On Mar 10, 6:22 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
You announced that you had a case to present, Mr. Lafferty.

Kindly continue.

In due course, Mr. Brock.

You call my reputation into question without evidence. Convenient for
you....

Brian, a year and a half passes from the email I sent to Mr. Brock and
a lot has changed. As I said, Susan and Paul suggested I not try and
leave the USCF and instead attempt to work within for improvements.
At the 2006 open, I also had a discussion with Tim Just and he also
suggested trying to work with those on the Scholastic Committee. I
did initiate conversation with the Scholastic Committee and was added
to the committee at the last US Open.

As I also stated, I am not aware of any efforts to separate
Scholastics from the USCF and my intention is to continue to work from
within the organization to help make USCF Scholastic Chess the best it
can be. I do intend to continue speaking up and requesting changes
where I think they will help. The truth is, my efforts really are
focused at making Scholastic Chess the best it can be in Bloomington
and Normal IL and the surrounding area.

wrote:
On Mar 10, 6:22 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
You announced that you had a case to present, Mr. Lafferty.
Kindly continue.
In due course, Mr. Brock.

You call my reputation into question without evidence. Convenient for
you....

I haven't spoken to your reputation at all. What I wrote was;

"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."

To the best of my knowledge and understanding,
1. Payments were made to Sevan by ICA
2. You were at all relevant times a CPA and president of ICA.
3. Members of ICA questioned either the payments, the manner/method of
payment and accounting thereof or both.
4. Members who questioned the matter were apparently subjected to
harassment of varying types.
5. Some ICA members did not believe that the payments to Sevan were in
accord with IRS rules governing non-profit organizations.

On Mar 10, 8:22 am, marknibb wrote:
Brian, a year and a half passes from the email I sent to Mr. Brock and
a lot has changed. As I said, Susan and Paul suggested I not try and
leave the USCF and instead attempt to work within for improvements.
At the 2006 open, I also had a discussion with Tim Just and he also
suggested trying to work with those on the Scholastic Committee. I
did initiate conversation with the Scholastic Committee and was added
to the committee at the last US Open.

As I also stated, I am not aware of any efforts to separate
Scholastics from the USCF and my intention is to continue to work from
within the organization to help make USCF Scholastic Chess the best it
can be. I do intend to continue speaking up and requesting changes
where I think they will help. The truth is, my efforts really are
focused at making Scholastic Chess the best it can be in Bloomington
and Normal IL and the surrounding area.

There is certainly nothing unethical about using CXR instead of USCF.
For example, see http://www.renaissanceknights.org/ :

"Renaissance Knights will continue to use USCF ratings for many of its
tournaments. Also, many these tournaments will be dual rated using
the Chess Express Ratings (CXR) system.

We are introducing CXR only Scholastic tournaments. The benefit of
using the CXR system is that CXR will rate tournaments with both CXR
members and non-members (Only the CXR members will be rated), the low
cost of membership, and CXR ratings are highly responsive to your
current playing ability through ratings and percentages that isolate:
Your performance with the WHITE pieces; Your performance with the
BLACK pieces; Your performance against much STRONGER OPPONENTS

Renaissance Knights will provide free CXR membership to all
competitors good through July 2008. CXR membership normally cost $5
for children and $12 for adults."

More money for Renaissance Knights; less money for USCF.

As Mr. Lafferty fights to save USCF, he may wish to ask his source
whethere s/he has made a similar decision.

On Mar 10, 9:29 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 10, 6:22 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
You announced that you had a case to present, Mr. Lafferty.
Kindly continue.
In due course, Mr. Brock.

You call my reputation into question without evidence. Convenient for
you....

I haven't spoken to your reputation at all. What I wrote was;

"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."

To the best of my knowledge and understanding,
1. Payments were made to Sevan by ICA
2. You were at all relevant times a CPA and president of ICA.
3. Members of ICA questioned either the payments, the manner/method of
payment and accounting thereof or both.
4. Members who questioned the matter were apparently subjected to
harassment of varying types.
5. Some ICA members did not believe that the payments to Sevan were in
accord with IRS rules governing non-profit organizations.

I am fact-checking and will reply in full as soon as time allows--this
may be a day or two, as it's tax season for both the current ICA
Treasurer and myself. However, statement #2 is the only one I
recognize as correct with respect to my brief tenure (1/1/2005 to 8/5?/
2006); #5 may have true during my tenure, but if so, I was unaware of
it.

