Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 2nd 09, 02:51 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Mortgage Proposal from LMA Chair

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Mottershead
Another question: if it is a good thing to
invest LMA funds in paying off the mortgage, how come the LMA
Committee has not done that already? How did the arrival of the
bequest suddenly make that more of a good thing than it was before?

In financial terms, isn't your plan 1 the same as spending $401K of
the assets of the corporation (bequest+part of the LMA) to pay off the
mortgage? Leaving aside questions of who politically controls the
assets, if the Executive Board wants to move $401K (a combination of
the bequests and the LMA) into paying off the mortgage and the
Delegate's are agreeable, why does the LMA Committee have to "agree"?

Brian Mottershead
I can answer these questions.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mottershead is a new member of the USCF and the
fact that he does not know the answer to these questions indicates
that he does not know the history of the USCF and therefore is
probably not a suitable candidate for election.

The USCF office has a long history of wasting whatever assets it has.
The USCF has lost over $2 million in the last nine years on
operations, including more than $250,000 this past year.

The $401,000 now in the LMA is all that is left from the sale of
building in 2004. The LMA Committee needs to guard that money
jealously, because that is the only money we have left.

While I was on the board, Executive Director Bill Hall was very
insistent on using the certificates of deposit in LMA account as
security for the line of credit the USCF office was using. I strongly
opposed this. Once the LMA funds are used to guarantee anything you
can be sure that poof, the money will be gone.

Even while I was on the board, I was shocked to learn that about half
of the LMA money was already in Cumberland Bank, the same bank that
was giving the USCF its line of credit. This means that if the USCF
defaults, the Cumberland Bank can just take the $200,000 in the CDs.
So, in other words, the Cumberland Bank was already using the LMA
funds to secure the line of credit.

I asked that all LMA Funds be moved out of Cumberland Bank and
preferably out of Tennessee altogether. I understand that the other
$200,000 that the LMA has is in a place far away where the Crossville
Office cannot easily grab it. No, I will not tell you where that far
away place is.

Requiring that the Crossville office make the mortgage payments is a
way to try to enforce prudent financial management. This is part of a
plan to rebuild the LMA, so the office is required to make the
mortgage payments, much as it would have to normally pay rent. Using
the LMA assets to pay off the mortgage would mean that the USCF office
would have another $50,000 per year to **** away, and we know from
experience that this is exactly what they would do.

Kindly recall that LMA stands for Life Member Assets. This represents
money that was supposed to have been set aside whenever a Life Member
joins for life to insure that there are enough funds available so that
the Life Member will receive Chess Life magazine for the rest of his
life.

Now of course this seems to be only a theoretical possibility since it
has been decided by the current board to stop sending Chess Life
magazine to life members after 2011, so I suppose we will be told soon
that we do not need to have a LMA any more, but for the time being the
LMA Committee has been entrusted by the delegates to keep a watchful
eye on the LMA assets.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 3rd 09, 05:44 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Mortgage Proposal from LMA Chair

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Mottershead
Here is why it seems like political deal.

The LMA Committee is really just another political power center within
the USCF made up of the same type of insiders as are on the Executive
Board. It is the anti-Goichberg faction. For the most part, it
opposed OMOV. It is currently the out-faction, including past-
Presidents and former EB members. Few of them could be elected now as
EB members under OMOV, and those that could probably don't want to
suffer the indignity of standing for election, or the responsibility
of running the organization for four years straight. There is a
significant overlap with the US Chess Trust board. Donna Alarie
poses as an independent, but she was allied with this group, before
she started working with Muradian and some of the Polgar people. To
the extent that Sam Sloan is allied with anyone, it is to this group,
also. Polgar is connected to this group as well, for example,
through Redman.

The LMA Committee's power is based on its hold on the USCF's assets,
which it has obtained from the Delegates on the theory that it is
"protecting" the interests of life-members and providing a "check" on
the EB and the ED, which in the LMA reality is necessarily a committee
of wild-eyed spendthrifts who would burn through all the USCF's assets
if it were not "checked". Every past occasion when the USCF lost
money proves that the current EB and ED cannot be trusted with money,
according to this view of the world. In this alternate universe, the
EB, the ED, and to some extent even the Delegates, run something
called "Operations" (which others might call "the USCF") and the LMA
Committee/US Chess Trust is effectively a separate organization, with
which "Operations" must negotiate for funds. Some of the people in
this faction, such as Dubeck and Alarie, describe the LMA/US Chess
Trust as the "phoenix" which will rise from the ashes after the EB/ED
destroy the USCF, which some of them expect any day, and for which
some of them even seem to hope.

