary for it to pass. In fact, I
was persuaded by others that it would have a negative effect on the EB not
renewing the contract if they so chose and there was a vote for support put
up instead.

Since I had been under the impression that Mr. Hall's performance in many
areas - particularly the ability to get accurate financial reporting out,
was a problem, I never expected his contract to be renewed. And certainly
not as one of the new EB's first courses of action. Perhaps I should have
gone with my original instinct and put up the motion anyways.

In any case, it is obvious that I have not been a supporter of Mr. Hall's
for quite some time. His handling of this issue is just another item in the
rather long list of items that I believe the office has handled rather
ineffectively.
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
DACP

Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 11:30 am
Location: Massachusetts
USCFId: 12447542
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by rfeditor on Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:29 am #70266

Ron Suarez wrote:You must be joking John. This issue has been a recognized
one now for a number of months. All the members of the Executive Board as
well as the staff and all Finance people are aware of this USCF debacle.

I suggest you come to the present time John.

Donna, there is obviously a real problem of communication amongst the
Executive Board members and the administrative staff.

I would personally call the ED on this. I know that you have emailed him,
talked with him personally and all. I mean to call him on this in public
view. File an Ethics complaint against the ED and the Executive Board for
not properly paying attention to their fiscal duties.

These employees and former employees are certainly due the recompense in
the form of their retirement that is owed them.


By all means, let's join the lynch mob. No need to bother with law or
evidence.

The status of the pension fund (I know that's not exactly what it is, but
it's close enough) is of practical importance only when someone retires, or
quits and withdraws the money. I know people who have done both. (Probably
better than you do, since I worked with them at one time.) Is there anyone
who has requested money and not received it? Is there anyone who is entitled
to money and has not received it? If not, going public in this manner seems
like a grandstanding publicity stunt.

I am particularly disturbed by your reference to the Ethics Committee.
Didn't we have enough of this last year? The proper function -- the only
legal function -- of the Ethics Committee is to regulate the conduct of
players in tournaments. It is not a judiciary or a superlegislature. Last
year it was stretched -- wrongly in my opinion -- to cover conduct by EB
members and candidates. Perverting it to apply to USCF office employees is
utterly preposterous.

There are (or at least were) serious problems with "pension program," but
these were (are) internal problems for the Board and ED to deal with. Donna
deserves credit for the work she has done on this. But her behavior here has
to call her judgment into question.
John Hillery
rfeditor

Posts: 2449
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:29 pm
USCFId: 10010250
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. MSNM/WLM
d.. YIM
e.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by DACP on Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:45 am #70268

rfeditor wrote:Is there anyone who has requested money and not received
it? Is there anyone who is entitled to money and has not received it?

.....

There are (or at least were) serious problems with "pension program," but
these were (are) internal problems for the Board and ED to deal with. Donna
deserves credit for the work she has done on this. But her behavior here has
to call her judgment into question.


Yes, there are employees who have requested funds and not been paid. They
were told that USCF needed more time to figure out how much money they were
entitled to. They were told to wait until the end of 2006, then February,
2007, then March, then April, then USCF bounced a check, then we had Donna
get involved and it looked like USCF was on the path to fixing all this
until July 24 when the second opinion request went out. One employee was
asked to take half the money she was entitled to because that's what was
"fair".

Now, would you like to call MY integrity into question too?

While I was in TN, I listened to an EB member call me a grandstanding Dubeck
clone out to bankrupt the USCF.

While I was in NJ, I listened to another stand in politician tell me I must
think I'm playing Samson and Goliath. That it doesn't matter whether anyone
has done anything wrong. That I should support the USCF no matter what.

I'm rather tired of being called names, insulted, etc. for sticking up for
employees who want nothing more than to get their retirement funds out of
the USCF coffers because they have absolutely no faith in USCF's ability to
manage its assets.

By the way, do you know WHY the employees started asking for their money?
Think back to 2003. Right. That's when USCF was on the verge of bankruptcy
and one of the former employees in the finance arena suggested that there
wasn't enough money to pay everyone so get the money out. The employees have
been trying to do exactly that since then.

My behavior in coming here is a point of last resort.

If you were an employee, would "we're working on it" be okay by you?

Why doesn't USCF just disseminate all the funds it has in the retirement
plan to the former employees and let them get on with their lifes? Doesn't
anyone else get this? They were FIRED by USCF. They want their money out of
the organization and in IRA's where they feel secure. I don't blame them a
bit.

Seeing USCF's latest financials and how it keeps records, I'd ask for my
money out too.
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
DACP

Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 11:30 am
Location: Massachusetts
USCFId: 12447542
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by sdo1 on Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:14 am #70271

I think a definitive statement is needed from USCF management regarding
whether or not former employees are owed money that has not been payed them.
If USCF management is not forthcoming with this information then USCF
Governance would be remiss to NOT intervene and make sure of the status of
this debt, and inform the membership regarding disposition.

