Main
Date: 21 Dec 2008 11:19:12
From:
Subject: Take the Sloan Test
In another thread I asked Sam Sloan why he can't seem to notice a
question I have put to him on many occasions. Here it is:

"Should USCF board members be required to pass an ordinary high-
school
background check?"

Simple question - can be answered yes or no.

Since I anticipate no answer will be obtained from Sam Sloan himself -
do others here think that a membership organization comprised mostly
of scholastic members should require its executive board to admit this
requirement?

Other chess politicos can answer too - remember, responses can be at
any length, but the first word has to be Yes or No.

If parents of chess kids, or those responsible for chess kids read
this - they might add their liking to the idea.

Phil Innes




 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 15:42:32
From: GEORGE ZIMMER, CEO AND FOUNDER OF MEN'S WAREHOUSE
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
<object width="425" height="344" ><param name="movie" value="http://
www.youtube.com/v/t8Od9OCtCRg&hl=en&fs=1" ></param><param
name="allowFullScreen" value="true" ></param><param
name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" ></param><embed src="http://
www.youtube.com/v/t8Od9OCtCRg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-
shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"
width="425" height="344" ></embed></object>


 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 15:36:28
From: GEORGE ZIMMER, CEO AND FOUNDER OF MEN'S WAREHOUSE
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
I love little girls they make me feel so good
I love little girls they make me feel so bad
When theyre around they make me feel
Like Im the only guy in town
I love little girls they make me feel so good

They dont care if Im a one way mirror
Theyre not frightened by my cold exterior

They dont ask me questions
They dont want to scold me
They dont look for answers
They just want to hold me
Isnt this fun
Isnt this what lifes all about
Isnt this a dream come true
Isnt this a nightmare too

(repeat first verse)

They dont care about my inclinations
Theyre not frightened by my revelations

Uh oh take a second take
Uh oh its a mistake
Uh oh Im in trouble
Uh oh the little girl was just to little
Too little, too little, too little
Isnt this what lifes all about
Isnt this a dream come true
Isnt this a nightmare too . . .

And I dont care what people say
And I dont care what people think
And I dont care how we look walking down the street

(repeat chorus)

(repeat first verse)


I DEDICATE THAT TO SAM SLOAN

OLOLOL


 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 15:33:07
From: GEORGE ZIMMER, CEO AND FOUNDER OF MEN'S WAREHOUSE
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
Do you believe in magic in a young girl's heart
How the music can free her, whenever it starts
And it's magic, if the music is groovy
It makes you feel happy like an old-time movie
I'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul
But it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock and roll

If you believe in magic don't bother to choose
If it's jug band music or rhythm and blues
Just go and listen it'll start with a smile
It won't wipe off your face no matter how hard you try
Your feet start tapping and you can't seem to find
How you got there, so just blow your mind

If you believe in magic, come along with me
We'll dance until morning 'til there's just you and me
And maybe, if the music is right
I'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night
And we'll go dancing, baby, then you'll see
How the magic's in the music and the music's in me

Yeah, do you believe in magic
Yeah, believe in the magic of a young girl's soul
Believe in the magic of rock and roll
Believe in the magic that can set you free
Ohh, talking 'bout magic

Do you believe like I believe Do you believe in magic
Do you believe like I believe Do you believe, believer
Do you believe like I believe Do you believe in magic


 
Date: 25 Dec 2008 13:24:26
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 'Public decency' and the defense of Trolgar
On Dec 24, 10:26=A0am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 8:42=A0am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 3:40=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > How desperate on the question of public decency ....
>
> > To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, why are the loudest yelps about public
> > decency from the defenders of Trolgar?
>
> Since it is well established that all the obscene language and dirty
> words posted here by "The Fake Sam Sloan" was actually posted by Paul
> Truong, and since Truong has yet to deny that he did it, plus Polgar
> and Truong are the only ones that I know of who are subject to a court
> order to stop abusing their children, it is difficult to understand
> why someone who is advocating the case of Board Members Polgar and
> Truong keeps bringing up this issue.
>
> Sam Sloan

What else does he have? The First Couple is pretty well indefensible
on most issues.


 
Date: 25 Dec 2008 13:20:52
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 'Public decency' and the defense of Trolgar
On Dec 24, 9:55=A0am, sdowd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wouldn't two candidates then have been ineligible in the last election
> based on known "hot-saucing"?

Perhaps. But there are other activities that should disqualify the
First Couple - remember the Mottershead Report?


 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 08:00:34
From:
Subject: Re: 'Public decency' and the defense of Trolgar
On Dec 24, 10:26=A0am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 8:42=A0am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 3:40=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > How desperate on the question of public decency ....
>
> > To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, why are the loudest yelps about public
> > decency from the defenders of Trolgar?
>
> Since it is well established that all the obscene language and dirty
> words posted here by "The Fake Sam Sloan" was actually posted by Paul
> Truong, and since Truong has yet to deny that he did it, plus Polgar
> and Truong are the only ones that I know of who are subject to a court
> order to stop abusing their children, it is difficult to understand
> why someone who is advocating the case of Board Members Polgar and
> Truong keeps bringing up this issue.
>
> Sam Sloan

Good Grief!

Its hard to know how to speak to such people who have so little regard
for being decent legal honest and truthful. As since its Christmas Eve
I won't.

Instead I'll just mention that standards apply to everyone equally -
and doesn't matter how much you whine and evade the issues to make
them go away - standards are what we want.

After all, this is merely normalcy. Why should chess accept the sub-
standard and have no means to audit which characters hold the reins?

Where are we, Mordor?



Phil Innes


 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 07:26:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 'Public decency' and the defense of Trolgar
On Dec 24, 8:42=A0am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 3:40=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > How desperate on the question of public decency ....
>
> To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, why are the loudest yelps about public
> decency from the defenders of Trolgar?

