Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3   Report Post  
Old November 15th 04, 12:49 AM
Fifiela
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sam seems to have a point here.
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 15th 04, 01:24 PM
GrantPerks
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Sam seems to have a point here.


Sam quotes a law that pertains to charitable organizations. The USCF is not a
charitable organization.

I assume the intent of the law is to keep money that was given to a New York
charity within the borders of the Commonwealth. Since the USCF is a national
non-profit, I doubt Sam has any grounds under the cited law.

Grant Perks

  #6   Report Post  
Old November 15th 04, 06:46 PM
GrantPerks
 
Posts: n/a
Default


A case in point occured some years ago. A developer in New York City
offered to buy St. Bartholomew's Church for ONE BILLION DOLLARS. There
were only 287 parishoners and they were all too happy to take the
money and divide it up in the name of Jesus of course, but the
Attorney General moved to block the sale.

Sam Sloan



Sam,

This case, as well as those referenced in the articles you cite, are all
charitable organizations. I doubt that you can show one that was a membership
organization such as the USCF.

Best,
Grant Perks
  #7   Report Post  
Old November 15th 04, 09:43 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"GrantPerks" wrote in message
...

A case in point occured some years ago. A developer in New York City
offered to buy St. Bartholomew's Church for ONE BILLION DOLLARS. There
were only 287 parishoners and they were all too happy to take the
money and divide it up in the name of Jesus of course, but the
Attorney General moved to block the sale.

Sam Sloan



Sam,

This case, as well as those referenced in the articles you cite, are all
charitable organizations. I doubt that you can show one that was a
membership
organization such as the USCF.

Best,
Grant Perks


In which case there is an imperative need to be seen to be acting on behalf
of the members, and not for any self-serving purposes. No case has been
made, the membership have not been consulted, and while the delegates have
voted that the building be sold, they have not had an opportunity to vote on
Crossville versus any other comparative site.

Otherwise the very nature of the membership organization's non-profit status
is called into question; viz' charitable to what end? And perhaps you have
noticed that no one has cared to respond on the subject of future strategic
plans to serve chess-members, except to say that there is no such plan.

Phil Innes


  #8   Report Post  
Old November 15th 04, 10:39 PM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

A case in point occured some years ago. A developer in New York City
offered to buy St. Bartholomew's Church for ONE BILLION DOLLARS. There
were only 287 parishoners and they were all too happy to take the
money and divide it up in the name of Jesus of course, but the
Attorney General moved to block the sale.


Of course because that would lead to personal enrichment. But if they were
to use the money to build a church in NJ or give it to the Little Sisters of
the Poor it should be okay.


  #9   Report Post  
Old November 16th 04, 12:31 AM
Kenneth Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chess One" writes:

...
In which case there is an imperative need to be seen to be acting on behalf
of the members, and not for any self-serving purposes.


Does not follow from what you quoted.

No case has been
made


False statement.

, the membership have not been consulted,


False statment

and while the delegates have
voted that the building be sold, they have not had an opportunity to vote on
Crossville versus any other comparative site.


Since they explicitly authorized the move WITHOUT looking at the details
of the many sites, only a fool would believe that it is relevant that
they were not consulted on any A vs. B comparison.

Just what part of "representative governance" do you not understand?


Otherwise the very nature of the membership organization's non-profit status
is called into question


False statement.

; viz' charitable to what end?


Since when is USCF "charitable"? That was Grant's point. Oh..I
see...you subscribe to Sam's view of the world. Nevermind.

And perhaps you have
noticed that no one has cared to respond on the subject of future strategic
plans to serve chess-members, except to say that there is no such plan.


There's a reason that no one responds to you, Mr. Innes. It's because
you refuse to engage in honest discussion.


Phil Innes



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
  #10   Report Post  
Old November 16th 04, 11:57 AM
GrantPerks
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sam Sloan wrote:
However, I do not believe that the motion passed by a 2/3 rds
majority. I think the vote was closer than that. Do you recall?


Why do you think a 2/3 majority vote is required to sell the building? I don't
see any provision in the USCF by-laws, and since there were over 21 delegates
voting by NY laws a simple majority is enough.


snip

If I fail to win the court case, my next strategy will be to call a
special meeting of the delegates.


Only the prez or a majority of the board can call a special delegates meeting.

Grant P



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sloan vs. Marinello, petition WPraeder rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 109 November 23rd 04 05:37 AM
Sloan vs. Marinello, petition Arod Obop rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 November 13th 04 08:09 PM
Crossville, TN Crossville Chess rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 184 October 26th 03 11:33 PM
Eade's Libel Charge vs. Sloan Parrthenon rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 October 14th 03 02:46 AM
Eade's Libel Charge vs. Sloan Parrthenon rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 13th 03 03:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 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