I don't pretend to understand the nuances of the accounting behind what is
going on and so I've stayed out of this discussion for the past 10 months or
so. However, if the USCF is indebted to former employees then the USCF needs
to resolve this, and should have resolved this 10 months ago if the debt is
valid. If the USCF has not done what they should then this is mark on the
honor of the members and it must be resolved.

We, as members, should expect no less from USCF management than that our
responsibilities are honored. As this question is of such age, USCF
management owes the membership a definitive answer on these matters so that
we know for certain that our obligations have been met.
Steve Owens in Tennessee - http://sdo1.blogspot.com -
http://chessusa.blogspot.com - Just a USCF member
"Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than
yourself." ---Thomas Jefferson
sdo1

Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:17 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
USCFId: 12467003
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. YIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by samsloan on Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:11 am #70273

DACP wrote:If USCF management does not uphold the law and properly manage
the retirement plan of the non-profit corporation, then it will expend
membership assets in legal fees to defend itself. Personally, I don't
appreciate my membership fees being used in this way when if management was
effective and acted responsibly, there would be no reason to have to make
such an expenditure.

USCF did not make timely deposits and in fact, please look at the audited
financials for the fiscal year ended 5/31/07.


Are the audited financials available for the fiscal year ended 5/31/07? I
have not seen them. Where are they?

Sam Sloan
samsloan

Posts: 2412
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: Bronx, New York
USCFId: 11115292
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. YIM
d.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by samsloan on Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:24 am #70275

Starting from the very first day of my one year on the board and continuing
to my very last day, I repeated asked for basic information about the
retirement/profit sharing plan such as what the plan was, who was covered
under the plan and what the employees were told about the plan while they
were employed here.

I never got the answers to any of these most basic questions.

I think it is entirely possible that the USCF owed no money under the plan
and that it should not have made the two payments of about $23,000 each
while I was on the board.

While I was on the board, at least I was constantly pushing for information,
whereas the ED was stonewalling.

Now that there is nobody on the board pushing, I suspect that there is no
snowballs chance of you getting any more information than you have already
gotten.

Sam Sloan
samsloan

Posts: 2412
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: Bronx, New York
USCFId: 11115292
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. YIM
d.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Edit post
c.. Report this post
by Brian Lafferty on Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:41 am #70277

If USCF management can not or will not get to the bottom of this situation,
I suspect that the employees will contact the US department of Labor, and/or
the IRS and/or the US Department of Justice and ask for their opinions on
how best to proceed. In fact, it might be incumbent upon you to seek that
advice. But, that's your decision and the former employees decision.

I agree that if any of the employees go that route, it will cause the USCF
to spend money on legal fees which is not how I'd like to see my membership
dues spent.

Note to moderators This is not a legal threat from me. This is commentary on
what frustrated former employees might do. In fact, Donna, didn't you
prevail on one of them to be patient and NOT go to the federal authorities
or the NY State Attorney General for advice on how to get her money?
Truth and criticism can not be stifled in the internet age. End the
moderation or shut the forums down. Dissent will live elsewhere.
Brian Lafferty

Posts: 1516
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:16 pm
USCFId: 13592564
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by mnibb on Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:26 am #70289

I have followed discussion on this topic from a distance. Is everyone saying
that neither the USCF or the employees can produce statements or records of
the values in the retirement system at the time of termination of
employment?

If either party could produce such statements, wouldn't it be possible to
negotiate some value of the retirement accounts and pay them off? I seem to
recall there being some formulas for the TVM (time value of money)
12818435
Mark Nibbelin
Fellow Life Management Institute
Chartered Life Underwriter
Scholastic Chess Organizer.
mnibb

Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:55 am
Location: Illinois
USCFId: 12818435
a.. Private message
b.. Website
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by artichoke on Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:29 am #70290

USCF should obey (not "uphold"; that's the sheriff's job) the law. If we can
figure out whom we owe what, we should pay it. We should not disseminate all
the money in the pension fund to people we might not owe however.

To do the right thing, there's no alternative to first finding out what the
right thing is. To "do something" without knowing that is to guarantee that
one is doing the wrong thing.

I am not asking for delay. I would love to see a correct accounting
produced, yesterday! But we should do nothing until we know what to do. I
call on the EB to move the investigation forward to a correct conclusion.
artichoke

Posts: 3431
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:36 am
Location: Connecticut
USCFId: 10167825
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Hal Terrie on Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:06 am #70298

rfeditor wrote: The proper function -- the only legal function -- of the
Ethics Committee is to regulate the conduct of players in tournaments.

This is not entirely accurate. The Ethics Committee has jurisdiction not
only over the Code of Ethics but also over the Standards of Conduct for the
USCF Executive Board. This is why the Committee was compelled to accept
cases dealing with the conduct of Executive Board Members.

rfeditor wrote:It is not a judiciary or a superlegislature. Last year it
was stretched -- wrongly in my opinion -- to cover conduct by EB members and
candidates. Perverting it to apply to USCF office employees is utterly
preposterous.

The Code cannot be applied to office employees. From Section 3 (A) of the
Code: "This code shall not apply to actions or behavior by employees of USCF
acting in the scope of their duties. Such actions fall instead under the
province of the Executive Board."

