| |
Main
Date: 23 Dec 2008 14:05:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Motion by Susan Polgar to Create Five Funds
|
* To: Chessoffice@xxxxxxx, randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx,
randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, JABerryCG@xxxxxxx, Paultruong@xxxxxxx
* Subject: Motion
* From: SusanPolgar@xxxxxxx
* Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:15:49 EST
* Cc: bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, USCF BINFO System
Motion to create the following five (5) funds:
* U.S. Championship (Open and Women) Fund
* U.S. National Scholastic Championships Fund
* U.S. Aspiring Chess Professionals Fund
* U.S. Olympiad Fund
* U.S. World Championship Fund
Donations, sponsorships, and estate bequests made to these funds are
forbidden to be utilized for general operations, pension, employee
benefits, or legal expenses of the USCF.
Each fund will consist of 4 committee members plus the Executive
Director of the USCF. Committee members will be voted upon by the
delegates at the annual meeting of delegates every third year from the
time of inception of the funds. Each fund will carry its own
individual bank account with dual signatory requirement (committee
head and Executive Director).
All minutes of committee meetings are to be made available (via USCF
website) to any USCF member in good standing within 72 hours after
committee meeting has adjourned. No more than 25% of each fund can be
invested in stocks (75% must be kept in low risk financial
instruments).
No sitting USCF Executive Board member can be part of any committee.
No committee members, except for the USCF Executive Director, may be
seated to more than one of the four committees. The USCF Executive
Director is the liaison between the committees and the Executive Board
and may voice the opinions / concerns of the USCF EB.
Prior to seating committee members, exploratory committees to be
created to expand upon the purpose, goals, and guidelines for each.
Exploratory committees to be created by the Feb 2009 EB meeting.
Exploratory committee reports due by the May or June 2009 EB meeting.
Nominations for committee members due by the printing of the delegates
call for the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates. Voting to occur
by the delegates at the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates.
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2008 06:35:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Motion by Susan Polgar to Create Five Funds
|
There is nothing wrong with the Polgar motion. I do not agree with the
motion but there is nothing wrong with her making it.
What got everybody excited was the fact that Donna Alarie posted this
motion to the USCF Issues Forum several days before it appeared in the
BINFOS. Is not there something wrong with Donna doing that? If that is
allowed, why even have a waiting period before the BINFOS can appear?
Donna made it seem that this was a proposal to spend the $350,000
bequest. However, that is clearly not the case because, according to
the motion, it will not become effective until after the August 2009
delegates meeting by which time Bill Hall will have already spent the
bequest.
Read in context, the Polgar Five Funds motion came immediately after
two things. First Tim Redman wrote to her saying that she should start
making motions so as to be on record doing something. As far as I am
aware, neither Susan Polgar nor Paul Truong had made even a single
motion since they got on the board in August 2007. Next Randy Bauer
made the following motion, which passed:
"I move that the USCF create a "Susan Polgar vs. USCF Legal Defense
Fund" and solicit contributions to be used solely for the payment of
legal expenses associated with the lawsuit filed by the USCF by Susan
Polgar."
So, the board made and passed a motion to create a Legal Defense Fund
to defend against the $25 ,million lawsuit brought by Susan Polgar
against the USCF and the other four board members among others.
Therefore, Susan followed it up by making a motion to create five more
funds.
I find it curious that when asked what these five funds are supposed
to do with the money, Susan replied that "Exploratory Committees"
should be formed to decide what to do with the money. I always thought
that one should decide what to do with the money first before cerating
a fund to raise and spend the money.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2008 06:12:28
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Motion by Susan Polgar to Create Five Funds
|
* To: Chessoffice@xxxxxxx, randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx,
randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, JABerryCG@xxxxxxx, Paultruong@xxxxxxx
* Subject: Re: Motion
* From: SusanPolgar@xxxxxxx
* Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:40:07 EST
* Cc: bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, USCF BINFO System, queencapa@xxxxxxx
* Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
* Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
Bill:
Thank you for the insightful response to these pressing matters. The
purpose of the exploratory committees are to flesh out the specifics
of each of the funds. The EB should allow the exploratory committees
to come back with recommendations to the board which could include to
hold off on a specific fund.
Many members care for different aspects of chess rather than just one
avenue so we should have an avenue for their donations, etc that allow
it to be used for that purpose.
Your statements regarding removal of the EB from the management of the
funds is political paranoia. Even before lawsuits were uninitiated the
EB has displayed poor ability to manage the operations of the USCF.
Also the EB is not out of the loop here, as the ED would speak for
them and the ED would be one of the two signing authorities. Controls
are required to give assurance that these funds won't become a till to
tap for future boards.
We will agree to disagree with placing a threshold on how much can be
placed in stocks versus guaranteed financial instruments. We prefer to
see a slow and guaranteed growth with the majority of funds rather
than a volatile unknown growth.
This is NOT aimed at the upcoming bequest but for the future. Even
though the present is still problematic, we have to think and plan
beyond the current time frame as well.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
In a message dated 12/19/2008 10:48:08 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Chessoffice writes:
I am partially in agreement with the motion below, as I have
previously suggested that when our large bequest is received we
consider using part to start an Olympiad Fund, with the idea that
principal, donations and investment gains could not be spent except
for a fixed small percentage, so the fund would be likely to keep
growing, and eventually might cover all costs, and better funding for
our players than at present.
Our Olympiad teams are an unusual cause in more than one way.
