Chess politics - We were lied to

Author

We were lied to

Parrthenon

2005-01-01, 5:46 pm

NO PAY MEANS NO PAY

< "Now I stated this before but it is not accepted here ... NOT because what I
have said is not true but because it is easier to attack a volunteer." > --
Randy Bauer

I and others referenced the actual Board resolution authorizing Bill
Goichberg at "at no pay" to take up the position as interim ED and noted that
Board member Don Schultz also wrote that "BG is giving his service for free."

The natural conclusion to reach from a Board resolution linking this position
to "no pay" is that "no pay" did not mean an ex gratia payment of $25,000 or
even, for that matter, one dollar.

Randy Bauer then made a posting in which he tried to pass blame for continued
misunderstanding that "no pay" did not mean "no pay" because there was another
understanding that he, Mr. Bauer, had explained before but which those us with
scant regard for fact had failed to accept.

Blah, blah, blah.

In truth, Mr. Bauer tried to shift the blame clearly enough. His tacit premise
is that it is not only easier but in some way wrong to attack this "volunteer,"
who was not, in truth, a volunteer. You see: we are attacking because we love
the attack more than truth.

Arrant nonsense.

We read the Board resolution calling for "no pay" to mean "no pay." We find
the ex post rationalization incredible, though we agree with Mr. Bauer that the
USCF, on balance, got a great bargain thanks to Bill Goichberg's fine service.

We find it sad that the service was predicated upon a blatant lie in a Board
resolution. We believe the reason for the lie was to disarm opposition to Bill
Goichberg stepping into the office. It worked, too.

Mr. Bauer told us he was retailing his story in case any of us were interested
in what happened. I am interested. I know what happened: the Board passed EB
04-32 making Bill Goichberg interim Executive Director AT NO PAY UNTIL THE END
OF 2004. Instead the board including Mr. Bauer voted to give him an
ex-post-facto payment of $25,000.

That is what happened. Mr. Bauer talks about an "explicit caveat." One wants
to use some of his scatological language to describe that little bit, but I
shall refrain.

An "explicit caveat" that contradicts the Board resolution is a non-caveat --
or it belonged in the resolution. It was not there. Period.

We were lied to. And there is no end to this shameless deception by a board
that is determined to relovate to Crossville even if it destroys the USCF.

-- Larry Parr

________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

Tom Martinak

2005-01-01, 5:46 pm

You seem to be confused. The positions you ascribe to Mr. Bauer were
actually those taken by Mr.Schultz and not by mr Bauer, who was not on
the EB at the time EB 04-32 was passed and didn't know of any "extra"
provisions until Mr. Schultz reported them.

- Tom Martinak

Ray Gordon

2005-01-01, 5:46 pm

I disagree.

Goichberg got no pay, but did wind up with a bonus at the end of his tenure
for a job very -- and I mean VERY -- well done.

The man is the last bastion of OTB directors in this country, and the only
one with a real need for USCF to continue as an ongoing concern.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20041230015603.06291.00001804@mb-m26.news.cs.com...

quote:

> NO PAY MEANS NO PAY
>
> < "Now I stated this before but it is not accepted here ... NOT because
> what I
> have said is not true but because it is easier to attack a volunteer."
> Randy Bauer
>
> I and others referenced the actual Board resolution authorizing Bill
> Goichberg at "at no pay" to take up the position as interim ED and noted
> that
> Board member Don Schultz also wrote that "BG is giving his service for
> free."
>
> The natural conclusion to reach from a Board resolution linking this
> position
> to "no pay" is that "no pay" did not mean an ex gratia payment of $25,000
> or
> even, for that matter, one dollar.
>
> Randy Bauer then made a posting in which he tried to pass blame for
> continued
> misunderstanding that "no pay" did not mean "no pay" because there was
> another
> understanding that he, Mr. Bauer, had explained before but which those us
> with
> scant regard for fact had failed to accept.
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
>
> In truth, Mr. Bauer tried to shift the blame clearly enough. His tacit
> premise
> is that it is not only easier but in some way wrong to attack this
> "volunteer,"
> who was not, in truth, a volunteer. You see: we are attacking because we
> love
> the attack more than truth.
>
> Arrant nonsense.
>
> We read the Board resolution calling for "no pay" to mean "no pay." We
> find
> the ex post rationalization incredible, though we agree with Mr. Bauer
> that the
> USCF, on balance, got a great bargain thanks to Bill Goichberg's fine
> service.
>
> We find it sad that the service was predicated upon a blatant lie in a
> Board
> resolution. We believe the reason for the lie was to disarm opposition to
> Bill
> Goichberg stepping into the office. It worked, too.
>
> Mr. Bauer told us he was retailing his story in case any of us were
> interested
> in what happened. I am interested. I know what happened: the Board passed
> EB
> 04-32 making Bill Goichberg interim Executive Director AT NO PAY UNTIL THE
> END
> OF 2004. Instead the board including Mr. Bauer voted to give him an
> ex-post-facto payment of $25,000.
>
> That is what happened. Mr. Bauer talks about an "explicit caveat." One
> wants
> to use some of his scatological language to describe that little bit, but
> I
> shall refrain.
>
> An "explicit caveat" that contradicts the Board resolution is a
> non-caveat --
> or it belonged in the resolution. It was not there. Period.
>
> We were lied to. And there is no end to this shameless deception by a
> board
> that is determined to relovate to Crossville even if it destroys the USCF.
>
> -- Larry Parr
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> "FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not
> be
> able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical
> Commission.

Parrthenon

2005-01-03, 9:45 am

NO PAY MEANS NO PAY

< Let me set the record straight, if I can, about Bill Goichberg's $25,000
bonus (or retroactive salary, or whatever you want to call it). > -- USCF
treasurer Timothy Hanke

Did Bill deserve some kind of compensation? I don't know that rgcp will reach
a consensus on that. Personally I think he did a good job under trying
circumstances, and I find the compensation itself not unreasonable, though I
find the circumstances under which it was snuck through abhorrent! > -- Mike
Nolan

I find myself insisting that the phrase, "no pay," does not mean "pay."
Because if "no pay" does mean mean "pay," then "volunteer" means "paid help."

Tim Hanke offers an explanation for how it came about that an Executive
Board motionn appointing Bill Goichberg as interim ED, which stated that he
would receive "no pay," became a decision a year later that he would receive
"pay."

The truth is that Tim's explanation, even if accepted as truthful in
every respect, is merely an explanation for how it may come about that Beatriz
Marinello, currently a "volunteer," can became "paid help" just as easily as
Bill Goichberg.

The resolution providing for "no pay" was evidently a ruse -- a lie in
violation of fiduciary responsibility -- to tamp down opposition to Bill
Goichberg serving in the office. The ploy: promise "no pay" in the enabling
resolution; talk privately about possibly having pay later on (without
mentioning such details to the chess public); and finally arranging for the
phrase "no pay" to be defined as "pay."

That's what happened. Anyone who has been around this Federation long
enough knows that is what happened.

What a tawdry ending to what could have been the brightest moment in
the stellar chess career of Bill Goichberg.

I am the first to hand out credit where it is due. Bill very likely gets an
enormous amount of credit. But he should not get "pay" when he was brought on
at "no pay."

Period. End of story, as Randy Bauer is wont to say over and over.

CREDIT, YES. PAY NO. BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE DEAL.

-- Larry Parr

________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

The Masked Bishop

2005-01-03, 5:46 pm

A sad sidenote is how much of a shill Tim Hanke has been forced to become
for all this crap.