Since it is well established that all the obscene language and dirty
words posted here by "The Fake Sam Sloan" was actually posted by Paul
Truong, and since Truong has yet to deny that he did it, plus Polgar
and Truong are the only ones that I know of who are subject to a court
order to stop abusing their children, it is difficult to understand
why someone who is advocating the case of Board Members Polgar and
Truong keeps bringing up this issue.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 06:55:07
From:
Subject: Re: 'Public decency' and the defense of Trolgar
Wouldn't two candidates then have been ineligible in the last election
based on known "hot-saucing"?


 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 05:42:30
From: The Historian
Subject: 'Public decency' and the defense of Trolgar
On Dec 23, 3:40=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:

> How desperate on the question of public decency ....

To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, why are the loudest yelps about public
decency from the defenders of Trolgar?


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 14:18:42
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 23, 4:25=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Since you are asking the question, the answer is "yes". I have taught
> chess in the public schools and in the libraries in New York City. I
> have been fingerprinted, I have had my background checked, and I have
> passed.

Thank you for this direct reply, although anyone currently active in
this system will know that the background check is good for maximum 2
years. I assume you personally refer to sometime in the past?

> However, in spite of the fact that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong at one
> time claimed to have 300,000 school kids in their chess program, as

What? What has this to do with you or the questions I raise?: I am not
interested in your juvenile fantasies and peculiar projections;

The question remains; DO YOU AGREE THAT A BACKGROUND CHECK AT HIGH-
SCHOOL LEVEL IS NECESSARY FOR USCF BHORAD MEMBERSHIP AND SENIOR
EXECUTIVE STAFF?

You still do not answer this question - you will note that it needs to
be a current approval.

> far as I am aware, neither of them have ever had their background
> checked.

As far as you are aware you have note stated your own current status -
are you in favor of such a recent check or no?

You cannot answer positively here, and since I offer you several
opportunities to speak, with the condition that what you say is on the
record - I must record that you do not think USCF board Members nor
Senior Executive Staff would be required to pass even a local low-
level background check in order to determine conditions for children
in the USA.

To be fair to you, no other chess politician does either. They
certainly read this, and they certainly keep their heads down - and so
the situation in terms of public dialogue is what you and I contrive
it to be.

And here we arrive at the absurdity of chess politics USA - since it
is my opinion that you should not have a public role in respect of
chess-kids USA. Yet in a whole year of your holding office, you, nor
the other board members raised a single resolution on this issue of
decency.

That is your condemnation, and why you deserve little notice here now
for your prevarications and diversions and lack of address to an
increasing situation in the US of pedophiliac activity.

At least Sam Sloan, as other writers here, are innocently or not quote
innocent, of the massive increase in the diddling of children.
While they slumber, and in some cases, disguise their motives - we are
left with the result of the test:

Can people locally attest you are a suitable person to determine the
circumstances of children?

It is a Yes or No answer.

No answer received yet which says 'yes'.

Phil Innes



> Both of them have had orders of protection entered against them by the
> courts directing them not to abuse their children, so there is some
> doubt as to whether they would pass a background check.
>
> Also, Paul Truong has used many different names including Paul Derazza
> and in fact Paul Truong is not his real name either, so we have not
> been able to find out anything about his background.
>
> =A0If he has had his background checked, it would have been at Texas
> Tech University, but we have no way of knowing if that was done.
>
> Sam Sloan



 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 13:25:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
Since you are asking the question, the answer is "yes". I have taught
chess in the public schools and in the libraries in New York City. I
have been fingerprinted, I have had my background checked, and I have
passed.

However, in spite of the fact that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong at one
time claimed to have 300,000 school kids in their chess program, as
far as I am aware, neither of them have ever had their background
checked.

Both of them have had orders of protection entered against them by the
courts directing them not to abuse their children, so there is some
doubt as to whether they would pass a background check.

Also, Paul Truong has used many different names including Paul Derazza
and in fact Paul Truong is not his real name either, so we have not
been able to find out anything about his background.

If he has had his background checked, it would have been at Texas
Tech University, but we have no way of knowing if that was done.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 12:56:02
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 23, 2:40=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:

> Has Sam Sloan ever passed a background check even at high-school
> level? If not I can't imagine he has had to do anything with children
> where he is - since such checks are nationally imposed these days.

Since when and are you sure it is 100% prevalent?

In my own small experiences with scholastic chess, I was never
subjected to any such scrutiny.

> The majority members of USCF are children. No parent reading this will
> misunderstand me, but look at who has so far.


I still really don't understand. But I think this comes from my
sticking point that parents should do their own research and make
their own decisions about who is a suitable teacher/mentor/ etc. This
certification/background check stuff strikes me as nonsense.

I have asked myself the question as to whether I would have allowed
Sloan to teach my own son chess. Besides the fact that Sloan is a big
fish (and much weaker than me), I don't know if I would have said no
(the point now being moot), given the proper (supervised) setting. I
do realize many will find this odd, but being a reprehensible person
doesn't mean you can't teach chess.

Knowing someone of Bill Brock's personal circumstances and what he
thinks of Sloan, I would be real interested in knowing what he has to
say about this.



 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 12:40:43
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 23, 2:42=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2:28=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > The very interesting thing to me, having raised this thread as a
> > provocation of sorts, is the complete indifference of everyone who has
> > written in it so far about standards of decency towards children in
> > chess.
>
> > Not even one person [save Dr. D] has even acknowledged there is
> > anything to think about. Whereas every parent will always think there
> > is much to think about when they entrust their children to other's,
> > and their values.
>
> > Currently we established that no one writing here has any standards,
> > has expressed any values, and as such declared themselves [saving once
> > more, Dr. D's demurrer].
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> We are wondering why this thread is entitled "Take the Sloan Test".

