Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 21st 06, 03:58 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess.misc.legal
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

Sam Sloan,
You are correct 100%.
Everyone seems to think that this is some "Chess Rule." It is not!
This is NOT an employee thing. Board members are not allowed by law to
enrich themselves from the Not-for-profit organization where they
serve. If a board member receives any moneys from their not-for profit
organization then that organization is risking the loss of their
not-for-profit status.
This is not a minor thing.
ken thomas

----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Sloan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:08 AM
Subject: Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike
Nolan

On 20 Jun 2006 16:58:21 -0700, "Grant Perks" wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:

Right now, at this very moment, Grant Perks is sitting in the USCF
office in Crossville Tennessee doing work for the USCF for which he is
being paid at standard rates by the USCF.

Grant Perks is an employee of the USCF. It is as simple as that.


Sam, I am not sure why I need to give you an account of my whereabouts,
but right now I am sitting in my hotel room at the Miami Hilton
Airport. Last week I was in Hilton Head SC, the week before here in
Miami. Prior to that I did spend a few days in Crossville helping the
accounting staff get ready for the year end audit. Those few days were
the only time since July 2005 that I have been in Crossville.


If you chose to continue to try to evade the law by insisting that he
is only a paid consultant and therefore can run for the board, you are
heading yourself and the USCF into serious legal problems.


The State of Illinois has a similar definiton of an employee as the
majority of states. I clearly am not an employee by state or federal
law.


OK. So my information was apparently wrong that you are sitting in the
Crossville office right now, but you have admitted that you have done
paid accounting work for the USCF in the Crossville office during the
month of June, 2006, more than one month after you became an official
candidate for election.

The IRS rules you cite above have nothing to do with this case. The
IRS rules are for the reporting and withholding of income taxes. They
provide, for example, that when you are paying your lawyer or your
accountant for the work he is doing, you do not have to withhold his
taxes or report your payments to the IRS.

The rule that no employee may serve on the board of a Not-for-Profit
Corporation is a rule of state law, not of federal law. The basic
principle involved is that not-for-profit corporations exist for the
public good, not for the personal benefit of the executive board. The
rule that executive board members of a not-for-profit corporation must
be volunteers who are not paid except for reimbursement of routine
expenses is a STATE LAW. It is not just some crazy rule that somehow
got into the by-laws. It is a requirement imposed by the state in
order to have not-for-profit status.

By insisting on running for the board when you are clearly being paid
for accounting work you for the USCF, you are jeopardizing the
not-for-profit status of the USCF.

This is not a matter, as Mike Nolan keeps suggesting, that we have to
go to the delegates meeting and ask the delegates to change the
by-laws to stop people like you from running. Rather it is you who
have to go to your state legislature and to the courts to get them to
change their rules regarding not-for-profit law.

All 50 states have that rule. You will not be able to find any
instance where the lawyer or the accountant who does paid work for a
not-for-profit corporation is also on the board of that corporation.
You are free to check all schools, hospitals, charities and other
not-for-profit corporations and see if you can find one of them who
does not have that rule. You will not be able to find one.

I have asked you if you are a CPA currently licensed to practice in
any state. I would appreciate an answer. I note that you do not seem
to be doing any accounting work in your home state of Ohio. One reason
I ask is that I had always assumed that any CPA would be familiar with
the above rules regarding not-for-profit status, and you do not seem
to be familiar with them.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old June 21st 06, 04:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan

GrantPerks wrote:
There are several well established non-profit organizations that have paid members of the
board of directors.


That is not what I asked you. I have asked you to provide an example of
any not-for-profit corporation in any state where any member of the
board also serves as a lawyer, accountant, paid consultant or in any
similar capacity.

So far, you have not named one and I am sure that you will not be able
to do so.

Sam Sloan

  #3   Report Post  
Old June 21st 06, 04:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
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

GrantPerks wrote:
There are several well established non-profit organizations that have paid members of the
board of directors.


