Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 09, 09:40 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 Goichberg Makes a Good Point

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessoffice
In the past we have had boards which
micromanaged, but also boards which provided insufficient oversight of
the ED. When USCF has lost a lot of money, the main cause has usually
been unwise ED actions not noticed or not prevented by the board, not
a micromanaging board that stopped the ED from making the right
decisions.

We have long heard the cry, "leave the ED alone so he can do his job,"
especially in election years, but rarely has this made much sense,
either because it is said despite the lack of micromanagement (as
today), or because USCF would have been better off if some of our past
EDs were micromanaged rather than having the freedom to make unwise
decisions.

Bill Goichberg
Goichberg is exactly right. The truly bad things that have happened to
the USCF were never because of micromanagement. They were because of
insufficient oversight or because we had an executive director who was
simply dishonest and did not tell the board what he was doing.

The two worst Executive Directors ever by far were George DeFeis and
Frank Niro. We know that between the two of them they lost more than
one million dollars and probably closer to two million, because the
LMA had two million in it when DeFeis took office and that money was
all gone when Niro disappeared.

Problem is that we still to this day know which one was the worst
between the two of them, because they both turned out to be
fundamentally dishonest people. For example, when he took office Niro
reported that he had found unrecorded invoices in a desk drawer left
behind by DeFeis showing that the USCF had very substantial unrecorded
liabilities.

We took this to mean that DeFeis was an outright crook.

However, when Niro took some of the USCF's money and then disappeared
two years later we had to re-examine this. Perhaps it was an early lie
by Niro that was not noticed in time. Was there really a desk drawer
filled with unrecorded invoices? Nobody ever saw these unrecorded
invoices except for Niro, so how do we know that he did not make the
story up?

There are many examples of lies by Frank Niro that were not discovered
until after he left office. I cited one a few days ago. Frank Niro
told the 2002 Delegates meeting in Cherry Hill that there was a buyer
for the USCF's office building in New Windsor who had offered to pay
$600,000 for the building, which was an above market, price because he
wanted to build a strip mall there and he needed this building as the
one remaining piece necessary to build the mall.

All of the assembled 100 or so delegates heard Frank Niro make this
statement. It turned out to be a total lie. Nobody was bidding
$600,000 for the building. Nobody was planning to build a strip mall
there. Another lie told at the same meeting was that the World Chess
Hall of Fame was offering us free space in Miami, while they built a
new headquarters for us there. That turned out to be a lie too.

It was in part because of these lies by Frank Niro that we eventually
wound up stuck down in Crossville,

Now, I have a personal problem because I was suspended from posting to
the USCF Issues Forum because I made critical remarks about Frank Niro
and George DeFeis. Actually, I did not mention their names but
everybody familiar with the history of the USCF knew to whom I was
referring. Because of making these statements, Allen Priest, who was
not even a USCF member yet back in the period 1999-2003 when these
events occurred and who is also an idiot and a buffoon with a chess
rating of 654, suspended me from posting to the USCF Issues Forum. He
was able to do this because Goichberg who knew his personal hostility
towards me appointed him to a position that gave him the power to do
that for that very reason.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 09, 10:10 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: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Goichberg Makes a Good Point



samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessoffice
In the past we have had boards which
micromanaged, but also boards which provided insufficient oversight of
the ED. When USCF has lost a lot of money, the main cause has usually
been unwise ED actions not noticed or not prevented by the board, not
a micromanaging board that stopped the ED from making the right
decisions.

We have long heard the cry, "leave the ED alone so he can do his job,"
especially in election years, but rarely has this made much sense,
either because it is said despite the lack of micromanagement (as
today), or because USCF would have been better off if some of our past
EDs were micromanaged rather than having the freedom to make unwise
decisions.

Bill Goichberg

Goichberg is exactly right. The truly bad things that have happened to
the USCF were never because of micromanagement. They were because of
insufficient oversight or because we had an executive director who was
simply dishonest and did not tell the board what he was doing.

The two worst Executive Directors ever by far were George DeFeis and
Frank Niro. We know that between the two of them they lost more than
one million dollars and probably closer to two million, because the
LMA had two million in it when DeFeis took office and that money was
all gone when Niro disappeared.

