Chess politics - "Conflicts of interest" (response to George John)

Author

"Conflicts of interest" (response to George John)

Petrel

2005-02-24, 5:52 pm

George John wrote, in one of the innumerable fibers of the "Crossing
Crossville" thread:

"The bottom line is any candidate who stands to gain financially from
his or her service on the USCF Executive Board should be closely
examined for COI issues. Anyone whose livelihood is largely based on
chess income, for example for-profit, full-time chess organizers,
should be even more closely examined. And, one with an alleged history
of problems in this area should be VERY closely examined."

"I will of course read what is said on this topic. But, I am currently
very skeptical about one candidate's ability to set aside personal
interests. He may in his heart think that he has done so, and will
continue to do so, but I have VERY serious concerns that he has always
done so, and can continue to do so. Therefore, while there is much to
recommend about this candidate, in my estimation he is most likely
unacceptable for USCF Executive Board service for reasons of COI alone.
Personally speaking, I just don't want to take this risk."

Although I pretty much agree with kiddon that rgcp is worse than ever, and
that posting here is more of a waste of time than ever, I really can't stop
myself from saying one or two things about this post.

(1) This is by far the sleaziest piece of political writing I have ever seen
from George. He is capable of much better. Even if I were not one of
Goichberg's lickspittles, as Brennen alleges I am, I believe I would be
offended by this crap about "one candidate" and "alleged history of
problems" and "serious concerns". Where does he think he is getting by
tossing rocks at Goichberg from behind the fence, as it were? How does this
square with the moral standards he has advanced in other posts?? John has
repeatedly written how important it is for the EB to act in a moral way, not
to go back on agreements and deadlines, and so on. Well, is it moral to
veil one's political attacks in this kind of smoke and mirrors and octopus
ink? Is it moral to call on the membership of the USCF to respond to rumors
AS IF they were fact? "Some people have said that Goichberg has been guilty
of conflicts of interest. I won't hazard a guess as to whether some people
have been RIGHT or not, but I will just remind you that some people have
said it, and so he is 'most likely unacceptable'." What cowardly trash. It
looks as if it were written by the bad people in "Atlas Shrugged": "The
possibility of the Rearden metal bridge falling down cannot be discounted."
By the way, "some other people" have also written that the current Board
majority have been guilty of all sorts of unethical stuff. George, if USCF
politics are going to corrupt you like this, it's not worth it.

(2) On a more substantive note, let's talk a little bit about conflicts of
interest. What ARE they? On the first level, you can say that a conflict
of interest exists if somebody is a direct competitor of the organization
and would do best if the organization went out of existence. Now, if I am a
stockholder in General Motors, and a major stockholder in Ford comes along
to run for the Board of Directors, I think it's reasonable to say that this
person may not have the best interests of GM at heart. This is not the
situation we are faced with, though.

On the second level, conflicts of interest, AS WELL AS commonalities of
interest, may exist among anyone who (or whose firm, association, etc.) does
business with the organization. If you are selling goods to the
organization, then there is a commonality of interest (you don't want your
big customer to disappear) but also a conflict (you would like them to buy
from you, and not your competitor, and pay list price). If you are the
organization's banker, you don't want them to fail, but you don't want them
to go to another bank. And so forth.

The problem is that, for an organization like the USCF which is at least
related to everything involved in chess in the world, anyone who is involved
in organized chess in any way has precisely such opportunities for conflict
of interest, as well, of course, as commonalities of interest. Yes, it's
true that if you are Bill Goichberg, head of the CCA, which stages big
tournaments, then there are all sorts of USCF decisions that will affect
your pocketbook, from tournament scheduling to rating fees to advertising
costs and so on down the list. However, this is true of every organizer of
tournaments, large or small. It's true of everyone involved in AF4C or the
ICC. It's true of every GM and IM and FM and professional or
semi-professional player. It's true of every writer who may want to place
an article or column in CL. It's true of everyone who is involved in chess
publishing in any form. It's true of everyone involved in scholastic chess.
It's true of everyone who sells books and equipment and of everyone who BUYS
books and equipment. And the same principle exists whether or not you stand
to gain or lose money personally. For that matter, every member of the USCF
has his or her own personal axe to grind. If you approach the board
election from the point of view of trying to find someone who is "completely
disinterested", you end up limiting your choices to people who have no
record or stake in organized chess at all.

