Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

The USCF was founded in 1939. For 60 long years, the federation
struggled, often on the brink of collapse. Finally, the USCF reached
its peak in 1999. It had $6.5 million in sales, 90,000 members and a
reserve of $2 million.

At that point, federation insiders decided that their long wait had
ended and now was the time to put their hot hands directly on the
money. They changed the name from Policy Board to Executive Board and
stopped confining themselves to policy decisions. They started to
manage the day-to-day affairs of the corporation. On a flimsy pretext,
they fired the professional manager who had been running the company
and replaced him with their flunky.

The result? Sales dropped like a stone. Services were drastically cut.
Adult members fled. By year end 2002, sales had dropped from $ 6.5
million to $.4.5 million. More than one million dollars had been lost.

A new group came in, determined to reinvigorate the books and
equipment business, which accounted for a majority of the sales. B&E
sales increased from $1.8 million to $2.8 million in just one year.
The USCF was on the road to financial recovery.

That is until a new group was elected in August 2003, led by a former
employee. In their first day in office, 17 staff members were ordered
to be fired. The new plan was to "1. Get Rid of the Books & Equipment
Business" which was the very business which had brought most of the
revenues and profits. Services were cut or reduced. The explanation
offered by the new president was: "We need to drive away the people
who has been milking the USCF for many years."

Drive away which people? Milking the USCF of what money? For which
years? The new president writes: "Since August our Board has been
demonstrating a hands-on approach."

This is the problem, not the solution. Our LMA Bank Account, which in
1999 held more than one million dollars in cash and equivalent, is now
down to ten dollars!!!

The solution: The Executive Board, which consists of volunteers who
have never run a business, needs to stop trying to run a corporation
which they have no capability or competence to run. We need to return
the management of the USCF to serious business people who know how to
run a business. We need an Executive Director understands both chess
issues and business issues.

I hope the voters in this election will take the trouble to look at
the numbers, including the financial statements at
http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/ma...alsyearend.pdf
The board obviously did not look at these numbers because, if they
had, they could not possibly have made the horrible decisions they
made. Instead, without looking, reading, thinking, or asking, the
board voted to give away the books and equipment business as part of a
plan to "drive away" the people they claimed had been "milking" the
federation for years.

Sorry to bring you the bad news.

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
The USCF was founded in 1939. For 60 long years, the federation
struggled, often on the brink of collapse. Finally, the USCF reached
its peak in 1999. It had $6.5 million in sales, 90,000 members and a
reserve of $2 million.

At that point, federation insiders decided that their long wait had
ended and now was the time to put their hot hands directly on the
money. They changed the name from Policy Board to Executive Board and
stopped confining themselves to policy decisions. They started to
manage the day-to-day affairs of the corporation. On a flimsy pretext,
they fired the professional manager who had been running the company
and replaced him with their flunky.

The result? Sales dropped like a stone. Services were drastically cut.
Adult members fled. By year end 2002, sales had dropped from $ 6.5
million to $.4.5 million. More than one million dollars had been lost.

A new group came in, determined to reinvigorate the books and
equipment business, which accounted for a majority of the sales. B&E
sales increased from $1.8 million to $2.8 million in just one year.
The USCF was on the road to financial recovery.

That is until a new group was elected in August 2003, led by a former
employee. In their first day in office, 17 staff members were ordered
to be fired. The new plan was to "1. Get Rid of the Books & Equipment
Business" which was the very business which had brought most of the
revenues and profits. Services were cut or reduced. The explanation
offered by the new president was: "We need to drive away the people
who has been milking the USCF for many years."

Drive away which people? Milking the USCF of what money? For which
years? The new president writes: "Since August our Board has been
demonstrating a hands-on approach."

This is the problem, not the solution. Our LMA Bank Account, which in
1999 held more than one million dollars in cash and equivalent, is now
down to ten dollars!!!

The solution: The Executive Board, which consists of volunteers who
have never run a business, needs to stop trying to run a corporation
which they have no capability or competence to run. We need to return
the management of the USCF to serious business people who know how to
run a business. We need an Executive Director understands both chess
issues and business issues.

I hope the voters in this election will take the trouble to look at
the numbers, including the financial statements at
http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/ma...alsyearend.pdf
The board obviously did not look at these numbers because, if they
had, they could not possibly have made the horrible decisions they
made. Instead, without looking, reading, thinking, or asking, the
board voted to give away the books and equipment business as part of a
plan to "drive away" the people they claimed had been "milking" the
federation for years.

Sorry to bring you the bad news.