Problem is that we still to this day know which one was the worst
between the two of them, because they both turned out to be
fundamentally dishonest people. For example, when he took office Niro
reported that he had found unrecorded invoices in a desk drawer left
behind by DeFeis showing that the USCF had very substantial unrecorded
liabilities.

We took this to mean that DeFeis was an outright crook.

However, when Niro took some of the USCF's money and then disappeared
two years later we had to re-examine this. Perhaps it was an early lie
by Niro that was not noticed in time. Was there really a desk drawer
filled with unrecorded invoices? Nobody ever saw these unrecorded
invoices except for Niro, so how do we know that he did not make the
story up?

There are many examples of lies by Frank Niro that were not discovered
until after he left office. I cited one a few days ago. Frank Niro
told the 2002 Delegates meeting in Cherry Hill that there was a buyer
for the USCF's office building in New Windsor who had offered to pay
$600,000 for the building, which was an above market, price because he
wanted to build a strip mall there and he needed this building as the
one remaining piece necessary to build the mall.

All of the assembled 100 or so delegates heard Frank Niro make this
statement. It turned out to be a total lie. Nobody was bidding
$600,000 for the building. Nobody was planning to build a strip mall
there. Another lie told at the same meeting was that the World Chess
Hall of Fame was offering us free space in Miami, while they built a
new headquarters for us there. That turned out to be a lie too.

It was in part because of these lies by Frank Niro that we eventually
wound up stuck down in Crossville,

Now, I have a personal problem because I was suspended from posting to
the USCF Issues Forum because I made critical remarks about Frank Niro
and George DeFeis. Actually, I did not mention their names but
everybody familiar with the history of the USCF knew to whom I was
referring. Because of making these statements, Allen Priest, who was
not even a USCF member yet back in the period 1999-2003 when these
events occurred and who is also an idiot and a buffoon with a chess
rating of 654, suspended me from posting to the USCF Issues Forum. He
was able to do this because Goichberg who knew his personal hostility
towards me appointed him to a position that gave him the power to do
that for that very reason.

Sam Sloan


Paranoia, thy name is Sloan. Sam, you obviously don't have a clue
about the issues Bill and I are debating on that thread, so why don't
you shut up and refrain from polluting it with your inanities?

  #3   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 09, 10:36 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 Goichberg Makes a Good Point

On Mar 2, 5:10*am, wrote:

Paranoia, thy name is Sloan. Sam, you obviously don't have a clue
about the issues Bill and I are debating on that thread, so why don't
you shut up and refrain from polluting it with your inanities?


I certainly do know what you and Bill are debating. You are debating
the fact that you have never attended a USCF delegates meeting or a
USCF Board meeting and you do not know what you are talking about.

You manage to write an awful lot and often claim to be speaking with
authority when you know absolutely nothing of the subject. Here is
more of what Bill writes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessoffice
You appear to believe that the ED should have more of this power than
at present and the EB less because there is not enough of a check on
the board, but if we give more power to the ED, why are you not
concerned about having a check on THAT power? One person is more
likely to go astray than a committee, as we should remember from the
events of 2003 when the board was misled and USCF was almost put out
of business.

Your claim that the current board is closer to "a gang of brawling
warlords" than a deliberative body is absurd. Maybe you consider it a
"brawl" that we have refused to give in to two board members who have
been acting unethically, but to give the impression that board
meetings are anything like "brawls," or that most board members enjoy
wielding power and are not doing their best to help the organization,
is highly misleading.

Since many of the things you post about USCF make good sense, and I
don't recall seeing you at any board meetngs, I can only suspect that
you simply don't know what board meetings are like and believe the
worst. Yes, we have had some bad board members both before and after
OMOV, but the great majority of them are volunteering their time with
nothing but good intentions. The idea that most boards do nothing but
"play politics" is quite popular on discussion groups, and is accepted
as a given by many who don't know any better, but it is dead wrong,
and it hurts USCF.

Bill Goichberg
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
Affidavit in Support of Motion to Reconsider samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 8 October 6th 08 04:58 AM
Affidavit in Support of Motion to Reconsider samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 October 5th 08 10:21 PM
Explanation of Need to Oust Goichberg samsloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 August 2nd 08 02:15 AM
Explanation of Need to Oust Goichberg samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 August 2nd 08 02:15 AM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 March 19th 07 09:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 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