'We' are?

A question directed straight at the Sloan is questioned by the Sloan -
as if he does not understand it.

> We are wondering whether this has anything to do with Professor
> Kenneth Sloan, who has voiced opposition to getting the USCF involved
> in screening and background checks.

'We' are wondering that are we?

> Contrary to your statement, as a parent of eight children, I certainly
> am concerned about letting such persons as Polgar and Truong, who are
> your clients,

Well, Sam Sloan - time for straight talk. You are the litmus test of
whoever might be admitted to any concern that has to do with children,
as majority member subjects. No one here objects to you, or can even
think publicly why such as yourself might be objectionable - there is
no single question about you from others - albeit, they have not
declared their own standards about their own children, if any.

Instead there are the usual challenges to the questioner, as if I
raised some issue not entirely in accord with public sympathy and
professional practice.

I see you insist upon a diversionary measure, itself a lie and a
*significant* lie, that either or jointly Polgar or Truong are
'clients' of mine.

How desperate on the question of public decency you must be to aver
this not once, but twice in the same day. Somehow you can't understand
that those who do perceive what is necessary in our culture are
similar - rather than conspirators.

But you Sloan are slithering!

You won't answer if your own community would admit you to a high
school after class teaching position, yet you have aspirations to
describe the circumstances for all chess teachers.

If your own community cannot recommend you - then who can? That is the
issue, Sloan.


> into a position of responsibility with the USCF,
> especially since we really know nothing about their backgrounds.

You speak as a convicted felon about non-felonies?

ROFL

What a piece of work is the Sloan - he

squirms

between the question of decent status in his own community, while
pretending the issue is otherwise.

If the Sloan had already taught at his local high school, or done any
social work, he would already have been evaluated - not at his own
expense [to get that out of the way of his pathetic objection to
personal standards]/.

The Sloan might consider his answer more carefully, since whatever he
says here is a matter of public record. To date, he has not
acknowledged there is even anything that parents of chess children
should need guard against - or that he has the slightest sense of what
that is.

Instead we have diversions about others, about organisations, and
nothing whatever from the Sloan.

Has Sam Sloan ever passed a background check even at high-school
level? If not I can't imagine he has had to do anything with children
where he is - since such checks are nationally imposed these days.

Does he think that such checks are good for an organization which has
majority scholastic members, or does he not think so?

After 4 replies he still does not come to the point - but dorks around
with the question.

Perhaps this is enough to know about Sam Sloan and his coterie of
supporters?

The majority members of USCF are children. No parent reading this will
misunderstand me, but look at who has so far.


Phil Innes




> Sam Sloan



 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 11:42:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 23, 2:28=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> The very interesting thing to me, having raised this thread as a
> provocation of sorts, is the complete indifference of everyone who has
> written in it so far about standards of decency towards children in
> chess.
>
> Not even one person [save Dr. D] has even acknowledged there is
> anything to think about. Whereas every parent will always think there
> is much to think about when they entrust their children to other's,
> and their values.
>
> Currently we established that no one writing here has any standards,
> has expressed any values, and as such declared themselves [saving once
> more, Dr. D's demurrer].
>
> Phil Innes

We are wondering why this thread is entitled "Take the Sloan Test".

We are wondering whether this has anything to do with Professor
Kenneth Sloan, who has voiced opposition to getting the USCF involved
in screening and background checks.

Contrary to your statement, as a parent of eight children, I certainly
am concerned about letting such persons as Polgar and Truong, who are
your clients, into a position of responsibility with the USCF,
especially since we really know nothing about their backgrounds.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 11:28:59
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
The very interesting thing to me, having raised this thread as a
provocation of sorts, is the complete indifference of everyone who has
written in it so far about standards of decency towards children in
chess.

Not even one person [save Dr. D] has even acknowledged there is
anything to think about. Whereas every parent will always think there
is much to think about when they entrust their children to other's,
and their values.

Currently we established that no one writing here has any standards,
has expressed any values, and as such declared themselves [saving once
more, Dr. D's demurrer].

Phil Innes



 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:41:31
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
As we see, stalker Brennen keeps a collection of the Ramsey-word - and
ignores the context in which it is offered - that he himself likes to
have a little joke about abusing women &c.

He is drawn to this subject as much as he is to 'funny' identities,
and playing around with people's names...

;)

