I suggest to you--well, not to you, really--that there hasn't been
accountability SINCE 1996.


Al

Al,

It's good to see you in action. Just like the old days appearing tiresome,
impolite, and thin skinned. You really can't let go or follow through can you?
Must you indulge in fruitless exercises, never done with this thread? Are you
having a nervous breakdown? This is great parody of former Linc debates --
don't you think?

Let's recap taking out some of the noise and get to the heart of the matter.

It all starts with Larry Parrs suggestion that the Federation needs two men at
the top. Larry suggests we use someone who has been there before with the
Federation.
I agreed but suggested new blood that would not have USCF political baggage --
followed by an example list of old controversies to remind Larry of the good
old days.

You jump in and ask What was the "toy fair in Hamburg," for example, and the
Amex card issue?

I answer the question about what the controversies were about and note further
details are still available through Deja (Google) on rec.games.chess.*.

You do not recall one controversy and provide a long explanation about how you
is innocent of wrongdoing on the other one.

I say it doesn't matter if you remember the issue or not there still was a
controversy.

You say I make vague charges with no evidence and restate you still do not
recall the other controversy.

I contend it's all verifiable through Google and I will be more than glad to
produce the evidence that there was such an issue.

You respond by opening your can of ad hominem and remind us once again you are
a volunteer.

Now we are current.

Note I would not characterize Tom Dorsch, Helen Warren, and Leroy Dubeck as
particular political hacks I favor. Actually in my view there has been little
accountability in the USCF since 1979. I just found it noticeably weak from
1988 through 1996.

So I officially thank you for helping to make my point with Larry that we need
new blood. Do we now want to go a round about the alleged freelancing for you
out of the USCF office?

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

The following notice was posted by: DORSCH on AUG27 1994 10:56PM

Salary and/or expenses?

I wrote the ADM requesting that Al's salary and expenses be made
public, so I will attempt to explain to Mr. Parr what the motivation was
for me, and hopefully for co-sponsors Helen Warren and Leroy Dubeck. (I
hasten to add, in case of slip, that I am now speaking only for myself.)

Many not-for-profit corporations publish the salaries of top
officers. Sometimes this leads to necessary reform, as in the recent case
of the CEO of United Way. For those who are informed about how uninformed
the budget process is at the USCF, and the machinations that go into
"salary" computations there, it is not unreasonable to expect that
sunlight may be the best disinfectant in New Windsor.

I do not wish to make a blanket "Marcusism," that Al Lawrence is
"corrupt." But it is my belief that it is in the best interests of chess in
general if the compensation level of the chief executive is general--or at
least limited--public knowledge.

The largest chunk of the recent dues increase went to salaries, the
fastest-growing item in the budget. In my view it is not possible to evaluate
the USCF budget properly, unless someone other than the Exec Dir himself is
informed about his compensation level.

His salary is known to members of the Policy Board, because they
review his contract every year--and grant him a pay raise every year, that
in every case is larger than a COLA. Members of the Policy Board need
political oversight, and sweetheart relationships between Board members
and the Executive Director, that routinely involve exchanges of pay raises
for the Executive in return for perks for the Board members, need to be
independently reviewed to preserve the integrity of the process. This
need for political accountability results in the publication of virtually
every public salary.

Expenses are important because large chunks of money can be concealed
or misspent under the general header "expenses," and there is little
review (if any) of what Lawrence does with the American Express Corporate
Gold Card that he (alone) carries. You will not find any line on the
budget that reveals how many thousands of dollars are spent on travel to
Europe or various American destinations, dinner with wine, rental
vehicles, etc. These are almost all company-related, in the broadest
sense, but sound accounting practice requires that there be someone to
audit this broad privilege of unlimited access to corporate funds, and at
present there is none. Publication of these numbers would, at the very
least, insure that annual vacations to Germany were really made to buy
good Jerger clocks instead of a holiday for a wife who teaches German.

I make no suggestion of impropriety, for the same reason that I make
no suggestion of propriety--the facts that would support a judgment either
way are not available. If they were available, even to a limited group of
overseers, confidence in the administration would be enhanced.