Re #1: virtually all (and perhaps all?) ICA funds in question were
with respect to the Spring 2005 Muradian/Panner FIDE event. ICA
raised money to fund this event, there was no personal inurement to
Muradian or Panner, and most prizes/appearance fees were disbursed by
ICA directly to the participants. Certain Muradian out-of-pocket cash
expenses may have been reimbursed by ICA; I don't recall.

Re #3: I am not aware of an ICA member questioning these expenses
during my tenure. Seriously. This obviously happened after my
tenure.

Re #4: From the outset, I made no secret of wanting to exploit 501(c)
(3) status to the fullest extent possible. However, I also called for
doing things by the book, sought professional counsel (one CPA with
extensive USCF experience & one nonprofit attorney) & the advice of
officers (including the ICA Treasurer, a fellow CPA more knowledgeable
in these matters than I am), board & members. And I made it clear
that such matters were to be approved by the full board. #4 is simply
incorrect during my tenure. Chris Merli is much nicer than I am, so I
can't imagine its happening after my tenure, either. I participated
in this thread after my tenure but don't consider it on point:
http://www.ilchess.org/icaforum/view...07+il+ denker

Re #5: at least one former ICA member believes that he is an operating
Thetan. Many people have strange beliefs: it's a free country.
Seriously, I became acutely aware of #5, but only some months after
leaving office.

As I had several dealings per day with "chess drama-queens" (my wife's
happy phrase) in those seventeen months, I may well have forgotten
something. My response to all questions, and especially #1, is
**expressly provisional**. However, I make all of these statements in
good faith, having spent several hours last night reviewing relevant
minutes and correspondence, and will gladly revise without prompting
if I subsequently discover an error.

***

Now to your statements of yesterday, Mr. Lafferty. If I am the former
president of a nonprofit organization, and also a CPA in public
practice, and you state the IRS will be interested in auditing
nonstandard transactions of that organization, you know very well that
that speaks to my professional reputation and my personal integrity.

If calling my reputation into question is not your intention *now*,
Mr. Lafferty, you may wish to withdraw the statement and apologize.
Or you may wish to repeat your imitation of Mr. Cheney. Keep in mind,
however, that you have once again placed your own reputation in play.

If calling my reputation into question remains your intention, you
will argue your case (facts and the law) here. Or perhaps someone
with standing will proceed in a more formal venue.

***

Readers, if you get involved with USCF, expect to have your character
called into question by Sloan, Parr, Lafferty, and their ilk--those
who play with the reputations of others for sport.

It is certainly easier to run the average $5 million nonprofit than a
state chess organization with a $25,000/year budget.

***

Tax season: bye!

wrote:
On Mar 10, 9:29 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 10, 6:22 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
You announced that you had a case to present, Mr. Lafferty.
Kindly continue.
In due course, Mr. Brock.
You call my reputation into question without evidence. Convenient for
you....
I haven't spoken to your reputation at all. What I wrote was;

"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."

To the best of my knowledge and understanding,
1. Payments were made to Sevan by ICA
2. You were at all relevant times a CPA and president of ICA.
3. Members of ICA questioned either the payments, the manner/method of
payment and accounting thereof or both.
4. Members who questioned the matter were apparently subjected to
harassment of varying types.
5. Some ICA members did not believe that the payments to Sevan were in
accord with IRS rules governing non-profit organizations.

I am fact-checking and will reply in full as soon as time allows--this
may be a day or two, as it's tax season for both the current ICA
Treasurer and myself. However, statement #2 is the only one I
recognize as correct with respect to my brief tenure (1/1/2005 to 8/5?/
2006); #5 may have true during my tenure, but if so, I was unaware of
it.

Re #1: virtually all (and perhaps all?) ICA funds in question were
with respect to the Spring 2005 Muradian/Panner FIDE event. ICA
raised money to fund this event, there was no personal inurement to
Muradian or Panner, and most prizes/appearance fees were disbursed by
ICA directly to the participants. Certain Muradian out-of-pocket cash
expenses may have been reimbursed by ICA; I don't recall.

Re #3: I am not aware of an ICA member questioning these expenses
during my tenure. Seriously. This obviously happened after my
tenure.