"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050103093108.06417.00001960@mb-m22.news.cs.com...

quote:

> NO PAY MEANS NO PAY
>
> < Let me set the record straight, if I can, about Bill Goichberg's $25,000
> bonus (or retroactive salary, or whatever you want to call it). > -- USCF
> treasurer Timothy Hanke
>
> Did Bill deserve some kind of compensation? I don't know that rgcp will

reach

quote:

> a consensus on that. Personally I think he did a good job under trying
> circumstances, and I find the compensation itself not unreasonable, though

quote:

> find the circumstances under which it was snuck through abhorrent! > --

Mike

quote:

> Nolan
>
> I find myself insisting that the phrase, "no pay," does not mean "pay."
> Because if "no pay" does mean mean "pay," then "volunteer" means "paid

help."

quote:

>
> Tim Hanke offers an explanation for how it came about that an

Executive

quote:

> Board motionn appointing Bill Goichberg as interim ED, which stated that

quote:

> would receive "no pay," became a decision a year later that he would

receive

quote:

> "pay."
>
> The truth is that Tim's explanation, even if accepted as truthful

quote:

> every respect, is merely an explanation for how it may come about that

Beatriz

quote:

> Marinello, currently a "volunteer," can became "paid help" just as easily

quote:

> Bill Goichberg.
>
> The resolution providing for "no pay" was evidently a ruse -- a

lie in

quote:

> violation of fiduciary responsibility -- to tamp down opposition to Bill
> Goichberg serving in the office. The ploy: promise "no pay" in the

enabling

quote:

> resolution; talk privately about possibly having pay later on (without
> mentioning such details to the chess public); and finally arranging for

the

quote:

> phrase "no pay" to be defined as "pay."
>
> That's what happened. Anyone who has been around this Federation

long

quote:

> enough knows that is what happened.
>
> What a tawdry ending to what could have been the brightest moment

quote:

> the stellar chess career of Bill Goichberg.
>
> I am the first to hand out credit where it is due. Bill very likely

gets an

quote:

> enormous amount of credit. But he should not get "pay" when he was

brought on

quote:

> at "no pay."
>
> Period. End of story, as Randy Bauer is wont to say over and over.
>
> CREDIT, YES. PAY NO. BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE DEAL.
>
> -- Larry Parr
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> "FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not

quote:

> able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical

Commission.

Parrthenon

2005-01-04, 12:46 am

SETTING TIM HANKE STRAIGHT

< As a board member Beatriz is not eligible for any compensation except expense
reimbursement. She is working for USCF for six months *without pay.* Why are
you looking this gift horse in the mouth? You should be singing her praises. >
USCF treasurer Tim Hanke

I don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

There is nothing in Tim's account that would stop the Board from
granting "volunteer" Beatriz any amount it wishes the moment she leaves the
Board. Indeed, given Tim's recital of how "no pay" came to mean "pay," this
result is not unlikely.

For the umpteenth time, Bill Goichberg has probably done a fine job,
though we have all learned by now to let time reveal any surprises. Beatriz
may do an excellent job. I certainly hope so.

Yet nothing changes the fact that "no pay" became "pay." Or how the
logic of Tim's account provides no reason that Beatriz Marinello may not also
move from "volunteer" status to "paid help" after leaving the Board at a
designated moment.

Period. End of story.
________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

Parrthenon

2005-01-04, 12:46 am

IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE

A reader sent the following links to two items in the Boston Herald that bear
on what is happening with theUSCF Board which turns a blind eye to conflict of
interest.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localR...365&format=text

"Report urges BU ban business ties with its trustees

By Kevin Rothstein

Thursday, April 15, 2004 BU trustees will be asked today to approve a new
conflict-of-interest policy that would severely limit top school officials from
doing business with the university. ``In general, it should be the policy of
the university that it will not engage in business or financial relationships
with trustees,'' reads a report obtained by the Herald recommending several
changes in how BU operates. The conflict-of-interest crackdown is part of the
recommended shake-up written in response to last October's debacle over hiring
ex-NASA head Daniel Goldin as Boston university president. Trustees paid Goldin
$1.8 million to back out after they became concerned he was not fit for the
job...."
http://www.boardsource.org/GovernanceItem.asp?ID=185

Boston university Board Adopts Governance Reforms

"A group of long time board "insiders" at Boston university were deemed
responsible for a presidential search in which former NASA chief Daniel S.
Goldin was offered the post, only to be sent away with a $1.8 million severance
deal the day before taking office.The result was a sweeping review of how the
board of trustees governed, and a decision to institute major changes...."

AND NOW MY REPLY TO PETREL

The story of how "no pay" came to mean "pay" and of how, one can safely
predict, "volunteer" will come to mean "paid help" is being given a gloss by
Petrel in what follows. First, let's take his strawman in the final paragraph
first. He writes, "Bill G. has not contacted me in any way or provided me with
any consideration." Nor has this writer suggested otherwise.

In other battles, when it has fallen to me over many months to defend
Mr. Goichberg, I could have written the same thing, but I did not.

Please see below for my new comments in multiple brackets.

[[[[Parr]]]]

The resolution providing for "no pay" was evidently a ruse -- a lie in
violation of fiduciary responsibility -- to tamp down opposition to Bill
Goichberg serving in the office. [...] CREDIT, YES. PAY NO. BECAUSE THAT WAS
NOT THE DEAL.

[[[[[PETREL]]]]]

Well, I think the EB was sloppy in its handling of this - as Tim Hanke concedes
-- and they ought to have considered the issue in the August meeting and ought
to have kept the delegates informed.

However, I honestly can't get as worked up about this as Larry Parr is.

[[[[[Parr]]]]

I am deeply concerned by what happened not because Bill Goichberg gets $25,000.
I might vote to hire him for $75,000 were I on the Board. My concern is that
the Board evidently attempted to skirt the conflict of interest issue by
dishonestly offering up Bill as unpaid for his services. This ploy was used to
tamp down opposition to him moving into the office without divesting himself
of his business interests. in the CCA.

Conflict of interests have brought this Federation to its knees. What
could have been a glorious episode has turned out to be another example of
dishonest governance.

[[[[[PETREL]]]]]

For one thing, I find Tim Hanke's account to be quite believable. And, frankly,
it is somewhat refreshing to hear someone in USCF governance say "I was on the
outs with so and so, but decided that I was being unreasonable", rather than
"I am on the outs with so and so, therefore he is an evil criminal whom I
will fight to the death on every issue."

It does Hanke credit in my view. That doesn't mean I agree with him on
everything, but it's better than the kind of war-to-the-bitter-end 110% cynical
mentality that we see on this newsgroup so much. "The Masked Bishop", for
example, writes that Hanke is "forced to be a shill" on this point. Forced by
whom?? By Don Schultz? By Bill Goichberg? If he were so easily pushed around,
we wouldn't be moving to Crossville, now, would we?

[[[[[PARR]]]]

: Petrel is replying to me, and he is bringing in a viewpoint I have not
expressed. I agree no one will force Tim Hanke to do anything in normal civil
relations, which these happen to be. As for the weakminded reference to
cynical mentality, it has nothing to do with war to the bitter end. These wars
to the bitter end have, in truth, been fought in this Federation by political
personalities employing the very same conflict of interest politics that I
have been condemning. Those of us on the outside HAVE DONE NOTHING TO WASTE
THE MONEY. Those playing politics as usual have nearly destroyed the
Federation with their special dealing.

So what is to be done? Don't change a thing. Instead shoot the messenger!

[[[[[PETREL]]]]]

As for what was "THE DEAL", let's think about that for a second. Normally a
"deal", a contract, has consideration on both sides. The "deal" referred to,
however, is that Bill G. agreed to provide his services as ED for a year and
get no pay for it. It doesn't seem to me that you can look at this as a normal
"deal". It is more like an offer of charitable aid. Suppose, for example,
someone saw the bad state of affairs of the USCF at the beginning of the year
and offered to give us $100,000 out of his or her own pocket over a period of a
year. Suppose that then, in August, it looks as if we are not in so much need
as we thought.

Is it a "violation of fiduciary responsibility" for the EB to say to that
person, "you don't have to give us the rest of the money"? I don't think so.
The EB is not -required to be harsh, grasping, and hypertechnical.