Phil Innes


On Dec 23, 11:21=A0am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 8:21=A0am, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > I am 'worried about' actual offenses to children and public decency.
> > Is that so hard to understand?
>
> Here's Phil Innes showing his concern for public decency. Note the
> language he employs. These are from a few of his posts over the years:
>
> "The FBI will possibly in touch with you ....; for your own
> expressions
> seem to inexplicably engender abuse of others (not only myself). But
> for
> myself, I simply offer you the reflection that their are sharper
> things than
> wit.
>
> "And if you fuck with me and mine I will certainly make entirely sure
> you
> understand me without a shadow of a doubt. I am possibly over my
> petit-fascist tolerancing line.
>
> "Is this sufficiently clear?"
>
> And:
>
> "I am prepared to visit you to discuss our differences - what do you
> say to
> that? You can be up front about it here or simply wait until I show
> up. If
> you are at all alarmed at the potential threat of this message I
> suggest you
> contact the FBI."
>
> And:
>
> "....you fail to understand - you have booked yourself a date!
>
> "You are the motherfucker who has continously excited these events,
> based on
> ad hominem attack, and who now cannot even remember their consequence,
> preferring, as you do, the words of the rascist (and wanker) abuser,
> as
> apparently did St. Niro.
>
> "Hang on for a month or two if you can, and eventually I'll make it
> down and
> visit you where you are and we'll get things entirely clear between
> us.
>
> "This is not, as you realise, the proverbial threat, but an absolutely
> solid
> promise of response to continuous provocation against myself and my
> family.
>
> "If you want to accelerate the encounter, come."
>
> "I must remind any reader here that the person who writes this
> describes
> himself as an 'historian', but one who has apparently read fuck-all."
>
> "But still you fuck with the subject, lol!!"
>
> "Louis, this is boring beyond tears. I have wondered why you agitate
> on
> the
> unbidden behest of others, without the slightest attempt to even
> identify
> what the fuck you are now objecting to"
>
> "You are the motherfucker who has continously excited these events,"
>
> "And if you fuck with me and mine I will certainly make entirely sure
> you
> understand me without a shadow of a doubt."
>
> "Will your sub-personality xganon-fuck show up..."
>
> "Fuck your condolences."
>
> "if you cant write your own name to your posts why dont you fuck off?"
>
> "...fuck that for a game of charlies!"
>
> "Mala fides, malignum spernere vulgus!
> (Bad faith and fuck the people)"
>
> "Neither of these people seem to me to be hyphenable-fuck to me."
>
> "If you want to fuck with me lets sort it out. Come on... Lets do it.
> Where
> do you both live?"
>
> "So interest from Americans has to go around, even avoid USCF [because
> they
> will fuck it up],"
>
> "'fuck' Sam, why be coy when talking of freudian sluts"
>
> "Fuck him! "



 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:38:52
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 23, 9:58=A0am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 8:21=A0am, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > In private conversations [rather than this publics one] it has been
> > suggested that conditions of scholastic chess are probably a strong
> > contributing factor of the turnover. Another factor is the quality of
> > behavior displayed by the USCF board and its officials.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> I agree, and for that reason Polgar and Truong must be immediately
> removed from the board.
>
> Surely you agree, even though they are your clients.
>
> Sam Sloan

I see our Sam has been at the Christmas Sherry a bit early today.
Somehow he suggests they are of 'client' status, and continues to
ignore the issue put to him of the desirability of screening officials
who modulate the quality of experience of children in chess.

His previous and laughingly spurious reply was that USCF couldn't
afford to check its own senior staff - whereas it already blew
$120,000 in legal fees in 6 months to further un-enhance its
reputation.

Phil Innes


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:21:33
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 23, 8:21=A0am, onech...@comcast.net wrote:

> I am 'worried about' actual offenses to children and public decency.
> Is that so hard to understand?

Here's Phil Innes showing his concern for public decency. Note the
language he employs. These are from a few of his posts over the years:

"The FBI will possibly in touch with you ....; for your own
expressions
seem to inexplicably engender abuse of others (not only myself). But
for
myself, I simply offer you the reflection that their are sharper
things than
wit.

"And if you fuck with me and mine I will certainly make entirely sure
you
understand me without a shadow of a doubt. I am possibly over my
petit-fascist tolerancing line.

"Is this sufficiently clear?"

And:

"I am prepared to visit you to discuss our differences - what do you
say to
that? You can be up front about it here or simply wait until I show
up. If
you are at all alarmed at the potential threat of this message I
suggest you
contact the FBI."

And:

"....you fail to understand - you have booked yourself a date!

"You are the motherfucker who has continously excited these events,
based on
ad hominem attack, and who now cannot even remember their consequence,
preferring, as you do, the words of the rascist (and wanker) abuser,
as
apparently did St. Niro.

"Hang on for a month or two if you can, and eventually I'll make it
down and
visit you where you are and we'll get things entirely clear between
us.

"This is not, as you realise, the proverbial threat, but an absolutely
solid
promise of response to continuous provocation against myself and my
family.

"If you want to accelerate the encounter, come."

"I must remind any reader here that the person who writes this
describes
himself as an 'historian', but one who has apparently read fuck-all."

"But still you fuck with the subject, lol!!"

"Louis, this is boring beyond tears. I have wondered why you agitate
on
the
unbidden behest of others, without the slightest attempt to even
identify
what the fuck you are now objecting to"

"You are the motherfucker who has continously excited these events,"

"And if you fuck with me and mine I will certainly make entirely sure
you
understand me without a shadow of a doubt."

"Will your sub-personality xganon-fuck show up..."

"Fuck your condolences."

"if you cant write your own name to your posts why dont you fuck off?"

"...fuck that for a game of charlies!"

"Mala fides, malignum spernere vulgus!
(Bad faith and fuck the people)"

"Neither of these people seem to me to be hyphenable-fuck to me."

"If you want to fuck with me lets sort it out. Come on... Lets do it.
Where
do you both live?"

"So interest from Americans has to go around, even avoid USCF [because
they
will fuck it up],"

"'fuck' Sam, why be coy when talking of freudian sluts"

"Fuck him! "



 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:58:40
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 23, 8:21=A0am, onech...@comcast.net wrote:

> In private conversations [rather than this publics one] it has been
> suggested that conditions of scholastic chess are probably a strong
> contributing factor of the turnover. Another factor is the quality of
> behavior displayed by the USCF board and its officials.
>
> Phil Innes

I agree, and for that reason Polgar and Truong must be immediately
removed from the board.

Surely you agree, even though they are your clients.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 05:21:20
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 22, 8:13=A0pm, DannyPurvis <purvis.da...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > Not the same thing, or else this
> > > newsgroup would have required a background check before allowing this
> > > question. Because it is truly childish to imagine that any board coul=
d
> > > secretly corrupt children through the enactment of highly visible
> > > policies and standards.
>
> > There are no standards Danny.
>
> You misunderstand me. I'm saying that the USCF board has the power to
> enact policies and standards.