Suppose, by analogy, you were searching for candidates for the governing
board of the single hospital in your county. You might start out by saying
"Doctors can't serve on the board, they have conflicts of interest... the
bankers and bondholders can't serve on the board, they have a conflict of
interest... large local employers which negotiate capitation agreements with
the hospital can't be on the board, they have conflicts of interest..." and
eventually you would have only board members who know nothing about health
care and have nothing at stake. And you would, thus, ensure that all of the
interplay of interests among the hospital, other providers, and other local
stakeholders would be resolved, not within the board, but in arms'-length
transactions, fights, local elections and ordinances, lawsuits, and so on.
This is not what usually happens and it is not what should happen. A much
more common and realistic and productive way to proceed would be to accept
the fact that all the stakeholders in an organization like the county's sole
acute care provider have their own agendas, but they also have a common
interest in seeing the hospital survive and do its work. The governing
board tries to shape a common purpose out of all of this, and, thus, is very
likely to include physicians, the banker, people who have done volunteer
work raising funds, and so on.

I think that the way the members of the USCF should approach the elections
is not to try to find the candidates without interests, because there are no
such people. I think, rather, it is to try to clarify for themselves, and
force the candidates to clarify, what their interests are and then to select
what constellation of interests should be represented on the board.

petrel

StanB

2005-02-24, 5:52 pm

"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dckTd.35661$by5.26608@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

quote:

> I think that the way the members of the USCF should approach the elections
> is not to try to find the candidates without interests, because there are
> no such people.

Yet there are many that are without financial interests in board decisions.
Goichberg is not one of them.

George John

2005-02-24, 5:52 pm

"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dckTd.35661$by5.26608@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

P,

[SNIP]

First, I wish I had the time right now to fully answer your post, but I
don't. In addition to work I'm dealing with issues surrounding the Texas
State Scholastic which is this weekend. We expect about 1500 students to
participate. It's a big event. We are also having the Spring meeting of
the Texas Chess Association. As the TCA President, I'm working on that,
too.

My brief response is I am as sincere as I can be about my concerns about
conflict of interest. I'm sorry you see it as sleazy political writing.
That certainly was not my intent. I'm also sorry you see USCF politics as
somehow corrupting me. The irony is one of my main personal goals in the
campaign, and should I be elected to the board, my board service is to take
*positive* steps to assure that "corruption" or the appearance of
"corruption" is minimized so far as it is reasonably possible both for
myself and for my fellow board members.

I get a LOT of private, confidential e-mail that you don't see, and which I
can't share. Some of it is from people whom I trust as being well-informed,
reasonably impartial, and sincerely interested in the future of the USCF.
They are strongly concerned about COI issues. It's an area I have been
concerned about for some time now, too, since some time in 1997 or 98 when I
first started hearing the 'rumors' from eye witnesses. ;-) But, after
receiving recent e-mail messages and phone calls from those both involved
and not involved in the campaign, my concerns are even greater. I think a
serious discussion about COI issues should be one key focus of this
campaign.

I do appreciate your making the effort to add substance to the discussion of
COI. My only comment at this point is, while you are correct that both
small and large organizers may bring with them the risk of COI issues, all
other things being equal, as the percentage of income, which is dependent on
chess, increases so does this risk.

Yes, it is true that all the 'rumors', eye-witness reports, and opinions
about the past and recent record may all be false. For the sake of the USCF
and chess I would like them to be all false. But, my intuition strongly
suggests, and has for years now suggested, that this is an issue which
should be closely examined and discussed.

Perhaps at this point one or more people will be willing to offer specific
examples of possible COI issues which has affected the USCF board in the
past?

Best regards,

George John

petrelet@sbcglobal.net

2005-02-24, 5:52 pm

George John wrote:

quote:

> First, I wish I had the time right now to fully answer your post, but

quote:

> don't. In addition to work I'm dealing with issues surrounding the

Texas

quote:

> State Scholastic which is this weekend. We expect about 1500

students to

quote:

> participate. It's a big event. [...]

quote:

> I do appreciate your making the effort to add substance to the

discussion of

quote:

> COI. My only comment at this point is, while you are correct that

both

quote:

> small and large organizers may bring with them the risk of COI

issues, all

quote:

> other things being equal, as the percentage of income, which is

dependent on

quote:

> chess, increases so does this risk.