To use a phrase from YOUR book: "Everybody knows" what's already happened.
What are YOU going to do to change it? What do YOU bring to the table,
other than going to a bunch of meetings? Why should anybody vote for YOU?
What do you say to those people who know about you only from what you've
published on your website www.samsloan.com? Why should they elect a person
like YOU to the USCF's EB?

MN

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

To use a phrase from YOUR book: "Everybody knows" what's already happened.
What are YOU going to do to change it? What do YOU bring to the table,
other than going to a bunch of meetings? Why should anybody vote for YOU?
What do you say to those people who know about you only from what you've
published on your website www.samsloan.com? Why should they elect a person
like YOU to the USCF's EB?

MN

Because Sam Sloan believes in himself. He is never wrong, never
apologizes, and he is also in never, never land.

EZoto

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

Sorry to bring you the bad news.

To use a phrase from YOUR book: "Everybody knows" what's already
happened.
What are YOU going to do to change it? What do YOU bring to the table,
other than going to a bunch of meetings? Why should anybody vote for YOU?

You can't tell someone to pitch in and then attack them when they try to.

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
...

To use a phrase from YOUR book: "Everybody knows"
what's already happened. What are YOU going to do to
change it? What do YOU bring to the table, other than
going to a bunch of meetings? Why should anybody vote for YOU?

You can't tell someone to pitch in and then attack them when they try to.

He didn't attack him, he attacked deficiencies in his candidate statement.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
...
Sorry to bring you the bad news.

To use a phrase from YOUR book: "Everybody knows" what's already
happened.
What are YOU going to do to change it? What do YOU bring to the table,
other than going to a bunch of meetings? Why should anybody vote for
YOU?

You can't tell someone to pitch in and then attack them when they try to.

First of all, nobody told Sloan to pitch in -- he did that on his own, just
as he's done for the last eight or nine years. Of course, his candidacy has
about as much validity as the numerous, petty, and wasteful lawsuits you
file.

Second, I didn't attack him. I merely asked questions I expect ANY
candidate to be able to answer, since all his candidate statement did was
rehash the USCF's trials and tribulations without giving any of the
pertinent information people want to know about HIS platform.

MN

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.) A Positive Spin by a businessperson.
 

(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
The USCF was founded in 1939. For 60 long years, the federation
struggled, often on the brink of collapse. Finally, the USCF reached
its peak in 1999. It had $6.5 million in sales, 90,000 members and a
reserve of $2 million.

At that point, federation insiders decided that their long wait had
ended and now was the time to put their hot hands directly on the
money.

(Plank 1 of the candidate's platform: He won't allow future insiders to grab the money anymore (assuming they did that)).

They changed the name from Policy Board to Executive Board (Plank 2: he wants to change it back) and
stopped confining themselves to policy decisions (Plank 3: he wants the board to concentrate on policy and stop their daily micro-managing of the Federation, assuming that is what they are doing). They started to
manage the day-to-day affairs of the corporation. On a flimsy pretext,
they fired the professional manager who had been running the company
and replaced him with their flunky. (Plank 4: he would bring back the idea of running the organization using a professional manager instead of a flunky, assuming the replacement really is a flunky)

The result? Sales dropped like a stone. Services were drastically cut.
Adult members fled. By year end 2002, sales had dropped from $ 6.5
million to $.4.5 million. More than one million dollars had been lost.

A new group came in, determined to reinvigorate the books and
equipment business, which accounted for a majority of the sales. B&E
sales increased from $1.8 million to $2.8 million in just one year.
The USCF was on the road to financial recovery.

That is until a new group was elected in August 2003, led by a former
employee. In their first day in office, 17 staff members were ordered
to be fired. (Plank 5: find these 17 people and bring them back and pay them for the time they were forced to miss and apologise to them.)

The new plan was to "1. Get Rid of the Books & Equipment
Business" which was the very business which had brought most of the
revenues and profits. Services were cut or reduced. The explanation
offered by the new president was: "We need to drive away the people
who has been milking the USCF for many years."

Drive away which people? (Plank 6: investigate and get to the bottom of this charge.) Milking the USCF of what money? (Plank 7: same as Plank 6 altho a different accusation). For which
years? (Plank 8: same as Plank 7). The new president writes: "Since August our Board has been
demonstrating a hands-on approach."

This is the problem, not the solution. (Plank 9: he would not be a "hands-on" board member, whatever that means). Our LMA Bank Account, which in
1999 held more than one million dollars in cash and equivalent, is now
down to ten dollars!!! (Plank 10: he would increase the federation's bank account to some unclear amount greater than $10 by increasing in an unclear manner Federation revenue).