I understand you well enough - but having the power to enact standards
and actually doing so are 2 different things.

>
> > Inaction is often as culpable as directed activities -
>
> What in the world are you talking about? Are you arguing that, okay,
> the actions of the board might be highly visible but the inactions are
> not? You're worried that board members might secretly molest children
> through their diabolically invisible inactions?

I am 'worried about' actual offenses to children and public decency.
Is that so hard to understand?

Whether these are deliberate actions or the result of inaction, the
offense is still offered. I am not inviting sarcastic or hysterical
responses - but asking after NORMAL standards.

> > and as I
> > mentioned before, all other national organizations that I know about
> > do require certain standards of background, and also of current
> > behavior.
>
> Yes, you mentioned that before. I have never heard of a national
> organization requiring background checks of their elected board
> members. What national organizations do you know of with that
> requirement?

What difference would it make to you if I found you 10 or 10,000
references?

Are you saying that that alone would make a difference? Sometimes
people ask questions of others because they want the subject to go
away, so defer the implications of it.

The pre-eminent back-ground checking in the US is for teachers -
social workers of all types, including clinicians. Many positions that
have to do with policy setting require not only background checks, but
additional ethical standards.

What seems rather important for USCF to achieve is a review of their
overall scholastic policy - all the way back to my interview with
Beatriz Marinello the issue of very high turn-over in scholastics has
been an important one. She herself said it was the most important.

In private conversations [rather than this publics one] it has been
suggested that conditions of scholastic chess are probably a strong
contributing factor of the turnover. Another factor is the quality of
behavior displayed by the USCF board and its officials.

The very officials who are empowered but do not act.

There displayed public standard has been both actively and inactively
demonstrated to the public at USCF's forum - which seems to have
resulted in huge lawsuits while simultaneously being a new school for
scandal - indeed, a vile sort of place.

That is the face USCF shows the world. What that has to do with chess,
or even public decency is unknown - except the relationship of one
thing to the other is well known.

Phil Innes



 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 17:13:33
From: DannyPurvis
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
> > Not the same thing, or else this
> > newsgroup would have required a background check before allowing this
> > question. Because it is truly childish to imagine that any board could
> > secretly corrupt children through the enactment of highly visible
> > policies and standards.
>
> There are no standards Danny.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that the USCF board has the power to
enact policies and standards.

>
> Inaction is often as culpable as directed activities -
>

What in the world are you talking about? Are you arguing that, okay,
the actions of the board might be highly visible but the inactions are
not? You're worried that board members might secretly molest children
through their diabolically invisible inactions?

> and as I
> mentioned before, all other national organizations that I know about
> do require certain standards of background, and also of current
> behavior.
>

Yes, you mentioned that before. I have never heard of a national
organization requiring background checks of their elected board
members. What national organizations do you know of with that
requirement?


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 11:27:41
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 22, 2:15=A0pm, DannyPurvis <purvis.da...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > The question really is; who do you want setting standards for your
> > children? Are they suitable people or not?
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> If serving on the board allowed adults to cultivate abusive
> relationships with children, then background checks would be
> imperative. That is not the case, however. Serving on the board merely
> allows adults to act like children.

:)

Except that board members can determine the conditions of children in
'official chess' - they can determine it actively, or passively by
inaction to still effect the children.

> Not the same thing, or else this
> newsgroup would have required a background check before allowing this
> question. Because it is truly childish to imagine that any board could
> secretly corrupt children through the enactment of highly visible
> policies and standards.

There are no standards Danny.

Inaction is often as culpable as directed activities - and as I
mentioned before, all other national organizations that I know about
do require certain standards of background, and also of current
behavior.

Unless someone can contradict me, USCF has niether.

Phil Innes


> Danny Purvis



 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 11:15:22
From: DannyPurvis
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
>
> The question really is; who do you want setting standards for your
> children? Are they suitable people or not?
>
> Phil Innes

If serving on the board allowed adults to cultivate abusive
relationships with children, then background checks would be
imperative. That is not the case, however. Serving on the board merely
allows adults to act like children. Not the same thing, or else this
newsgroup would have required a background check before allowing this
question. Because it is truly childish to imagine that any board could
secretly corrupt children through the enactment of highly visible
policies and standards.

Danny Purvis


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 10:54:05
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 22, 1:07=A0pm, sdowd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 22, 10:48=A0am, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > The question really is; who do you want setting standards for your
> > children? Are they suitable people or not?
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Thanks Phil that was interesting. I still don't know where I would
> stand on the issue, but your response gave some food for thought.

That Sir, is a better answer than agreement.

Cordially, Phil


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 10:49:18
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 22, 12:30=A0pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:48:42 -0800 (PST), onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> >On Dec 22, 9:57=A0am, sdowd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> It would be interesting Phil for you to tell us what is involved in
> >> such a check for those of us who don't know. Or why it would be
> >> desirable.
> >Its pretty perfunctory legal search against a variety of offences,
> >including expressions of normal public decency, coupled with
> >recommendations from referees.
>
> Seems like checking EB candidates for bankruptcy filings and other
> evidence of financial competency would fit right into your scheme,

One thing at a time - general fiduciary competency issues might
eliminate all comers. Some bankruptcies are technical, eg.

The issue here is to do with offenses to children, rather than more
about protecting an organization; and I think it is a real concern,
and don't want to pork barrel the idea with others - though if you
feel you should prosecute your own idea, make your own proposal.

> since =A0prospective Board members have important fiduciary
> responsibilities to the membership, both adult and underage.
>
> How about it, Phil? =A0Should a check into personal financial history
> and other evidence of fiscal competency and ethical behavior be an
> equal part of your recommended candidate vetting?