Tom Dorsch

The following notice was posted by:
PARR on AUG28 1994 10:01PM

The Old Guard

Thanks to Larry Evans and Frank Camaratta for confirming the gist of my report
on his decision not to conduct a recount on a close vote about whether to
publish the expenses of the Executive Director.

Readers may recall that I concluded that failing to have a recount when there
was a one-vote margin on a show of hands was an arrogant abuse of power.

Frank Camaratta's response is that he personally favored the motion and that,
in retrospect, he probably should have gone ahead with the recount anyway. But
the very fact that he did favor it led him to bend over backwards in the other
direction. So what I assumed to be an abuse of power probably was a mistaken
failure to use power legitimately in his hands.

I see no reason not to take the treasurer at his word. He is a man of honor
and I, for one, am absolutely sure he did favor the motion -- if he said he
did. Therefore, I retract my conjecture that he arrogantly misused power.

Jim Eade noted that Delegates who don't want to know the facts ought to step
aside and make way for those who do. I could not agree more.

In truth, Eade has his finger on one of the defining characteristics of the
Old Guard -- a characteristic that we have often discussed on this forum. To
wit: the utter hostility they evince towards anyone trying to ascertain facts
that ought to be in the public domain as a matter of course. The mentality
behind the desire "not to know" is fascinating, and psychologists describe it
it as "denial."

The bottom line is that a flat majority of the USCF Delegates ought never to
be in a position of leadership. Most of them combine ignorance with a knowing
stubborness, which together equal a siege mentality. I warrant that not one
reader in ten can imagine the kind of person who gets angry when requests are
made for financial and governance information that is virtually routine in any
other normal organization.

And the excuses the Delegates make never cease to astonish. Thus, it's bad to
release information because dues-paying members might then know the facts; or
it's bad because they themselves don't wish to know; or it's bad because it
might be used politically by dissidents (a tacit admission of mismanagement);
or it's bad because it might somehow hurt the promotion of chess.

That last excuse is the one that always makes me guffaw. Think of the kind of
brain that can oppose public disclosure because if people know the facts, then
chess might be injured. Any normal person outside of the fever swamps of the
USCF ruling class knows the best thing that can possibly be done to promote
chess is to let the sunshine in.

Larry Parr

[Posted on behalf of Frank A Camaratta, Jr., U.S.C.F. Treasurer, August
28, 1994]

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Mr. Larry Parr on the
matter of publishing the Executive Director's Expenses and my actions as
Chair on the subsequent vote. I wish Larry had spoken to me before
writing this note, at least he would have had the advantage of hearing
both sides before proceeding.

Before proceeding, let me say for the record that I believe expenses for
Policy Board members, the professional staff at New Windsor and any other
persons who are reimbursed by the USCF should be made public. I think the
Annual Report to the Delegates is the appropriate vehicle for
disseminating this information. I also happened to be in the minority at
the annual meeting, although I think most of my colleagues on the Board,
including the President, are in agreement with the need for disclosure.

That having been said, It is true that I denied a recount on a very close
vote to publish the Executive Director's Expenses. However, my reasons
should be noted. As chair, I refrain from voting on issues. I believe
that the Chair's role is to facilitate debate and process in a totally
fair and impartial manner. On the matter at hand, I felt that allowing a
recount on an issue where I was on the losing side was inappropriate
(since it could be construed as a lack of objectivity by the Chair) and,
if the Delegates felt strongly enough, they would appeal the Chair's
ruling. This seemed to me a fair way of letting the body decide and
taking the Chair out of the loop. I was quite surprised (and a bit
embarrassed) when my ruling stood. Apparently, those present did not feel
strongly enough to issue a challenge or felt that the outcome would have
been the same.

Tom Dorsch has stated that I was acting to accommodate the wishes of the
President. I do not recall Dennis' asking me to deny a recount, nor would
that request have influenced my decision. Actually, Dennis favors
disclosure - to the best of my recollection.

In retrospect, I agree with Larry (now that's a first!). I should have
allowed the recount. I managed to effect exactly what I was trying to
avoid - having the Chair appear to make a biased ruling. Fortunately,
this mistake is not irreversible and can be rectified next year if the
Delegates wish. It was a long, hard meeting and mistakes were made.
That's the nature of the process, imperfect as it is.

