wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:00 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:



wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.
Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on?
Dangling participle.
I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.
There was the famous "puzzled" thread. I have no idea whether
"puzzled" was an ICA member.
http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000040#...
I did not, and would not, countenance a structure that would result in
personal inurement to the organizer.
Please help with documentation: it's tax season. :-)
There's no hurry. It's always audit season for the IRS.
One should be careful with one's statements when the reputation of
others are at stake. As I have done before, I invite you to provide
evidence for your remarks above, or to withdraw them. I have nothing
to hide with respect to the matter referenced above, and really don't
take kindly to having the character of my friends smeared baselessly.

No need to appease me, however: let the truth guide your response.

More reading for you:

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000088#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000503#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000486;p=1

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000263#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000438#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000520#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000552;p=1

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000347#000000

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000645#000000

Thank you for the perspective.

On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on? I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:10 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
I have attempted to post the following on the USCF Issues Forum in
response to a post by Marknibb
------------------------------------------------------------

Lafferty wrote:

What the USCF needs, IMO, is to completely restructure itself along the
lines of some of the best run non-profit corporations. There are models
that could be used to do this as well as non-profit organizations and
foundations that will help with this process. Failing that, the USCF
may find itself in a court ordered restructuring plan or dissolution by
either a bankruptcy court or court order resulting from action by the
Illinois Attorney General. It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee.[/quote]

Marknibb wrote
Brian, you may have well come across the topic that can unite the USCF's
many factions. Where does the money go??
My question is why does it cost so much for so little? I'm actually
only a member only so I can donate my time to promoting chess. I think
that costs too much.[/quote]

Lafferty replied
Mark, I know that in the past you have presented yourself as neutral and
unbiased on a number of issues from Truong's problems to scholastic
chess. It is only possible to unite factions within the USCF if all of
us are open, transparent, above board and without hidden agendas.

In that regard, I have a question for you about a communication you
apparently made to BillBrockon Saturday, August 5, 2006 in which you
apparently wrote to Mr.Brockstating,

"I spoke with Garrett Scott the other day and learned a lot about USCF
politics. I think he came to the conclusion years ago that they were so
messed up that the organization may be hopeless. I hate to put words in
his mouth, but that's what I took away from talking to him. He and I
talked about driving up to the open on Monday to see people, meet
people, talk with people, maybe attend the USCF Chess in Education
seminar. Not so sure we will attempt that but I'll be talking to him
tomorrow. He did say as far as he is concerned the USCF is probably
about a ready to fall apart and that someone with some money could
probably separate scholastics from USCF. I guess we will see what
happens. [b]I personally would like to see the Polgar Foundation
become the US Scholastic Chess organization. I will probably
mention that to her if I see her. I'm not opposed to Sevan's group,
although I'm not sure if he could deliver what he has promised and I'm
not sure he has the name recognition to make an effective break."

So my question to you Mark is, are you really interested in making
scholastic chess work within the framework of the USCF, or do you seek
to take scholastics out of USCF control along with others of whom I will
have more to say and documentation to reveal in the near future?

I don't agree with my friend Mark Nibbelin on every issue, and he and
I may not have formed the same opinion of the chararcter of third
parties.

But Mark is a person of great integrity who is committed to improving
scholastic chess in the US. Corny as it may sound, he cares about
bringing this great game to more children. One can verify his by
visiting ilchess.org (check out both the current forum and the old,
archived forum).

While making a buck in an honorable profession is a good thing, I am
painfully aware that many scholastic organizers have wished to cut
USCF and state organizations out of the picture to grab a greater
share of an admittedly lucrative market. Mark is emphatically not in
it for the money: he's always looked for ways to keep costs reasonable
to the children and to deliver value to them.

Many other scholastic organizers see USCF as worse than useless. This
is not a new problem: after the Fischer boom/bust, market forces made
CCA the only game in town, and gave USCF an adult chess focus. (In
the Hochberg years, Chess LIfe had better articles for beginners as
well.) Goichberg the businessman deserves credit for being a survivor
through so many down cycles. But USCF's mission is not simply to
publish a promotional mailing for CCA's benefit.

To turn any part of USCF's business over to an anti-Goichberg camp
would be to repeat the same mistake. Over the years, we've had more
than a few board members who have "difficulty" "avoiding" self-
inurement in fact or in appearance. (I have tickets to prove that I
was on a commercial flight when I wrote the last sentence.)

But I can't blame honest, committed volunteers like Mark for searching
for an alternative to USCF. He questions whether USCF (or ICA, for
that matter) deliver value to him as a volunteer, when his USGA
membership only costs $15. https://members.usga.org/enrollment/join.asp


Hi, I am Mark Nibbelin, and I don't post here often, not sure if I
ever have.
I'm also not sure what Mr. Lafferty says I claim I am and what he
thinks I am when he writes

"On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is."

