| |
Main
Date: 04 May 2007 09:47:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
[quote="chrisfalter"]Hal,
Some months ago a controversy was raging in this forum over expenses
and fees paid to GM Polgar at the 2003 US Open. Mr. Sam Sloan very
helpfully posted the itemization from Polgar's invoice, so Jack looked
it over with his auditor's eye. In a post that I read before it got
deleted, Jack stated that with the exception of one very small
expense, he saw nothing that would have triggered further
investigation if he had been auditing the invoice--i.e., everything
except for one very small item seemed reasonable. He also stated
that, while he claimed no particular expertise in appearance fees, he
had occasionally run across them while auditing, and Susan's fees
seemed lower than he had generally experienced in the past.
Paul's subsequent statements in this thread validate Jack's
perspective, of course, and I thank him for his contribution to the
thread.
I close by noting that the existence of a dispute over who would pay
Susan's fees and expenses at the 2003 US Open does not necessarily
imply that those fees and expenses were unreasonable. Other potential
reasons are manifold: personality clashes, philosophy of how to run
successful tournaments, or a desire to minimize financial commitments
would be at the head of the list.
Jack,
I have endeavored to represent your views accurately, and feel that I
have succeeded. Please do not hesitate to correct any mistakes on my
part, however![/quote]
It just so happens that my wife, Kayo Kimura, is an accounting major
at Lehman College, a division of CUNY, and she is taking a course in
advanced auditing this semester. Her professor is a partner in
Deloitte Haskins & Sells.
My wife just spent two weeks in the hospital. She was seriously ill.
She sent me to her class to take notes and report back to her on the
professor's lecture. The professor agreed to let me sit in on the
class.
It just so happened by fantastic coincidence that the professor
devoted his lecture to the subject above.
The first thing that Jack Lemoine would do it he were hired to audit
the above transactions is see not only whether the charges were
reasonable, but whether they were authorized. Did the board vote to
allow the hiring and the payment of these fees? Is there any
resolution of the board in the corporate minutes? Was there any
contract signed? Is there any memorandum or record of any agreement to
pay these fees? Are these fees reasonable in light of the general
custom and practices of the industry, which in this case is chess? Is
there any history of the USCF paying these kind of fees in light of
the services allegedly performed?
Unfortunately, the answer to all of the above questions is no. There
is no record of any agreement in advance to pay these fees and
charges, nor is there any history of the USCF ever paying comparable
fees to anybody other than on the occasion in question, nor did the
executive board pass any resolution authorizing the payment of these
fees.
In short, if Jack Lemoine were to audit this statement, the payment of
this $13,358.36 would raise questions, possibly requiring a footnote
in the financial statement.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 19:50:56
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sloan Fabrications
|
On May 5, 2:48 pm, JohnnyT <n...@home.com > wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> >> Sam Sloan
>
> > I would like Mr. Sloan to provide a total accounting of the costs to
> > the USCF in defending his frivilous lawsuits? How much money has Mr.
> > Sloan cost the USCF when they honored his requests for various items?
> > I dare say Mr. Sloan has depleted USCF funds at a much greater rate
> > than any other single person and has contributed even less.
>
> Holy crap.
>
> You continue your self-flagellation to keep yourself down and not taken
> seriously.
>
> For a serious organization, questions such as these would be inexpensive
> and well within their duty to answer. The information would be
> documented and in hand. And certainly wouldn't require someone to take
> a cross country trip to run through boxes. This is not a new or
> undocumented issue, yet certainly seems unfixed.
>
> A mature and serious organization would not have to put up with these
> questions, because they would not have been raised.
>
> The USCF has long passed the line of "trust me", and have yet to repair
> their reputation. The process is more of a problem with them, than the
> irritants they have spawned.
>
> Lets put it simply... Making money hides a lot of ills. Losing money
> exposes them all. Why don't they start by making money. Not a little,
> but a substantial amount. Then you can talk about not wasting time.
>
> And has Sloan filed a frivolous lawsuit against the USCF? I know that
> there have been a number, but I don't recall any by Sloan.
>
> I don't really understand your post, if not for blind sensationalism, or
> to draw so much noise to nothing, as to obscure what may be important.