The solution: The Executive Board, which consists of volunteers who
have never run a business, needs to stop trying to run a corporation
which they have no capability or competence to run. We need to return
the management of the USCF to serious business people who know how to
run a business. We need an Executive Director understands both chess
issues and business issues. (Plank 11: he would bring both business and chess sense to the table and get others similarly possessing of both qualities to join forces with him somehow).

I hope the voters in this election will take the trouble to look at
the numbers, including the financial statements at
http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/ma...alsyearend.pdf
The board obviously did not look at these numbers because, if they
had, they could not possibly have made the horrible decisions they
made. Instead, without looking, reading, thinking, or asking, the
board voted to give away the books and equipment business as part of a
plan to "drive away" the people they claimed had been "milking" the
federation for years. (Plank 12: he would re-emphasize sales of books and equipment and un-emphasize some unspecified areas).

Sorry to bring you the bad news. (Plank 13: he feels it is unlucky to "go negative", but certain key facts were not previously known to the rank and file USCF members who vote and who either don't have the time or the expertise or the inclination to decipher Federation financial statements as astutely as he can).

Therefore, in conclusion, he feels he would work well with the other
board members he has just finished libelling in his "constructive
criticism" approach that he exercises in the interest of being not a
politician (and of being a candid person running for office instead).

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

A nice overview, Sam, even if a bit repetitive
(and still, no one else writes them but you)
and, by necessity, incomplete. One important
thing missing: the top USCF officers acted many
times in the past as FIDE president lackeys.
They didn't respect human rights and American
liberty ideals. Thus it should be in the statutes
that the top USCF officers are forbidden to
serve or run for any FIDE positions during their
USCF tenure and for the nextr five years. This
way the conflict of interests and the harm to
good causes will be avoided. (Their only contact
with FIDE should be as LOYAL representatives of
USCF).

Wlod

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

Here is the milking comment in full context. For starters, Beatriz
states:

"Mr. Niro acted outside of his powers because the USCF Executive
Director is not allow to modify existing policy made by the Executive
Board."

I would like to know where this "existing policy" was ever stated.
According to a posting by Joel Benjamin, the seeding of the US Woman's
Champion on the Olympiad team started in 2002 or just a year earlier.
Also, it appears that this was the idea of AF4C, not the idea of the
USCF. I have attended a number of the board meetings and I have read
the minutes of all of them and nowhere that I have seen did the USCF
Executive Board ever say that the US Champion had an automatic right
to play on the Olympic Team. Going back over the years I cannot recall
even once where a player got on the Olympiad teams solely by being the
US Champion. If I am wrong, please show me where I am wrong.

Later in the same posting Beatriz stated:

"I am not afraid of the challenges, since August our Board
has been demonstrating a hands-on approach, but we need help.
Therefore, we recognize the importance of engaging new leaders, doers
and ideas. But also we need to drive away the people who has been
milking the USCF for many years."

Since this posting referred almost entirely to Frank Niro plus
indirectly to Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, one would assume that
Beatriz is accusing them of "milking the USCF".

Sam Sloan


--- On Thu Apr 22, 2004 at 6:36 pm, wrote:

Hello Phil:

I am enclosing my reply. Please take into account that my time is limited,
therefore I cannot engage in a discussion nor a debate on policies in a public
forum. The reason why I read these postings is because I am interested in our
members' opinions.

In a message dated 4/22/2004 12:56:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Dear Beatriz,

I am afraid this explanation is still as clear as the rules. Did Mr
Niro act outside of his powers or simply without consultation? These
are quite distinct differences, and when we last spoke this was a
prime article to address.

I would suggest reading the regulations concerning the USCF Invitational
Event Requirements posted in the USCF Website. These regulations were revised in
August 2003 by former USCF President Dr. John MacCrary. Similar rules has
been used for the last 10 years.

Yes, Mr. Niro acted outside of his powers because the USCF Executive Director
is not allow to modify existing policy made by the Executive Board.

Has it in fact been addressed?

Currently, the Executive Board is developing a policy which will impact all
contracts between the USCF and other entities/people. In general terms the
contracts will be categorized the following way: contracts that require only the
approval of the USCF Executive Director, contracts that require the approval
of the President and contracts that require the approval of the USCF Executive
Board.

Most likely any contract which involves $10,000 or more and multiyear
commitments will required the approval of the President and/or the Executive Board.
Two signatures will be required for these contracts.