Here is my response to a message that Mr. Lafferty sent to me this
morning.

Brian Lafferty wrote:So my question to you Mark is, are you really
interested in making scholastic chess work within the framework of the
USCF, or do you seek to take scholastics out of USCF control along
with others of whom I will have more to say and documentation to
reveal in the near future?


I responded
"Brian, I really have no strong desire see Scholastic Chess taken out
of USCF, although I often feel like USCF hinders growth of scholastic
chess locally by taking thousands of dollars that could be used for
chess out of the local area. I just don't see the benefit being
returned to local chess for that money.

We have done a few things locally to stop sending so much money to the
USCF. For instance we use the JTP program for all K-3 chess locally,
and for the past 2 years, we have run State competitions using JTP and
folks seem to be happy with that.

I have honestly hoped that the Polgar election to the USCF would bring
at least someone with the desire to show interest in Scholastic Chess
and who actually does something to promote and excite people about
chess in general. I believe she has the name recognition to approach
major corporations to sponsor chess and I think that is a good thing.
She has seemed to be able to get small donations of laptops and other
equipment, but no major sponsorships.

I would be interested in hearing your plans. Options are always a good
thing and most of the time I feel like just about any option available
would be better than where we are today."


Brian Responded

No Mark, the issue is whether or not you can be trusted. You
haven't explained your position regarding taking scholastics to the
Polgar Foundation.



I followed with

"Brian, I know of no opportunity to take scholastics to the Polgar
Foundation. I am not in close contact with Susan or Paul and at this
point am very frustrated with them. That opportunity has not presented
itself and I am not seeking them out.

My question is what are you asking if I can be trusted with. I am
"President" of the Board of Directors of a small local organization
with about a 1000 kids playing chess, about 400 of them competitively.
I can't say that if I were to say "lets leave USCF chess", many would
want to follow."


So, I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that I am charged with
not being that I claim to be.
It is true that in 2006 I was quite frustrated with the USCF and was
actively seeking other options. I have since begun to attempt working
within the system and have recently been added as a member of the
Scholastic Committee of the USCF.

On Mar 9, 7:25 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:00 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.
Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on?
Dangling participle.
I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.
There was the famous "puzzled" thread. I have no idea whether
"puzzled" was an ICA member.
http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000040#...
I did not, and would not, countenance a structure that would result in
personal inurement to the organizer.
Please help with documentation: it's tax season. :-)
There's no hurry. It's always audit season for the IRS.
One should be careful with one's statements when the reputation of
others are at stake. As I have done before, I invite you to provide
evidence for your remarks above, or to withdraw them. I have nothing
to hide with respect to the matter referenced above, and really don't
take kindly to having the character of my friends smeared baselessly.

No need to appease me, however: let the truth guide your response.

More reading for you:

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000088#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000503#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000486;p=1

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000263#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000438#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000520#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000552;p=1

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000347#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000645#...

Thank you for the perspective.

Upthread, you wrote:

I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation.

Were these empty words?

On Mar 9, 7:43 pm, wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:25 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:



wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:00 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.
Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on?
Dangling participle.
I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.
There was the famous "puzzled" thread. I have no idea whether
"puzzled" was an ICA member.
http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000040#...
I did not, and would not, countenance a structure that would result in
personal inurement to the organizer.
Please help with documentation: it's tax season. :-)
There's no hurry. It's always audit season for the IRS.
One should be careful with one's statements when the reputation of
others are at stake. As I have done before, I invite you to provide
evidence for your remarks above, or to withdraw them. I have nothing
to hide with respect to the matter referenced above, and really don't
take kindly to having the character of my friends smeared baselessly.

No need to appease me, however: let the truth guide your response.

More reading for you:

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000088#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000503#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000486;p=1

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000263#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000438#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000520#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000552;p=1

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000347#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000645#...

Thank you for the perspective.
Upthread, you wrote:
I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation.

Were these empty words?

And a brief shout out to Lafferty's sources, who know a thing or two
about personal inurement themselves ;-)

1. Didn't the ICA Treasurer (a partner at a major national CPA firm)
put the Muradian/Panner documentation together at an ICA Board
meeting, some months after I was gone? Did anyone show up to examine
said documentation? Hmm.

2. Re the CL matter not previously referenced on this forum AFAIK
(pardon the obliqueness): did you tell Lafferty that the party in
question has an *open* wireless IP address? Hmm again, postings by
Fake Party in Question (FPIQ) would be convenient for framing. Of
course, perhaps I'm being misled by the party in question; if so, the
civil courts are there if one wishes to seek redress that way. Rumor-
mongering and undermining the constructive work of others isn't the
correct route.

