Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 06, 01:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,558
Default Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACP
Thanks John for understanding my point.

I'm going to say that this is actually quite the education.
First, from what I am understanding, it doesn't matter what state you
belong to, you can just show up and some other state will "adopt" you
so that you can represent them. Seems as though that kind of defeats
the purpose of having state representation.
This is an exaggeration. It used to happen, but I believe that it does
not happen much any more. At the last meeting in Phoenix, for example,
I am not aware of any delegate who got appointed that way. With the
changes in the rules, I am not even sure it is possible to do that any
more.

I am sure that no state will "adopt" you as their representative
unless they know you and unless you agree to vote the way they want
you to vote on any issues of importance to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACP
Next, I keep hearing that there's no real
benefit to being elected. Hmm. Here I was thinking that the
delegates' votes really do mean something in the direction of the
future of USCF.
They used to mean something back in the old days when the board used
to follow what the delegates told them to do. However, that went out
the window when several of the recent boards just decided to
completely ignore delegate resolutions and do what they felt like
doing. Just to cite one recent example, from January 1, 2005 through
March 1, 2005, Beatriz Marinello, the USCF President, appointed
herself as Chief Operating Officer and paid herself $11,000 for her
services. This was completely illegal, a crime, since the members of
the board, including the president, are not allowed to be employed by
the USCF or to receive any money for their services.

Yet, no board member has called her on this.

In the current election we have a situation which is in some ways
worse. The by-laws clearly state that no employee is allowed to run
for the board. By state and federal law, the by-laws of any
not-for-profit corporation must contain this sort of provision in
order to qualify for tax exempt status. Yet, two long time employees
are running for the board in this election, claiming that they are not
"employees" but merely "consultants". This sort of evasion of the
clear intent of the law jeopardizes the tax exempt status of the USCF.
The same people who allowed Beatriz Marinello to take $11,000 of USCF
dues money are now backing these candidates. There is absolutely,
nothing, nothing at all, that the delegates will be able to do to stop
these two candidates from lining their own pockets if they are
elected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACP
In essence from what I am hearing, any USCF
member can just show up at the delegates meetings, say they want
someone to adopt them and poof, they are in. So, that begs the very
real question. Why do we spend thousands of dollars on a meaningless
election?
You are right that as long as the board continues to ignore the wishes
of the delegates, these delegate elections will be meaningless.

This year, of course, we have an additional question. Were the
delegate ballots messed up deliberately or was this just due to
stupifdity or incompetence. So far, nobody has addressed the question
of who made the mistake. Who was responsible for this? Was it Bill
Hall? Was in Pete Tambouro? Was it some low level clerk who everybody
is protecting right now and whose work nobody checked?

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 06, 05:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2004
Posts: 83
Default Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan


Sam Sloan wrote:
Yet, two long time employees
are running for the board in this election, claiming that they are not
"employees" but merely "consultants". This sort of evasion of the
clear intent of the law jeopardizes the tax exempt status of the USCF.


Sam, get a grip. If you think the mere fact of surrounding the words
employee and consultant in quotes will make us believe there are
shenanigans going on, you're dead wrong. There is a very distinct
difference between an employee and a consultant, and you know it. The
USCF is jeopardizing nothing.

Let me give you an example. The homeowner association where I live is
exactly the same kind of not-for-profit organization as the USCF. I
decided to run for the board of directors. There is the same kind of
rule preventing board members from being paid by the association for
any work done. During the election process, I was doing some computer
work in the office of the association (networking the systems, getting
them linked to high-speed internet, etc.) and was being paid for my
work. When the elections were held and I found out that I had won a
seat on the board, I ceased and desisted all invoicing for the work I
was doing, and finished the job anyway. While I was on the board, I no
longer invoiced for any work I did. After my term was up, I once again
sent invoices for any work I did for the association.

The same thing will apply to these two. If either one (or both) wins,
then they will simply no longer invoice the USCF for work done. Your
accusations of "lining their pockets" is an unfounded and despicable
attempt to sully their names. It won't work.

Quite frankly, you disgust me.

- Mike Petersen

  #3   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 06, 08:26 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan

wrote:
Sam Sloan wrote:
Yet, two long time employees
are running for the board in this election, claiming that they are not
"employees" but merely "consultants". This sort of evasion of the
clear intent of the law jeopardizes the tax exempt status of the USCF.


Sam, get a grip. If you think the mere fact of surrounding the words
employee and consultant in quotes will make us believe there are
shenanigans going on, you're dead wrong. There is a very distinct
difference between an employee and a consultant, and you know it. The
USCF is jeopardizing nothing.

Let me give you an example. The homeowner association where I live is
exactly the same kind of not-for-profit organization as the USCF. I
decided to run for the board of directors. There is the same kind of
rule preventing board members from being paid by the association for
any work done. During the election process, I was doing some computer
work in the office of the association (networking the systems, getting
them linked to high-speed internet, etc.) and was being paid for my
work. When the elections were held and I found out that I had won a
seat on the board, I ceased and desisted all invoicing for the work I
was doing, and finished the job anyway. While I was on the board, I no
longer invoiced for any work I did. After my term was up, I once again
sent invoices for any work I did for the association.

The same thing will apply to these two. If either one (or both) wins,
then they will simply no longer invoice the USCF for work done. Your
accusations of "lining their pockets" is an unfounded and despicable
attempt to sully their names. It won't work.

Quite frankly, you disgust me.

- Mike Petersen


Does your homeowners association have a rule that states that no
employee may run for the board?

If so, did you continue to do work for your homeowners association
while you were a candidate for the board and did you continue to bill
and get paid for your work while you were a candidate?

If your answer to either of these two qurestions is "no" then your case
does not apply here, because both Grant Perks and Ernie Schlich have
continued to work for the USCF and get paid by the USCF even while they
are running for election in spite of a rule in the USCF by-laws that
states that no employee can be a candidate for election.

Sam Sloan

  #4   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 06, 10:58 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2004
Posts: 83
Default Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan

samsloan wrote: (this is a fake Sam Sloan)


Does your homeowners association have a rule that states that no
employee may run for the board?

If so, did you continue to do work for your homeowners association
while you were a candidate for the board and did you continue to bill
and get paid for your work while you were a candidate?

If your answer to either of these two qurestions is "no" then your case
does not apply here, because both Grant Perks and Ernie Schlich have
continued to work for the USCF and get paid by the USCF even while they
are running for election in spite of a rule in the USCF by-laws that
states that no employee can be a candidate for election.

Sam Sloan


Okay, Fake Sam...

You are making the same mistake that the Real Sam is making.
Performing a service, then invoicing for it, means you are a vendor,
not an employee. I was a vendor, charging money for my services like
any other. And yes, I was performing my service while running for the
board. I had checked with the association attorney, and he was very
clear that this was not an issue. Some of the resident whacks in our
community tried to make a stink (just like the Real Sam is trying to
do), but this was explained to them very logically. And you know what?
They didn't believe the attorney!

Both you and the Real Sam need to get this through your heads. There
is no problem here!

- Mike Petersen

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 34 June 28th 06 03:09 AM
Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 35 June 27th 06 10:36 AM
Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 June 21st 06 04:18 PM
Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 June 21st 06 04:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017