-- Hal Terrie
Hal Terrie

Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:33 pm
Location: New Hampshire
USCFId: 10025265
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Sevan Muradian on Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:28 am #70301

So some questions from someone who hasn't been following this topic closely.

So is this what we are looking for:

1. A list of who is entitled to the payments;
2. How much each person is entitled to;
3. Pay them;

Does #1 exist?

Does the USCF know who was employed?

Does USCF have records if they were already paid or not paid out? I know
USCF records keeping stinks like roadkill but this should exist.

How much are they entitled to? Were there formulas being used to determine,
etc.?
Sevan Muradian

Help Requested from USCF Members & Delegates
A forum to discuss general USCF issues (Open to USCF members only.)

Moderator: Moderators

Post a reply

25 posts . Page 2 of 2 . 1, 2
a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Mulfish on Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:40 am #70302

Considering how long this issue has been festering, I see only two reasons
why this would not have been figured out by now:
1. Management has no idea what they are doing in this area.
2. Management does not consider this issue important.

These are not mutually exclusive options. I agree with the leafy one that we
need to know what the right thing is before doing it. That simply means we
must prioritize getting this nailed done now. We KNOW that ignoring the
problem and hoping it goes away is not the right thing to do. Surely no one
disagrees with that.

I see why Donna declined to run for the EB. Pity.
Mulfish

Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:24 pm
Location: Atlanta GA
USCFId: 10510376
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by nolan on Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:51 am #70308

The audited financials were posted on the website on September 6th.

See http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/06-07 ... ements.pdf
nolan

Posts: 6357
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:39 pm
USCFId: 10339324
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by artichoke on Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:31 am #70313

Hal Terrie wrote:
rfeditor wrote: ... From Section 3 (A) of the Code: "This code shall not
apply to actions or behavior by employees of USCF acting in the scope of
their duties. Such actions fall instead under the province of the Executive
Board."

-- Hal Terrie
Yet another problem with the S of C: it's poorly written (as well as poorly
conceived.) "Under the province"? Under Canadian provinces, I'm sure that
one finds dirt and rocks, and probably some ice. "In" might do better. I
feel sorry for the Ethics Committee for having to deal with the S of C.

OK enough of my off-topic pet peeve.
artichoke

Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:36 am
Location: Connecticut
USCFId: 10167825
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by DACP on Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:42 am #70318

Sevan Muradian wrote:So some questions from someone who hasn't been
following this topic closely.

So is this what we are looking for:

1. A list of who is entitled to the payments;
2. How much each person is entitled to;
3. Pay them;

Does #1 exist?

Does the USCF know who was employed?

Does USCF have records if they were already paid or not paid out? I know
USCF records keeping stinks like roadkill but this should exist.

How much are they entitled to? Were there formulas being used to
determine, etc.?


The first issue is whether USCF's retirement plan is a pension plan or a
profit sharing plan and which plan has legal standing. In 2002, a
restatement was made, but there are *issues* with how that was done
pertaining to the actions of the EB and whether proper notice was given to
the employees. The plan prior to that one was 1992.

USCF's retirement attorney provided the initial legal opinion. However, due
to some conflicting advice which he also provided (which is how we end up
with the 2002 liability showing up in 2007), it was agreed that USCF should
obtain the advice of a second attorney.

I spent quite literally an entire day creating a (eleven pages I believe it
is) synopsis of the legal issues involved and a list of the documents needed
for the second opinion. The USCF office was to produce those documents to
the attorney of which I had copies except for two items. My letter was July
24. Mr. Hall states that the documents went to the attorney within a week of
that letter. I'll just call attention to that fact.

The timing was the US Open. By not immediately sending all the documents to
the attorney, there was really no chance of having a legal opinion from the
attorney at the US Open.

The current status is that on 9/10/07, Mr. Hall stated that USCF was looking
for *a* document that the attorney requested. The fact that USCF doesn't
want to tell me what that document is, well, all I can say is that I have
piles of information here and I'm the one who went dumpster diving in the
USCF warehouse for information. At the very least, I could tell them where
the document is not or if I saw it. But USCF chooses to not disclose this.

Okay, so it's now 9/21/07 - over 10 days later. Has the USCF found the
mystery document? No answer. How long will the USCF continue to look for the
document? No answer. When will the attorney provide his opinion? No answer.

I have not asked USCF to rush the opinion. But the initial emails was
7/24/07. And common sense says that someone either spends all the time
necessary to track down the document and if you can't provide it, then you
acknowledge that it is gone and move on.

Once an opinion is obtained as to which plan has standing, then the
calculations can be properly made. It's just that pension plans have one set
of penalties and profit sharing plans another. Also the legal laws governing
retirement plans changed in 1997. If one plan is in effect, then USCF has a
mandatory contribution of 2% per year for the years 2003 through 2007. If it
is not in effect, then the contribution stops with 1/1/03. This sounds a lot
worse then it might be. Remember, for the most part, the employees who were
vested are the ones who were fired in 2003. They can't get annual
contributions if they had no salary.