That is not what I asked you. I have asked you to provide an example
of any not-for-profit corporation in any state where any member of the
board also serves as a lawyer, accountant, paid consultant or in any
similar capacity.

So far, you have not named one and I am certain that you will not be
able to do so.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old June 21st 06, 04:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess.misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2004
Posts: 209
Default Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan

(Sam Sloan) writes:

The rule that no employee may serve on the board of a Not-for-Profit
Corporation is a rule of state law, not of federal law.


Perhaps you should do a little legal research, Sam. Here is what Illinois
not-for-profit law has to say on the issue of compensating directors and
officers:

805 ILCS 105, Paragraph 108.05 (c):

Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or bylaws,
the board of directors, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the
directors then in office, shall have authority to establish reasonable
compensation of all directors for services to the corporation as
directors, officers or otherwise, notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 108.60 of this Act.

This sentence clearly allows directors and officers to be paid for their
services to a not-for-profit corporation.

I have served on the boards of several not-for-profits in Nebraska where
some members of the Board performed services to the organization for which
they were paid. This included accounting services, though that individual
was not the certified auditor. Also, in two cases there were employees
of the organization that were also on the Board, and when one of them
went searching for a new executive director, two of the three finalists
for the job, including myself, were current members of the Board.

IMHO, the key phrase here is 'reasonable compensation'. My understanding
is that NTDs working at national events get paid about $750 for the event.
That's very reasonable, given the amount of hours that the TDs put in,
and in a very high pressure environment, too.

Also, please note that both Grant Perks and Ernie Schlich have already
stated that if elected they will abide by the Bylaws and precedent and
will not be paid for any services they perform while on the Executive
Board, such as serving as a TD at a national event.
--
Mike Nolan
  #5   Report Post  
Old June 21st 06, 05:44 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2006
Posts: 86
Default Sam Sloan is a cheater


samsloan wrote:

Mike Nolan wrote:

Also, please note that both Grant Perks and Ernie Schlich have already
stated that if elected they will abide by the Bylaws and precedent and
will not be paid for any services they perform while on the Executive
Board, such as serving as a TD at a national event.
--
Mike Nolan


Where did Ernie Schlich say or write that? I have not seen that
anywhere and someone who knows Ernie Schlich a lot better than I do
believes that Ernie, being a retired military careerist, is not even
aware of this problem and would not be able to give up the income he
gets from directing all the USCF National Events.

In any case, such promises are about as valuable as the promises any
politician makes about what he will do if elected.

Sam Sloan


Sam is trying to make a big stink out of this because he knows that he
has no chance in hell to win. He's trying to cheat by disqualifying his
opponents. What a scumbag!



  #6   Report Post  
Old June 21st 06, 07:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess.misc.legal
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

Thank you for providing these citations. However, they do not help
your case. Rather, they prove my point because they state that the
directors have the authority to establish reasonable compensation.

However, in the case of the USCF, the directors have not established
reasonable compensation. The delegates have repeatedly stated that the
directors are not entitled to any compensation at all. They are
completely volunteers and are entitled to no money at all, none what
ever.

In addition, any deals must be disclosed before the transaction is
made. This has not been done.

Here is one of the pertinent sections of Illinois Corporation Law:


(805 ILCS 105/108.60) (from Ch. 32, par. 108.60)
Sec. 108.60. Director conflict of interest. (a) If a transaction
is fair to a corporation at the time it is authorized, approved, or
ratified, the fact that a director of the corporation is directly or
indirectly a party to the transaction is not grounds for invalidating
the transaction.
(b) In a proceeding contesting the validity of a transaction
described in subsection (a), the person asserting validity has the
burden of proving fairness unless:
(1) The material facts of the transaction and the director's
interest or relationship were disclosed or known to the board of
directors or a committee consisting entirely of directors and the
board or committee authorized, approved or ratified the transaction by
the affirmative votes of a majority of disinterested directors, even
though the disinterested directors be less than a quorum; or
(2) The material facts of the transaction and the director's
interest or relationship were disclosed or known to the members
entitled to vote, if any, and they authorized, approved or ratified
the transaction without counting the vote of any member who is an
interested director.
(c) The presence of the director, who is directly or indirectly a
party to the transaction described in subsection (a), or a director
who is otherwise not disinterested, may be counted in determining
whether a quorum is present but may not be counted when the board of
directors or a committee of the board takes action on the transaction.
(d) For purposes of this Section, a director is "indirectly" a
party to a transaction if the other party to the transaction is an
entity in which the director has a material financial interest or of
which the director is an officer, director or general partner.
(Source: P.A. 84-1423.)