I think the things you suggest might actually be useful to the
organization - but again, I am talking about what use or misuse the
organization is to young chess players.

I hope you note the difference.

> =A0Should failure to
> disclose this material be sufficient to disqualify a candidate?

You raise 2 ideas: The first is a declaration of financial history
[which might include conflicts of interest, and so on] and secondly
failing to disclose such interest. But must be prior conditions of
entry, since AFAIK there are NO standards currently in place to ask
prospective board members anything. Even of felonies.

There are also implications in what you say about standards - since
suffering a bankruptcy is not illegal, whereas obviously having been a
felon is a social standard indicating illegal activity.

But mostly I am grimly amused that as usual all the talk is about the
organization, rather than whom the organization serves. If is as if
USCF were a for profit business with no particular social
responsibility - rather than a non-profit whose basis is to act not
for itself, but for the benefit of others.

Phil Innes


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 11:14:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:49:18 -0800 (PST), onechess@comcast.net wrote:

>I think the things you suggest might actually be useful to the
>organization - but again, I am talking about what use or misuse the
>organization is to young chess players.

>I hope you note the difference.
...
>There are also implications in what you say about standards - since
>suffering a bankruptcy is not illegal, whereas obviously having been a
>felon is a social standard indicating illegal activity.

>But mostly I am grimly amused that as usual all the talk is about the
>organization, rather than whom the organization serves. If is as if
>USCF were a for profit business with no particular social
>responsibility - rather than a non-profit whose basis is to act not
>for itself, but for the benefit of others.

Well, you must admit it's difficult for an organization to act "for
the benefit of others" if the directors siphon off the treasury.

While not denying their relevancy for general character evaluation, I
think the types of convictions you've been describing in this thread
would be a more significant indicator of risk from hiring a scholastic
coach, advisor, or even bus driver, than from electing an EB member,
who, AFAIK, has no specific duties requiring direct unsupervised
interaction with children.

Having committed an illegal act does not necessarily render one unfit
to serve: someone convicted of trespass in an anti-war protest, for
example.

What I'm advocating is full disclosure of documented instances of
behavior which may negatively impact fitness to govern. So, no
anonymous rumors, sightings or whatever -- our vetting board would
concern itself with actual convictions, filings, legally documented
marital status, tax records, and the like. The kind of background
often demanded even of many fairly clerical positions.


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 10:48:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 22, 8:23=A0am, onech...@comcast.net wrote:

> Other national organizations whose majority members are children /do/
> require background checks - Little League and Boy Scouts, eg.
>
> Phil Innes

Are you sure about this? How do you know this?

I know nothing about the Boy Scouts of America but I imagine that in
order to be on the Board of Directors of that organization one would
not have to be subject to a background check or a drug test.

However, Boy Scout Troop Leaders who go on overnight camping trips
with the boys probably are required to submit to background checks.

In any event, I would welcome a background check on Paul Truong. We
know nothing about his background. There are 16 missing years in his
personal history. We know nothing about him from 1986 until 2002. What
was he doing during those 16 missing years. We know that he played no
chess during that period. What was he doing then?

Was he in jail, as many suspect?

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 10:07:19
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 22, 10:48=A0am, onech...@comcast.net wrote:

> The question really is; who do you want setting standards for your
> children? Are they suitable people or not?
>
> Phil Innes

Thanks Phil that was interesting. I still don't know where I would
stand on the issue, but your response gave some food for thought.


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 08:48:42
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 22, 9:57=A0am, sdowd...@gmail.com wrote:
> It would be interesting Phil for you to tell us what is involved in
> such a check for those of us who don't know. Or why it would be
> desirable.

Its pretty perfunctory legal search against a variety of offences,
including expressions of normal public decency, coupled with
recommendations from referees.

I think I mentioned before that a somewhat more vigorous check is
carried out by social service agencies especially in respect to
contacts with children.

One shrink told me that 50% of their Californian applicants as
volunteer workers with children were rejected on the grounds of
unsuitability.

> I've noticed you have come down on the side of no drug testing in
> competitive chess

I wasn't aware of that. I always thought the idea of drug testing of
the game of chess to be an absurdity imposed by burocrats in order to
slink chess into the Olympics as a sport. I'm not aware that I have
ever expressed myself otherwise. I did invite a US pro-drug tester and
advisor to Fide to write his views at Chessville - which he did.


> yet a high school background search - would that
> involve a drug test? If so, I find the two positions incompatible
> (anti-drug testing for competition, pro for teaching chess), although
> others might not.

I am not addressing teaching chess - at least not initially. I am
talking about USCF Board Membership requirements, as well as for
senior executive staff.

Drug screening is not a normal part of a high school check, except if
you drive a school bus.

> I don't know the issues well enough - I've usually avoided becoming
> too involved in kiddie chess, but I have typically viewed such things
> as unnecessary invasions of privacy that do very little to shield any
> party that might suffer ( I did have some expertise in mandatory drug
> testing of health professionals years ago, which I found to be an
> unnecessary expense and invasion of privacy - bad behavior should be
> the exclusionary factor).

I would agree that it is an invasion of privacy - but the very thing
that is sought to be averted is invasion of the privacy of children,
either by active means, or by neglectful management by adults of those
children placed in our trust.

My question to Sam Sloan concerned the suitability of those chess
governance people to properly create the right circumstances for our
charges - the children. One obviously cannot go about that
metaphysically - those people who could not pass a low level check
should therefore not have anything to do with actively or passively
establishing conditions for young people.


> If the "lowest national standard" is wrong, then adhering to it is
> just pandering.

I didn't say it was wrong - I said the lowest national standard was
thought necessary, especially in similar groups who have to do with
children.

> Again, just an opinion because this not an issue I
> pretend to know much about.