George:

Your argument assumes that personal financial interests are
particularly suspect and likely to cause people to betray the members
of the USCF, whereas other interests, loyalties, fanaticisms, personal
affinities or hatreds, etc., are benign by comparison. Why? Even I,
as much of a left-winger as I am, don't believe this in the USCF
context. (Here you go sounding like the bad people in Ayn Rand novels
again: "the motives of the State Science Institute cannot be
questioned, because it is not for profit.")

Are you LESS interested in the success of the Texas State Scholastic
than Bill Goichberg is in the success of CCA tournaments?

If you are on the EB, and you have the opportunity to make a decision
which will increase USCF revenues, but which, as a necessary byproduct,
would ruin the Texas State Scholastic, will you do it? If you don't,
is that because of a conflict of interest? If there is a policy which
would aid events such as the Texas State Scholastic, but which would
cost the USCF some money, will you oppose it?

If you think the above questions are unfair or illogical, because
"what's good for the Texas State Scholastic is good for the USCF",
and/or because it's a mistake to try to pit the interests of the USCF
against the interests of the Texas State Scholastic in that way, and/or
because good policy ought to benefit both the USCF and the component
parts of organized chess in the US such as the Texas State Scholastic,
then I might agree with you, but why is it less true of the CCA?

petrel

George John

2005-02-24, 5:52 pm

petrelet@sbcglobal.net wrote:

[SNIP]

P,

quote:

>
> George:
>
> Your argument assumes that personal financial interests are
> particularly suspect and likely to cause people to betray the members
> of the USCF, whereas other interests, loyalties, fanaticisms,

personal

quote:

> affinities or hatreds, etc., are benign by comparison. Why?

I wouldn't state this as you have. It makes them *more* likely to
engage in real COI or give the appearance of engaging in COI (conflict
of interest).

quote:

> Even I,
> as much of a left-winger as I am, don't believe this in the USCF
> context. (Here you go sounding like the bad people in Ayn Rand

novels

quote:

> again: "the motives of the State Science Institute cannot be
> questioned, because it is not for profit.")

Where have I EVER stated that the motives of a not-for-profit can not
be questioned?!! I am a strong believer in holding leaders accountable
regardless whether they are paid or are unpaid volunteers.

quote:

> Are you LESS interested in the success of the Texas State Scholastic
> than Bill Goichberg is in the success of CCA tournaments?

I don't know, because I can't read Bill's mind. What I do know is no
financial gain will come to me, or any business associate from this
event. The TCA is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, and all profits from
this event will go to the TCA, and in turn this money will be used to
support chess in Texas.

Contrast this with the CCA, which is for-profit. I assume a
substantial amount of its revenue goes to Bill Goichberg. I assume the
CCA is a closely-held, private corporation which Bill controls. I'm
assuming the CCA financials are not posted. If any of this is
incorrect, I would like to know please.

I do call for all those in the campaign to disclose how much money they
have made in chess the past year. At last year's state scholastic
(not run by the TCA) they gave me $250 for being the Chief TD of the
High School division; although, I did not ask for it. This year I am
working for no pay. I have received no pay for any other chess
activities this year. I have received no money in support of my
campaign.

Will Bill Goichberg disclose how much money he has received from chess
the past year? I hope he will, as I hope all those in the campaign
will do so. The starting point for him will be at least $25,000.

quote:

> If you are on the EB, and you have the opportunity to make a decision
> which will increase USCF revenues, but which, as a necessary

byproduct,

quote:

> would ruin the Texas State Scholastic, will you do it?

That would depend upon the costs and benefits. The benefits to the
USCF would have to be very high, because its mission is to support
chess. The Texas State Scholastic is a significant chess event which
is in the USCF's best interests to succeed. It stimulates interest in
chess, in USCF memberships, and generates a significant amount of TLA,
membership, and rating revenue for the USCF. The TCA and USCF share a
common goal to promote and support chess.

quote:

> If you don't,
> is that because of a conflict of interest?