At 10:09 AM 6/21/2006 -0500, Mike Nolan wrote:
Everyone seems to think that this is some "Chess Rule." It is not! This
is NOT an employee thing. Board members are not allowed by law to enrich
themselves from the Not-for-profit organization where they serve. If a
board member receives any moneys from their not-for profit organization
then that organization is risking the loss of their not-for-profit
status.


Here is what the Illinois Not for Profit Statutes have to say on the subject:

805 ILCS 105, Paragraph 108.05 (c):

Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or bylaws,
the board of directors, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the
directors then in office, shall have authority to establish reasonable
compensation of all directors for services to the corporation as
directors, officers or otherwise, notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 108.60 of this Act.

This sentence clearly allows directors and officers to be paid for their
services to a not-for-profit corporation.

Here is some additional information taken from the Illinois Legal Aid
Society's guide to not-for-profits:
http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/inde...ntentID=41 33

May the board officers and directors be compensated?

There is nothing illegal about compensating officers and directors
for their service to the corporation, but a new nonprofit organization
should try to recruit only people willing to serve as volunteers.
Funding should be used to support the day-to-day operations of the
organization, not the board. Also, the IRS is very concerned about
excessive compensation of staff, board directors, officers and
employees. For groups seeking recognition of income tax exemption
there are many questions on the form about compensation. It is best not
to compensate the people serving on the board as officers or directors,
but they may receive reimbursement for reasonable expenses.

If the directors and or officers are compensated, they will lose the
possible protections of the Illinois State and Federal volunteer
liability protections.
--
Mike Nolan


  #7   Report Post  
Old June 21st 06, 08:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 281
Default I want to steal this election by cheating

Sam Sloan wrote:

Thank you for providing these citations. However, they do not help
your case. Rather, they prove my point because they state that the
directors have the authority to establish reasonable compensation.

However, in the case of the USCF, the directors have not established
reasonable compensation. The delegates have repeatedly stated that the
directors are not entitled to any compensation at all. They are
completely volunteers and are entitled to no money at all, none what
ever.

In addition, any deals must be disclosed before the transaction is
made. This has not been done.

Here is one of the pertinent sections of Illinois Corporation Law:


(805 ILCS 105/108.60) (from Ch. 32, par. 108.60)
Sec. 108.60. Director conflict of interest. (a) If a transaction
is fair to a corporation at the time it is authorized, approved, or
ratified, the fact that a director of the corporation is directly or
indirectly a party to the transaction is not grounds for invalidating
the transaction.
(b) In a proceeding contesting the validity of a transaction
described in subsection (a), the person asserting validity has the
burden of proving fairness unless:
(1) The material facts of the transaction and the director's
interest or relationship were disclosed or known to the board of
directors or a committee consisting entirely of directors and the
board or committee authorized, approved or ratified the transaction by
the affirmative votes of a majority of disinterested directors, even
though the disinterested directors be less than a quorum; or
(2) The material facts of the transaction and the director's
interest or relationship were disclosed or known to the members
entitled to vote, if any, and they authorized, approved or ratified
the transaction without counting the vote of any member who is an
interested director.
(c) The presence of the director, who is directly or indirectly a
party to the transaction described in subsection (a), or a director
who is otherwise not disinterested, may be counted in determining
whether a quorum is present but may not be counted when the board of
directors or a committee of the board takes action on the transaction.
(d) For purposes of this Section, a director is "indirectly" a
party to a transaction if the other party to the transaction is an
entity in which the director has a material financial interest or of
which the director is an officer, director or general partner.
(Source: P.A. 84-1423.)