[[[[[PARR]]]]

: The distinction here is obvious: Bill Goichberg had his own self-interested

reasons for wishing to be in the office and they were, in the main, noble. He
worked hard to save the Federation because his own business would have to
retool radically and face several lean years were the Federation to go under.

Those who say that he can just set up his own rating system don't have the
foggiest idea about the kinds of benefits -- legitimate benefits -- that Bill
reaped from a healthy Federation. Bill's tenure in office did help out, I
believe, though only time will tell. But he was not a donor handing a check
to the USCF. He was a deeply interested, conflicted party entering an office
with which he had intricate business dealings. Petrel's analogy is silly.

[[[[PETREL]]]]]

From a legal point of view, no "contract" "requiring" Bill G. to work for a
full year for no pay would be legally enforceable against him. Therefore, I
don't see the board vote from a year ago as being binding on Bill G. (requiring
him not to accept money) or binding on the USCF (requiring us not to pay him
anything). I see the vote as being a statement that Bill G. was not entitled to
pay, and would have no legal claim against us for pay, but this does not bind
the EB never to pay him anything (as Randy Bauer correctly points out, boards
can overrule earlier boards or change their own minds).

[[[[[PARR]]]]

: The above is so politically naive that one cannot credit Petrel with
believing it. There would have been a major political movement aligned to stop
Bill from entering the office if there had been an upfront pay arrangement.
Hence, the very clear promise that there would be "no pay."

It was politics. Pure 100% politics.

No one who has been around the USCF for any period of time thinks
differently, in truth. Indeed, even at the time the Board was voting there
would be "no pay" and this line was being served up as an example of noble
service by Bill, we now know there were private, ah, caveats about paying him
AT THAT VERY TIME.

"No pay" always meant "pay," as it turns out. Petrel's disingenuousness
makes no sense when placed beside recent admissions that pay was intended all
along, if possible.]]]]]

[[[[[PETREL]]]]]

The EB has broad discretion to handle the assets of the USCF, after all.

[[[[[PARR]]]]

Twaddle. No one argues otherwise. The issue is whether they have been once
again mishandled through a political maneuver to ease Bill Goichberg into the
office with a public undertaking of "no pay," even while there were private
caveats from the very beginning that there would be pay, if it proved possible.

[[[[[PETREL]]]]]

By the way, someone suggested that the original EB vote should have said, "we
will reconsider the salary issue in August" and should have made this
"informal caveat" (if it was one) formal.

[[[[[PARR]]]]

My heavens! The suddenly "informal" caveat was called an explicit caveat.
In other words, at the very time we were being told there would be "no pay,"
there were plans for pay, if possible.

[[[[[PETREL]]]]]

The problem with that is that if it were in the motion as passed, it would
have entitled Bill G. to have his salary reconsidered in August. It would have
bound- the USCF to reconsider it. It might have served as the basis of a legal
claim by Bill G. As it was, the EB had a free hand.

[[[[[PARR]]]]

So what? The issue is not the above. The issue is how "no pay" came to mean
"pay": whether there was an explicit caveat, albeit a private one, from the
very beginning.

[[[[PETREL]]]]

From the fiduciary point of view, sometimes it might be better to leave these
things out of the paperwork and allow people to trust in the good will of the
EB.

[[[[[PARR]]]]

Ah yes, "trust in the good will of the EB." That argument has been made in
one form or another in every political defensive trench dug over the past 15
years. Forget about evident conflict of interests, forget about the clear
meaning of political acts that are evidently dishonest; and "trust in the
good will of the EB."

[[[[[PETREL]]]]]

As for the supposed precedent which would then allow Beatriz Marinello to be
paid for her work as "volunteer COO", the difference is, of course, that
Marinello is explicitly bound by the Standards of Conduct imposed by the
Delegates. Bill G. is not (Stan B. may disagree with me still, but I think most
of us who discussed this a couple weeks back, including Tom Martinak who raised
it in the first place, concluded that it applies to the elected members). In
any case, I think it is clearly wrong to say that she can be paid "as easily as
Bill Goichberg.

[[[[[[PARR]]]]

Nonsense. The moment she resigns the Board can hand her a token of their
appreciation, given the logic of Tim Hanke's story about how "no pay" came to
mean "pay" in the case of Bill Goichberg. Moreover, there would be those
arguing in such an instance, which may well come to pass, that we must trust
"in the goodwill of the EB" because it has, as Petrel writes, wide latitude in
disposing of Federation assets.

And so it goes.
________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

Petrel

2005-01-04, 6:45 am

Briefly,

"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050103222644.11389.00003165@mb-m29.news.cs.com...

quote:

> [[[[[PETREL]]]]]
>
> As for the supposed precedent which would then allow Beatriz Marinello to
> be
> paid for her work as "volunteer COO", the difference is, of course, that
> Marinello is explicitly bound by the Standards of Conduct imposed by the
> Delegates. [...] I think it is clearly wrong to say that she can be paid
> "as easily as
> Bill Goichberg.
>
> [[[[[[PARR]]]]
>
> Nonsense. The moment she resigns the Board can hand her a token of their
> appreciation, given the logic of Tim Hanke's story about how "no pay" came
> to
> mean "pay" in the case of Bill Goichberg.

Me again: the Standards of Conduct -explicitly- forbid Marinello from
receiving any money for -two years- after she leaves the board. I think
this explicit rule, created by the delegates, which (according to the
Bylaws) they have no power to circumvent, can withstand any hypothetical
attempt by the present or future EB (unless the Delegates vote to suspend
the standards, which they can do) to give her money "the moment she
resigns".

p>

Parrthenon

2005-01-04, 6:45 am

TO PETREL AND MIKE MURRAY

< Me again: the Standards of Conduct -explicitly- forbid Marinello from
receiving any money for -two years- after she leaves the board. I think this
explicit rule, created by the delegates, which (according to the Bylaws) they
have no power to circumvent, can withstand any hypothetical attempt by the
present or future EB (unless the Delegates vote to suspend the standards, which
they can do) to give her money "the moment she resigns". > -- Petrel

The meaning of this very provision has been under discussion. How, for example,
will her "personal expenses" be calculated? What about a consultancy contract
that would amount to the same thing as a Board subvention?

< To pick a nit here, the good King was demonstrating to the court flatterers
and toadies that, no, he really *couldn't* control the tide. He didn't think
the sea would obey. At least, that's how I remember the story. > -- Mike Murray

Almost right. King Canute was demonstrating he could not control the tides
and that kings were as nothing when placed beside God.

However, Tim Hanke was obviously making the comparison between yours
truly and Canute invidiously, and I responded in the sense that he meant. In
Tim's comparison, Canute was guilty of political voluntarism; in real life, he
was the exact opposite.
________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

Parrthenon

2005-01-04, 5:46 pm

GOOD INTENTIONS, ETHICAL MORASS

I received the following e-mail from a reader of this forum.

"Your reply to (Petrel) Peter Kimball below is right on the mark.
Unfortunately, many on the board have good intentions but have fallen into a
sort of ethical morass and muddled fiduciary duty. This is why proper
governance regulations (to use your term) are important."

[[[[[PETREL]]]]]

As for the supposed precedent which would then allow Beatriz Marinello to be
paid for her work as "volunteer COO", the difference is, of course, that
Marinello is explicitly bound by the Standards of Conduct imposed by the
Delegates. Bill G. is not (Stan B. may disagree with me still, but I think most
of us who discussed this a couple weeks back, including Tom Martinak who raised
it in the first place, concluded that it applies to the elected members). In
any case, I think it is clearly wrong to say that she can be paid "as easily as
Bill Goichberg.