I didn't call up CPS and say that Presidents' Plaza was a cutout
address of convenience. I'm not planning to, either. I recommend
that you cultivate your garden, provide the services you provide well,
grow and prosper. Or you can continue backstabbing and risk reaping
the potential consequences.

You announced that you had a case to present, Mr. Lafferty.

Kindly continue.

wrote:
You announced that you had a case to present, Mr. Lafferty.

Kindly continue.

In due course, Mr. Brock.

marknibb wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on? I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:10 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
I have attempted to post the following on the USCF Issues Forum in
response to a post by Marknibb
------------------------------------------------------------
Lafferty wrote:
What the USCF needs, IMO, is to completely restructure itself along the
lines of some of the best run non-profit corporations. There are models
that could be used to do this as well as non-profit organizations and
foundations that will help with this process. Failing that, the USCF
may find itself in a court ordered restructuring plan or dissolution by
either a bankruptcy court or court order resulting from action by the
Illinois Attorney General. It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee.[/quote]
Marknibb wrote
Brian, you may have well come across the topic that can unite the USCF's
many factions. Where does the money go??
My question is why does it cost so much for so little? I'm actually
only a member only so I can donate my time to promoting chess. I think
that costs too much.[/quote]
Lafferty replied
Mark, I know that in the past you have presented yourself as neutral and
unbiased on a number of issues from Truong's problems to scholastic
chess. It is only possible to unite factions within the USCF if all of
us are open, transparent, above board and without hidden agendas.
In that regard, I have a question for you about a communication you
apparently made to BillBrockon Saturday, August 5, 2006 in which you
apparently wrote to Mr.Brockstating,
"I spoke with Garrett Scott the other day and learned a lot about USCF
politics. I think he came to the conclusion years ago that they were so
messed up that the organization may be hopeless. I hate to put words in
his mouth, but that's what I took away from talking to him. He and I
talked about driving up to the open on Monday to see people, meet
people, talk with people, maybe attend the USCF Chess in Education
seminar. Not so sure we will attempt that but I'll be talking to him
tomorrow. He did say as far as he is concerned the USCF is probably
about a ready to fall apart and that someone with some money could
probably separate scholastics from USCF. I guess we will see what
happens. [b]I personally would like to see the Polgar Foundation
become the US Scholastic Chess organization. I will probably
mention that to her if I see her. I'm not opposed to Sevan's group,
although I'm not sure if he could deliver what he has promised and I'm
not sure he has the name recognition to make an effective break."
So my question to you Mark is, are you really interested in making
scholastic chess work within the framework of the USCF, or do you seek
to take scholastics out of USCF control along with others of whom I will
have more to say and documentation to reveal in the near future?
I don't agree with my friend Mark Nibbelin on every issue, and he and
I may not have formed the same opinion of the chararcter of third
parties.
But Mark is a person of great integrity who is committed to improving
scholastic chess in the US. Corny as it may sound, he cares about
bringing this great game to more children. One can verify his by
visiting ilchess.org (check out both the current forum and the old,
archived forum).
While making a buck in an honorable profession is a good thing, I am
painfully aware that many scholastic organizers have wished to cut
USCF and state organizations out of the picture to grab a greater
share of an admittedly lucrative market. Mark is emphatically not in
it for the money: he's always looked for ways to keep costs reasonable
to the children and to deliver value to them.
Many other scholastic organizers see USCF as worse than useless. This
is not a new problem: after the Fischer boom/bust, market forces made
CCA the only game in town, and gave USCF an adult chess focus. (In
the Hochberg years, Chess LIfe had better articles for beginners as
well.) Goichberg the businessman deserves credit for being a survivor
through so many down cycles. But USCF's mission is not simply to
publish a promotional mailing for CCA's benefit.
To turn any part of USCF's business over to an anti-Goichberg camp
would be to repeat the same mistake. Over the years, we've had more
than a few board members who have "difficulty" "avoiding" self-
inurement in fact or in appearance. (I have tickets to prove that I
was on a commercial flight when I wrote the last sentence.)
But I can't blame honest, committed volunteers like Mark for searching
for an alternative to USCF. He questions whether USCF (or ICA, for
that matter) deliver value to him as a volunteer, when his USGA
membership only costs $15. https://members.usga.org/enrollment/join.asp


Hi, I am Mark Nibbelin, and I don't post here often, not sure if I
ever have.
I'm also not sure what Mr. Lafferty says I claim I am and what he
thinks I am when he writes

"On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is."

Here is my response to a message that Mr. Lafferty sent to me this
morning.

Brian Lafferty wrote:So my question to you Mark is, are you really
interested in making scholastic chess work within the framework of the
USCF, or do you seek to take scholastics out of USCF control along
with others of whom I will have more to say and documentation to
reveal in the near future?