As for how much is owed each employee. No, the calculations on each
statement are not accurate. USCF has not properly maintained the plan since
approximately 1997. It's a complicated formula. When an employee leaves who
is not fully vested, his/her benefits are to be disseminated to the
remaining employees. Obviously, this needs to be calculated as each employee
leaves in order to know who the remaining employees were at that time. It
wasn't accurately done. The annual statements are not accurate. They don't
reflect the actual earnings in the bank accounts. The person who did the
statements didn't understand the form and made figures balance, but didn't
allocate them properly. In 2004, there was a huge outcry from the employees
about how the statements were wrong. They were promised that they would be
recalculated. It hasn't happened.

Instead of asking me who's waiting, why doesn't the office say how many
people have been paid. Mr. Sloan indicates two employees...I'm not taking
the time at this moment to look through the last year to verify that number.
I believe Mr. Hall said he had a list with 6 to 8 employees on it. Have
those people been paid? Unless they have since the US Open, then the obvious
answer is no.

In the past, individuals have threatened USCF with lawsuits. As individuals
have complained loudly and obtained legal counsel to demand their benefits,
they have been addressed on an individual basis and in at least one case,
paid an excess of what the statements indicate should be paid. Now, USCF
wants me to provide a list of employees who I have knowledge of. Well, I
have no intention of allowing USCF to just pay the *noisy* employees so that
it can continue to diminish the need to address this issue. The quiet
employees deserve just as much attention.
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
DACP

Posts: 532
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 11:30 am
Location: Massachusetts
USCFId: 12447542
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by nolan on Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:48 am #70319

Donna, did you remove any documents from the USCF's possession?

Your statement above seems to suggest you may have.
nolan

Posts: 6357
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:39 pm
USCFId: 10339324
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by DACP on Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:26 am #70332

nolan wroteonna, did you remove any documents from the USCF's
possession?

Your statement above seems to suggest you may have.


NO Mike I did not. I made copies of everything from USCF and left the
originals with USCF. However, I also did not take copies of everything that
USCF has. Some documents I did not think were necessary, but if USCF is now
looking for a particular document, I might be able to say that I saw it in
the warehouse and was looking in the boxes located near xyz. OR that I have
a copy of that and the copies of it are on Bill's credenza in the pile of
stuff.

The volumes of information is nothing short of astounding and it was not all
kept in one location contrary to what would be a normal business practice.

However, Mike what I do have is confidential information from various
employees and others who have been involved in USCF. Quite often the reason
I was able to locate documents is because others told me where to look. For
instance, one individual suggested someone's basement and there's reason to
believe that statement to be accurate since at one point someone else
remembered them coming into the office and being turned over to someone
else. Also sometimes it's helpful to hear that the plan used to be kept in
black binders in the USCF office so that when one is looking for them, you
know what to look for. That sort of thing.

What USCF needs to keep in mind is that we are talking about are former
employees...the ones who were IN the office when USCF was talking about what
a mess the retirement plan is or about how USCF couldn't access the money
because it was kept in the names of individual USCF officers instead of the
general name of USCF.
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
DACP

Posts: 532
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 11:30 am
Location: Massachusetts
USCFId: 12447542
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. AIM
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Hal Terrie on Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:29 am #70333

artichoke wrote:
rfeditor wrote:
Hal Terrie wrote: ... From Section 3 (A) of the Code: "This code shall
not apply to actions or behavior by employees of USCF acting in the scope of
their duties. Such actions fall instead under the province of the Executive
Board."

-- Hal Terrie
Yet another problem with the S of C: it's poorly written (as well as
poorly conceived.) "Under the province"? Under Canadian provinces, I'm sure
that one finds dirt and rocks, and probably some ice. "In" might do better.
I feel sorry for the Ethics Committee for having to deal with the S of C.

OK enough of my off-topic pet peeve.

The word "province" has more than one meaning. Get out a dictionary and look
it up.

-- Hal Terrie
Hal Terrie

Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:33 pm
Location: New Hampshire
USCFId: 10025265
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by nolan on Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:38 am #70335

I disagree with your assessment that the funds, which are held by a third
party and thus have NEVER been in any jeopardy due to the USCF's financial
state, were ever in the PERSONAL NAMES of any USCF officers. Yes, those
officers were named on the account, but so was the USCF itself.

The fund manager would have CORRECTLY refused to disburse any funds unless
those who had authority to authorize those disbursements signed the check
and would have CORRECTLY refused to change the names on the account without
a release from those individuals. Those people were no longer USCF officers
by then, but the changing of signature cards and such is, or should be, a
periodic rite of passage whenever the USCF changes officers.
nolan

Posts: 6357
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:39 pm
USCFId: 10339324
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by artichoke on Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:53 am #70338

Hal Terrie wrote:
artichoke wrote:
rfeditor wrote:
Hal Terrie wrote: ... From Section 3 (A) of the Code: "This code
shall not apply to actions or behavior by employees of USCF acting in the
scope of their duties. Such actions fall instead under the province of the
Executive Board."

