Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 24th 06, 02:55 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal,alt.accounting
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 joelchanning
I don't know if I'm considered a "major
political figure," but after watching the way Sam has gone after
Grant, I have decided to state my support of Grant Perks. He is a top
quality accountant whose abilities will be invaluable in the analysis
of, and setting up of controls over, our finances.

Joel Channing
Dear Joel,

With all due respect, you are new to the USCF and to chess and do not
know the history. At year end 1999 the USCF had $2 million cash and
equivalent in the LMA. We know that this money was real, that it
existed, because it was invested in a mutual fund, the Oberweiss Fund.

By 2005 the money had vanished. It had been lost. The Oberweiss
account no longer existed. That is how we know that the USCF lost two
million dollars.

The person who has been blamed more than anybody for this loss of $2
million is your friend Don Schultz. However, it is clear that Don had
little or nothing to do with these losses. Don just met four times a
year with the other board members and discused and voted on policy.
There is no way that he could have known what was going on in the
office and the huge losses that were being sustained, especially since
the office was reporting in quarterly and month-to-month reports that
the federation was profitable.

Most of these losses have been attributed to accounting errors,
especially to improper booking of multi-year memberships. One of the
people working in the office and making these errors was Grant Perks.

You state above that his "abilities will be invaluable in the analysis
of, and setting up of controls over, our finances." Notice that you
use the term "will be". He has already been the executive director and
the chief financial officer in years past. When he occupied those
positions in those years, that was when he should have been making
"the analysis of, and setting up of controls over, our finances." He
did not do a good job then. That is in part why we lost two million
dollars. Why do you think he will do a good job now? If he is such a
great accountant, why he is working for the chess federation?

By contrast, during the period when Ken Thomas was CFO the USCF was
hugely profitable. Beatriz Marinello and her hatchet man Stan Booz
viciously attacked Ken Thomas daily. Thomas finally left and Beatriz
brought back Grant Perks who had been fired by Beatriz previously.
That is when the losses started again.

There was no reason why the USCF needed to lose $2 million. For
approximately the decade leading up to 1999 the USCF consistently had
revenues of $3.5 million per year. Check the figures. With $3.5
million coming in, there is no way that competent management should
have lost any money at all, much less two million dollars.

I recommend that you ask around and learn more about this history
before deciding whom to endorse.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old June 24th 06, 09:06 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal,alt.accounting
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 324
Default Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelchanning
I don't know if I'm considered a "major
political figure," but after watching the way Sam has gone after
Grant, I have decided to state my support of Grant Perks. He is a top
quality accountant whose abilities will be invaluable in the analysis
of, and setting up of controls over, our finances.

Joel Channing

Dear Joel,

With all due respect, you are new to the USCF and to chess and do not
know the history. At year end 1999 the USCF had $2 million cash and
equivalent in the LMA. We know that this money was real, that it
existed, because it was invested in a mutual fund, the Oberweiss Fund.

By 2005 the money had vanished. It had been lost. The Oberweiss
account no longer existed. That is how we know that the USCF lost two
million dollars.

The person who has been blamed more than anybody for this loss of $2
million is your friend Don Schultz. However, it is clear that Don had
little or nothing to do with these losses. Don just met four times a
year with the other board members and discused and voted on policy.
There is no way that he could have known what was going on in the
office and the huge losses that were being sustained, especially since
the office was reporting in quarterly and month-to-month reports that
the federation was profitable.


First, the Executive Board, collectively at least, does have to accept
responsibility for financial performance. Boards communicate the financial
situation of the Federation to the Delegates and are responsible for giving
direction to the Executive Director in terms of how the office should be run
and services provided within the approved budget and the assumed revenues.
In some instances, they may have to revisit decisions if revenues do not
perform as expected.


Most of these losses have been attributed to accounting errors,
especially to improper booking of multi-year memberships. One of the
people working in the office and making these errors was Grant Perks.


That is total fiction. While "accounting errors" may have been an issue on
occasion, they were minor compared to other problems. One needs only look
at the audited financial statements to understand that this is not correct.

Losses much larger than any "accounting errors" could be attributed to poor
performance within the books and equipment business, stock market losses (as
if many of us made money in the stock market in that period), and simply
spending more than we were generating in revenue. It's basic Budgeting 101
stuff.