I responded
"Brian, I really have no strong desire see Scholastic Chess taken out
of USCF, although I often feel like USCF hinders growth of scholastic
chess locally by taking thousands of dollars that could be used for
chess out of the local area. I just don't see the benefit being
returned to local chess for that money.

We have done a few things locally to stop sending so much money to the
USCF. For instance we use the JTP program for all K-3 chess locally,
and for the past 2 years, we have run State competitions using JTP and
folks seem to be happy with that.

I have honestly hoped that the Polgar election to the USCF would bring
at least someone with the desire to show interest in Scholastic Chess
and who actually does something to promote and excite people about
chess in general. I believe she has the name recognition to approach
major corporations to sponsor chess and I think that is a good thing.
She has seemed to be able to get small donations of laptops and other
equipment, but no major sponsorships.

I would be interested in hearing your plans. Options are always a good
thing and most of the time I feel like just about any option available
would be better than where we are today."


Brian Responded

No Mark, the issue is whether or not you can be trusted. You
haven't explained your position regarding taking scholastics to the
Polgar Foundation.



I followed with

"Brian, I know of no opportunity to take scholastics to the Polgar
Foundation. I am not in close contact with Susan or Paul and at this
point am very frustrated with them. That opportunity has not presented
itself and I am not seeking them out.

My question is what are you asking if I can be trusted with. I am
"President" of the Board of Directors of a small local organization
with about a 1000 kids playing chess, about 400 of them competitively.
I can't say that if I were to say "lets leave USCF chess", many would
want to follow."


So, I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that I am charged with
not being that I claim to be.
It is true that in 2006 I was quite frustrated with the USCF and was
actively seeking other options. I have since begun to attempt working
within the system and have recently been added as a member of the
Scholastic Committee of the USCF.

marknibb wrote to me:
"Brian, regarding what you sent earlier today about me approaching Susan
Polgar about leaving the USCF. This was during the post election of
2006. I was very upset with the USCF seating Sam Sloan at the time. I
did approach Susan and Paul at the 2006 US Open and spoke with them.
Susan and Paul convinced me to try and work within the USCF and I also
spoke with Tim Just who suggested I work with the Scholastic Committee.
I have since dropped my efforts to leave the USCF, and have been
appointed to the Scholastic Committee."
------------------------------------------------------

"I was very upset with the USCF seating Sam Sloan at the time. I did
approach Susan and Paul at the 2006 US Open and spoke with them. Susan
and Paul convinced me to try and work within the USCF........."
For how long , Mark?

On Mar 10, 6:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
marknibb wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on? I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:10 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
I have attempted to post the following on the USCF Issues Forum in
response to a post by Marknibb
------------------------------------------------------------
Lafferty wrote:
What the USCF needs, IMO, is to completely restructure itself along the
lines of some of the best run non-profit corporations. There are models
that could be used to do this as well as non-profit organizations and
foundations that will help with this process. Failing that, the USCF
may find itself in a court ordered restructuring plan or dissolution by
either a bankruptcy court or court order resulting from action by the
Illinois Attorney General. It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee.[/quote]
Marknibb wrote
Brian, you may have well come across the topic that can unite the USCF's
many factions. Where does the money go??
My question is why does it cost so much for so little? I'm actually
only a member only so I can donate my time to promoting chess. I think
that costs too much.[/quote]
Lafferty replied
Mark, I know that in the past you have presented yourself as neutral and
unbiased on a number of issues from Truong's problems to scholastic
chess. It is only possible to unite factions within the USCF if all of
us are open, transparent, above board and without hidden agendas.
In that regard, I have a question for you about a communication you
apparently made to BillBrockon Saturday, August 5, 2006 in which you
apparently wrote to Mr.Brockstating,
"I spoke with Garrett Scott the other day and learned a lot about USCF
politics. I think he came to the conclusion years ago that they were so
messed up that the organization may be hopeless. I hate to put words in
his mouth, but that's what I took away from talking to him. He and I
talked about driving up to the open on Monday to see people, meet
people, talk with people, maybe attend the USCF Chess in Education
seminar. Not so sure we will attempt that but I'll be talking to him
tomorrow. He did say as far as he is concerned the USCF is probably
about a ready to fall apart and that someone with some money could
probably separate scholastics from USCF. I guess we will see what
happens. [b]I personally would like to see the Polgar Foundation
become the US Scholastic Chess organization. I will probably
mention that to her if I see her. I'm not opposed to Sevan's group,
although I'm not sure if he could deliver what he has promised and I'm
not sure he has the name recognition to make an effective break."
So my question to you Mark is, are you really interested in making
scholastic chess work within the framework of the USCF, or do you seek
to take scholastics out of USCF control along with others of whom I will
have more to say and documentation to reveal in the near future?
I don't agree with my friend Mark Nibbelin on every issue, and he and
I may not have formed the same opinion of the chararcter of third
parties.
But Mark is a person of great integrity who is committed to improving
scholastic chess in the US. Corny as it may sound, he cares about
bringing this great game to more children. One can verify his by
visiting ilchess.org (check out both the current forum and the old,
archived forum).
While making a buck in an honorable profession is a good thing, I am
painfully aware that many scholastic organizers have wished to cut
USCF and state organizations out of the picture to grab a greater
share of an admittedly lucrative market. Mark is emphatically not in
it for the money: he's always looked for ways to keep costs reasonable
to the children and to deliver value to them.
Many other scholastic organizers see USCF as worse than useless. This
is not a new problem: after the Fischer boom/bust, market forces made
CCA the only game in town, and gave USCF an adult chess focus. (In
the Hochberg years, Chess LIfe had better articles for beginners as
well.) Goichberg the businessman deserves credit for being a survivor
through so many down cycles. But USCF's mission is not simply to
publish a promotional mailing for CCA's benefit.
To turn any part of USCF's business over to an anti-Goichberg camp
would be to repeat the same mistake. Over the years, we've had more
than a few board members who have "difficulty" "avoiding" self-
inurement in fact or in appearance. (I have tickets to prove that I
was on a commercial flight when I wrote the last sentence.)
But I can't blame honest, committed volunteers like Mark for searching
for an alternative to USCF. He questions whether USCF (or ICA, for
that matter) deliver value to him as a volunteer, when his USGA
membership only costs $15. https://members.usga.org/enrollment/join.asp

