Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 06:34 AM
Miriling
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did USCF anticipate increased legal fees in budget?

Did the USCF anticipate increased legal fees for fiscal year 2004-2005 when it
budgeted $100,000 in a planning budet that was passed by the Delegates in
August?
This represents an increase of $34,000 from the previous fiscal year's budget.
Unfortunately, the line item is lumped together with other professional fees,
i.e. auditing expenses.
Auditing fees should be separate from legal fees. There should have been two
separate line items instead of one in the planning budget. Bills from law
firms, legal counsel should be separate from those from CPAs.

George Mirijanian
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 09:38 AM
GrantPerks
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George, you need another hobby.

Grant Perks
  #4   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 02:58 PM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Miriling says...

Did the USCF anticipate increased legal fees for fiscal year 2004-2005 when it
budgeted $100,000 in a planning budet that was passed by the Delegates in
August?
This represents an increase of $34,000 from the previous fiscal year's budget.
Unfortunately, the line item is lumped together with other professional fees,
i.e. auditing expenses.
Auditing fees should be separate from legal fees. There should have been two
separate line items instead of one in the planning budget. Bills from law
firms, legal counsel should be separate from those from CPAs.

George Mirijanian


My recollection was that the increase reflected the previous year's actual
expenditures,which were higher than budgeted levels.

There are lots of theories on budgeting; control theories argue for more line
items, while performance-based theories argue for articulating goals, developing
strategies to accomplish these and budgeting in larger, broader categories to
provide flexibility to accomplish the goals.

In practice, budgets usually aren't neat and tidy; you will constantly have to
assess and reassess both revenues and expenditures to deal with competing needs
and unforseen circumstances. This is even more so the case in the private
sector than the public sector, as I've learned from many conversations with my
corporate ounterparts. As long as you can drill the line items down to more
detailed classes of expenditures, whether you lump or separate expenses like
legal, accounting, audit, etc. isn't all that important.

Randy Bauer

  #6   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 02:32 AM
Wickdeer3
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stan:

George knows more about accounting than you, a mere CPA.

George knows more about budgeting than Randy Bauer, a mere budget director for
an entire state.

George knows more about the qualifications of trial judges than I, a mere
lawyer.

George knows more about editing than the Chess Life editor.

Well, one out of four isn't bad.

Wick Deer
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 02:59 AM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wickdeer3" wrote in message
...
Stan:

George knows more about accounting than you, a mere CPA.

George knows more about budgeting than Randy Bauer, a mere budget director
for
an entire state.

George knows more about the qualifications of trial judges than I, a mere
lawyer.

George knows more about editing than the Chess Life editor.

Well, one out of four isn't bad.


Which one did he get? I heard his chess column was dumped.


  #8   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 03:33 AM
GrantPerks
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Which one did he get? I heard his chess column was dumped.


I think it was the one about trial lawyers.
  #9   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 12:56 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wickdeer3" wrote in message
...
Stan:

George knows more about accounting than you, a mere CPA.

George knows more about budgeting than Randy Bauer, a mere budget director
for
an entire state.

George knows more about the qualifications of trial judges than I, a mere
lawyer.

George knows more about editing than the Chess Life editor.

Well, one out of four isn't bad.

Wick Deer


Yes it is. Its very bad when all 4 points you make are based on the
character of the speaker, and none of them address the issue.

In a court none of these items would be admitted as 'evidence', although I
suppose you could try to repress evidence this way by deprecating the
speaker's qualification as an 'expert'. There is a certain fallacy in this,
which I further note below*.

Rather like comments about Jim Eade, they are neither here nor there in
resolving an issue. Jim is a strong and determined chess advocate, who truly
loves the game, and puts in his own time and money to further it - We are
noting here that this is not enough at a corporate level of activity, and as
such we require more than individual finesse and energy.

When will we be brave enough to admit that making vast changes at USCF, some
of which we know about, and others which are 'in progress', we do not, and
moving lock, stock and barrel to a nice little town in Tennessee, warrants
actual discussion?

*Polymath George has an array of intelligence to inform this subject, and an
integrated array is usually superior to singular brilliance. One might be
vastly superior in any of the 4 subject areas mentioned, yet chronically
poor in the others to the point of liability. I therefore credit George's
attributes more than you have done.

But the subject of proper planning and implementation to support USCF's
future, is one I submit to you as a proper subject for our discussion, Mr.
Advocate.

Does it seem to be a reasonable request, or shall we join the others and
talk more about arm-pits?

Phil Innes


  #10   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 01:24 PM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Miriling" wrote in message
...

Is the Finance Committee set up to give advice only when asked? Didn't it
have
the responsibility of notifying the CFO that he had made several errors
of
principle on his financials? Why didn't you ask him to disclose and
discuss
important issues concerning the financials, as you claim you would have
only if
you had been asked.


Why do you assume I didn't?

What kind of Finance Committee is this?


The normal kind. What are you suggesting?




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
Dear Taylor Kingston Chess One rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 74 November 18th 04 01:23 AM
USCF Tournament rating fees Ivan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 17 February 25th 04 02:47 AM
USCF Tournament rating fees Ivan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 18 February 25th 04 02:47 AM
THE U.S.CHESS TRUST WPraeder rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 22 December 23rd 03 06:30 AM
Peterson Lawsuit Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 4 August 26th 03 01:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:22 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