On Larry's final point, he may be right again (Two in a row! I must be
slipping.). It takes a lot of time and energy to serve. There are
rewards and frustrations. If and when I feel that I am no longer willing
or able to serve our organization in a fair and impartial manner, I will
step aside.

Frank A. Camaratta, Jr.

(WPraeder) wrote in message ...

snip

Let's recap taking out some of the noise and get to the heart of the matter.

It appears to me that the heart of the matter is that Lawrence
was a better ED than any of his successors but for some reason many
people are reluctant to accept this. Perhaps because it would suggest
they were wrong to force him out.
James B. Shearer

It appears to me that the heart of the matter is that Lawrence
was a better ED than any of his successors but for some reason many
people are reluctant to accept this. Perhaps because it would suggest
they were wrong to force him out.
James B. Shearer

James,

I understand your point. Your opinion is as good as any others but in my view
this would be like trying to argue that Nixon was a better President than Ford.
Without objective criteria this is difficult to determine. Each ED brings
strengths and weakness to the job. It is the boards job to judge the EDs
performance. The Barry led board and ED were involved in major political
infighting and the USCF was facing a major financial crisis. I can't
objectively say if they were wrong or right.

I would however opine that most old timers would agree Al Lawrence was our most
powerful ED as well as less attractive and favorable then his predecessors but
more attractive and favorable than his successors. You can speculate on peoples
motives but it appears to me that most of Al's past critics are his political
allies today.

I would only suggest that the USCF look to new blood to lead the USCF into the
future. We need even stronger and more experienced performers than we have had
in the past, not someone just more favorable than the last couple of directors.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

On 11 Aug 2003 05:18:13 GMT, (Parrthenon) wrote:


My solution for the USCF's problems is two-fold: 1. Hire someone as ED
who has proven that he can make money for the Federation (Al Lawrence, first;
or Gerry Dullea);

Al Lawrence and Gerald Dullea made mnoney at a time when:

1. The USCF was making mega-bucks selling chess computers, which was a
hot item back then and

2. All income from the sale of life and multi-year memberships was
counted as current income. Remember that the difference between Frank
Niro turning a profit or a loss was the difference between the
treatment of multi-year memberships. Were the USCF still following the
accounting methods that were followed when Lawrence or Dullea were
executive directors, Niro would have earned a proifit of about
$300,000.

Other names can be considered. The names of Paul Truong and Grabriel
Schwartzman have been suggested for Executive Director.

Sam Sloan

"JimEade" wrote in message
...

Goichberg got Cavallo into the finals, bypassing the preliminaries. We
had a
quick look at his resume, a shortish group interview and then hired him.
I've
exercised far more due diligence hiring a programmer.

I've had my own misguesses too. Once I hired a guy and two days later I
fired him. The staff used to say- Where'd he come from, what's he gonna do,
where'd he go?

StanB

Lawrence was successful mostly because of his B&E ability. I doubt he would do
anywhere near as well in today's completely different market, with viable
competitors and a brand new forum (Internet), and computerization of
operations.

John Fernandez

(WPraeder) wrote in message ...
It appears to me that the heart of the matter is that Lawrence
was a better ED than any of his successors but for some reason many
people are reluctant to accept this. Perhaps because it would suggest
they were wrong to force him out.
James B. Shearer

James,

I understand your point. Your opinion is as good as any others but in my view
this would be like trying to argue that Nixon was a better President than Ford.
Without objective criteria this is difficult to determine. Each ED brings
strengths and weakness to the job. It is the boards job to judge the EDs
performance. The Barry led board and ED were involved in major political
infighting and the USCF was facing a major financial crisis. I can't
objectively say if they were wrong or right.

So you feel Lawrence departed in disgrace like Nixon? How about
some evidence? Perhaps he just didn't handle stupid suggestions from
idiots very well?
The USCF obviously was not facing a major financial crisis when
Lawrence left or it would be dead now after 8 years of terrible
management since. In fact one might conclude that Lawrence must have
left the USCF in pretty good shape for it to be still alive after
Cavallo, DeFeis and Niro.
James B. Shearer