Hi, I am Mark Nibbelin, and I don't post here often, not sure if I
ever have.
I'm also not sure what Mr. Lafferty says I claim I am and what he
thinks I am when he writes

"On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is."

Here is my response to a message that Mr. Lafferty sent to me this
morning.

Brian Lafferty wrote:So my question to you Mark is, are you really
interested in making scholastic chess work within the framework of the
USCF, or do you seek to take scholastics out of USCF control along
with others of whom I will have more to say and documentation to
reveal in the near future?

I responded
"Brian, I really have no strong desire see Scholastic Chess taken out
of USCF, although I often feel like USCF hinders growth of scholastic
chess locally by taking thousands of dollars that could be used for
chess out of the local area. I just don't see the benefit being
returned to local chess for that money.

We have done a few things locally to stop sending so much money to the
USCF. For instance we use the JTP program for all K-3 chess locally,
and for the past 2 years, we have run State competitions using JTP and
folks seem to be happy with that.

I have honestly hoped that the Polgar election to the USCF would bring
at least someone with the desire to show interest in Scholastic Chess
and who actually does something to promote and excite people about
chess in general. I believe she has the name recognition to approach
major corporations to sponsor chess and I think that is a good thing.
She has seemed to be able to get small donations of laptops and other
equipment, but no major sponsorships.

I would be interested in hearing your plans. Options are always a good
thing and most of the time I feel like just about any option available
would be better than where we are today."

Brian Responded

No Mark, the issue is whether or not you can be trusted. You
haven't explained your position regarding taking scholastics to the
Polgar Foundation.

I followed with

"Brian, I know of no opportunity to take scholastics to the Polgar
Foundation. I am not in close contact with Susan or Paul and at this
point am very frustrated with them. That opportunity has not presented
itself and I am not seeking them out.

My question is what are you asking if I can be trusted with. I am
"President" of the Board of Directors of a small local organization
with about a 1000 kids playing chess, about 400 of them competitively.
I can't say that if I were to say "lets leave USCF chess", many would
want to follow."

So, I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that I am charged with
not being that I claim to be.
It is true that in 2006 I was quite frustrated with the USCF and was
actively seeking other options. I have since begun to attempt working
within the system and have recently been added as a member of the
Scholastic Committee of the USCF.

marknibb wrote to me:
"Brian, regarding what you sent earlier today about me approaching Susan
Polgar about leaving the USCF. This was during the post election of
2006. I was very upset with the USCF seating Sam Sloan at the time. I
did approach Susan and Paul at the 2006 US Open and spoke with them.
Susan and Paul convinced me to try and work within the USCF and I also
spoke with Tim Just who suggested I work with the Scholastic Committee.
I have since dropped my efforts to leave the USCF, and have been
appointed to the Scholastic Committee."
------------------------------------------------------

"I was very upset with the USCF seating Sam Sloan at the time. I did
approach Susan and Paul at the 2006 US Open and spoke with them. Susan
and Paul convinced me to try and work within the USCF........."
For how long , Mark?

