"RMille9601" wrote in message
...

I have seen US Championship websites done by AF4C and they were great. I
am
talking about the present one.
The links to their reports did not work for me.

With all those computer geeks out there...the shoemaker's children go
barefoot.

At 05:51 AM 8/5/2004 -0400, wrote:

Sam, please note the following: 1) The various possibilities have
been
discussed with the EB at all three of their meetings, from September
through May. I attended the latter two, and Erik Anderson the first
two, of
those.

2)In April, I was asked by the President to Chair a task force of
Past USCF
Presidents to evaluate the whole matter.

3) I presented a report at the May meeting of the input of the Past
presidents. Although there was not a full consensus on all points,
there
was a majority in favor of going back to AF4C with certain specific
proposals. Subsequent to the May meeting, further clarification of
these
suggestions, endorsed by the four Past Presidents who were in Florida
in
June, ( and who were a majority of the six paricipating in the task
force)were conveyed to the EB. All six Past Presidents particating
have
endorsed further negotiations with AF4C, along some lines. There are
many
possibilities for cooperation in a number of areas.

Are you saying that the majority of the past presidents are in favor
of a merger, or merely in favor of cooperation "along some lines"?

4)The EB at its May meeting passed a motion authorizing the President
to
negotiate with AF4C. It was understood that active discussions should
occur
before the Delegates' Meeting. By that time, AF4C had already
indicated a
willingness to look seriously at any counter-proposal USCF might
offer.
They have very recently reaffirmed that willingness. That includes
possible
arangements that do not necessarily involve a merger.

Could you please tell us what the proposal of the American Foundation
for Chess was? So far, you have not even told us that.

5) Despite the motion in May, no contact from the President has
occurred
except a very recent phone call in which apparently little was
discussed.
Other EB members are willing to talk with them on the President's
behalf,
but she has not evidently delegated that task.

Which EB members? How is it that you are talking to them when you are
not even on the EB?

6) Because of point (5) above, it has not been possible to make
further
progress on specifics before the Meeting, as we had hoped. Thus, we
are
left with a substitute motion such as Myron suggests.

All the above is in the Board minutes. Once the Board posts its
meeting
tapes, you can hear the actual discussions at both the January and
May
meetings, as they were both in Open session. I agree with Myron that
this
is not the most appropriate place for this ongoing discussion, and
thus I
may limit my further comments. I have discussed the major ideas of
the
proposals extensively in previous postings on this forum on several
occasions. Regards, John McCrary

This is exactly the problem YOU CREATED when you dispensed with
publishing typed transcripts. You claimed that the USCF would save
money by doing without the transcripts. Now we could lose our entire
organization because of the lack of the transcripts and a disagreement
between you and Don about what was said.

By the way, I am always finishing third in the USCF Elections, but why
is it that the people who finish ahead of me in these elections never
have anything to say about these important issues?

Sam Sloan

E-mail to John McCrary

John,

Let's get the facts straight and summarize this situation until now.

1) This proposal was created after conversations between you and Erik Anderson
prior to the 2003 US Open. Until then, your assumption was that the USCF was
fine financially.

In light of the events that became public at the 2003 US Open: The USCF losing
over a $350,000, almost a $300,000 deficit in the first quater of the 2003-2004
fiscal year, resignation of Frank Niro and election of new officers. You
advised the Executive Board about a possible partnership with AFFC. I was
immediately open to continue the exploratory conversations.

2) You resigned from the Executive Board claiming that the stress of the job
was too much.

3) I spoke with Erik Anderson several times and invited him to make a
presentation at the September Executive Board meeting. For the beginning, I
though something positive will develop from the discussions specially in the
area of scholastic chess, which seems to be the main focus of the American
Foundation for Chess in addition to organizing the US Chess Championships.

4) The merge proposal was replace for another proposal aiming to take over
scholastic chess. This idea was endorsed by the Scholastic Council and later
on a face to face meeting was schedules in Santa Monica, California.

At this meeting Erik Anderson and Bill Goichberg began negotiations and got
into more details.

5) A follow up meeting was scheduled in NJ in conjunction with the Amateur Team
east. Erik Anderson canceled his participation in the meeting, I still went to
NJ since I already have bough my airlines ticket.

