| |
Main
Date: 14 May 2007 07:03:54
From: samsloan
Subject: How to Spend $76,738.48 in USCF Dues Money Without Even Asking.
|
How to Spend $76,738.48 in USCF Dues Money Without Even Asking.
Donna Alarie spent last weekend in Crossville Tennessee AT HER OWN
EXPENSE and put the squeeze on USCF Executive Director Bill Hall for
an explanation of why the USCF spent $38,000 to send a delegation to
the World Youth Championships late last year in Batumi, Republic of
Georgia, when we usually only spend a few thousand dollars on such
events. Donna and the Executive Board have been asking Bill Hall this
question since at least January and answers have not been forthcoming.
With his head in a vice, Bill Hall finally coughed up the answer.
Turns out, the figure of $38,000 was wrong.
The USCF actually spent $76,738.48 on the event in Georgia !!!
The breakdown is:
Wire Transfer to the Organizers in Georgia:
$40,487.74
Registration fees to
FIDE 9,871.38
Four Coaches at $3,000 each
12,000.00
Trophies Plus and
Jackets 1,505.84
Expense money for our 7 official players at $800 each 5,600.00
Laura
Ross
902.00
Aviv Friedman
reimbursement 1,522.24
John Fedorowicz reimbursement
1,389.42
Mikhail
Katz
800.00
The balance was mostly reimbursement of expenses for the other
coaches.
The four coaches, who received $3000 each in addition to their
expenses, were John Fedorowicz, Aviv Friedman, Mikhail Khadarkovsky
and Armen Ambartsoumian.
I have never heard of Ambartsoumian before. I wonder why he got paid
$3,000 to go to a neighboring country.
However, we also got some reimbursement from our unofficial players.
In most cases, the players paid us $126 each.
The reimbursements came to $43,378.60
Thus, after reimbursements, our net expenditure was $33,359.88
I would like to tell you what I think about this, but if I told you
what I think about this, I would be banned, blacklisted, censured
(again), reprimanded (again) and generally kicked out, so it must
remain forever a secret what I really think about this.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 09:32:27
From: parrthenon@cs.com
Subject: Re: How to Spend $76,738.48 in USCF Dues Money Without Even Asking.
|
HOW SWEET IT IS!
<I would like to tell you what I think about this, but if I told you
what I think about this, I would be banned, blacklisted, censured
(again), reprimanded (again) and generally kicked out, so it must
remain forever a secret what I really think about this. > -- Sam Sloan
We can now expect the smear campaign against Sam to intensify from the
newly formed Scholastic Chess Federation.
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="DACP"]Sam,
>
> The explanation that was given to us in Crossville was that the
> Scholastics entry fees had been upped by $10 x 8000 players give or
> take equals $80,000 additional revenue and in exchange USCF said that
> the Scholastics folks could spend 50% of it on these events. If
> that's not an accurate portrayal, then I'm all ears. Because in the
> budget, I do believe this event is projected to be another major net
> expense somewhere between $25k and $35k and actually they had asked
> for close to $70k but due to the tight budget, Bill Hall was going to
> discuss this with the Scholastics Council to try to keep it in line
> with this year's expenses.
>
> In that net loss, there is approximately $7-$11k that USCF expects to
> receive from the US Chess Trust. However, that had not been invoiced
> as of the beginning of this month. No, I don't know why - even though
> this event occurred last ust. Mr. Hall made a vague reference
> about discussing it with Joel and Bill Goichberg offline.[/quote]
>
> I understand that the US Chess Trust has no intention of paying
> anything for this. Perhaps that is why they have not been invoiced.
>
> As far as the deal with the Scholastic Council is concerned, this is
> the first time I have ever heard of this. If such a deal was made, it
> was made by the last board before I took office. Bill Goichberg often
> keeps things secret from the board, but I doubt that he would keep
> this secret, as he too was alarmed by the $38,000 figure and was
> demanding an answer from Bill Hall.
>
> I have to wonder whether Bill Hall made this deal with the Scholastic
> Council without telling the board about it. Bill Hall has been rather
> fast and loose with our money.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2007 12:18:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How to Spend $76,738.48 in USCF Dues Money Without Even Asking.
|
<parrthenon@cs.com > wrote in message
news:1179160347.683490.294800@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> HOW SWEET IT IS!
>
> <I would like to tell you what I think about this, but if I told you
> what I think about this, I would be banned, blacklisted, censured
> (again), reprimanded (again) and generally kicked out, so it must
> remain forever a secret what I really think about this.> -- Sam Sloan
>
> We can now expect the smear campaign against Sam to intensify from the
> newly formed Scholastic Chess Federation.