The question really is; who do you want setting standards for your
children? Are they suitable people or not?

Phil Innes



  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 09:30:56
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:48:42 -0800 (PST), onechess@comcast.net wrote:

>On Dec 22, 9:57 am, sdowd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It would be interesting Phil for you to tell us what is involved in
>> such a check for those of us who don't know. Or why it would be
>> desirable.

>Its pretty perfunctory legal search against a variety of offences,
>including expressions of normal public decency, coupled with
>recommendations from referees.

Seems like checking EB candidates for bankruptcy filings and other
evidence of financial competency would fit right into your scheme,
since prospective Board members have important fiduciary
responsibilities to the membership, both adult and underage.

How about it, Phil? Should a check into personal financial history
and other evidence of fiscal competency and ethical behavior be an
equal part of your recommended candidate vetting? Should failure to
disclose this material be sufficient to disqualify a candidate?


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 06:57:00
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
It would be interesting Phil for you to tell us what is involved in
such a check for those of us who don't know. Or why it would be
desirable.

I've noticed you have come down on the side of no drug testing in
competitive chess yet a high school background search - would that
involve a drug test? If so, I find the two positions incompatible
(anti-drug testing for competition, pro for teaching chess), although
others might not.

I don't know the issues well enough - I've usually avoided becoming
too involved in kiddie chess, but I have typically viewed such things
as unnecessary invasions of privacy that do very little to shield any
party that might suffer ( I did have some expertise in mandatory drug
testing of health professionals years ago, which I found to be an
unnecessary expense and invasion of privacy - bad behavior should be
the exclusionary factor).

If the "lowest national standard" is wrong, then adhering to it is
just pandering. Again, just an opinion because this not an issue I
pretend to know much about.



 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 05:23:38
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 22, 2:09=A0am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 5:09=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 2:26=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 2:19=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > In another thread I asked Sam Sloan why he can't seem to notice a
> > > > question I have put to him on many occasions. Here it is:
>
> > > > "Should USCF board members be required to pass an ordinary high-
> > > > school
> > > > background check?"
>
> > > > Simple question - can be answered yes or no.
>
> > > > Since I anticipate no answer will be obtained from Sam Sloan himsel=
f -
> > > > do others here think that =A0a membership organization comprised mo=
stly
> > > > of scholastic members should require its executive board to admit t=
his
> > > > requirement?
>
> > > > Other chess politicos can answer too - remember, responses can be a=
t
> > > > any length, but the first word has to be Yes or No.
>
> > > > If parents of chess kids, or those responsible for chess kids read
> > > > this - they might add their liking to the idea.
>
> > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > This question has been answered many times by many posters here and
> > > the answer is no.
>
> > > For several reasons. Background checks are expensive and who will pay
> > > for them? Sure not us, as we have no money.
>
> > 'We' have no money?
>
> > USCF has spent $120,000 on lawsuits this past 6 months.
>
> > But I note you object because you are unwilling to pay for such a test
> > - for yourself and others. Is that the only objection?
>
> > > Backgrounds expose us to lawsuits. Suppose a Robert Snyder is on our
> > > team and gets caught. We get sued and may have to pay millions.
>
> > I don't understand this reference.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Robert Snyder is a famous and well known scholastic chess coach and
> author of chess books who has twice been convicted of child
> molestation and the police are now looking for him again.
>
> These things happen.
>
> If the USCF holds itself out as having done background checks on all
> our scholastic chess coaches and a case like this comes up, then we,
> the USCF, gets sued for millions of dollars.
>
> The other Sloan, known as "The Good" Sloan, has written on this
> subject, but since you are not a USCF member you would not know about
> that.
>
> Sam Sloan

I take these equivocations as a personal reply by Sam Sloan that board
members and aspirants to the board should not be required to take a
background check.

Of course there is liability - both ways. And as to no money - well,
after spending $120,000 on lawyers as a seeming preferential activity,
I think the issue is more that of where money is spent.

I note there is a new amount of money -$350,000 - shall some of that
be used? No money is not a viable excuse for no standards.

Other national organizations whose majority members are children /do/
require background checks - Little League and Boy Scouts, eg.

I resist the 'interpretation' above that I ever suggested that 'all
coaches should...' and so on. Ironically, Sam Sloan who has so many
opinions cannot seem to answer for himself on this issue.

I also resist the idea - the entirely normal idea in business - that
conducting due-diligence would make one more liable.

My question is simpler than that. For those who create the policy and
atmosphere within which chess is played in the USA - which includes
USCF board members, and USCF's executive managers; that these
individuals should be required to do what is only normal elsewhere in
our society.

How strange this issue should be skirted at the national level, when
the very same issues and conditions exist in every town and its
schools in the country.

What does it mean about the organization that it has no standards of
behavior in this respect, and certainly does not approach even the
lowest national standard?

Phil Innes




 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 23:09:43
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 21, 5:09=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:26=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 2:19=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > In another thread I asked Sam Sloan why he can't seem to notice a
> > > question I have put to him on many occasions. Here it is:
>
> > > "Should USCF board members be required to pass an ordinary high-
> > > school
> > > background check?"
>
> > > Simple question - can be answered yes or no.
>
> > > Since I anticipate no answer will be obtained from Sam Sloan himself =
-
> > > do others here think that =A0a membership organization comprised most=
ly
> > > of scholastic members should require its executive board to admit thi=
s
> > > requirement?
>
> > > Other chess politicos can answer too - remember, responses can be at
> > > any length, but the first word has to be Yes or No.
>
> > > If parents of chess kids, or those responsible for chess kids read
> > > this - they might add their liking to the idea.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > This question has been answered many times by many posters here and
> > the answer is no.
>
> > For several reasons. Background checks are expensive and who will pay
> > for them? Sure not us, as we have no money.
>
> 'We' have no money?
>
> USCF has spent $120,000 on lawsuits this past 6 months.
>
> But I note you object because you are unwilling to pay for such a test
> - for yourself and others. Is that the only objection?
>
> > Backgrounds expose us to lawsuits. Suppose a Robert Snyder is on our
> > team and gets caught. We get sued and may have to pay millions.
>
> I don't understand this reference.
>
> Phil Innes

Robert Snyder is a famous and well known scholastic chess coach and
author of chess books who has twice been convicted of child
molestation and the police are now looking for him again.