> Or you honestly have no freakin' idea how to get what you want except by
> being petulant.
When you have done further research about Sloan and his lawsuits, we
can discuss it.I tire of Mr. Sloans dishonesty in his arttacks on good
people.
I do not believe the USCF is lilly white either. I feel Sloans attacks
are misguided and of ill use. I agree they should be trying to make
money. One of the problems to doing that effectivly is an
administrative structure that allows itself to be hamstrung by
individuals as Sloan without a remediation possible.
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 19:44:36
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sloan Fabrications
|
On May 5, 2:27 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 5, 4:13 pm, Rob <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > I would like Mr. Sloan to provide a total accounting of the costs to
> > the USCF in defending his frivilous lawsuits? How much money has Mr.
> > Sloan cost the USCF when they honored his requests for various items?
> > I dare say Mr. Sloan has depleted USCF funds at a much greater rate
> > than any other single person and has contributed even less.
>
> The total legal bill from Michael Matsler to defend my lawsuit was
> $8,000.
>
> The amount the USCF lost by winning that laswuit was close to one
> million dollars, which is what the move to Crossville will cost the
> USCF.
>
> Sam Sloan
And what was the cost for those employees of the USCF and executive
board members from their work time? You simply are not divulging the
total costs and you know it.
Claiming that the move cost the USCf is simply another rancid
fabrication.
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 13:27:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sloan Fabrications
|
On May 5, 4:13 pm, Rob <robmt...@msn.com > wrote:
> > Sam Sloan
>
> I would like Mr. Sloan to provide a total accounting of the costs to
> the USCF in defending his frivilous lawsuits? How much money has Mr.
> Sloan cost the USCF when they honored his requests for various items?
> I dare say Mr. Sloan has depleted USCF funds at a much greater rate
> than any other single person and has contributed even less.
The total legal bill from Michael Matsler to defend my lawsuit was
$8,000.
The amount the USCF lost by winning that laswuit was close to one
million dollars, which is what the move to Crossville will cost the
USCF.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 13:13:02
From: Rob
Subject: Sloan Fabrications
|
>
> Sam Sloan
I would like Mr. Sloan to provide a total accounting of the costs to
the USCF in defending his frivilous lawsuits? How much money has Mr.
Sloan cost the USCF when they honored his requests for various items?
I dare say Mr. Sloan has depleted USCF funds at a much greater rate
than any other single person and has contributed even less.
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2007 13:48:01
From: JohnnyT
Subject: Re: Sloan Fabrications
|
Rob wrote:
>> Sam Sloan
>
> I would like Mr. Sloan to provide a total accounting of the costs to
> the USCF in defending his frivilous lawsuits? How much money has Mr.
> Sloan cost the USCF when they honored his requests for various items?
> I dare say Mr. Sloan has depleted USCF funds at a much greater rate
> than any other single person and has contributed even less.
>
Holy crap.
You continue your self-flagellation to keep yourself down and not taken
seriously.
For a serious organization, questions such as these would be inexpensive
and well within their duty to answer. The information would be
documented and in hand. And certainly wouldn't require someone to take
a cross country trip to run through boxes. This is not a new or
undocumented issue, yet certainly seems unfixed.
A mature and serious organization would not have to put up with these
questions, because they would not have been raised.
The USCF has long passed the line of "trust me", and have yet to repair
their reputation. The process is more of a problem with them, than the
irritants they have spawned.
Lets put it simply... Making money hides a lot of ills. Losing money
exposes them all. Why don't they start by making money. Not a little,
but a substantial amount. Then you can talk about not wasting time.
And has Sloan filed a frivolous lawsuit against the USCF? I know that
there have been a number, but I don't recall any by Sloan.
I don't really understand your post, if not for blind sensationalism, or
to draw so much noise to nothing, as to obscure what may be important.
Or you honestly have no freakin' idea how to get what you want except by
being petulant.