In my view, Anna Hahn as the US Women's Champion had the right to
participate in the upcoming Olympiad according to our existing rules.

Very good. However, if you are so certain, why fear a suit?

Because we were threaten with a legal action against the USCF if we did not
address the complicated issue of the letter signed by Frank Niro. Right or
wrong engaging a legal battle did not achieve any positive results, we decided
then to engage in a diplomatic negotiation of this matter..



snip

Now, this situation is passed. The lessons learned are numerous,
the USCF
has appointed the International Affairs Committee to submit a
proposal to revise
the existing regulations in consultation with players and other
committees.

Is this the committee that has not met very recently or often? The
one previously chaired by Eric Johnson?

As part of the discussion concerning the issue of the "Continental
Championship" some players expressed their views and opinions. IM Irina Krush was
particularly impressive and eloquent. She is only 21 years old, but we recognized
on her a potential leader. The USCF needs leaders and doers.


snip

The selection process for the Olympic Team is and will continue
being the
responsibility of the USCF. Seeking for sponsors is also
necessary for the
financial recovery of the USCF, as for the future development of
chess, but the
USCF MAKES THE RULES.

Well USCF tries to. I agree that this particular hurdle is passed,
but unless there is a change it will surely happen all over again.

The USCF is it road to financial recovery, I am a volunteer who spend many
hours every day devoted to this task. I decided to take this responsibility
because I love chess and the USCF. The USCF will not go under and continue
making the rules in the United States.

By the way, I will recommend renewing your membership that expired in 1996,
this will be a contribution towards the future of the USCF.



I hope you accept these challenges not to your authority to make the
rules and implement them, but to also have the rules make sense and
be motivating to players who are subject to them.

I am not afraid of the challenges, since August our Board has been
demonstrating a hands-on approach, but we need help. Therefore, we recognize the
importance of engaging new leaders, doers and ideas. But also we need to drive
away the people who has been milking the USCF for many years.



Considering the recent fiasco resulting from a competition entry,
will you repeat it? Does it raise any questions at all?

This is not going to change, although my approach as a
President of the USCF is inclusive with an open door policy the
final desicion
are made by the USCF Executive Board and the Board of Delegates.

Explaining some of this to my brother in law, who is a VP of a
company that sponsors chess - in fact sponsors some of John
Fernandez's events in NY City, he laughed.

His company, an international financier could send a men's team this
year. Not wanting to put him off chess funding entirely, I let him
lead the conversation, and I think to obtain funding the consequence
would be that pitching for $50,000 to $100,000 financing would mean
adjusting your procedures from those deployed for the Women's
Olympiad.

If you are serious about this, please send me a private e-mail with the
information. Thank you for thinking about our players!



The only way, how we are going to grow chess in America is by
expanding our
network, reaching out into the chess community and developing a
plan for
seeking for sponsors and other similar sources of revenue.

Frankly its not. It will be by paying attention to what chess
players want, since they all vote with their dollars. People are
almost completely indifferent to organisations and possess very
little loyalty to any particular one in a competitive market.

Another way for USCF to gain ground is by partnering with active
agents in the chess market. It has conclusively proved that it can't
compete as if it were a business, and in fact has lost every single
sponsor.

As a President's speech you sound all the right notes to rally the
troups. But the generals of chess out there are in business for
themselves and won't give up any ground to you, and you will only This
attract corporals to your service.

This year has been a real struggle, I feel like I running in a Marathon which
will never stop. I have a tremendous responsibility on my shoulders. I
believe in people, restoring the financial health and credibility of the USCF is
good for everyone's businesses.

All the best,

Beatriz Marinello
USCF President


Mr. Truong has the right idea of partnering. Even huge international
companies like IBM partner with everyone they can. If USCF's
philosophic diet is more of the same old thing, only more of it,
rather than a more fundamental assessment of its role and character
in the C21st... :(

Cordially, Phil Innes

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

--- In , [email protected] wrote:
In a message dated 05/02/2004 9:23:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:


Here is the milking comment in full context. For starters, Beatriz
states:

"Mr. Niro acted outside of his powers because the USCF Executive
Director is not allow to modify existing policy made by the
Executive Board."

I would like to know where this "existing policy" was ever stated.
According to a posting by Joel Benjamin, the seeding of the US
Woman's Champion on the Olympiad team started in 2002 or just a year
earlier. Also, it appears that this was the idea of AF4C, not the
idea of the USCF. I have attended a number of the board meetings and
I have read the minutes of all of them and nowhere that I have seen
did the USCF Executive Board ever say that the US Champion had an
automatic right to plsay on the Olympic Team. If I am wrong, please
show me where I am wrong.