[[[[[[PARR]]]]

Nonsense. The moment she resigns the Board can hand her a token of their
appreciation, given the logic of Tim Hanke's story about how "no pay" came to
mean "pay" in the case of Bill Goichberg. Moreover, there would be those
arguing in such an instance, which may well come to pass, that we must trust
"in the goodwill of the EB" because it has, as Petrel writes, wide latitude in
disposing of Federation assets.

And so it goes.

POSTED BY MIKE NOLAN, co-chair, USCF Bylaws Committee

Date: 18 Dec 2004 00:26:52 GMT
Local: Fri, Dec 17 2004 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: USAF EB to hold closed sessions in Florida

There is no Delegate motion on record that sets a specific time interval
between service on the Board and becoming a USCF employee.

As Grant Perks (and others) have noted, there is some language in the Code of
Ethics that some feel is applicable, though neither Harold Winston nor I feel
that is the case, and I suspect that the other members of the Bylaws Committee
would concur.

There may also have been some internal Board motions on this, but I've not
found one in the Board minutes that I have. I am, however, missing the minutes
from some Board meetings.

John Donaldson thought there was such a rule when he was on the Board. Harold
Winston recently reviewed the minutes of those years and found no such motion
being passed by the Board during those years.

Mike Nolan, co-chair, USCF Bylaws Committee

ASCACHESS

2005-01-04, 5:46 pm

>> Nonsense. The moment she resigns the Board can hand her a token of their

quote:

>
>Me again: the Standards of Conduct -explicitly- forbid Marinello from
>receiving any money for -two years- after she leaves the board. I think
>this explicit rule, created by the delegates, which (according to the
>Bylaws) they have no power to circumvent, can withstand any hypothetical
>attempt by the present or future EB (unless the Delegates vote to suspend
>the standards, which they can do) to give her money "the moment she
>resigns".
>
>p>
>

Parr is correct.
Here is what the "rules" actually say.

"(a) Except where noted below, no Executive Board member or a member of his
immediate family may receive financial compensation from the USCF for any
reason, except for standard reimbursement of expenses, during his tenure on the
Board, or for two years after completing his tenure if such compensation
results from bids accepted or agreements made by the Board during his tenure."

So the moment their "tenure" ends and the compensation is NOT a result of bids
or contracts made "during his tenure", the board can dump what ever USCF assets
into the lap of their fellow insider.

The standards of conduct are made for mischief. Just ask our parliamentarian.
Shoot, just ask Frank Camaratta.

Rp

Mike Nolan

2005-01-04, 5:46 pm

ascachess@aol.com (ASCACHESS) writes:

quote:

>... except for standard reimbursement of expenses, during his tenure on the
>Board, or for two years after completing his tenure if such compensation
>results from bids accepted or agreements made by the Board during his tenure."

quote:

>So the moment their "tenure" ends and the compensation is NOT a result of bids
>or contracts made "during his tenure", the board can dump what ever USCF assets
>into the lap of their fellow insider.

quote:

>The standards of conduct are made for mischief. Just ask our parliamentarian.

I didn't write the code of contact, I take no credit for how bad or
inconsistent it is. (Such codes are almost by nature bad, it's hard
to define morality without creating lots of loopholes for people to
utilize.)

Besides, it doesn't say 'except for contracts', it says 'except for
bids accepted or agreements made'. Big difference!

I would interpret the 'except for agreements made' clause as applying to
Beatriz's appointment as COO, since that is CLEARLY an agreement made
during her tenure on the Board.

Thus I would suggest the Board is prohibited from paying anything her
other than 'standard reimbursement of expenses' for her volunteer service
as COO, which is in fact what Randy and Tim have been saying, too.

No such standard applied to the agreement with Bill, because he wasn't
on the Board. Thus the Board was not restricted from changing that
agreement at a later date.

However, if the Board's INTENTION was to review the compensation issue
in August (which IMHO was not an unreasonable intent), they should have
made that part of the motion to put everyone on notice that it might happen.
Failure to do so has created yet another political firestorm.

Gandhi once said, in response to a question about why he had changed his
mind on a major policy issue, that he was wiser now than he was before.
Unfortunately, I don't see any increase in wisdom applying to the Board's
decision to retroactively award Bill $25,000 regardless of the logic
involved, and the issue of whether he deserved it or not is secondary
to the deception by omission which appears to have been inherent in
the original motion.
--
Mike Nolan

Paul Rubin

2005-01-04, 5:46 pm

nolan@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) writes:

quote:

> However, if the Board's INTENTION was to review the compensation issue
> in August (which IMHO was not an unreasonable intent), they should have
> made that part of the motion to put everyone on notice that it might happen.
> Failure to do so has created yet another political firestorm.

What happened to the tape recordings of board meetings that used to
be released on the website? That stopped, right?

Mike Nolan

2005-01-04, 5:46 pm

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:

quote:

>What happened to the tape recordings of board meetings that used to
>be released on the website? That stopped, right?

I believe the Bylaws still call for recording the meetings, though I don't
know if they're up-to-date on the website.

However, if the discussion with/about Bill occurred in closed session,
which seems likely given that it was a personnel issue, then it probably
wouldn't be on the recorded public portions of the meeting anyway.
--
Mike Nolan

Parrthenon

2005-01-05, 12:45 am

POLITICAL FIRESTORMS

< Tim, the nut of the problem here is that you are defending the Goichberg
payout. That is wrecking your, and the Board's reputation. The fact that you
guys have a pot of money to play with this year is wonderful, but we both know
that could vanish in a year's time. Honesty and integrity are what make an
organization hum. > -- TMB

< Gandhi once said, in response to a question about why he had changed his mind
on a major policy issue, that he was wiser now than he was before.
Unfortunately, I don't see any increase in wisdom applying to the Board's
decision to retroactively award Bill $25,000 regardless of the logic involved,
and the issue of whether he deserved it or not is secondary to the deception by
omission which appears to have been inherent in the original motion. > -- Mike
Nolan

Bingo!

We know that when the Board passed a motion providing Bill Goichberg, a
fine man in nearly every way, with "no pay," there was discussion about paying
him, if such would prove possible. We have since learned that both Don Schultz
and Frank Brady wanted to give him $60,000 before the board finally settled
on $25,000 retroactively.

The purpose of the deception was evident: to tamp down opposition to
Bill entering the office. Rarely has such deception been so blatant and then
placed so embarrassingly on paper in a resolution.

There's no reason whatsoever that a Board which will act in such a
fashion won't also define Beatriz Marinello's "volunteer" service as "paid
help." None.

The bylaw provision is a debate in itself. I must admit that upon
reading it again, I am certain it does NOT apply to Beatriz's "volunteer"
service.

RANDY BAUER CHIMES IN

< Ralph Waldo Emerson noted that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of
little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." I
remember one time reading annotations of a chess game played, I believe, by
Bent Larsen, where he makes a move with a piece then, a move or two later,
returns it to the previous square. Larsen writes something about how you have
to look at each position with a fresh eye and find the right plan regardless of
what had come before. That may well have been Tim's approach as well. My guess
is that Larsen and Emerson would have approved. I'll take them over TMB and
Parr anytime. > -- Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer is trying mightily to deflect the conversation from issues.
I grant that his armpitting of yours truly and TMB is far less viciously stated
than that directed toward Sam Sloan, but the topic of discussion was how "no
pay" came to mean "pay."

We have been given an explanation which paves the way for "volunteer" to
mean "paid help." What we have learned is that although the resolution called
for "no pay" the Board was discussing pay at the very time they passed the
resolution -- if pay would prove possible.

That is the newer, more creatively inconsistent honesty of our state
budget director from the government of Iowa -- as opposed to uncreative
consistency of imagining "no pay" to mean, well, "no pay."

The issue is not whether this writer and TMB are guilty of Emerson's
foolish consistency but whether Tim Hanke and Randy Bauer are guilty of foolish
inconsistency.