It could be. I might have to recuse myself. My term as TCA President
will end just before Labor Day. I will continue on the TCA Board as
Past-President. If there is ever a direct conflict between the USCF's
interest and those of the TCA, I would likely have to recuse myself.

BTW, the chances of this happening in my estimation are slim to none.

quote:

> If there is a policy which
> would aid events such as the Texas State Scholastic, but which would
> cost the USCF some money, will you oppose it?

It would depend upon whether the policy is fair to all events, and is a
good use of the money. If the policy specifically supports the Texas
State Scholastic, I would probably have to recuse myself once again.

The key here is to avoid the APPEARANCE of COI.

quote:

> If you think the above questions are unfair or illogical,

I don't. While unlikely to happen in reality, these are good
hypothetical questions.

quote:

> because
> "what's good for the Texas State Scholastic is good for the USCF",

They might be, they may not be. In any event, to avoid the appearance
of COI, I would most likely have to recuse myself from anything that
specifically involved the Texas State Scholastic, especially in 2007
when the TCA is the organizer of the event once again (in 2006 it is
run by another organization; although, regulated by the TCA).

quote:

> and/or because it's a mistake to try to pit the interests of the USCF
> against the interests of the Texas State Scholastic in that way,

It might be a mistake, or not. Details are important here.

quote:

> and/or
> because good policy ought to benefit both the USCF and the component
> parts of organized chess in the US such as the Texas State

Scholastic,

quote:

> then I might agree with you, but why is it less true of the CCA?

Ignoring the past record and rumors for the moment, the main
differences I see here is I do NOT have a personal financial stake in
the Texas State Scholastic or anything in chess, and it is controlled
by the Texas Chess Association, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit which is
also the official Texas state chapter of the USCF. Bill Goichberg
does have a major personal financial stake in chess, and the CCA is a
for-profit chess company that he owns and controls. I hope you will
appreciate the significant differences here.

Best regards,

George John

Wick

2005-02-26, 3:49 am

Petrel wrote:

quote:

> (2) On a more substantive note, let's talk a little bit about

conflicts of

quote:

> interest. What ARE they? On the first level, you can say that a

conflict

quote:

> of interest exists if somebody is a direct competitor of the

organization

quote:

> and would do best if the organization went out of existence. Now, if

I am a

quote:

> stockholder in General Motors, and a major stockholder in Ford comes

along

quote:

> to run for the Board of Directors, I think it's reasonable to say

that this

quote:

> person may not have the best interests of GM at heart. This is not

the

quote:

> situation we are faced with, though.
>

Petrel:

Unfortunately, the conflicts of interest have not all been
hypothetical. Specific examples include:

1.) Goichberg, while on the board, had previously held the bid from a
U.S. Open. When a new bid was made, with several changes and
innovations. Bill liked the ideas, and used them to alter the format
of the US Open he was running. This led to USCF financial concessions
to the organizer.

Let's quote from Hal Terrie, who is not given to sleazy political
writing:

Begin Quote:

Then we come to the more recent charge of conflict of interest
against Mr. Goichberg, based on the fact that he arranged for a higher
entry fee and prize fund for his U.S. Open in 1997, after seeing the
details of the 1999 bid from the Reno organizers.

Let me tell you a little story. I was present at the Policy
Board meeting in Kona 1998, when Tom Dorsch made this charge. While I
was sitting there, my room-mate at the tournament wandered by on his
way to the pool. He is an older gentleman who has absolutely no
connection to chess politics. Seeing me, he came in and sat down next
to me for a few minutes. He heard the whole of Dorsch's speech on
this subject. After a while, he leaned over to me with a puzzled
expression on his face. "I don't get it", he said. "What are they
arguing about - it's obviously conflict of interest." I didn't know
how to answer him.

Based on what I heard that day, if a formal complaint of
conflict of interest had been sent to the Ethics Committee, under the
Policy Board Standards of Conduct, I would absolutely, positively have
voted to convict. But no such complaint was ever filed.

End quote.

That's not rumor or innuendo. That's documented fact.

Bill hasn't been the only offender. For a while we had one of USCF's
biggest vendors, deciding which vendors should be paid first from
limited funds.