-- Hal Terrie
Yet another problem with the S of C: it's poorly written (as well as
poorly conceived.) "Under the province"? Under Canadian provinces, I'm sure
that one finds dirt and rocks, and probably some ice. "In" might do better.
I feel sorry for the Ethics Committee for having to deal with the S of C.

OK enough of my off-topic pet peeve.

The word "province" has more than one meaning. Get out a dictionary and
look it up.

-- Hal Terrie
It would still work better as "in" rather than "under". It's better not to
mix the metaphors.
artichoke

Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:36 am
Location: Connecticut
USCFId: 10167825
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by DACP on Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:55 am #70339

nolan wrote:I disagree with your assessment that the funds, which are held
by a third party and thus have NEVER been in any jeopardy due to the USCF's
financial state, were ever in the PERSONAL NAMES of any USCF officers. Yes,
those officers were named on the account, but so was the USCF itself.

The fund manager would have CORRECTLY refused to disburse any funds unless
those who had authority to authorize those disbursements signed the check
and would have CORRECTLY refused to change the names on the account without
a release from those individuals. Those people were no longer USCF officers
by then, but the changing of signature cards and such is, or should be, a
periodic rite of passage whenever the USCF changes officers.


You can disagree all you want. It won't change facts. The funds were in the
names of a former ED and a former CFO or VP Finance or Treasurer or whatever
title was in existence when in 2004, the new CFO wanted to access the
information in the account and was told that he could not since he was not
listed on the account. Never mind write checks. He couldn't get the balance
on the statements.

Also, there is a board motion in 2005 (I believe it was without looking it
up) when the names were changed because the new President of USCF could not
get information from the funds company pertaining to the balances in the
accounts because again, she was not listed on the account.

What would be a normal business procedure is NOT to have the names of
individuals on the checks AT ALL which is exactly what USCF has done in the
past and was doing until recently or may still be doing. In fact, one of the
recent checks sent to a former employee had the names of the prior
individuals on it although signed by current trustees. Yes, I have a copy of
that check.

It is normal business practice to list the signing authorities as the
President and VP Finance of USCF - without actual names - those would be on
signature cards only - and then only a new corporate resolution would need
to be presented to show that the individuals have changed. No release needed
from prior representatives.

Part of USCF's issue was exactly that. The ED left without a forwarding
address and was unreachable to get a release on the account. So, during this
time, while the employees were requesting their funds since they had just
been fired and wanted nothing to do with USCF, they were unable to get them.
That's exactly when this whole mess started to eke out into the public
domain.
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate

The status of the pension fund (I know that's not exactly what it is, but
it's close enough) is of practical importance only when someone retires, or
quits and withdraws the money. I know people who have done both. (Probably
better than you do, since I worked with them at one time.) Is there anyone
who has requested money and not received it? Is there anyone who is entitled
to money and has not received it? If not, going public in this manner seems
like a grandstanding publicity stunt.

I am particularly disturbed by your reference to the Ethics Committee.
Didn't we have enough of this last year? The proper function -- the only
legal function -- of the Ethics Committee is to regulate the conduct of
players in tournaments. It is not a judiciary or a superlegislature. Last
year it was stretched -- wrongly in my opinion -- to cover conduct by EB
members and candidates. Perverting it to apply to USCF office employees is
utterly preposterous.

There are (or at least were) serious problems with "pension program," but
these were (are) internal problems for the Board and ED to deal with. Donna
deserves credit for the work she has done on this. But her behavior here has
to call her judgment into question.
John Hillery
rfeditor


Donna Alarie deserves commendation not disingenuous attacks.

John Hillery's statement that
"The status of the pension fund (I know that's not exactly what it is,
but it's close enough) is of practical importance only when someone
retires, or quits and withdraws the money." is a demonstration that he
doesn't have a clue what he is talking about regarding the profit
sharing plan OR about the full disclosure laws which surround it.
Since the passage of ERISA back in the 1970s, pension and profit
sharing plans have been under federal scrutiny.
Employees have a right to their funds when leaving or they have a
right to pledge those funds (under certain circumstances) while they
are still being held by USCF or they may be able to borrow those funds
directly from USCF. Most of all, employees and former employees have
a right to know the current disposition of their assets.

John Hillery's see no evil view/hear no evil attitude is the very root
of USCF's ongoing problems.

That the membership and employees cannot trust politicians like
Hillery who would brush every legal violation under the rug is no
surprise. More than 10,000 of us who are life members watched our
Life Member's Account wasted out of existence by the John Hillery/Don
Schultz/Bill Goichberg's. For the life members, the LMA was our
little pension which was supposed to pay for our future benefits. In
Hillery's view, this is something that should be left to the
politicians and the Donna Alarie whistleblowers should have their
judgment questioned.

This situation cries out for someone to make a federal complaint so
that the justice department and department of labor can straighten out
John Hillery's behavior and his judgment.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/erisa_enforcement.html is a good place to
start for anyone who has been denied their benefits or employees who
just want to know where their assets are.