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 09:15:31
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"]
Regarding the "work" that Susan Polgar allegedly performed in Los
Angeles, committee members and delegates are never paid, nor are their
expenses ever covered for attending these annual meetings. [/quote]
How is that even remotely relevant? She was there to give lectures and
simuls, not to attend the Delegates meeting. As you know perfectly
well, the May 2003 TLA said, "Former Women's World Champ. GM Susan
Polgar will give lectures and simultaneous exhibitions." Are you
really trying to claim that she agreed to do this for nothing?
[quote]Miss P and Mr. T apparently consider themselves to be
privileged characters just for showing up. Please note that they
demanded a per diem allowance of $50 per day each for 14 days for a
total of $1400. Miss P is, of course, a self-made celebrity and can
hope to have her expenses paid, but who is Mr. T and what made Mr. T
entitled to be paid just for being there. What did he do that entitled
him to receive money from the USCF? With most of the US grandmasters
present in Los Angeles at their own expense, what is so special about
Miss P that she expects to be paid for flying there?
Sam Sloan[/quote]
An authorized representative of the USCF agreed to pay the fees. If
you don't like it, make a motion to fire Niro or Reese. Oh, wait ...
Don't you ever get tired of bringing discredit to your office?[/quote]
I ask again: What evidence do you have that either Niro or Reese
agreed to pay these fees? Niro disappeared and Reese has since
resigned so you cannot ask them.
We have a new situation here in that Jamie Anson, the person whose
check for $24,000 bounced, wrote that she had been promised her
expenses for attending the 2003 US Open in Los Angeles, and she was
never paid. She was a regular member of the USCF staff.
Even the prize winners at the 2003 US Open in Los Angeles had to wait
for months to get their prize checks.
Why is it that Miss P who had a very dubious claim for money and Mr. T
who had no case whatever got paid by Mr. G, but the actual USCF
employees who worked at the US Open in Los Angeles still have not been
paid?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 06:44:56
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
On May 5, 3:48 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> [quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"][quote="rfeditor"]Am I the only
> one who's getting awfully tired of this droning redundancy? The ED (or
> someone working under his authority) entered into binding agreements
> to pay for services rendered. Those agreements did not require
> approval by the Board, which is there to set policy, not to
> micromanage operations. If you want to criticize the Board that hired
> Frank Niro, fine. That's legitimate, albeit pretty pointless now. To
> suggest that the USCF could or should repudiate contracts entered into
> by its CEO suggests a certain, ah, lack of contact with the real world
> of the non-judgment-proof.[/quote]
>
> Who was that ED or who was that person acting under his authority? Can
> you provide the name of that mysterious person. What did he agree to
> and when? Why has no paper record been found of this transaction? Why
> did Miss P wait until months after the incidents in question and until
> after she had taken the laptop computer prior to demanding payment?
>
> Finally and perhaps most importantly why did Mr. G conceal the fact
> that he had made this payment of $13,358.36 to Miss P from the board
> then in office and from the current board until Mr. S discovered the
> payment in the books and records of the USCF late last year?
>
> Sam Sloan[/quote]
>
> Frank Niro was the ED. The 2003 U.S. Open deal, which you've done a
> good deal of whining about, was mostly handled by Diane Reese. A
> better question is why the USCF waited so long to pay its bills, but
> the answer, of course, is that in 2003 it didn't have the money. You
> know all this as well as I do, Sam, but you seem to be under the
> impression that the readers (and voters) are dullards.
>
> Do you really expect us to believe that Polgar gave lectures and
> simuls with no agreement on payment, in the hope that she would be
> able to con the USCF later after the ED had vanished? If so, would you
> like to buy a bridge?
>
> (Note also that I'm fairly sure all those agreements were, in fact,
> documented the last time you raised this farrago. But since, unlike
> some I could name, I do not make factual claims unless I am certain, I
> will leave that aside for now.)
>
> As for your second paragraph, have you the slightest evidence that the
> payment was "concealed" from the Board? Are you actually boasting of
> making the shocking discovery that the USCF paid its bills? And why
> exactly would the current board be informed about payment of a closed
> account that took place before they were took office?
>
> Wouldn't you be happier back at rgcp, where no one bothers you with
> those pesky facts?[/quote]
>
> This issue came up and was discussed at the November, 2006 meeting of
> the USCF Executive Board in Stamford, Connecticut. This may explain
> why the tapes or transcripts of that meeting have never been posted.