While Bill was Executive Director, Chess Life's biggest advertiser was
setting advertising rates, the largest tournament organizer was setting
the ratings fees. You don't see the potential for a problem there?

Conflict of interest problems are not insurmountable. If the conflicts
are recognized, a pro-active measures can prevent or limit problems.
Unfortunately, USCF has little history of recognizing problems and
absolutely no history of taking any pro-active measures to minimize the
problems.

The problem is real. It's not the worst problem facing USCF by any
means, but it is also inappropriate to dismiss it out of hand.

Wick Deer

Equinorm@AOL.com

2005-02-26, 3:49 am

Petrel:

Um, the word "bad" in the "bad people in 'Atlas Shrugged' comment is a
bit strange. There are no good characters in Atlas Shrugged, as far as
I'm aware. The characters all are either corrupt incompetents or
self-absorbed elitists with shallow, self-serving ideologies. You seem
to be referring to the former as "bad," which is reasonable, but you
seem to be suggesting that the word "bad" distinguishes them from the
latter, which is a bit troubling. The "worst" characters in Ayn Rand
novels are usually the heroes, because they are plausible and, although
they talk pretty, ultimately amoral.

I would just add that, although I have interest whatsoever in the
outcome of the USCF elections, I do believe I recognize "spin" when I
see it, and your post seems to be full of it, if you'll pardon the
phrase. If a candidate for "public" office cannot raise the issue of
potentially serious conflict of interests during an election, then
there is something wrong with the political process. And your apparent
argument that everyone has some conflicts of interest, and it just
makes the Board more representative is, quite frankly, rather bizarre.
As Mr. John points out, there are "conflicts" and there are
"CONFLICTS," and your attempts to conflate the two using an analogy
which should be evidently spurious to someone of your intelligence
seem, at least to me, to be stronger evidence of the corrupting
influence of politics than anything in Mr. John's post.

Just my opinion.

- Geof Strayer

Spam Scone

2005-02-26, 5:48 pm

Petrel wrote:

quote:

> Even if I were not one of
> Goichberg's lickspittles, as Brennen alleges I am, I believe I would

quote:

> offended by this crap about "one candidate" and "alleged history of
> problems" and "serious concerns".

But fortunately for us, and perhaps unfortunately for Mr. Goichberg,
you ARE his lickspittle. As evidence, I submit your thread-starting
post. Oh, and your amusing followup with its comic mixing and
comparision of a non-profit state association with the for-profit CCA
is pretty good evidence as well.

StanB

2005-02-26, 5:48 pm

"Spam Scone" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109417221.611279.105960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> But fortunately for us, and perhaps unfortunately for Mr. Goichberg,
> you ARE his lickspittle. As evidence, I submit your thread-starting
> post. Oh, and your amusing followup with its comic mixing and
> comparision of a non-profit state association with the for-profit CCA
> is pretty good evidence as well.

Actually, there is a nonprofit named Continental Chess Association organized
in New York state.

StanB

2005-02-26, 9:49 pm

"Wick" <WickD@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1109393199.797797.243470@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> While Bill was Executive Director, Chess Life's biggest advertiser was
> setting advertising rates, the largest tournament organizer was setting
> the ratings fees. You don't see the potential for a problem there?

Bill would never do anything to intentionally feather his nest. But, his
vision of what is good for the USCF is what is good for tournament chess.
Hence, low advertising fees and low rating fees are necessary.

Bruce Leverett

2005-02-28, 5:50 pm

Petrel wrote:

quote:

> I think that the way the members of the USCF should approach the

elections

quote:

> is not to try to find the candidates without interests, because there

are no

quote:

> such people. I think, rather, it is to try to clarify for

themselves, and

quote:

> force the candidates to clarify, what their interests are and then to

select

quote:

> what constellation of interests should be represented on the board.

The number of people who make a living from chess (in the United
States) has exploded in the last 15-20 years. Along with this there is
much more potential for conflict of interest arising from chess
professionals participating in governance of chess organizations. My
own favorite example is the Pittsburgh Chess Club: two of our 15 board
members are full-time chess teachers. (The number in 1990 was, of
course, zero.) Genuine conflicts of interest arise. The more
"synergy" there is between the Club's activity and that of the
individual board member, the more potential there is for conflict.
It's a problem that can't be solved once and for all, and can't be
wished away. It has to be addressed month to month.