Richard Peterson

wrote:
The status of the pension fund (I know that's not exactly what it is, but
it's close enough) is of practical importance only when someone retires, or
quits and withdraws the money. I know people who have done both. (Probably
better than you do, since I worked with them at one time.) Is there anyone
who has requested money and not received it? Is there anyone who is entitled
to money and has not received it? If not, going public in this manner seems
like a grandstanding publicity stunt.

I am particularly disturbed by your reference to the Ethics Committee.
Didn't we have enough of this last year? The proper function -- the only
legal function -- of the Ethics Committee is to regulate the conduct of
players in tournaments. It is not a judiciary or a superlegislature. Last
year it was stretched -- wrongly in my opinion -- to cover conduct by EB
members and candidates. Perverting it to apply to USCF office employees is
utterly preposterous.

There are (or at least were) serious problems with "pension program," but
these were (are) internal problems for the Board and ED to deal with. Donna
deserves credit for the work she has done on this. But her behavior here has
to call her judgment into question.
John Hillery
rfeditor


Donna Alarie deserves commendation not disingenuous attacks.

John Hillery's statement that
"The status of the pension fund (I know that's not exactly what it is,
but it's close enough) is of practical importance only when someone
retires, or quits and withdraws the money." is a demonstration that he
doesn't have a clue what he is talking about regarding the profit
sharing plan OR about the full disclosure laws which surround it.
Since the passage of ERISA back in the 1970s, pension and profit
sharing plans have been under federal scrutiny.
Employees have a right to their funds when leaving or they have a
right to pledge those funds (under certain circumstances) while they
are still being held by USCF or they may be able to borrow those funds
directly from USCF. Most of all, employees and former employees have
a right to know the current disposition of their assets.

John Hillery's see no evil view/hear no evil attitude is the very root
of USCF's ongoing problems.

That the membership and employees cannot trust politicians like
Hillery who would brush every legal violation under the rug is no
surprise. More than 10,000 of us who are life members watched our
Life Member's Account wasted out of existence by the John Hillery/Don
Schultz/Bill Goichberg's. For the life members, the LMA was our
little pension which was supposed to pay for our future benefits. In
Hillery's view, this is something that should be left to the
politicians and the Donna Alarie whistleblowers should have their
judgment questioned.

This situation cries out for someone to make a federal complaint so
that the justice department and department of labor can straighten out
John Hillery's behavior and his judgment.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/erisa_enforcement.html is a good place to
start for anyone who has been denied their benefits or employees who
just want to know where their assets are.

Richard Peterson

That's pretty funny coming from someone who, ah, misappropriated the
CalChess treasury, then traded it back for a lucrative scholastic
tournament. (At the time, a CalChess rep tried to convince us that his
address was really in Southern California. We didn't want him
either.)

What I asked for from Donna Alarie was evidence that someone was
actually being shorted -- now, not at some time in the past. If she
provides it, I'll change my opinion. I haven't seen any yet.

John Hillery

I wrote several letters on 4/14/07 regarding problems with the pension
plan. All of them were re-classified as "Confidential" by Mike Nolan.

Is this the one:

At 01:23 AM 4/15/2007 EDT, wrote:
In a message dated 4/15/2007 12:34:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:


Sometime between the Prisco problem and the Anson problem the pension funds
have apparently shifted from an outside, independent account, not in the
control of the Federation, to an account within the control of the USCF. My
belief in this matter comes from Mr. Goichberg's statements that he is a
signatory to those accounts and the fact that the alleged bounced checks
originated from the USCF and Mr. Hall stated that they would be taken care
of by the USCF.

I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE HERE THAT IN MY VIEW THIS SHIFT FROM AN OUTSIDE
ACCOUNT TO AN INSIDE ACCOUNT OCCURRED BEFORE MR. GOICHBERG BECAME PRESIDENT
AND BEFORE MR. HALL BECAME EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. Nonetheless, they, and we,
have to deal with it.

If it did, it was prior to Dullea's term.

In my view, pensions are regulated by Federal Law. A shift of assets from a
pension account to a USCF account is, in my view, a violation of Federal Law.

It's still a pension or profit sharing account- managed by USCF, but not a
USCF account.

Further, if such a shift did occur, GAAP requires that a separate fund for
pensions and their liabilities be recognized on the audited annual USCF
statements, even if it is illegal. To my knowledge, no such shift has been
recognized in our statements.

I think that they once did give details.

Thus, in this lay person's opinion, the U.S. Chess Federation is operating
in violation of Federal Law.

I don't think so.

My recommendation is that we pursue this matter vigorously.

AT THE VERY LEAST, FULL BANK STATEMENTS FROM THE DELAWARE BANK ACCOUNTS
FROM THEIR INCEPTION MUST BE MADE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

NOW.

Yes.

And we need to cooperate in pursuing appropriate criminal indictments
against those responsible.

NOW.

Not to do so is to become complicit with crime.