At 10:09 AM 6/21/2006 -0500, Mike Nolan wrote:
Everyone seems to think that this is some "Chess Rule." It is not! This
is NOT an employee thing. Board members are not allowed by law to enrich
themselves from the Not-for-profit organization where they serve. If a
board member receives any moneys from their not-for profit organization
then that organization is risking the loss of their not-for-profit
status.


Here is what the Illinois Not for Profit Statutes have to say on the subject:

805 ILCS 105, Paragraph 108.05 (c):

Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or bylaws,
the board of directors, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the
directors then in office, shall have authority to establish reasonable
compensation of all directors for services to the corporation as
directors, officers or otherwise, notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 108.60 of this Act.

This sentence clearly allows directors and officers to be paid for their
services to a not-for-profit corporation.

Here is some additional information taken from the Illinois Legal Aid
Society's guide to not-for-profits:
http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/inde...ntentID=41 33

May the board officers and directors be compensated?

There is nothing illegal about compensating officers and directors
for their service to the corporation, but a new nonprofit organization
should try to recruit only people willing to serve as volunteers.
Funding should be used to support the day-to-day operations of the
organization, not the board. Also, the IRS is very concerned about
excessive compensation of staff, board directors, officers and
employees. For groups seeking recognition of income tax exemption
there are many questions on the form about compensation. It is best not
to compensate the people serving on the board as officers or directors,
but they may receive reimbursement for reasonable expenses.

If the directors and or officers are compensated, they will lose the
possible protections of the Illinois State and Federal volunteer
liability protections.
--
Mike Nolan



I am trying to make a big stink out of this because I know that I
have no chance in hell to win. I'm trying to cheat by disqualifying my
opponents. What a scumbag I am!

  #8   Report Post  
Old June 21st 06, 08:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess.misc.legal
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

tanstaafl wrote:
samsloan wrote:
....In addition, any deals must be disclosed before the transaction is
made. This has not been done...

Given the length of your posts, you must know how to write. Have you
learned to READ? The law says no such thing. It gives some conditions
(including disclosure) under which the compensation may be PRESUMED to
be reasonable. This doesn't mean that those conditions MUST be met or
even that they must be met for the compensation to be reasonable.

Further, you're still ignoring his statement that (if elected) all
future work will be on a volunteer basis. He doesn't hold office NOW
and he won't be compensated THEN. You can't even make a "revolving
door" type of claim because he'll hold office AFTER the period where
he's being compensated NOT BEFORE.


There is no doubt and it is an admitted fact that both Grant Perks and
Ernie Schlich have done paid work for the USCF in May and June 2006
even AFTER they were certified as candidates for election.

The by-laws clearly state that no candidate for election can be
employed by the USCF. To get around this, they claim that there is a
loophole in the law that their paid work is not "employment".

They further state that even if their actions were in violation of the
by-laws, after they are elected thet will be good boys and will not
break any more laws or commit further violatons of the by-laws.

I feel that such promises are about as good as the promises any
politician makes about what he will do if he gets elected.

Sam Sloan
  #9   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 06, 12:31 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 281
Default I want to destroy the USCF

Sam Sloan wrote:

tanstaafl wrote:
samsloan wrote:
...In addition, any deals must be disclosed before the transaction is
made. This has not been done...

Given the length of your posts, you must know how to write. Have you
learned to READ? The law says no such thing. It gives some conditions
(including disclosure) under which the compensation may be PRESUMED to
be reasonable. This doesn't mean that those conditions MUST be met or
even that they must be met for the compensation to be reasonable.