>
> Since the discussion of this issue by the board remains top secret,
> why don't you tell us what evidence you have that either Frank Niro or
> Diane Reese agreed to pay Miss P the sum of $13,358.36?
>
> Have you ever spoken to either of them about this, or is your source
> just Jerry Hanken, who admits that he has never spoken to either of
> them about this subject?
>
> Sam Sloan
Yet further proof that Mr. Sloan wishes he were a proctologist.. The
game now will be to have a contest to see who can make the best use of
Sam in this analogy.
Example: Top ten reasons Sam Sloan should be a
proctologist:
#10. His favorite song is " Burning Ring of Fire"
#9. He always tries his best to be a pain in the butt!
You provide the other eight reasons. We can vote on the best.
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 03:47:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
[quote="rfeditor"]I suspect what you mean is the [i]you[/i] brought it
up. Quoting yourself as a source for own delusions? Non-starter.
Your weaseling is getting a little tiresome. What exactly are you
trying to claim? Clearly the work was done and the invoices were
submitted. I doubt even you would assert that Polgar did the work with
no promise of payment. It seems, therefore, that you must be arguing
that the invoices submitted were for an amount greater than what was
agreed in advance. (Of course, this is libelous, but that's never
bothered you before.) While this is theoretically possible -- perhaps
it's even common in the circles you inhabit -- the burden of proof is
on you. Find some evidence or shut up. You [i]do[/i] know what
evidence is, don't you?
(And, as I mentioned before, I'm fairly sure all of this has already
been documented in earlier threads and BINFOs. You, however, don't
have enough credibility to justify the hour or so it would take me to
dig it all up.)[/quote]
Not true. Several board members addressed this topic at the meeting in
Stamford. I can recall Bill Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello speaking
on this subject. It was also at about this time that the "under the
table" incident occurred.
This is an example of why it is important to maintain transcripts of
these meetings.
Regarding the "work" that Susan Polgar allegedly performed in Los
Angeles, committee members and delegates are never paid, nor are their
expenses ever covered for attending these annual meetings. Miss P and
Mr. T apparently consider themselves to be privileged characters just
for showing up. Please note that they demanded a per diem allowance of
$50 per day each for 14 days for a total of $1400. Miss P is, of
course, a self-made celebrity and can hope to have her expenses paid,
but who is Mr. T and what made Mr. T entitled to be paid just for
being there. What did he do that entitled him to receive money from
the USCF? With most of the US grandmasters present in Los Angeles at
their own expense, what is so special about Miss P that she expects to
be paid for flying there?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 02:48:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"][quote="rfeditor"]Am I the only
one who's getting awfully tired of this droning redundancy? The ED (or
someone working under his authority) entered into binding agreements
to pay for services rendered. Those agreements did not require
approval by the Board, which is there to set policy, not to
micromanage operations. If you want to criticize the Board that hired
Frank Niro, fine. That's legitimate, albeit pretty pointless now. To
suggest that the USCF could or should repudiate contracts entered into
by its CEO suggests a certain, ah, lack of contact with the real world
of the non-judgment-proof.[/quote]
Who was that ED or who was that person acting under his authority? Can
you provide the name of that mysterious person. What did he agree to
and when? Why has no paper record been found of this transaction? Why
did Miss P wait until months after the incidents in question and until
after she had taken the laptop computer prior to demanding payment?
Finally and perhaps most importantly why did Mr. G conceal the fact
that he had made this payment of $13,358.36 to Miss P from the board
then in office and from the current board until Mr. S discovered the
payment in the books and records of the USCF late last year?
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Frank Niro was the ED. The 2003 U.S. Open deal, which you've done a
good deal of whining about, was mostly handled by Diane Reese. A
better question is why the USCF waited so long to pay its bills, but
the answer, of course, is that in 2003 it didn't have the money. You
know all this as well as I do, Sam, but you seem to be under the
impression that the readers (and voters) are dullards.
Do you really expect us to believe that Polgar gave lectures and
simuls with no agreement on payment, in the hope that she would be
able to con the USCF later after the ED had vanished? If so, would you
like to buy a bridge?