We didn't discuss "how long". As I said to you yesterday, I am not
aware of any efforts to separate Scholastics from the USCF. I would
personally like to see Scholastics gain more independence within the
USCF and have suggested that.

On Mar 10, 6:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
marknibb wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on? I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:10 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
I have attempted to post the following on the USCF Issues Forum in
response to a post by Marknibb
------------------------------------------------------------
Lafferty wrote:
What the USCF needs, IMO, is to completely restructure itself along the
lines of some of the best run non-profit corporations. There are models
that could be used to do this as well as non-profit organizations and
foundations that will help with this process. Failing that, the USCF
may find itself in a court ordered restructuring plan or dissolution by
either a bankruptcy court or court order resulting from action by the
Illinois Attorney General. It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee.[/quote]
Marknibb wrote
Brian, you may have well come across the topic that can unite the USCF's
many factions. Where does the money go??
My question is why does it cost so much for so little? I'm actually
only a member only so I can donate my time to promoting chess. I think
that costs too much.[/quote]
Lafferty replied
Mark, I know that in the past you have presented yourself as neutral and
unbiased on a number of issues from Truong's problems to scholastic
chess. It is only possible to unite factions within the USCF if all of
us are open, transparent, above board and without hidden agendas.
In that regard, I have a question for you about a communication you
apparently made to BillBrockon Saturday, August 5, 2006 in which you
apparently wrote to Mr.Brockstating,
"I spoke with Garrett Scott the other day and learned a lot about USCF
politics. I think he came to the conclusion years ago that they were so
messed up that the organization may be hopeless. I hate to put words in
his mouth, but that's what I took away from talking to him. He and I
talked about driving up to the open on Monday to see people, meet
people, talk with people, maybe attend the USCF Chess in Education
seminar. Not so sure we will attempt that but I'll be talking to him
tomorrow. He did say as far as he is concerned the USCF is probably
about a ready to fall apart and that someone with some money could
probably separate scholastics from USCF. I guess we will see what
happens. [b]I personally would like to see the Polgar Foundation
become the US Scholastic Chess organization. I will probably
mention that to her if I see her. I'm not opposed to Sevan's group,
although I'm not sure if he could deliver what he has promised and I'm
not sure he has the name recognition to make an effective break."
So my question to you Mark is, are you really interested in making
scholastic chess work within the framework of the USCF, or do you seek
to take scholastics out of USCF control along with others of whom I will
have more to say and documentation to reveal in the near future?
I don't agree with my friend Mark Nibbelin on every issue, and he and
I may not have formed the same opinion of the chararcter of third
parties.
But Mark is a person of great integrity who is committed to improving
scholastic chess in the US. Corny as it may sound, he cares about
bringing this great game to more children. One can verify his by
visiting ilchess.org (check out both the current forum and the old,
archived forum).
While making a buck in an honorable profession is a good thing, I am
painfully aware that many scholastic organizers have wished to cut
USCF and state organizations out of the picture to grab a greater
share of an admittedly lucrative market. Mark is emphatically not in
it for the money: he's always looked for ways to keep costs reasonable
to the children and to deliver value to them.
Many other scholastic organizers see USCF as worse than useless. This
is not a new problem: after the Fischer boom/bust, market forces made
CCA the only game in town, and gave USCF an adult chess focus. (In
the Hochberg years, Chess LIfe had better articles for beginners as
well.) Goichberg the businessman deserves credit for being a survivor
through so many down cycles. But USCF's mission is not simply to
publish a promotional mailing for CCA's benefit.
To turn any part of USCF's business over to an anti-Goichberg camp
would be to repeat the same mistake. Over the years, we've had more
than a few board members who have "difficulty" "avoiding" self-
inurement in fact or in appearance. (I have tickets to prove that I
was on a commercial flight when I wrote the last sentence.)
But I can't blame honest, committed volunteers like Mark for searching
for an alternative to USCF. He questions whether USCF (or ICA, for
that matter) deliver value to him as a volunteer, when his USGA
membership only costs $15. https://members.usga.org/enrollment/join.asp

Hi, I am Mark Nibbelin, and I don't post here often, not sure if I
ever have.
I'm also not sure what Mr. Lafferty says I claim I am and what he
thinks I am when he writes

"On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is."

Here is my response to a message that Mr. Lafferty sent to me this
morning.

Brian Lafferty wrote:So my question to you Mark is, are you really
interested in making scholastic chess work within the framework of the
USCF, or do you seek to take scholastics out of USCF control along
with others of whom I will have more to say and documentation to
reveal in the near future?

I responded
"Brian, I really have no strong desire see Scholastic Chess taken out
of USCF, although I often feel like USCF hinders growth of scholastic
chess locally by taking thousands of dollars that could be used for
chess out of the local area. I just don't see the benefit being
returned to local chess for that money.