What is so different, Larry, about this treatment of Sam Sloan?
The same Mitchell who had gone out of his way to challenge moderator-Blair
on his Wikipedia 'action' in an impartial appreciation of what good and bad.
Then the idiotic idea from Sloan that he pretended he did not know which
Mitchell now challenged him to his own responsibilities - therefore had no
need to respond - instead he
"banned, blacklisted, censured, reprimanded and generally kicked out"
Rob Mitchell from his 'own' newgroup.
In an inept analogy yesterday, Mike Goodall described [intended
sympathetically] Sam Sloan as a bull in a china shop, conflating his
metaphor with 'rooting out' the sources of evil - or at least perceived
evil.
The problem is that the first Goodall analogy seems more pert, and bulls in
china shops destroy the good with the bad indiscriminately.
Mr. Sloan's activities, while raising issues that should never have been
secret at all, also fails to have any real effect on them, since his
follow-through raises even more problems than any putative solution - to the
degree that I can't see anything being solved. And this is just for the just
causes!
When he is off-target, his sound-bite technique which is often nothing more
than scandalizing an issue, is buut remonstration and plain old
personality/political grandstanding of issues, and cannot recommend him to
/any/ society or group process.
Sloan does not even acknowledge that there is anything to address [nevermind
agree with his critics, all I mean is to acknowledge the issues they raise]
and this level of his inertness and apparent indifference to the /social
process/ in which he is now engaged in chess, makes him an isolani on the
board [!]
And an isolani by his own choice. The relationships he creates with other
people is *mutual* - It cannot be claimed that he is a /victim/ of being
ostracised, since where is any evidence that he can work with others?
I had hoped pre-election that Sam Sloan /would/ raise issues that needed
attention at a thoroughly corrupt USCF run by good old boys,
very old! and not very good!
but raise issues coupled with something else - a remedy for fixing what was
wrong that directly relates to USCF's corporate culture. And while I can see
action on this first point [spoiled by grandstanding, 48-hour attention
span, and offensively inaccurate materials too], I see none of the second.
As if to say, that the real issues raised that do need attention must be
fixed by /other people/ - people who are able to collude together to fix
things. I would still hope that an otherwise inert board can take up some of
these problems before the end of the financial year and the election - and
personally am not overconcerned with Sam Sloan, since his over-activity is
compensation for a dream-like somnambulance elsewhere on the board, by
people who behave like a fart in a trance.
Given the chance to address issues put to other candidates for the board,
Sam Sloan declined to do so - since in his own words he explained that the
issues would have taken half a day of his time!
Perhaps whoever should join the board might take half a day to look at the
structural elements that can form a viable basis for going forward - and
make these consideration before they open their mouths on ht else.
Otherwise, without some foundation that is solid - all that can be spoken
about is the rotteness of the current one - and there is no need to blame
Sloan for reporting this more than any other board member - since none of
'em have done any substantive thing to address systematic faults in the
organisation.
The points that would set things to rights are not even broached.
I conclude with a further corruption of Mike Goodall's metaphor, that all
this is a bull in a teacup!
Phil Innes
Vermont
---
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 07:22:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: How to Spend $76,738.48 in USCF Dues Money Without Even Asking.
|
[quote="DACP"]Sam,
The explanation that was given to us in Crossville was that the
Scholastics entry fees had been upped by $10 x 8000 players give or
take equals $80,000 additional revenue and in exchange USCF said that
the Scholastics folks could spend 50% of it on these events. If
that's not an accurate portrayal, then I'm all ears. Because in the
budget, I do believe this event is projected to be another major net
expense somewhere between $25k and $35k and actually they had asked
for close to $70k but due to the tight budget, Bill Hall was going to
discuss this with the Scholastics Council to try to keep it in line
with this year's expenses.
In that net loss, there is approximately $7-$11k that USCF expects to
receive from the US Chess Trust. However, that had not been invoiced
as of the beginning of this month. No, I don't know why - even though
this event occurred last ust. Mr. Hall made a vague reference
about discussing it with Joel and Bill Goichberg offline.[/quote]
I understand that the US Chess Trust has no intention of paying
anything for this. Perhaps that is why they have not been invoiced.
As far as the deal with the Scholastic Council is concerned, this is
the first time I have ever heard of this. If such a deal was made, it
was made by the last board before I took office. Bill Goichberg often
keeps things secret from the board, but I doubt that he would keep
this secret, as he too was alarmed by the $38,000 figure and was
demanding an answer from Bill Hall.
I have to wonder whether Bill Hall made this deal with the Scholastic
Council without telling the board about it. Bill Hall has been rather
fast and loose with our money.
Sam Sloan
|
|