And when Fischer crushed Larsen 6-0? Was Bobby more creatively inconsistent
than Larsen, or was he more straightforwardly consistent?
________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

StanB

2005-01-05, 9:45 am

"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050104223656.06264.00002565@mb-m18.news.cs.com...

quote:

> We know that when the Board passed a motion providing Bill Goichberg,
> a
> fine man in nearly every way, with "no pay," there was discussion about
> paying
> him, if such would prove possible. We have since learned that both Don
> Schultz
> and Frank Brady wanted to give him $60,000 before the board finally
> settled
> on $25,000 retroactively.
>
> The purpose of the deception was evident: to tamp down opposition
> to
> Bill entering the office. Rarely has such deception been so blatant and
> then
> placed so embarrassingly on paper in a resolution.

You heard it here first. But back then you decided I must really hate Billy
G. Are we to assume now that you really hate Billy G.?

Parrthenon

2005-01-06, 12:46 am

< We know that when the Board passed a motion providing Bill Goichberg, a fine
man in nearly every way, with "no pay," there was discussion about paying him,
if such would prove possible. We have since learned that both Don Schultz and
Frank Brady wanted to give him $60,000 before the board finally settled on
$25,000 retroactively. The purpose of the deception was evident: to tamp down
opposition to Bill entering the office. Rarely has such deception been so
blatant and then placed so embarrassingly on paper in a resolution. >-- Larry
Parr

< You heard it here first. But back then you decided I must really hate Billy
G. Are we to assume now that you really hate Billy G.? > -- Stan Booz

Stan Booz is never too long on logic even though he prides himself on
that attribute. He also seems to lack basic reading skills. This guy cannot
conceive of people not being a member of parties.

I was a fan of Goichberg when I first accorded his World Open the space it
deserved in the October (?) 1985 issue of Chess Life and then increased the
coverage. Bill once remarked that perhaps I gave him too much space!

I was a fan of Goichberg when I argued that his prize structure in lower
sections made it possible for GMs to reap rewards that would otherwise be
impossible in the Open section.

I was a fan of Goichberg when I fought tooth and nail against attacks
from Bruce Draney and others for nearly a year. They imagined he would set up a
huge bank of telephone volunteers to secure votes if OMOV was enacted. It
didn't happen.

On the other hand, I was not a fan of Goichberg when working to defeat
his USCF presidential bid back in 1993. I believed he had too many conflicts of
interest.

I am not a fan of Goichberg and his cronies on the board because I believe
that "no pay" does not mean "pay." And that "volunteer" does not mean "paid
help."

________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

ASCACHESS

2005-01-06, 12:46 am

>< We know that when the Board passed a motion providing Bill Goichberg, a

quote:

>fine
>man in nearly every way, with "no pay," there was discussion about paying
>him,
>if such would prove possible. We have since learned that both Don Schultz and
>Frank Brady wanted to give him $60,000 before the board finally settled on
>$25,000 retroactively.

Except for the fact that we have painfully become used to Don Schultz using
USCF assets to reward his friends, this would be shocking.

Think about it.
Given the 100K accounting adjustment from the prior Niro year's non-billed
accounts, Bill was proposed by Schultz and Brady to be the recipient of about
half of USCF's alleged net profit.

These clowns have no shame. They will be the death of us and will surely pull
the coffin in after us before they are done.

Rp

Chessdon

2005-01-06, 6:45 am

> We know that when the Board passed a motion providing Bill Goichberg, a fine

quote:

>man in nearly every way, with "no pay," there was discussion about paying
>him,

No, we don't know that. As was said here that discussion likely took place
after the motion appointing Bill was made.

quote:

>if such would prove possible. We have since learned that both Don Schultz and
>Frank Brady wanted to give him $60,000 before the board finally settled on
>$25,000 retroactively.

Right, retoactively. The money discussion amounts took place at the time long
after the motion to hire bill at no paid passed.

quote:

>The money discussion of $60,000 and $25,000 took place near the end of Bill's

volunteer srvice at a time when USCF could afford it. The $60,000 was put forth
as as starting point on bargaining and Brady and I neverthought $60,000 had a
chance. We expceted to end up about where we did.

Don Schultz

Paul Rubin

2005-01-06, 6:45 am

chessdon@aol.com (Chessdon) writes:

quote:

> No, we don't know that. As was said here that discussion likely took place
> after the motion appointing Bill was made.

If serious discussion took place on that topic during the meeting, why
weren't any minutes kept? This discussion sounds like something that
was invented after the fact.

Who was present at the supposed meeting where this discussion happened?

Jürgen R.

2005-01-06, 6:45 am

ascachess@aol.com (ASCACHESS) wrote:

quote:

>
>Except for the fact that we have painfully become used to Don Schultz using
>USCF assets to reward his friends, this would be shocking.

Painfully? What else do you think this money is for?

quote:

>
>Think about it.
>Given the 100K accounting adjustment from the prior Niro year's non-billed
>accounts, Bill was proposed by Schultz and Brady to be the recipient of about
>half of USCF's alleged net profit.
>
>These clowns have no shame. They will be the death of us and will surely pull
>the coffin in after us before they are done.

Organizations such as the USCF are always run by incompetents. Check
out the ACBL (American Contract Bridge League) sometime. Incidentally,
they are also located in TN.

quote:

>
>Rp

Parrthenon

2005-01-06, 5:46 pm

Petrel

2005-01-06, 5:46 pm

Briefly,

"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050103222644.11389.00003165@mb-m29.news.cs.com...

quote:

> [[[[[PETREL]]]]]
>
> As for the supposed precedent which would then allow Beatriz Marinello to
> be
> paid for her work as "volunteer COO", the difference is, of course, that
> Marinello is explicitly bound by the Standards of Conduct imposed by the
> Delegates. [...] I think it is clearly wrong to say that she can be paid
> "as easily as
> Bill Goichberg.
>
> [[[[[[PARR]]]]
>
> Nonsense. The moment she resigns the Board can hand her a token of their
> appreciation, given the logic of Tim Hanke's story about how "no pay" came
> to
> mean "pay" in the case of Bill Goichberg.

Parrthenon

2005-01-07, 12:46 am

ASCACHESS

2005-01-07, 12:46 am

>> Nonsense. The moment she resigns the Board can hand her a token of their

quote:

>
>Me again: the Standards of Conduct -explicitly- forbid Marinello from
>receiving any money for -two years- after she leaves the board. I think
>this explicit rule, created by the delegates, which (according to the
>Bylaws) they have no power to circumvent, can withstand any hypothetical
>attempt by the present or future EB (unless the Delegates vote to suspend
>the standards, which they can do) to give her money "the moment she
>resigns".
>
>p>
>

Mike Nolan

2005-01-07, 12:46 am

ascachess@aol.com (ASCACHESS) writes:

quote:

>... except for standard reimbursement of expenses, during his tenure on the
>Board, or for two years after completing his tenure if such compensation
>results from bids accepted or agreements made by the Board during his tenure."

quote:

>So the moment their "tenure" ends and the compensation is NOT a result of bids
>or contracts made "during his tenure", the board can dump what ever USCF assets
>into the lap of their fellow insider.

quote:

>The standards of conduct are made for mischief. Just ask our parliamentarian.

Paul Rubin

2005-01-07, 12:46 am

nolan@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) writes:

quote:

> However, if the Board's INTENTION was to review the compensation issue
> in August (which IMHO was not an unreasonable intent), they should have
> made that part of the motion to put everyone on notice that it might happen.
> Failure to do so has created yet another political firestorm.

What happened to the tape recordings of board meetings that used to
be released on the website? That stopped, right?