We have done a few things locally to stop sending so much money to the
USCF. For instance we use the JTP program for all K-3 chess locally,
and for the past 2 years, we have run State competitions using JTP and
folks seem to be happy with that.

I have honestly hoped that the Polgar election to the USCF would bring
at least someone with the desire to show interest in Scholastic Chess
and who actually does something to promote and excite people about
chess in general. I believe she has the name recognition to approach
major corporations to sponsor chess and I think that is a good thing.
She has seemed to be able to get small donations of laptops and other
equipment, but no major sponsorships.

I would be interested in hearing your plans. Options are always a good
thing and most of the time I feel like just about any option available
would be better than where we are today."

Brian Responded

No Mark, the issue is whether or not you can be trusted. You
haven't explained your position regarding taking scholastics to the
Polgar Foundation.

I followed with

"Brian, I know of no opportunity to take scholastics to the Polgar
Foundation. I am not in close contact with Susan or Paul and at this
point am very frustrated with them. That opportunity has not presented
itself and I am not seeking them out.

My question is what are you asking if I can be trusted with. I am
"President" of the Board of Directors of a small local organization
with about a 1000 kids playing chess, about 400 of them competitively.
I can't say that if I were to say "lets leave USCF chess", many would
want to follow."

So, I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that I am charged with
not being that I claim to be.
It is true that in 2006 I was quite frustrated with the USCF and was
actively seeking other options. I have since begun to attempt working
within the system and have recently been added as a member of the
Scholastic Committee of the USCF.

marknibb wrote to me:
"Brian, regarding what you sent earlier today about me approaching Susan
Polgar about leaving the USCF. This was during the post election of
2006. I was very upset with the USCF seating Sam Sloan at the time. I
did approach Susan and Paul at the 2006 US Open and spoke with them.
Susan and Paul convinced me to try and work within the USCF and I also
spoke with Tim Just who suggested I work with the Scholastic Committee.
I have since dropped my efforts to leave the USCF, and have been
appointed to the Scholastic Committee."
------------------------------------------------------

"I was very upset with the USCF seating Sam Sloan at the time. I did
approach Susan and Paul at the 2006 US Open and spoke with them. Susan
and Paul convinced me to try and work within the USCF........."
For how long , Mark?

We didn't discuss "how long". As I said to you yesterday, I am not
aware of any efforts to separate Scholastics from the USCF. I would
personally like to see Scholastics gain more independence within the
USCF and have suggested that.

On Mar 10, 6:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
marknibb wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on? I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:10 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
I have attempted to post the following on the USCF Issues Forum in
response to a post by Marknibb
------------------------------------------------------------
Lafferty wrote:
What the USCF needs, IMO, is to completely restructure itself along the
lines of some of the best run non-profit corporations. There are models
that could be used to do this as well as non-profit organizations and
foundations that will help with this process. Failing that, the USCF
may find itself in a court ordered restructuring plan or dissolution by
either a bankruptcy court or court order resulting from action by the
Illinois Attorney General. It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee.[/quote]
Marknibb wrote
Brian, you may have well come across the topic that can unite the USCF's
many factions. Where does the money go??
My question is why does it cost so much for so little? I'm actually
only a member only so I can donate my time to promoting chess. I think
that costs too much.[/quote]
Lafferty replied
Mark, I know that in the past you have presented yourself as neutral and
unbiased on a number of issues from Truong's problems to scholastic
chess. It is only possible to unite factions within the USCF if all of
us are open, transparent, above board and without hidden agendas.
In that regard, I have a question for you about a communication you
apparently made to BillBrockon Saturday, August 5, 2006 in which you
apparently wrote to Mr.Brockstating,
"I spoke with Garrett Scott the other day and learned a lot about USCF
politics. I think he came to the conclusion years ago that they were so
messed up that the organization may be hopeless. I hate to put words in
his mouth, but that's what I took away from talking to him. He and I
talked about driving up to the open on Monday to see people, meet
people, talk with people, maybe attend the USCF Chess in Education
seminar. Not so sure we will attempt that but I'll be talking to him
tomorrow. He did say as far as he is concerned the USCF is probably
about a ready to fall apart and that someone with some money could
probably separate scholastics from USCF. I guess we will see what
happens. [b]I personally would like to see the Polgar Foundation
become the US Scholastic Chess organization. I will probably
mention that to her if I see her. I'm not opposed to Sevan's group,
although I'm not sure if he could deliver what he has promised and I'm
not sure he has the name recognition to make an effective break."
So my question to you Mark is, are you really interested in making
scholastic chess work within the framework of the USCF, or do you seek
to take scholastics out of USCF control along with others of whom I will
have more to say and documentation to reveal in the near future?
I don't agree with my friend Mark Nibbelin on every issue, and he and
I may not have formed the same opinion of the chararcter of third
parties.
But Mark is a person of great integrity who is committed to improving
scholastic chess in the US. Corny as it may sound, he cares about
bringing this great game to more children. One can verify his by
visiting ilchess.org (check out both the current forum and the old,
archived forum).
While making a buck in an honorable profession is a good thing, I am
painfully aware that many scholastic organizers have wished to cut
USCF and state organizations out of the picture to grab a greater
share of an admittedly lucrative market. Mark is emphatically not in
it for the money: he's always looked for ways to keep costs reasonable
to the children and to deliver value to them.
Many other scholastic organizers see USCF as worse than useless. This
is not a new problem: after the Fischer boom/bust, market forces made
CCA the only game in town, and gave USCF an adult chess focus. (In
the Hochberg years, Chess LIfe had better articles for beginners as
well.) Goichberg the businessman deserves credit for being a survivor
through so many down cycles. But USCF's mission is not simply to
publish a promotional mailing for CCA's benefit.
To turn any part of USCF's business over to an anti-Goichberg camp
would be to repeat the same mistake. Over the years, we've had more
than a few board members who have "difficulty" "avoiding" self-
inurement in fact or in appearance. (I have tickets to prove that I
was on a commercial flight when I wrote the last sentence.)
But I can't blame honest, committed volunteers like Mark for searching
for an alternative to USCF. He questions whether USCF (or ICA, for
that matter) deliver value to him as a volunteer, when his USGA
membership only costs $15. https://members.usga.org/enrollment/join.asp