Almost certainly, there has been no crime. Bill Goichberg

Of course, I hope I'm wrong about this matter. I fear, however, that I am not.

Cordially,

Tim Redman


I am shocked by Bill Goichberg's statement above "Almost certainly,
there has been no crime" when it is perfectly obvious that there has
been a crime, for the simple reason that a check was written for
$24,000 signed by Bill Goichberg and Joel Channing with no money in
the bank. Writing a check with no money in the bank is a crime. I
realize that a public prosecutor is probably not going to be much
interested in this case now that the check has apparently been made
good after bouncing twice, but nobody should say that no crime has
been committee when a crime has been committed.

I am glad to see that now Tim Redman is weighing in with complaints
about this, with the result that Joel Channing has ordered an
explanation from Bill Hall stating "I want you to send a detailed
response to Tim's letter to everyone listed above no later than Monday
morning. I also want a memo no later than Monday afternoon ..." This
in spite of the fact that, this weekend, Bill Hall is at the National
High School Championship in Kansas City. (Remember that this is one of
the National Scholastic tournaments that is supposed to make us back
the $241,000 we were losing according to the January financial
statements.)

Previously, when it was just me complaining about the bouncing check,
Joel Channing had merely orderded Bill Hall to prepare a memo for the
May 19-21 meeting.

It is obvious that the bouncing check is a symptom of a much bigger
problem. This problem has been going on for a long time. I complained
about it in my first meeting of the board on August 14, 2006, but I
knew that there was a problem with the pension account nearly two
years before that. Now, we learn that there is a bank account in
Delaware that nobody previously knew about and for some reason money
must be moved from some other account to that account in order for a
pension check to be paid.

And nobody has mentioned the 800-pound gorilla in the room, which that
a lot of improper things are known to have been done while Frank Niro
was Executive Director, and the laptop computer Frank Niro used while
working for the USCF has gone missing, and neither Bill Goichberg nor
Bill Hall are taking appropriate steps to get that laptop back.

The fact that the Delaware account had Frank Niro's name on it should
raise some eyebrown since Frank Niro left the employment of the USCF
in August, 2003, nearly four years ago.

What about the fact that Bill Goichberg was Executive Director for 15
months from October 2003 to December, 2004? Why did not Bill Goichberg
do something about this during the 15 months when he was in a position
to do so?

I would like to ask Joel, our esteemed VP Finance, how a nonprofit
organization can have a profit-sharing plan!

The outside world does not know it yet, but I have just been censured
again on a motion by Channing and Goichberg for making remarks
critical of Bill Hall. There seems to be a pattern here. Every time I
uncover a serious problem and point it out, rather than address the
problem, the board majority immediately censures me. It happened in
the Tanner case and now it is happening with the bounced check. As
long as I do not vote on these repeated motions to censure me, the
board majority of Channing, Goichberg and Hough have enough votes to
censure me every day if they want to. That still will not cure their
problem of the bounced check.

I think that Bill Hall should have been fired months ago and Joel
Channing and Bill Goichberg should resign now.

Sam Sloan

Here is the email Donna has in mind:

At 09:41 AM 4/14/2007 EDT, wrote:
CONFIDENTIAL In a message dated 4/14/2007 8:20:55 A.M. Eastern
Daylight Time, writes: Regarding the bounced check
on the pension account, when the time comes to
hand down criminal indictments about this, I will be in the clear but you
will not, because I have been complaining about mis-handling of the pension
funds ever since the first day I came on the board, which was August 14,
2006. The transcript will show me making an issue over this while the rest
of you remain silent. I will not have to share your jail cell.
I doubt, a defense of "but I complained" would carry much weight. What
Board motion did you make?

As a result of the delays regarding Jami, Lawrence requested we do a
ten year analysis of the Pension. Is this correct? I was also told
Jean Bernice is the next case in line and she is now waiting, is this
true? Another recipient of the fund money told me he took the calculated
amount at face value and is now unsure if he got the correct amount.
ALL fund disbursements, for any reason, Can we verify whether the
fund is now fully funded? Not understanding Pension funds that well I may
be off on some of my concerns but we seem to have one problem after
another and it is time we did some preemptive analysis rather than handle
a succession of problems each time a withdrawal from the fund is
requested. Therefore, and going back in time to January 1, 2000. The
report should be available by July 15. ask that the 5 day response
period to this motion be extended to May 5. And Bill Hall, please advise
if this puts an excessive burden on staff in which case we will have to
look elsewhere to get this report. Sincerely, Don Schultz

I vote yes on Don's motion.

I was going to make much the same motion myself, but nobody pays
attention to my motions.

Sam Sloan

The posting above was pulled instantly by tanstaafl a/k/a Herbert
Vaughn even before anybody had a chance to read it. Here is our
exchange of PMs on this:

You are crossing the line on this one.

As Donna correctly points out these posts were part of the board
debate on a motion.

As such, the members are entitled to know about them.

Therefore, it is your legal obligation to restore the posts.

Sam Sloan

The problem with all of the above questions is: We never even got that
far.