Re #4: From the outset, I made no secret of wanting to exploit 501(c)
(3) status to the fullest extent possible. However, I also called for
doing things by the book, sought professional counsel (one CPA with
extensive USCF experience & one nonprofit attorney) & the advice of
officers (including the ICA Treasurer, a fellow CPA more knowledgeable
in these matters than I am), board & members. And I made it clear
that such matters were to be approved by the full board. #4 is simply
incorrect during my tenure. Chris Merli is much nicer than I am, so I
can't imagine its happening after my tenure, either. I participated
in this thread after my tenure but don't consider it on point:
http://www.ilchess.org/icaforum/view...07+il+ denker

Re #5: at least one former ICA member believes that he is an operating
Thetan. Many people have strange beliefs: it's a free country.
Seriously, I became acutely aware of #5, but only some months after
leaving office.

As I had several dealings per day with "chess drama-queens" (my wife's
happy phrase) in those seventeen months, I may well have forgotten
something. My response to all questions, and especially #1, is
**expressly provisional**. However, I make all of these statements in
good faith, having spent several hours last night reviewing relevant
minutes and correspondence, and will gladly revise without prompting
if I subsequently discover an error.

***

Now to your statements of yesterday, Mr. Lafferty. If I am the former
president of a nonprofit organization, and also a CPA in public
practice, and you state the IRS will be interested in auditing
nonstandard transactions of that organization, you know very well that
that speaks to my professional reputation and my personal integrity.

I categorically reject your interpretation of my assertion of IRS
interest. As a CPA, you of course know that interest in a matter by the
IRS, assuming such an interest is taken if the matter is brought to
their attention, does not of itself reflect on the reputation of the
party involved in any review and/or audit.


If calling my reputation into question is not your intention *now*,
Mr. Lafferty, you may wish to withdraw the statement and apologize.
Or you may wish to repeat your imitation of Mr. Cheney. Keep in mind,
however, that you have once again placed your own reputation in play.

If calling my reputation into question remains your intention, you
will argue your case (facts and the law) here. Or perhaps someone
with standing will proceed in a more formal venue.




***

Readers, if you get involved with USCF, expect to have your character
called into question by Sloan, Parr, Lafferty, and their ilk--those
who play with the reputations of others for sport.

It is certainly easier to run the average $5 million nonprofit than a
state chess organization with a $25,000/year budget.

***

Tax season: bye!

On Mar 10, 1:14 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

I categorically reject your interpretation of my assertion of IRS
interest. As a CPA, you of course know that interest in a matter by the
IRS, assuming such an interest is taken if the matter is brought to
their attention, does not of itself reflect on the reputation of the
party involved in any review and/or audit.

***

If your 2006 personal return were selected for audit, I would wish you
well, rather than implying that you had failed to report income.

The interest in question is yours, Mr. Lafferty.

I would include spineless anons in "their ilk" cited upthread.

I'll listen to the counsel of people who are wiser than I am: my wife,
Mr. O'Brien, and my friends.

On Mar 10, 3:59 pm, wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:14 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

I categorically reject your interpretation of my assertion of IRS
interest. As a CPA, you of course know that interest in a matter by the
IRS, assuming such an interest is taken if the matter is brought to
their attention, does not of itself reflect on the reputation of the
party involved in any review and/or audit.

***

If your 2006 personal return were selected for audit, I would wish you
well, rather than implying that you had failed to report income.

The interest in question is yours, Mr. Lafferty.

So what is you interest, Mr. Lafferty? Support your statement or
withdraw it.

wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:59 pm, wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:14 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

I categorically reject your interpretation of my assertion of IRS
interest. As a CPA, you of course know that interest in a matter by the
IRS, assuming such an interest is taken if the matter is brought to
their attention, does not of itself reflect on the reputation of the
party involved in any review and/or audit.
***

If your 2006 personal return were selected for audit, I would wish you
well, rather than implying that you had failed to report income.

The interest in question is yours, Mr. Lafferty.

So what is you interest, Mr. Lafferty? Support your statement or
withdraw it.

My interests are transparency, factual accuracy and fair dealing in
matters that may impact the USCF such as the relationships between ICA,
Sevan M., the Polgar Foundation and the future of USCF Scholastics. If I
have made a factually inaccurate statement as opposed to a question or
request for information from you, please advise as to the specific words
of the statement that you contend are factually inaccurate.