Hi, I am Mark Nibbelin, and I don't post here often, not sure if I
ever have.
I'm also not sure what Mr. Lafferty says I claim I am and what he
thinks I am when he writes

"On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is."

Here is my response to a message that Mr. Lafferty sent to me this
morning.

Brian Lafferty wrote:So my question to you Mark is, are you really
interested in making scholastic chess work within the framework of the
USCF, or do you seek to take scholastics out of USCF control along
with others of whom I will have more to say and documentation to
reveal in the near future?

I responded
"Brian, I really have no strong desire see Scholastic Chess taken out
of USCF, although I often feel like USCF hinders growth of scholastic
chess locally by taking thousands of dollars that could be used for
chess out of the local area. I just don't see the benefit being
returned to local chess for that money.

We have done a few things locally to stop sending so much money to the
USCF. For instance we use the JTP program for all K-3 chess locally,
and for the past 2 years, we have run State competitions using JTP and
folks seem to be happy with that.

I have honestly hoped that the Polgar election to the USCF would bring
at least someone with the desire to show interest in Scholastic Chess
and who actually does something to promote and excite people about
chess in general. I believe she has the name recognition to approach
major corporations to sponsor chess and I think that is a good thing.
She has seemed to be able to get small donations of laptops and other
equipment, but no major sponsorships.

I would be interested in hearing your plans. Options are always a good
thing and most of the time I feel like just about any option available
would be better than where we are today."

Brian Responded

No Mark, the issue is whether or not you can be trusted. You
haven't explained your position regarding taking scholastics to the
Polgar Foundation.

I followed with

"Brian, I know of no opportunity to take scholastics to the Polgar
Foundation. I am not in close contact with Susan or Paul and at this
point am very frustrated with them. That opportunity has not presented
itself and I am not seeking them out.

My question is what are you asking if I can be trusted with. I am
"President" of the Board of Directors of a small local organization
with about a 1000 kids playing chess, about 400 of them competitively.
I can't say that if I were to say "lets leave USCF chess", many would
want to follow."

So, I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that I am charged with
not being that I claim to be.
It is true that in 2006 I was quite frustrated with the USCF and was
actively seeking other options. I have since begun to attempt working
within the system and have recently been added as a member of the
Scholastic Committee of the USCF.

marknibb wrote to me:
"Brian, regarding what you sent earlier today about me approaching Susan
Polgar about leaving the USCF. This was during the post election of
2006. I was very upset with the USCF seating Sam Sloan at the time. I
did approach Susan and Paul at the 2006 US Open and spoke with them.
Susan and Paul convinced me to try and work within the USCF and I also
spoke with Tim Just who suggested I work with the Scholastic Committee.
I have since dropped my efforts to leave the USCF, and have been
appointed to the Scholastic Committee."
------------------------------------------------------

"I was very upset with the USCF seating Sam Sloan at the time. I did
approach Susan and Paul at the 2006 US Open and spoke with them. Susan
and Paul convinced me to try and work within the USCF........."
For how long , Mark?

We didn't discuss "how long". As I said to you yesterday, I am not
aware of any efforts to separate Scholastics from the USCF. I would
personally like to see Scholastics gain more independence within the
USCF and have suggested that.