I was never able to find out what the plan was and who were supposedly
the beneficiaries of the plan. It was reported that in 1995 the board
had decided not to fund the plan, but nobody could find signed
documents establishing that.

This is really an amazing situation. We have a plan but nobody seems
to know what the plan is or if the plan is really in effect.

Until we get the answers to those questions, we cannot proceed to the
questions of who the former employees are who might be entitled to
receive something under the plan.

A very ridiculous situation.

Sam Sloan

That's pretty funny coming from someone who, ah, misappropriated the
CalChess treasury, then traded it back for a lucrative scholastic
tournament. (At the time, a CalChess rep tried to convince us that his
address was really in Southern California. We didn't want him
either.)

What I asked for from Donna Alarie was evidence that someone was
actually being shorted -- now, not at some time in the past. If she
provides it, I'll change my opinion. I haven't seen any yet.

John Hillery- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that what happened John? Spoken like a true insider.
How absurd. What a liar you are.

A short retort on the CalChess charges.
CalChess, where I was the unaminously elected treasurer, had collected
about $25,000 from the kids for subscriptions to CalChess Journal.
The then President of Calchess and certain politicos did not like
Frisco Del Rosario, the editor of CalChess Journal, and fired him
replacing him with one of her do-nothing friends who produced two bad
issues in 18 months instead of the 9 that were due. The children's
money was being stolen.
I went to the Kern County district attorney, explained the theft, and
with his permission moved the money to a trust account where there
were three signatories and I was not one of them.
So much for misappropriation.

In a similar rip off, it is worth recalling that USChess stole
subscription funds from tens of thousands of kids when it ended
Schoolmates. They stopped publishing the magazines and kept the money
because USChess was having cash flow problems.

Now back to the problems with the USChess profit sharing plan.
There have been problems with it since Al Lawrence's secretary left
USChess and the Schultz politicos were playing games with her life.
It wasn't a secret. It was even an item in the delegate's packet in
Reno back in 1999.

Using John Hillery's standard, no one is allowed to raise the
questions.
Donna Alarie raises legitimate issues of legality and process.

Regarding Hillery, the word coverup comes to mind.
John Hillery should shut up and crawl back in his hole.

Richard Peterson

On Sep 24, 11:14 am, wrote:
That's pretty funny coming from someone who, ah, misappropriated the
CalChess treasury, then traded it back for a lucrative scholastic
tournament. (At the time, a CalChess rep tried to convince us that his
address was really in Southern California. We didn't want him
either.)

What I asked for from Donna Alarie was evidence that someone was
actually being shorted -- now, not at some time in the past. If she
provides it, I'll change my opinion. I haven't seen any yet.

John Hillery- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that what happened John? Spoken like a true insider.
How absurd. What a liar you are.

A short retort on the CalChess charges.
CalChess, where I was the unaminously elected treasurer, had collected
about $25,000 from the kids for subscriptions to CalChess Journal.
The then President of Calchess and certain politicos did not like
Frisco Del Rosario, the editor of CalChess Journal, and fired him
replacing him with one of her do-nothing friends who produced two bad
issues in 18 months instead of the 9 that were due. The children's
money was being stolen.
I went to the Kern County district attorney, explained the theft, and
with his permission moved the money to a trust account where there
were three signatories and I was not one of them.
So much for misappropriation.

In a similar rip off, it is worth recalling that USChess stole
subscription funds from tens of thousands of kids when it ended
Schoolmates. They stopped publishing the magazines and kept the money
because USChess was having cash flow problems.

Now back to the problems with the USChess profit sharing plan.
There have been problems with it since Al Lawrence's secretary left
USChess and the Schultz politicos were playing games with her life.
It wasn't a secret. It was even an item in the delegate's packet in
Reno back in 1999.

Using John Hillery's standard, no one is allowed to raise the
questions.
Donna Alarie raises legitimate issues of legality and process.

Regarding Hillery, the word coverup comes to mind.
John Hillery should shut up and crawl back in his hole.

Richard Peterson

However, you have not responded to the main charge, which is you "then
traded it back for a lucrative scholastic tournament".

I know that you eventually gave the CalChess treasury back (but only
after a lawsuit was filed against you) but I have never previously
heard that that was part of a deal to give you a lucrative scholastic
tournament.

Is that true? Did you organize or direct any big CalChess tournaments
at that time?

Sam Sloan

However, you have not responded to the main charge, which is you "then
traded it back for a lucrative scholastic tournament".

I know that you eventually gave the CalChess treasury back (but only
after a lawsuit was filed against you) but I have never previously
heard that that was part of a deal to give you a lucrative scholastic
tournament.

Is that true? Did you organize or direct any big CalChess tournaments
at that time?

Sam Sloan-

Your facts are almost correct.
A lawsuit was filed and then promptly dropped by the politicos in
CalChess who were trying to get the CalChess Scholastics for
themselves after I had (many months earlier) won the competitive
bidding. I was under no legal pressure to make a deal and I publicly
wrote the children's subscriptio