(Note also that I'm fairly sure all those agreements were, in fact,
documented the last time you raised this farrago. But since, unlike
some I could name, I do not make factual claims unless I am certain, I
will leave that aside for now.)
As for your second paragraph, have you the slightest evidence that the
payment was "concealed" from the Board? Are you actually boasting of
making the shocking discovery that the USCF paid its bills? And why
exactly would the current board be informed about payment of a closed
account that took place before they were took office?
Wouldn't you be happier back at rgcp, where no one bothers you with
those pesky facts?[/quote]
This issue came up and was discussed at the November, 2006 meeting of
the USCF Executive Board in Stamford, Connecticut. This may explain
why the tapes or transcripts of that meeting have never been posted.
Since the discussion of this issue by the board remains top secret,
why don't you tell us what evidence you have that either Frank Niro or
Diane Reese agreed to pay Miss P the sum of $13,358.36?
Have you ever spoken to either of them about this, or is your source
just Jerry Hanken, who admits that he has never spoken to either of
them about this subject?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 01:43:25
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
[quote="rfeditor"]Am I the only one who's getting awfully tired of
this droning redundancy? The ED (or someone working under his
authority) entered into binding agreements to pay for services
rendered. Those agreements did not require approval by the Board,
which is there to set policy, not to micromanage operations. If you
want to criticize the Board that hired Frank Niro, fine. That's
legitimate, albeit pretty pointless now. To suggest that the USCF
could or should repudiate contracts entered into by its CEO suggests a
certain, ah, lack of contact with the real world of the non-judgment-
proof.[/quote]
Who was that ED or who was that person acting under his authority? Can
you provide the name of that mysterious person. What did he agree to
and when? Why has no paper record been found of this transaction? Why
did Miss P wait until months after the incidents in question and until
after she had taken the laptop computer prior to demanding payment?
Finally and perhaps most importantly why did Mr. G conceal the fact
that he had made this payment of $13,358.36 to Miss P from the board
then in office and from the current board until Mr. S discovered the
payment in the books and records of the USCF late last year?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 22:38:37
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
On May 4, 6:36 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> [quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"]
>
> The first thing that Jack Lemoine would do it he were hired to audit
> the above transactions is see not only whether the charges were
> reasonable, but whether they were authorized. Did the board vote to
> allow the hiring and the payment of these fees? Is there any
> resolution of the board in the corporate minutes? Was there any
> contract signed? Is there any memorandum or record of any agreement to
> pay these fees?[/quote]
>
> Why should there be? At the time in question (and during most of the
> history of the USCF), such matters were entirely at the discretion of
> the ED. If the Board didn't like what he did, they could fire him.
> Periods of Board micromanagement have occurred, but they have been
> rare and generally unsuccessful.[/quote]
>
> But that was precisely the problem. The Executive Director had
> disappeared, vanished, gone, never to be seen again.
>
> However, he had left behind a laptop computer, which presumably
> contained any records of this transaction, if they existed.
>
> However, when that laptop computer was taken by the virtuous Miss P,
> all records of the transaction disappeared.
>
> So, the question is: Upon what legal basis was the amount of
> $13,358.36 paid by Mr. G to Miss P?
>
> Sam Sloan
I was agreed to by an official representative with the authority to
negotiate contracts.
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 16:36:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"]
The first thing that Jack Lemoine would do it he were hired to audit
the above transactions is see not only whether the charges were
reasonable, but whether they were authorized. Did the board vote to
allow the hiring and the payment of these fees? Is there any
resolution of the board in the corporate minutes? Was there any
contract signed? Is there any memorandum or record of any agreement to
pay these fees?[/quote]
Why should there be? At the time in question (and during most of the
history of the USCF), such matters were entirely at the discretion of
the ED. If the Board didn't like what he did, they could fire him.
Periods of Board micromanagement have occurred, but they have been
rare and generally unsuccessful.[/quote]
But that was precisely the problem. The Executive Director had
disappeared, vanished, gone, never to be seen again.
However, he had left behind a laptop computer, which presumably
contained any records of this transaction, if they existed.