See the June 2002 Chess Life, page 50, for "USCF Invitational Event
Requirements (revised February 2002)."

Also, see uschess.org for the minutes of the Executive Board meeting of Feb
9-10, 2002, which include:

"EB 02-38... The US Champion and US Women's Champion will be automatically
invited to play on the US Olympiad Team and US Women's team, respectively.
Passed 5-0."

Bill Goichberg

Thank you for pointing this out. I had missed it.

However, this raises another question. The same board was in office in
both February, 2002 and March, 2003. The March, 2003 Board obviously
knew that Anna Hahn was not going to be put on the team because at the
March 2003 meeting the five players, Susan Polgar, Anna
Whatz-Her-Name, Irina Krush, Jennifer Shahade and Rusudan Goletiani,
were presented to the board as the next Olympiad team. Nowhere was
Anna Hahn mentioned.

I feel that this is a bit like the case where Frank Niro agreed to
allow Northern California Scholastic players to join the USCF for only
one dollar. This was a clear violation of the USCF by-laws. Yet, the
board knew about it and did nothing. I myself raised this issue at the
March 2003 board meeting. President John McCrary said that the board
was allowing this with the understanding that it would not be
repeated. Frank Niro nodded his head in agreement.

In both cases, Frank Niro took action. The board knew about it and did
not express disapproval. Thus, I believe that it was valid and binding
and a new president one year later cannot overturn it by claiming that
it was done without proper authority.

I am sure that if someone had brought up the Anna Hahn matter at the
March 2003 meeting, the board would have immediately changed the rules
so as to kick her off the team. Of course, at that point in time, Anna
Hahn was not on the team yet because the US Woman's Championship was
still scheduled to be held in January 2004.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

On 3 May 2004 03:56:22 GMT, (Mike Nolan) wrote:


A slightly stronger case could be made that Frank Niro exceeded his
authority with that Northern California tournament, but other ED's have
made similar arrangements in the past. Further, some of the members of the
Board were aware of it (specifically the USCF President).

Also, ED's before Frank all had the operational authority to exercise the
'promotional membership' privileges in the Bylaws, the same authority
Bill Goichberg is using today.
--
Mike Nolan, Member and past chair, USCF Bylaws Committee

I strongly disagree with everything Mike Nolan says in this posting.
This matter was argued at great length back in early 1993 when this
was taking place. I suggest that anybody interested look at the
postings by George John, Allan Fifield and myself on this issue. I do
not recall Mike Nolan as participating in this discussion.

Mike Nolan states above "other ED's have made similar arrangements in
the past." Can you cite even one instance in the 65 years of the
history of the United States Chess Federation where any ED has made a
deal like the deal that Frank Niro made here? I am sure that you
cannot. More that that, the bylaws to not permit the ED to make this
sort of deal. Only the Executive Board, not the ED, can offer a
promotional membership and the board did no such thing here.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

On Mon, 03 May 2004 12:45:06 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:


I strongly disagree with everything Mike Nolan says in this posting.
This matter was argued at great length back in early 1993 when this
was taking place.

Sorry for the typo. I meant to write in 2003, not in 1993.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

On 3 May 2004 03:56:22 GMT, (Mike Nolan) wrote:


Non-members participate in USCF rated play every month, such as primary
school players and foreign titled players, as well as participants in
events sanctioned by the National Congress of State Games. None of
these exceptions are codified in the USCF Bylaws.

There is a big difference because in the Eade-Niro Deal, only Northern
California Scholastic Players were allowed to have the one dollar
memberships. When this deal was made, it happened that two big
scholastic organizers, Richard Jackson and Richard Crespo, were in the
room and overheard the conversation. They both immediately asked for
the same deal. Frank Niro told then that only Northern California
players could get this deal. Players from other states were not
allowed to have it.

This was the most corrupt and crooked deal I have ever known about in
my 48 years of membership in the USCF.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)
 

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

"I am not afraid of the challenges, since August our Board
has been demonstrating a hands-on approach, but we need help.
Therefore, we recognize the importance of engaging new leaders, doers
and ideas. But also we need to drive away the people who has been
milking the USCF for many years."

Since this posting referred almost entirely to Frank Niro plus
indirectly to Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, one would assume that
Beatriz is accusing them of "milking the USCF".

Hardly. They had not been on the receiving end of any USCF largess until
quite recently. Certainly not for many years.

StanB