Parrthenon

2005-01-07, 12:46 am

Parrthenon

2005-01-07, 12:46 am

HONEST, INJUN

< While it's tempting to view our EB as a dark group of conspirators secretly
plotting behind-the-scenes manuevers and hefty payouts, the truth, as it is in
so many would-be conspiracies, is far more pedestrian. As "Deep Throat" said in
the movie All the President's Men, these are not very bright guys. What you are
seeing, with the ill-conceived payout to Goichberg, the fumbling excuses for
such, and the general lack of concrete information on Crossville, is just your
typical helping of "bumbling-through" by bland functionaries in charge of a
mediocre institution. > -- TMB

< The TMB is nothing more than a nattering nabob of negativism. Point out an
alternate explanation, and "oh shut up, you shameless shill" is all you get.
I'm done trying to reason with his shallow, hollow mind. He should definitely
keep the mask on, it suits him. > -- Randy Bauer

Methinks the Bauer doth protest too much.

Here is the, ah, logical explanation we have been given: Bill
Goichberg was appointed interim ED at "no pay"for a year by the Executive
Board, even though members were openly discussing among themselves ("explicit
caveat") that he would be paid, if at all possible.

But, of course, the kicker caveat went unmentioned in the resolution.
We are being told it was just a sweet, honest, somewhat befuddled,
old-fashioned, down-home, teensy, weensy error of omission by a bunch of
well-meaning, ah, volunteer veteran USCF politicians who would never imagine
they were misleading anyone.

Honest, Injun.

For those who imagine that "no pay" does not mean "pay" and that
"volunteer" does not mean "paid help" -- well, we conclude theboard lied in
order to tamp down opposition to Bill coming into the office even as he was
carrying on business dealings with the office.

Randy Bauer has spoken of foolish consistencies and he has armpitted a
bit. He tells us that since he was not on the board at the time the "no pay"
provision was written into the resolution and since the board can change its
mind later on in any event, he is still your fiduciary-loving-serving guy who
would not participate in any kind of deception.

Honest, Injun.

The truth is that Mr. Bauer's not being on the Board at the time the
"no pay" resolution was passed does not absolve him. In fact, treasurer Tim
Hanke told us that during the discussion several board members didn't want to
pay Goichberg a cent because of the prior motion of "no pay." So Mr. Bauer
can't claim ignorance. He can claim to be a bit less culpable than those who
perpetrated the deception, but that's about it. He stands guilty of, at best,
fiduciary neglect; at worst, of petty dishonesty. I think it is the latter
because as the budget director of the state of Iowa he knows better.

Anyone with a sense of fiduciary responsibility to the membership
rather than to a small band of brothers would have demanded to know why they
assured everyone there would be "no pay" even as they discussed privately ways
to provide "pay." I would have. So, I daresay, would GM Lev Alburt and GM Larry
Evans.

Unlike Mr. Bauer, I shall refrain from employing scatological references
to individuals that suggest wafting malodorous evacuations. But we can say
that the whole business, if not the people involved, stinks.

________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

Parrthenon

2005-01-08, 6:46 am

The Masked Bishop

2005-01-08, 6:46 am

quote:

> NO PAY MEANS NO PAY
>
> < Let me set the record straight, if I can, about Bill Goichberg's $25,000
> bonus (or retroactive salary, or whatever you want to call it). > -- USCF
> treasurer Timothy Hanke
>
> Did Bill deserve some kind of compensation? I don't know that rgcp will

reach

quote:

> a consensus on that. Personally I think he did a good job under trying
> circumstances, and I find the compensation itself not unreasonable, though

quote:

> find the circumstances under which it was snuck through abhorrent! > --

Mike

quote:

> Nolan
>
> I find myself insisting that the phrase, "no pay," does not mean "pay."
> Because if "no pay" does mean mean "pay," then "volunteer" means "paid

help."

quote:

>
> Tim Hanke offers an explanation for how it came about that an

Executive

quote:

> Board motionn appointing Bill Goichberg as interim ED, which stated that

quote:

> would receive "no pay," became a decision a year later that he would

receive

quote:

> "pay."
>
> The truth is that Tim's explanation, even if accepted as truthful

quote:

> every respect, is merely an explanation for how it may come about that

Beatriz

quote:

> Marinello, currently a "volunteer," can became "paid help" just as easily

quote:

> Bill Goichberg.
>
> The resolution providing for "no pay" was evidently a ruse -- a

lie in

quote:

> violation of fiduciary responsibility -- to tamp down opposition to Bill
> Goichberg serving in the office. The ploy: promise "no pay" in the

enabling

quote:

> resolution; talk privately about possibly having pay later on (without
> mentioning such details to the chess public); and finally arranging for

the

quote:

> phrase "no pay" to be defined as "pay."
>
> That's what happened. Anyone who has been around this Federation

long

quote:

> enough knows that is what happened.
>
> What a tawdry ending to what could have been the brightest moment

quote:

> the stellar chess career of Bill Goichberg.
>
> I am the first to hand out credit where it is due. Bill very likely

gets an

quote:

> enormous amount of credit. But he should not get "pay" when he was

brought on

quote:

> at "no pay."
>
> Period. End of story, as Randy Bauer is wont to say over and over.
>
> CREDIT, YES. PAY NO. BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE DEAL.
>
> -- Larry Parr
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> "FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not

quote:

> able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical

Commission.

Parrthenon

2005-01-10, 6:45 am

The Masked Bishop

2005-01-10, 6:45 am

quote:

> NO PAY MEANS NO PAY
>
> < Let me set the record straight, if I can, about Bill Goichberg's $25,000
> bonus (or retroactive salary, or whatever you want to call it). > -- USCF
> treasurer Timothy Hanke
>
> Did Bill deserve some kind of compensation? I don't know that rgcp will

reach

quote:

> a consensus on that. Personally I think he did a good job under trying
> circumstances, and I find the compensation itself not unreasonable, though

quote:

> find the circumstances under which it was snuck through abhorrent! > --

Mike

quote:

> Nolan
>
> I find myself insisting that the phrase, "no pay," does not mean "pay."
> Because if "no pay" does mean mean "pay," then "volunteer" means "paid

help."

quote:

>
> Tim Hanke offers an explanation for how it came about that an

Executive

quote:

> Board motionn appointing Bill Goichberg as interim ED, which stated that

quote:

> would receive "no pay," became a decision a year later that he would

receive

quote:

> "pay."
>
> The truth is that Tim's explanation, even if accepted as truthful

quote:

> every respect, is merely an explanation for how it may come about that

Beatriz

quote:

> Marinello, currently a "volunteer," can became "paid help" just as easily

quote:

> Bill Goichberg.
>
> The resolution providing for "no pay" was evidently a ruse -- a

lie in

quote:

> violation of fiduciary responsibility -- to tamp down opposition to Bill
> Goichberg serving in the office. The ploy: promise "no pay" in the

enabling

quote:

> resolution; talk privately about possibly having pay later on (without
> mentioning such details to the chess public); and finally arranging for

the

quote:

> phrase "no pay" to be defined as "pay."
>
> That's what happened. Anyone who has been around this Federation

long

quote:

> enough knows that is what happened.
>
> What a tawdry ending to what could have been the brightest moment

quote:

> the stellar chess career of Bill Goichberg.
>
> I am the first to hand out credit where it is due. Bill very likely

gets an

quote:

> enormous amount of credit. But he should not get "pay" when he was

brought on

quote:

> at "no pay."
>
> Period. End of story, as Randy Bauer is wont to say over and over.
>
> CREDIT, YES. PAY NO. BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE DEAL.
>
> -- Larry Parr
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> "FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not

quote:

> able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical

Commission.

Parrthenon

2005-01-10, 5:46 pm

Mike Nolan

2005-01-10, 5:46 pm

ascachess@aol.com (ASCACHESS) writes:

quote:

>... except for standard reimbursement of expenses, during his tenure on the
>Board, or for two years after completing his tenure if such compensation
>results from bids accepted or agreements made by the Board during his tenure."

quote:

>So the moment their "tenure" ends and the compensation is NOT a result of bids
>or contracts made "during his tenure", the board can dump what ever USCF assets
>into the lap of their fellow insider.

quote:

>The standards of conduct are made for mischief. Just ask our parliamentarian.