Further, you're still ignoring his statement that (if elected) all
future work will be on a volunteer basis. He doesn't hold office NOW
and he won't be compensated THEN. You can't even make a "revolving
door" type of claim because he'll hold office AFTER the period where
he's being compensated NOT BEFORE.


There is no doubt and it is an admitted fact that both Grant Perks and
Ernie Schlich have done paid work for the USCF in May and June 2006
even AFTER they were certified as candidates for election.

The by-laws clearly state that no candidate for election can be
employed by the USCF. To get around this, they claim that there is a
loophole in the law that their paid work is not "employment".

They further state that even if their actions were in violation of the
by-laws, after they are elected thet will be good boys and will not
break any more laws or commit further violatons of the by-laws.

I feel that such promises are about as good as the promises any
politician makes about what he will do if he gets elected.

Sam Sloan


I want to steal this election. I want to destroy the USCF with my
scummy background. Elect me and I promise to put this federation out of
its misery.

Sam Sloan

  #10   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 06, 01:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
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 DACP
Thanks John for understanding my point.

I'm going to say that this is actually quite the education.
First, from what I am understanding, it doesn't matter what state you
belong to, you can just show up and some other state will "adopt" you
so that you can represent them. Seems as though that kind of defeats
the purpose of having state representation.
This is an exaggeration. It used to happen, but I believe that it does
not happen much any more. At the last meeting in Phoenix, for example,
I am not aware of any delegate who got appointed that way. With the
changes in the rules, I am not even sure it is possible to do that any
more.

I am sure that no state will "adopt" you as their representative
unless they know you and unless you agree to vote the way they want
you to vote on any issues of importance to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACP
Next, I keep hearing that there's no real
benefit to being elected. Hmm. Here I was thinking that the
delegates' votes really do mean something in the direction of the
future of USCF.
They used to mean something back in the old days when the board used
to follow what the delegates told them to do. However, that went out
the window when several of the recent boards just decided to
completely ignore delegate resolutions and do what they felt like
doing. Just to cite one recent example, from January 1, 2005 through
March 1, 2005, Beatriz Marinello, the USCF President, appointed
herself as Chief Operating Officer and paid herself $11,000 for her
services. This was completely illegal, a crime, since the members of
the board, including the president, are not allowed to be employed by
the USCF or to receive any money for their services.

Yet, no board member has called her on this.

In the current election we have a situation which is in some ways
worse. The by-laws clearly state that no employee is allowed to run
for the board. By state and federal law, the by-laws of any
not-for-profit corporation must contain this sort of provision in
order to qualify for tax exempt status. Yet, two long time employees
are running for the board in this election, claiming that they are not
"employees" but merely "consultants". This sort of evasion of the
clear intent of the law jeopardizes the tax exempt status of the USCF.
The same people who allowed Beatriz Marinello to take $11,000 of USCF
dues money are now backing these candidates. There is absolutely,
nothing, nothing at all, that the delegates will be able to do to stop
these two candidates from lining their own pockets if they are
elected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACP
In essence from what I am hearing, any USCF
member can just show up at the delegates meetings, say they want
someone to adopt them and poof, they are in. So, that begs the very
real question. Why do we spend thousands of dollars on a meaningless
election?
You are right that as long as the board continues to ignore the wishes
of the delegates, these delegate elections will be meaningless.

This year, of course, we have an additional question. Were the
delegate ballots messed up deliberately or was this just due to
stupifdity or incompetence. So far, nobody has addressed the question
of who made the mistake. Who was responsible for this? Was it Bill
Hall? Was in Pete Tambouro? Was it some low level clerk who everybody
is protecting right now and whose work nobody checked?

Sam Sloan
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
Mike Nolan a crook USCF Congressman who won with 2 votes Ambassador rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 5 March 6th 06 04:57 AM
Strongest ever? Angelo DePalma rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 59 November 7th 05 03:11 AM
Grant Perks Fired !!! Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 8 July 24th 05 10:21 PM
Affidavit of Grant Perks, notorized by Harry Sabine Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 1 May 2nd 05 01:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 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