These things happen.

If the USCF holds itself out as having done background checks on all
our scholastic chess coaches and a case like this comes up, then we,
the USCF, gets sued for millions of dollars.

The other Sloan, known as "The Good" Sloan, has written on this
subject, but since you are not a USCF member you would not know about
that.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 22:16:19
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
No.


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 14:09:18
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 21, 2:26=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:19=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > In another thread I asked Sam Sloan why he can't seem to notice a
> > question I have put to him on many occasions. Here it is:
>
> > "Should USCF board members be required to pass an ordinary high-
> > school
> > background check?"
>
> > Simple question - can be answered yes or no.
>
> > Since I anticipate no answer will be obtained from Sam Sloan himself -
> > do others here think that =A0a membership organization comprised mostly
> > of scholastic members should require its executive board to admit this
> > requirement?
>
> > Other chess politicos can answer too - remember, responses can be at
> > any length, but the first word has to be Yes or No.
>
> > If parents of chess kids, or those responsible for chess kids read
> > this - they might add their liking to the idea.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> This question has been answered many times by many posters here and
> the answer is no.
>
> For several reasons. Background checks are expensive and who will pay
> for them? Sure not us, as we have no money.

'We' have no money?

USCF has spent $120,000 on lawsuits this past 6 months.

But I note you object because you are unwilling to pay for such a test
- for yourself and others. Is that the only objection?

> Backgrounds expose us to lawsuits. Suppose a Robert Snyder is on our
> team and gets caught. We get sued and may have to pay millions.

I don't understand this reference.

> High Schools do their own background tests. Why should we have
> additional tests?

Additional? You have no tests whatever.

> This has all been stated many times by many posters previously.

What a weak response! No matter of principle is invoked, only money
and what quantities of people have been claimed to say. My experience
of quantities of people is that they /do/ want such tests - especially
if they are parents or educators.

Sam Sloan answers 'no' to their /need/. That is now a matter of
record, and let it be well known. At least he answers the question
whereas rather conspicuously several board members pretend they don't
see it ;)

That is, with 2 notable exceptions.

Readers should note that the result of such a practice, or lack of
practice, is that citizens may be elected to a primarily scholastic
membership organization and make policy for the entire nation, about
conditions of scholastic members, while they themselves would be
ineligible to do so at their own local school district.

Phil Innes

> Sam Sloan



  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 13:23:06
From:
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 22, 2:14=A0pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:49:18 -0800 (PST), onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> >I think the things you suggest might actually be useful to the
> >organization - but again, I am talking about what use or misuse the
> >organization is to young chess players.
> >I hope you note the difference.
> ...
> >There are also implications in what you say about standards - since
> >suffering a bankruptcy is not illegal, whereas obviously having been a
> >felon is a social standard indicating illegal activity.
> >But mostly I am grimly amused that as usual all the talk is about the
> >organization, rather than whom the organization serves. If is as if
> >USCF were a for profit business with no particular social
> >responsibility - rather than a non-profit whose basis is to act not
> >for itself, but for the benefit of others.
>
> Well, you must admit it's difficult for an organization to act "for
> the benefit of others" =A0if the directors siphon off the treasury.
>
> While not denying their relevancy for general character evaluation, I
> think the types of convictions you've been describing in this thread
> would be a more significant indicator of risk from hiring a scholastic
> coach, advisor, or even bus driver, than from electing an EB member,
> who, AFAIK, =A0has no specific duties requiring direct unsupervised
> interaction with children.
>
> Having committed an illegal act does not necessarily render one unfit
> to serve: =A0someone convicted of trespass in an anti-war protest, for
> example.
>
> What I'm advocating is full disclosure of documented instances of
> behavior which may negatively impact fitness to govern. =A0So, no
> anonymous rumors, sightings or whatever -- our vetting board would
> concern itself with actual convictions, filings, legally documented
> marital status, tax records, and the like. =A0The kind of background
> often demanded even of many fairly clerical positions.

This is a fair reply.

Phil Innes


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 11:26:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Take the Sloan Test
On Dec 21, 2:19=A0pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> In another thread I asked Sam Sloan why he can't seem to notice a
> question I have put to him on many occasions. Here it is:
>
> "Should USCF board members be required to pass an ordinary high-
> school
> background check?"
>
> Simple question - can be answered yes or no.
>
> Since I anticipate no answer will be obtained from Sam Sloan himself -
> do others here think that =A0a membership organization comprised mostly
> of scholastic members should require its executive board to admit this
> requirement?
>
> Other chess politicos can answer too - remember, responses can be at
> any length, but the first word has to be Yes or No.
>
> If parents of chess kids, or those responsible for chess kids read
> this - they might add their liking to the idea.
>
> Phil Innes

This question has been answered many times by many posters here and
the answer is no.

For several reasons. Background checks are expensive and who will pay
for them? Sure not us, as we have no money.

Backgrounds expose us to lawsuits. Suppose a Robert Snyder is on our
team and gets caught. We get sued and may have to pay millions.

High Schools do their own background tests. Why should we have
additional tests?

This has all been stated many times by many posters previously.

Sam Sloan