6) A month later, the Executive Board was informed by Yasser Seirawan the
scholastic proposal was not good "his exact words," Therefore, will be
withdrawn a replace for the merge proposal once again.

7) A this moment, the Executive Board only had five members since Frank
Camaratta also resigned from the board. Therefore, I though that was best to
get some help.

A Committee formed by six passed USCF Presidents: Leroy Dubeck, Harold Winston.
Tim Redman, Bob Smith, Steven Doyle and John McCrary was appointed to evaluate
the proposal and provide a recommendation to the Executive Board.

John McCrary was the Chairman of this Committee. A writing report supposed to
be presented to the Executive Board at the May meeting.

8) At the May Meeting, we found out that Myron Lieberman submitted a motion in
the advance agenda for the Delegates Meeting requesting authorization for a
merger between USCF and the AFFC. No writing report was submitted.

Here is when I said to you for the first time that was highly inappropriate to
introduce this motion with no details and endorsement from the Passed
Presidents Committee. This was clearly a tactic to force a situation, when you
did not even had a final report from the Committee.

Two Passed President were against the proposal: Leroy Dubeck and Steven Doyle;
Two in favor Bob Smith and John McCrary and two take the position of continuing
the discussions with Erik Anderson and develop a different proposal.

9) In a private e-mail exchanges between the Executive Board and the PP
Committee, I asked you once again to withdrawn the Lieberman motion.
Otherwise, I will not continue with conversations with the AFFC. You reply was
to copied Yasser Seirawan and made me look bad. Another several e-mail
exchanges continued. A couple of week ago, I called Erik Anderson, he sent a
e-mail saying that he traveling extensively until September. Then, we have a
couple of other e-mails exchanges.

10) As most people, I see the value of bringing strong and wealthy supporters
of chess into the USCF. I really hope something good come out this, but I must
say that your forceful way of handling this process is lacking the transparency
and objectivity. This is all about trying to recuperate your personal image
and credibility in the chess community.

All I am asking is to withdrawn the motion! Introducing this motion without
details and endorsements form the PP Committee nor the Executive Board is
irresponsible and premature.

Beatriz Marinello
USCF President

Such drama! No wonder you work 60 hours a week (not to mention the time it
takes to scrawl through this newsgroup and post responses).

I'm just confirmed in my own perceptions that the ship of fools in New
Windsor has no effective leadership at the helm. This embarassing yet
revealing post by Ms. Marinello summarizes a Board that is, functionally,
useless. So it doesn't matter to me whether you all are working for free or
not, because as a group, you clearly don't work.

TMB

I am always finishing third in the USCF Elections, but why
is it that the people who finish ahead of me in these elections never
have anything to say about these important issues?

Because Sam, despite all their promises to the contrary, they are
do-nothings like everyone else. That's why I voted for you, pal...I figured
you may be eccentric, but at least you've got guts.

(Beatchess) wrote in message ...
E-mail to John McCrary

John,

Let's get the facts straight and summarize this situation until now.

1) This proposal was created after conversations between you and Erik Anderson
prior to the 2003 US Open. Until then, your assumption was that the USCF was
fine financially.

In light of the events that became public at the 2003 US Open: The USCF losing
over a $350,000, almost a $300,000 deficit in the first quater of the 2003-2004
fiscal year, resignation of Frank Niro and election of new officers. You
advised the Executive Board about a possible partnership with AFFC. I was
immediately open to continue the exploratory conversations.

2) You resigned from the Executive Board claiming that the stress of the job
was too much.

3) I spoke with Erik Anderson several times and invited him to make a
presentation at the September Executive Board meeting. For the beginning, I
though something positive will develop from the discussions specially in the
area of scholastic chess, which seems to be the main focus of the American
Foundation for Chess in addition to organizing the US Chess Championships.

4) The merge proposal was replace for another proposal aiming to take over
scholastic chess. This idea was endorsed by the Scholastic Council and later
on a face to face meeting was schedules in Santa Monica, California.

At this meeting Erik Anderson and Bill Goichberg began negotiations and got
into more details.