You state above that his "abilities will be invaluable in the analysis
of, and setting up of controls over, our finances." Notice that you
use the term "will be". He has already been the executive director and
the chief financial officer in years past. When he occupied those
positions in those years, that was when he should have been making
"the analysis of, and setting up of controls over, our finances." He
did not do a good job then. That is in part why we lost two million
dollars. Why do you think he will do a good job now? If he is such a
great accountant, why he is working for the chess federation?


While Sloan loves to villify Beatriz Marinello, the fact is that, while she
was President, the USCF had two consecutive years of budget surpluses. She
made the tough decisions necessary to get the USCF back into a stable
financial position. Grant Perks was a part of that period of return to
fiscal stability.

By contrast, during the period when Ken Thomas was CFO the USCF was
hugely profitable. Beatriz Marinello and her hatchet man Stan Booz
viciously attacked Ken Thomas daily. Thomas finally left and Beatriz
brought back Grant Perks who had been fired by Beatriz previously.
That is when the losses started again.


More pure fiction. Sloan generally attributes the turnaround in USCF's
finances to Bill Goichberg's tenure as Executive Director (and I agree he
played a role). However, even Bill admitted that Thomas slipped up badly at
the end of his tenure and was not properly accounting for expenses. Bill
has even admitted that this was a mistake on his part. Thomas' leaving was
a good thing, and Grant stepped in and reconciled accounts that Thomas had
let slide.

There was no reason why the USCF needed to lose $2 million. For
approximately the decade leading up to 1999 the USCF consistently had
revenues of $3.5 million per year. Check the figures. With $3.5
million coming in, there is no way that competent management should
have lost any money at all, much less two million dollars.

I recommend that you ask around and learn more about this history
before deciding whom to endorse.


Who exactly is endorsing Sloan? He had his securities license yanked for
misconduct. Is that who you want setting financial policy for the USCF?

Joel Channing is a very successful businessman and has been instrumental in
establishing new financial policies for the USCF. He endorses Grant Perks.

I was the budget director for the State of Iowa and responsible for a $12
billion annual budget for a AA+ rated state. I endorse Grant Perks.

Randy Bauer

Sam Sloan



  #3   Report Post  
Old June 25th 06, 01:21 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal,alt.accounting
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 324
Default Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan


"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Randy Bauer wrote:

Who exactly is endorsing Sloan?


I do in fact have some very top level people in chess who are endorsing
me for election this time. I am not naming any names except to say that
I myself have been shocked to learn the names of some of the
personalities who have spoken out in my favor.


Yeah, right. The bottom line is putting your reputation behind somebody.
Your reputation doesn't make that very likely for "very top level people in
chess." When you come up with some, get back to us.

My guess is this is another of Sloan's "everybody knows" antics.

Randy Bauer


  #4   Report Post  
Old June 27th 06, 10:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal,alt.accounting
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan

Randy Bauer wrote:

Who exactly is endorsing Sloan? He had his securities license yanked for
misconduct. Is that who you want setting financial policy for the USCF?


Sam does not seem to be fit for any office
but he is quite good at alerting the public
about the USCF+FIDE shady problems.

I was the budget director for the State of Iowa
and responsible for a $12 billion annual budget
for a AA+ rated state. I endorse Grant Perks.

Randy Bauer


I feel good when people around me are on
a high level. In particular I would be happy
to know that you were good in your profession.
But I am not impressed just by you or anybody
being "responsible for a $12 billion annual budget"
or by holding a high post, etc. It's what you
have authentically achieved that counts to me,
and not just the political ability of making a career.

(For instance, Spiro Agnew was the US VP at
one time. So what?!)

Regards,

Wlod

PS. Illustration: One guy had advertised his
project "we have processed 300 billion pixels!".
So what? Perhaps it was better to process
just 100 million pixels but to a better effect.
Perhaps he was wasting the resources.
Other guys put on their resume: I was in charge
of a $30M project (or similar). But it's what one
did with the money is what counts and not the bare
"being in charge". Perhaps they wasted the money.
Perhaps they could handle the task spending
ten times less? Etc. Etc.

-- I am allergic to bull****.

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) 7 June 24th 06 02:20 PM
Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 June 24th 06 10:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 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