Jürgen R.

2005-01-10, 5:46 pm

ascachess@aol.com (ASCACHESS) wrote:

quote:

>
>Except for the fact that we have painfully become used to Don Schultz using
>USCF assets to reward his friends, this would be shocking.

Painfully? What else do you think this money is for?

quote:

>
>Think about it.
>Given the 100K accounting adjustment from the prior Niro year's non-billed
>accounts, Bill was proposed by Schultz and Brady to be the recipient of about
>half of USCF's alleged net profit.
>
>These clowns have no shame. They will be the death of us and will surely pull
>the coffin in after us before they are done.

Organizations such as the USCF are always run by incompetents. Check
out the ACBL (American Contract Bridge League) sometime. Incidentally,
they are also located in TN.

quote:

>
>Rp

ASCACHESS

2005-01-12, 6:46 am

>< We know that when the Board passed a motion providing Bill Goichberg, a

quote:

>fine
>man in nearly every way, with "no pay," there was discussion about paying
>him,
>if such would prove possible. We have since learned that both Don Schultz and
>Frank Brady wanted to give him $60,000 before the board finally settled on
>$25,000 retroactively.

Chessdon

2005-01-12, 6:46 am

> We know that when the Board passed a motion providing Bill Goichberg, a fine

quote:

>man in nearly every way, with "no pay," there was discussion about paying
>him,

No, we don't know that. As was said here that discussion likely took place
after the motion appointing Bill was made.

quote:

>if such would prove possible. We have since learned that both Don Schultz and
>Frank Brady wanted to give him $60,000 before the board finally settled on
>$25,000 retroactively.

Right, retoactively. The money discussion amounts took place at the time long
after the motion to hire bill at no paid passed.

quote:

>The money discussion of $60,000 and $25,000 took place near the end of Bill's

Parrthenon

2005-01-21, 6:45 am

THE BAUER DEFENSE (Cont.ined)

< After the move to Crossville, it should be great sport to review the finances
of the move, including longterm savings, and assess who knew what they were
talking about and who did not. I'll look forward to that discussion with our
Malaysian financial muse. > -- Randy Bauer

This exchange has already grown too long for anyone to read through it
all. I will, therefore, summarize the main points.

BEFORE the last Board meeting I predicted Beatriz Marinello would be
the next ED (more below on this score) and that if she were not so named, she
would not resign as USCF president. This second prediction proved to be true.
Mr. Bauer argues that I backslided by providing for the possibility that if she
were not named ED, then she would not resign as president.

BEFORE the last Board meeting I also predicted a six-figure revision
downwards in the financial picture. Mr. Bauer told all of us, in advance of
the decison to make the move to Crossville, that he knew nothing about such a
downward revision. I stuck by my prediction, stating it would come at a decent
interval after the Board meeting. It came about three weeks or so later.

Mr. Bauer's counterattack is that I could not tell you accurately the
source of the writedown (even as he, a member of the Board majority, claims to
have known nuthin'!) though Tim Hanke noted that my earlier statement about a
$100,000-plus charge by Chesscafe for the catalogue (that comes out of the
$350,000) is in the ballpark. (Tim tells us it is likely to be $80,000, though
I stick by my $100,000-plus prediction when the bills all finally come in. We
shall see.)

I am still struck by the absurdity of my knowing over here in Malaysia,
for Pete's sake, about the writedown when the Board MAJORITY claims not to have
known nothing about it. Not a thing.

Does that make any sense to you who follow this exchange? I mean,
really, does it?

Still, CPA Stan Booz testifies that the dodos didn't know, and I have
no piece of paper or other smoking gun to prove they did. (Not yet, at least,
though I have some hopes on this score.) Those of you reading here will have
to decide for yourself whether or not to believe Mr. Bauer.

Mr. Bauer has me mind-reading the motives of the Board that passed a
resolution stating "no pay" for Bill Goichberg even as they discussed the
direct caveats that there would be pay. He says that only Don Schultz has
posted an account, which has not been contradicted by any other Board member.

I am reading no minds, and this kind of debater's argument is typical
of Mr. Bauer. I am drawing an inference: men who write a flat "no pay" in a
resolution even as they discuss pay, if possible, intend to deceive. For what
purpose? The evident inference is to defuse the opposition to Bill Goichberg
entering the office.

The only other point Mr. Bauer makes worth noting is that he claims not
to have
spoken about an "explicit caveat" that Mr. Goichberg would be paid, if
possible, even as he states he did speak about it, albeit in response to the
Schultz post.

Mr. Bauer's evident intent was to defend the shady affair, which he
did, by arguing FALSELY that the Board, reviewing the work done by Mr.
Goichberg, felt it wise to pay him. I responded that we have testimony,
uncontradicted by other Board members, that there was NO CHANGE OF MIND because
they intended to pay all along, if possible.

Small wonder that Mr. Bauer budgets for the government instead of for the
private sector.

Finally, Beatriz Marinello's status at the Federation: we have been
told she is to receive only her "expenses" during the period when the move to
Crossville is made. I have heard -- ah, through the grapevine -- that those
personal expenses will be about $30,000. Sounds like a job to me -- yet another
example of "volunteer" meaning "hired help."

Meanwhile, there is no genuine search for a new ED.

And so it goes.
________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.

Hal Terrie

2005-01-21, 6:45 am

On 21 Jan 2005 07:17:16 GMT, parrthenon@cs.com (Parrthenon) wrote:

[SNIP]

quote:

>
> BEFORE the last Board meeting I also predicted a six-figure revision
>downwards in the financial picture. Mr. Bauer told all of us, in advance of
>the decison to make the move to Crossville, that he knew nothing about such a
>downward revision. I stuck by my prediction, stating it would come at a decent
>interval after the Board meeting. It came about three weeks or so later.
>
> Mr. Bauer's counterattack is that I could not tell you accurately the
>source of the writedown (even as he, a member of the Board majority, claims to
>have known nuthin'!) though Tim Hanke noted that my earlier statement about a
>$100,000-plus charge by Chesscafe for the catalogue (that comes out of the
>$350,000) is in the ballpark. (Tim tells us it is likely to be $80,000, though
>I stick by my $100,000-plus prediction when the bills all finally come in. We
>shall see.)
>
> I am still struck by the absurdity of my knowing over here in Malaysia,
>for Pete's sake, about the writedown when the Board MAJORITY claims not to have
>known nothing about it. Not a thing.

I want to give credit where credit is due. I read your
predictions and the response by an EB member - and said I would take
the word of an EB member in a position to know the facts over your
prediction from an anonymous source. Well, it seems you were right and
I was wrong. I admit it. I'm having a hard time understanding it
though.

After all, if (1) the EB didn't know, (2) the ED and the CFO
didn't want it known and (3) Stan is right that in any case the books
were not up to date, who had enough information to be your source -
and also no motive to keep it from you? Inquiring minds REALLY want to
know now.

I know, you will not tell. All I can say is, I hope that some
day you will write your memoirs as a chess journalist, naming all the
names. I would pay plenty to read that book.

-- Hal Terrie

StanB

2005-01-22, 12:45 am

"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050121021716.01984.00000153@mb-m14.news.cs.com...

quote:

> Still, CPA Stan Booz testifies that the dodos didn't know, and I
> have
> no piece of paper or other smoking gun to prove they did. (Not yet, at
> least,
> though I have some hopes on this score.)

You were forecasting the end of the year from what the budget wished. The
only hit to date is on an interim statement issued after what you reported
from your audience at Delphi. Know this, we're still showing a profit at six
months beyond the building sale. At least I think we are. The more we get
into the books the more we need our waders. Ken must have been standing
around talking cause he sure wasn't doing much accounting.

quote:

> Finally, Beatriz Marinello's status at the Federation: we have
> been
> told she is to receive only her "expenses" during the period when the move
> to
> Crossville is made. I have heard -- ah, through the grapevine -- that
> those
> personal expenses will be about $30,000. Sounds like a job to me -- yet
> another
> example of "volunteer" meaning "hired help."