5) A follow up meeting was scheduled in NJ in conjunction with the Amateur Team
east. Erik Anderson canceled his participation in the meeting, I still went to
NJ since I already have bough my airlines ticket.

6) A month later, the Executive Board was informed by Yasser Seirawan the
scholastic proposal was not good "his exact words," Therefore, will be
withdrawn a replace for the merge proposal once again.

7) A this moment, the Executive Board only had five members since Frank
Camaratta also resigned from the board. Therefore, I though that was best to
get some help.

A Committee formed by six passed USCF Presidents: Leroy Dubeck, Harold Winston.
Tim Redman, Bob Smith, Steven Doyle and John McCrary was appointed to evaluate
the proposal and provide a recommendation to the Executive Board.

John McCrary was the Chairman of this Committee. A writing report supposed to
be presented to the Executive Board at the May meeting.

8) At the May Meeting, we found out that Myron Lieberman submitted a motion in
the advance agenda for the Delegates Meeting requesting authorization for a
merger between USCF and the AFFC. No writing report was submitted.

Here is when I said to you for the first time that was highly inappropriate to
introduce this motion with no details and endorsement from the Passed
Presidents Committee. This was clearly a tactic to force a situation, when you
did not even had a final report from the Committee.

Two Passed President were against the proposal: Leroy Dubeck and Steven Doyle;
Two in favor Bob Smith and John McCrary and two take the position of continuing
the discussions with Erik Anderson and develop a different proposal.

9) In a private e-mail exchanges between the Executive Board and the PP
Committee, I asked you once again to withdrawn the Lieberman motion.
Otherwise, I will not continue with conversations with the AFFC. You reply was
to copied Yasser Seirawan and made me look bad. Another several e-mail
exchanges continued. A couple of week ago, I called Erik Anderson, he sent a
e-mail saying that he traveling extensively until September. Then, we have a
couple of other e-mails exchanges.

10) As most people, I see the value of bringing strong and wealthy supporters
of chess into the USCF. I really hope something good come out this, but I must
say that your forceful way of handling this process is lacking the transparency
and objectivity. This is all about trying to recuperate your personal image
and credibility in the chess community.

All I am asking is to withdrawn the motion! Introducing this motion without
details and endorsements form the PP Committee nor the Executive Board is
irresponsible and premature.

Beatriz Marinello
USCF President

Based on this context, I agree with Beatriz that withdrawal of the
original motion is appropriate. A reasonable substitute motion would
authorize the Board to continue negotiations with a view towards a
*possible* merger (or not).

Best to drain the situation of personalities, emotions, etc., and
create an environment that allows objective evaluation of future
proposals.

Unrestricted net assets are $(1,020,471) as of 5/31/04: at the current
rate, USCF needs four more years of austerity just to become fiscally
stable. The hole took many years to dig; without radical change, it
will take many years to climb out.

Is it wise to have USCF tread water for four years before it can
return to concentrate on its core mission? A satisfactory AF4C
proposal *could* solve these problems at once.

"Bill Brock" wrote in message
om...
(Beatchess) wrote in message
...

Unrestricted net assets are $(1,020,471) as of 5/31/04: at the current
rate, USCF needs four more years of austerity just to become fiscally
stable. The hole took many years to dig; without radical change, it
will take many years to climb out.

Wild Bill, what is most significant to me is that the current ratio went
from roughly .7 to 2.1. Excellent. Even if you promote last year's LMA funds
to current, last year was 1.1. Still a hefty jump.

The USCF was simply overstaffed and overprogrammed (as in programs).

"StanB" wrote in message ...
"Bill Brock" wrote in message
om...
(Beatchess) wrote in message
...

Unrestricted net assets are $(1,020,471) as of 5/31/04: at the current
rate, USCF needs four more years of austerity just to become fiscally
stable. The hole took many years to dig; without radical change, it
will take many years to climb out.

Wild Bill, what is most significant to me is that the current ratio went
from roughly .7 to 2.1. Excellent. Even if you promote last year's LMA funds
to current, last year was 1.1. Still a hefty jump.

The USCF was simply overstaffed and overprogrammed (as in programs).

No question that the turnaround was real and that USCF has averted the
near-term risk of bankruptcy. But fiscal health is very far away.