Supporting teams representing the USA is a patriotic cause that has
special appeal, and we have substantial expense in this area,
currently about half covered by KCF sponsorship. That sponsorship is
not assured after 2010, and even with the sponsorship, the cost to
USCF each Olympiad has been over $30,000.
USCF has been far more successful finding sponsors for the US
Championship. The World Championship is something we now wish we had
a fund for so we could help Kamsky, but it is not a regular expense.
The National Scholastics make money, but of course a scholastic fund
of some type could be used to promote grass roots scholastic efforts
which do not (for that matter, there could also be a fund to help
adult Chess Clubs, many of which are struggling). A fund to help
rising young players, perhaps similar to what the Sanford Fellowship
does, would also be a worthy cause.
However, of all these possible funds, the Olympiad Fund appears to
best address the greatest need for USCF as well as offer an attractive
cause for donors.
Of course we can start many funds at once, but it may be wiser to
go slowly and create one fund that we focus on, which is perceived to
be successful, before we start appealing for donations to many funds.
Potential donors may be hesitant to contribute, believing that USCF
has not used its money wisely in the past, and though our financial
record in 2003-2008 is much better than what happened in 1999-2003,
having a current Executive Board member file a lawsuit against USCF
for an amount that would wipe out the organization is another factor
that does not inspire confidence.
If we can put $50,000 or more into starting an Olympiad Fund and
announce a plan under which such a fund is likely to grow rather than
be used up, and we publicize such a fund well, it may attract
donations and bequests. But instead if we announce we are starting
many funds, especially with us putting no money into them and having
no growth plan, we are likely to have many new funds whose assets will
be too small for any of them to accomplish much or attract significant
attention.
The idea that the USCF Executive Board would have no
responsibility for managing such a fund or funds and a new committee
structure would need to be set up instead seems rather bizarre, as the
EB is elected by the membership for the purpose of managing USCF
between meetings of the Board of Delegates. This suggestion sounds
similar to some motions that were on the agenda for the 2007 delegates
meeting and were withdrawn because they had little support- one such
motion called for the EB to no longer hire/fire the ED and Editor, and
another suggested doing the same for our FIDE representatives. I
wonder if proposals of this type are aimed at the members of specific
Executive Boards, and reflect a desire to overcome the EB election
results, rather than a belief that USCF management duties should be
widely dispersed among various groups.
To mandate that a fund hold no more than 25% stocks also seems
unwise, even though it may sound attractive given recent market
declines. In the long run, stocks always outperform low risk
investments, so in setting up a fund we shouldn't tie our hands in
this way. In the 1980s, the LMA earned much less than it might have
because it was in CDs while the stock market was booming.
I suggest that we wait until the bequest is received and then
consider our options, which might include a combination of creating an
Olympiad Fund or other funds, paying down our mortgage as suggested by
Leroy Dubeck, starting a reserve fund that operations could use to
avoid the need for paying interest on a line of credit each year,
etc. I believe the bequest is likely to come in during the next
month.
Bill Goichberg
In a message dated 12/18/2008 9:15:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
SusanPolgar writes:
Motion to create the following five (5) funds:
* U.S. Championship (Open and Women) Fund
* U.S. National Scholastic Championships Fund
* U.S. Aspiring Chess Professionals Fund
* U.S. Olympiad Fund
* U.S. World Championship Fund
Donations, sponsorships, and estate bequests made to these
funds are forbidden to be utilized for general operations, pension,
employee benefits, or legal expenses of the USCF.
Each fund will consist of 4 committee members plus the
Executive Director of the USCF. Committee members will be voted upon
by the delegates at the annual meeting of delegates every third year
from the time of inception of the funds. Each fund will carry its own
individual bank account with dual signatory requirement (committee
head and Executive Director).
All minutes of committee meetings are to be made available
(via USCF website) to any USCF member in good standing within 72 hours
after committee meeting has adjourned. No more than 25% of each fund
can be invested in stocks (75% must be kept in low risk financial
instruments).
No sitting USCF Executive Board member can be part of any
committee. No committee members, except for the USCF Executive
Director, may be seated to more than one of the four committees. The
USCF Executive Director is the liaison between the committees and the
Executive Board and may voice the opinions / concerns of the USCF EB.
Prior to seating committee members, exploratory committees to
be created to expand upon the purpose, goals, and guidelines for each.
Exploratory committees to be created by the Feb 2009 EB meeting.
Exploratory committee reports due by the May or June 2009 EB meeting.
Nominations for committee members due by the printing of the delegates
call for the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates. Voting to occur
by the delegates at the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates.
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 17:00:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Motion by Susan Polgar to Create Five Funds
|
The motion by Susan Polgar to create five funds has appeared in the
BINFOS today.
There is nothing in the BINFOS to connect the Susan Polgar proposal to
the bequest of $350,000. To the contrary, the Five Funds proposal came
several days before the news arrived about the bequest.
I see the five funds proposal as being in response to the motion by
Randy Bauer to create a Susan Polgar vs. USCF Legal Defense Fund,
which passed immediately prior to it. Susan reasoned that if a "Fund"
can be created to defend against her lawsuit, why not create funds to
do other things, such as support professional chess players.
What got everybody excited was when Donna Alarie posted news about the
Five Funds proposal into the thread about receiving the bequest for
$350,000. This led everyone to assume that Susan was proposing to put
the $350,000 into these Five Funds that she proposes to create.
Now that we can see that the two proposals have nothing to do with
each other, we can all calm down.
I think that Donna should be admonished for creating all this
confusion and then claiming that we were attacking her when we were
merely pointing out that using the money in this way was a bad idea.
Sam Sloan
|
|