Expenses are expenses not compensation. Now hear this, she is working very
hard and her only compensation has been a ration of shit from the old guard.

StanB

2005-01-22, 12:45 am

"Hal Terrie" <halNOSPAMterrie@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vfe1v0t5uku9jufbetdtigeq9p0a9it7gc@4ax.com...

quote:

> I want to give credit where credit is due. I read your
> predictions and the response by an EB member - and said I would take
> the word of an EB member in a position to know the facts over your
> prediction from an anonymous source. Well, it seems you were right and
> I was wrong. I admit it. I'm having a hard time understanding it
> though.

He was not right. It ain't over till its over. He had no knowledge of the
six months financials because they wernt even prepared when he began
pontificating. The six month statements turned out to be inaccurate but
we're still ahead of the prior year.

David Ames

2005-01-22, 12:45 am

Wonderful thread. Now would anyone care to summarize?

David Ames

Randy Bauer

2005-01-22, 12:45 am

"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050121021716.01984.00000153@mb-m14.news.cs.com...

quote:

> THE BAUER DEFENSE (Cont.ined)
>
> < After the move to Crossville, it should be great sport to review the
> finances
> of the move, including longterm savings, and assess who knew what they
> were
> talking about and who did not. I'll look forward to that discussion with
> our
> Malaysian financial muse. > -- Randy Bauer
>
> This exchange has already grown too long for anyone to read through
> it
> all. I will, therefore, summarize the main points.

A note for those following along at home --- whenever Parr finds the
specific arguments uncomfortable to deal with, he "helpfully" "summarizes"
the main points. At the same time, he refers to arguments directed at
specific points as a "debater's trick." Let's call this Parr tactic the
"editorial sophist trick."

Parr's deletions tell a lot about where the truth resides. Interestingly,
he tends to stick his new posts far away from the rest of the thread, which
makes it hard to check back for accuracy's sake. How unusual -- but can
anybody deny that this is Parr for the course?

quote:

>
> BEFORE the last Board meeting I predicted Beatriz Marinello would
> be
> the next ED (more below on this score) and that if she were not so named,
> she
> would not resign as USCF president. This second prediction proved to be
> true.
> Mr. Bauer argues that I backslided by providing for the possibility that
> if she
> were not named ED, then she would not resign as president.

Wonderful! Parr predicted that either Beatriz would be the next ED or she
would not resign as USCF President. Newsflash everybody -- how could that
be wrong? This is kind of like saying "George Bush will be the next Pope,
and if he is not so named, he will not resign as President of the United
States."

quote:

>
> BEFORE the last Board meeting I also predicted a six-figure
> revision
> downwards in the financial picture. Mr. Bauer told all of us, in advance
> of
> the decison to make the move to Crossville, that he knew nothing about
> such a
> downward revision. I stuck by my prediction, stating it would come at a
> decent
> interval after the Board meeting. It came about three weeks or so later.

Here is where Parr starts his usual method of truth-bending. What I in fact
wrote dealt with whether a downward revision would have a material impact on
the budget, in a post on December 13th

BEGINNING OF PASTE OF PREVIOUS POST:

Some have suggested that there may be some double counting on the deal,
because of Chesscafe sales at national events and some USCF printing
expenses. This may be where the $100,000 number has come from, I do not know
for certain.
I would note, however, that the USCF budget for the current fiscal year
reflected a surplus in excess of $100,000 and that the first quarter numbers
were encouraging.

Of course, cashflow is different than a budget. Since I haven't seen any
recent cash flows and have nothing historically to compare it to, it's hard
to make
comparisons.

END OF PASTE OF PREVIOUS POST

quote:

> Mr. Bauer's counterattack is that I could not tell you accurately
> the
> source of the writedown (even as he, a member of the Board majority,
> claims to
> have known nuthin'!) though Tim Hanke noted that my earlier statement
> about a
> $100,000-plus charge by Chesscafe for the catalogue (that comes out of the
> $350,000) is in the ballpark. (Tim tells us it is likely to be $80,000,
> though
> I stick by my $100,000-plus prediction when the bills all finally come in.
> We
> shall see.)

Parr, of course, makes no mention of my point that the downward revision
related to the Chesscafe issue was not considered material, given the large
surplus we had relied on as factual by the CFO. Even now, this downward
revision is hardly creating the "cash crunch" that Parr predicted.

quote:

> I am still struck by the absurdity of my knowing over here in
> Malaysia,
> for Pete's sake, about the writedown when the Board MAJORITY claims not to
> have
> known nothing about it. Not a thing.

Not true. Even back in December, I was referencing this possibility in a
response to a Parr post. The thing we didn't know about was our CFO's
inability to do basic bookwork.

quote:

>

(snip)

quote:

>
> Mr. Bauer has me mind-reading the motives of the Board that passed
> a
> resolution stating "no pay" for Bill Goichberg even as they discussed the
> direct caveats that there would be pay. He says that only Don Schultz has
> posted an account, which has not been contradicted by any other Board
> member.
>
> I am reading no minds, and this kind of debater's argument is
> typical
> of Mr. Bauer. I am drawing an inference: men who write a flat "no pay" in
> a
> resolution even as they discuss pay, if possible, intend to deceive. For
> what
> purpose? The evident inference is to defuse the opposition to Bill
> Goichberg
> entering the office.

Here Parr starts his hemming and hee-hawing. One Board member, Don Schultz,
has posted his perspective on how the Goichberg issue played out, and, lo
and behold, because Parr agrees with that interpretation, it becomes the
gospel truth. Note also that Parr's claim isn't that those Board members at
some later point in time discussed pay -- no, it was that at the very moment
they said "no pay" they were discussing pay. Sorry, I'm not as inclined to
think the worst about these volunteers.

quote:

>
> The only other point Mr. Bauer makes worth noting is that he claims
> not
> to have
> spoken about an "explicit caveat" that Mr. Goichberg would be paid, if
> possible, even as he states he did speak about it, albeit in response to
> the
> Schultz post.

Typical Parr. I have NEVER EVER "spoken" about this explicit caveat. The
only time it appears in a post of mine is in quoting Don Schultz' use of the
phrase. Parr is preaching a big lie, and it is becoming Sloanian in its
absurdity. Please Larry -- post me speaking about the "explicit caveat."
It is false, it is a lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

quote:

>
> Mr. Bauer's evident intent was to defend the shady affair, which
> he
> did, by arguing FALSELY that the Board, reviewing the work done by Mr.
> Goichberg, felt it wise to pay him. I responded that we have testimony,
> uncontradicted by other Board members, that there was NO CHANGE OF MIND
> because
> they intended to pay all along, if possible.

The only FALSEHOOD is your claiming my support for this "explicit caveat."
This newsgroup is not a court of law, where the other Board members, most of
whom do not post here, must contradict Don Schultz' claim or you get to
claim the truth. I've spoken with some of these Board members, and I
continue to believe that they did change their mind. Parr wishes to
demonize these people, but that is what is ultimately wrong.

quote:

>
> Small wonder that Mr. Bauer budgets for the government instead of for the
> private sector.

And mighty damn proud of it. Iowa continues to maintain a AA+ credit rating
and stable outlook from both Standard and Poor's and Moody's, our unreserved
GAAP fund balance grew this year from $180 to $446 million, and the
Government Performance Project considers us one of the financially best
managed states in the country. We've done that while being one of only 5
states to not have enacted a major tax increase in the last 5 years. I know
budgets and finance, and there are several private sector companies that
have inquired about my availability. How about you, Larry?

quote:

>
> Finally, Beatriz Marinello's status at the Federation: we have
> been
> told she is to receive only her "expenses" during the period when the move
> to
> Crossville is made. I have heard -- ah,