However, when that laptop computer was taken by the virtuous Miss P,
all records of the transaction disappeared.
So, the question is: Upon what legal basis was the amount of
$13,358.36 paid by Mr. G to Miss P?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 11:14:22
From: Ambassador
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
On May 4, 12:03 pm, Rob <robmt...@msn.com > wrote:
> On May 4, 11:47 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [quote="chrisfalter"]Hal,
>
> > Some months ago a controversy was raging in this forum over expenses
> > and fees paid to GM Polgar at the 2003 US Open. Mr. Sam Sloan very
> > helpfully posted the itemization from Polgar's invoice, so Jack looked
> > it over with his auditor's eye.
>
> Sam refers to himself in the third person? Only Sam describes his
> pestilence as helpful.
>
> >In a post that I read before it got
> > deleted, Jack stated that with the exception of one very small
> > expense, he saw nothing that would have triggered further
> > investigation if he had been auditing the invoice--i.e., everything
> > except for one very small item seemed reasonable. He also stated
> > that, while he claimed no particular expertise in appearance fees, he
> > had occasionally run across them while auditing, and Susan's fees
> > seemed lower than he had generally experienced in the past.
>
> Gee, so she discounts her fees to help chess. WOW Sam, what a crime!
>
> > Paul's subsequent statements in this thread validate Jack's
> > perspective, of course, and I thank him for his contribution to the
> > thread.
>
> > I close by noting that the existence of a dispute over who would pay
> > Susan's fees and expenses at the 2003 US Open does not necessarily
> > imply that those fees and expenses were unreasonable. Other potential
> > reasons are manifold: personality clashes, philosophy of how to run
> > successful tournaments, or a desire to minimize financial commitments
> > would be at the head of the list.
>
> SO we still have no smoking gun?
>
> > Jack,
>
> > I have endeavored to represent your views accurately, and feel that I
> > have succeeded. Please do not hesitate to correct any mistakes on my
> > part, however![/quote]
>
> > It just so happens that my wife, Kayo Kimura, is an accounting major
> > at Lehman College, a division of CUNY, and she is taking a course in
> > advanced auditing this semester. Her professor is a partner in
> > Deloitte Haskins & Sells.
>
> Ho hum....... Sam sits in on a class and magic happens... they discuss
> accounting in an accounting class. Ye Gods! A miracle!
>
> > My wife just spent two weeks in the hospital. She was seriously ill.
> > She sent me to her class to take notes and report back to her on the
> > professor's lecture. The professor agreed to let me sit in on the
> > class.
>
> Yadda-yadda-yadda!
>
> > It just so happened by fantastic coincidence that the professor
> > devoted his lecture to the subject above.
>
> > The first thing that Jack Lemoine would do it he were hired to audit
> > the above transactions is see not only whether the charges were
> > reasonable, but whether they were authorized. Did the board vote to
> > allow the hiring and the payment of these fees? Is there any
> > resolution of the board in the corporate minutes? Was there any
> > contract signed? Is there any memorandum or record of any agreement to
> > pay these fees? Are these fees reasonable in light of the general
> > custom and practices of the industry, which in this case is chess? Is
> > there any history of the USCF paying these kind of fees in light of
> > the services allegedly performed?
>
> Try out for the Olympics, Sam. With your ability to Jump to
> conclusions with the distance you do should get you a medal in the
> broad jump.
>
> > Unfortunately, the answer to all of the above questions is no. There
> > is no record of any agreement in advance to pay these fees and
> > charges, nor is there any history of the USCF ever paying comparable
> > fees to anybody other than on the occasion in question, nor did the
> > executive board pass any resolution authorizing the payment of these
> > fees.
>
> Is the horse dead yet Sam?
>
> > In short, if Jack Lemoine were to audit this statement, the payment of
> > this $13,358.36 would raise questions, possibly requiring a footnote
> > in the financial statement.
>
> Doubtful.
>
>
>
> > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The only thing Sam Sloan can do now is dig up dirt over 4 years old.