Last year during the 2nd quarter, when the financial picture looked
potentially dire, we had the spectacle of Tim Redman, ex-President and
the Chair of the LMA Committee, announcing that "the LMA" would not
bail out "Operations" in the event of a cash crunch even if it meant
that the USCF was about to default on payroll unless it was the result
of a disaster, such as a terrorist attack.

The building belongs to the LMA but "Operations" pays the mortgage.
Using the bequest to pay the mortgage down benefits "Operations"
because it makes available the mortgage payments (over $50K per year)
for other "Operations" purposes. But paying off the mortgage would,
effectively, transfer the bequest funds that were used for that to the
LMA, and therefore into the control of the LMA Committee and out of
the control of the EB. The LMA Committee generally tries to sweep
any large pools of cash into the LMA or the US Chess Trust, but at the
moment people like Redman have an additional incentive to do that
because they want the Polgar/Truong dispute settled (which is the
Polgar/Truong position), and they may think that keeping the EB tight
on cash helps that. From that point of view, the bequest was a
problem.

I don't know whether paying down the mortgage is a good thing to do or
not. It needs to be discussed on the merits. But it should sound
alarms when players start proposing exactly what one would predict
them to propose based on the politics.

Brian Mottershead
Dear Brian,

I am not attacking you. I am trying to help you. I am trying to be
your friend.

In this and other postings you are attacking the three most
politically powerful groups in the USCF, the Goichberg Group,
currently in power, the LMA Committee, which as you correctly note
includes several past presidents and board members, and the Polgar
Group.

Now that you have attacked everybody, whom do you think is going to
vote for you?

Why have you attacked people who are not your election opponents? You
should be trying to convince these people to be on your side.

In addition, the LMA Committee was not set up to be an alternate
political power base, as you claim. It is not "just another political
power center" and it is not an "anti-Goichberg faction". It was set
up back in the 1980s in a ruling by either the accountants or the
courts or a combination of the two that when life members join for
life, the dues they pay must be put in a separate fund that cannot be
used for general operations.

Now that you are a candidate, it seems from your postings that you
want for the LMA funds to be placed under the control of the Executive
Board of which you hope to become a member.

With this kind of talk, no life member is going to vote for you. I am
not a life member and I would never vote for somebody who uses your
rhetoric.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 3rd 09, 05:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Mortgage Proposal from LMA Chair

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasrob
My main concern on having so much cash is that we
burn through it in legal or operating expenses. I like the flexibility
that having so much liquidity brings, but I have grave concerns on
whose hands are in the cookie jar.

Robert Sturgeon
Secretary - Texas Chess Association
Alternate Delegate - Texas
This of course is exactly the problem. I have been a member of the
USCF since 1956. During the entire history of this organization, any
cash money that was left around where the "operations" section had
access to it, disappeared quickly.

I wonder how much of that $350,000 that was received two weeks ago is
still left. I will bet that some of it is gone already.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old February 7th 09, 02:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Mortgage Proposal from LMA Chair

The USCF Office, for the first time ever in recorded history, paid
back the money it borrowed from the LMA, but only because it received
the LeCornu bequest.

The chances of the USCF paying back the money borrowed from the LMA
even again are questionable, and thus I favor the first proposal over
the second one.

The unanswered question remains: Does the bequest still exist, or has
the money been spent already?

Sam Sloan
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
Goichberg Objects to An Alternate Proposal by Don Schultz samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 June 6th 08 06:12 PM
When Is A Chair a Chairman Brian Lafferty rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 April 27th 08 08:16 PM
Open letter by Bessel Kok regarding proposal for Chess Unity Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 May 18th 06 04:58 PM
Open letter by Bessel Kok regarding proposal for Chess Unity Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 May 18th 06 04:58 PM
Open letter by Bessel Kok regarding proposal for Chess Unity Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 1 May 18th 06 04:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 PM.

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