Polgar is not a problem until she takes office, just as Sloan is being
thrown out of office. I predict Sloan gets defeated by a significant
margin. The old guard will claim Sloan is dead. The Usenet support for
Sloan is gone. Sloan might as well join the ticket of Kirsan
Ilyumzhionv, HA HA HA!!!
I honestly say, in this environment, I no longer understand what could
motivate a person to want to sit on the USCF executive committee. It
is the same people, over and over again.
I would be EMBARASSED to sit on the USCF Executive Committee and run
for public office. Nobody in their right mind would sit on any USCF
board or committee and run for Congress. Who would want to be
associated with a bunch of child molesters? I mean, directors /
delegates who are convicted of crimes like Sloan (kidnapping) or sex
crimes against children.
USCF office is the KISS OF DEATH for a real politician, because of Sam
Sloan.
Marcus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 10:03:56
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Payment of $13,358.36 to Polgar
|
On May 4, 11:47 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> [quote="chrisfalter"]Hal,
>
> Some months ago a controversy was raging in this forum over expenses
> and fees paid to GM Polgar at the 2003 US Open. Mr. Sam Sloan very
> helpfully posted the itemization from Polgar's invoice, so Jack looked
> it over with his auditor's eye.
Sam refers to himself in the third person? Only Sam describes his
pestilence as helpful.
>In a post that I read before it got
> deleted, Jack stated that with the exception of one very small
> expense, he saw nothing that would have triggered further
> investigation if he had been auditing the invoice--i.e., everything
> except for one very small item seemed reasonable. He also stated
> that, while he claimed no particular expertise in appearance fees, he
> had occasionally run across them while auditing, and Susan's fees
> seemed lower than he had generally experienced in the past.
Gee, so she discounts her fees to help chess. WOW Sam, what a crime!
> Paul's subsequent statements in this thread validate Jack's
> perspective, of course, and I thank him for his contribution to the
> thread.
>
> I close by noting that the existence of a dispute over who would pay
> Susan's fees and expenses at the 2003 US Open does not necessarily
> imply that those fees and expenses were unreasonable. Other potential
> reasons are manifold: personality clashes, philosophy of how to run
> successful tournaments, or a desire to minimize financial commitments
> would be at the head of the list.
SO we still have no smoking gun?
> Jack,
>
> I have endeavored to represent your views accurately, and feel that I
> have succeeded. Please do not hesitate to correct any mistakes on my
> part, however![/quote]
>
> It just so happens that my wife, Kayo Kimura, is an accounting major
> at Lehman College, a division of CUNY, and she is taking a course in
> advanced auditing this semester. Her professor is a partner in
> Deloitte Haskins & Sells.
Ho hum....... Sam sits in on a class and magic happens... they discuss
accounting in an accounting class. Ye Gods! A miracle!
> My wife just spent two weeks in the hospital. She was seriously ill.
> She sent me to her class to take notes and report back to her on the
> professor's lecture. The professor agreed to let me sit in on the
> class.
Yadda-yadda-yadda!
> It just so happened by fantastic coincidence that the professor
> devoted his lecture to the subject above.
>
> The first thing that Jack Lemoine would do it he were hired to audit
> the above transactions is see not only whether the charges were
> reasonable, but whether they were authorized. Did the board vote to
> allow the hiring and the payment of these fees? Is there any
> resolution of the board in the corporate minutes? Was there any
> contract signed? Is there any memorandum or record of any agreement to
> pay these fees? Are these fees reasonable in light of the general
> custom and practices of the industry, which in this case is chess? Is
> there any history of the USCF paying these kind of fees in light of
> the services allegedly performed?
Try out for the Olympics, Sam. With your ability to Jump to
conclusions with the distance you do should get you a medal in the
broad jump.
> Unfortunately, the answer to all of the above questions is no. There
> is no record of any agreement in advance to pay these fees and
> charges, nor is there any history of the USCF ever paying comparable
> fees to anybody other than on the occasion in question, nor did the
> executive board pass any resolution authorizing the payment of these
> fees.
Is the horse dead yet Sam?
> In short, if Jack Lemoine were to audit this statement, the payment of
> this $13,358.36 would raise questions, possibly requiring a footnote
> in the financial statement.
Doubtful.
> Sam Sloan
|
|