My guess would be that, of the people who vote in the upcoming USCF
election, a fair percentage have personal experience working for chess
organizations in which conflicts of interest are real. When you're
marking your ballot, you may be able to bring your own experience to
bear on this question.

On the other hand, while conflict of interest is something worth
thinking about in relation to all the candidates, and especially
someone like Goichberg, it isn't the only thing or the most important
thing to think about. Ability to plan, ability to execute; ability to
negotiate, ability to evaluate; ability to supervise, ability to follow
directions; these are things I've been reading a lot about on RGCP in
the last year. Those are things that will be on my mind as I mark my
own ballot.

Bruce Leverett

Bruce Leverett

2005-03-01, 3:48 am

Thanks to Wick Deer for digging up this quotation from Hal Terrie,
which I remembered too.

It's remarkable what a change in perspective we have gotten by the
passage of time since this incident was first discussed. I'm going to
wander a ways from the subject of conflict of interest, in order to get
on another soapbox altogether, if you don't mind.

It happened in the olden days, when the U.S. Open was not run directly
by the USCF, but organizers who wanted to run it had to bid for it.
Bids were awarded several years in advance, so the bid for the 1999
Open was awarded when there was still time to adjust the EF and prize
fund of the 1997 Open. When Goichberg saw the terms of the winning
1999 bid, he went back and raised the EF and prize fund of his own 1997
bid, with the consent of the Executive Director. The controversial
part was, I think, that his access to the 1999 terms was due to his
position on the Policy Board; other than that they had been
confidential.

When I first read about this, it didn't make sense. Why would he need
to know the terms of the 1999 bid in order to decide to adjust his own?
I had assumed that setting the EF and prize fund of a large tournament
was a financial and economic calculation, involving financial risk,
such as guessing how many people would attend the tournament. What on
earth could be the relevance of some future tournament?

The key to this puzzle is that the EF and prize fund were part of the
bid. They had to get the approval of the Executive Director, and there
was a history of pressure to have relatively low EF's and prize funds
for this particular tournament. The setting of EF and prize fund was
not just a financial calculation, but a political one. Seeing the
outcome of the 1999 bidding enabled Goichberg to get a better political
reading, not a clearer financial picture.

So what? What were the stakes in this political game? Well, in
between the 1997 and 1999 Opens, there was the 1998 Open, which lost
money well into five figures, and effectively ended Eric Schiller's
career as an organizer. One of the causes of this spectacular failure,
I am convinced, was that entry fees were way too low. Ironic, no?
Perhaps Schiller would have benefitted from a look at the winning 1999
bid?

Since then, the USCF has taken over organization of the U.S. Open.
EF's and prize funds are now decided, I presume, by purely financial
calculation, rather than by a political guessing game between bidders
and awarders. Are they being set better, then? Guess I have to leave
it for readers to decide. But there is no more room for accusations of
manipulation via Executive Board access to confidential bids. That is
probably a good thing.

Bruce Leverett

Wick wrote:

quote:

> Unfortunately, the conflicts of interest have not all been
> hypothetical. Specific examples include:
>
> 1.) Goichberg, while on the board, had previously held the bid from

quote:

> U.S. Open. When a new bid was made, with several changes and
> innovations. Bill liked the ideas, and used them to alter the format
> of the US Open he was running. This led to USCF financial

concessions

quote:

> to the organizer.
>
> Let's quote from Hal Terrie, who is not given to sleazy political
> writing:
>
> Begin Quote:
>
> Then we come to the more recent charge of conflict of

interest

quote:

> against Mr. Goichberg, based on the fact that he arranged for a

higher

quote:

> entry fee and prize fund for his U.S. Open in 1997, after seeing the
> details of the 1999 bid from the Reno organizers.
>
>
> Let me tell you a little story. I was present at the Policy
> Board meeting in Kona 1998, when Tom Dorsch made this charge. While I
> was sitting there, my room-mate at the tournament wandered by on his
> way to the pool. He is an older gentleman who has absolutely no
> connection to chess politics. Seeing me, he came in and sat down

quote:

> to me for a few minutes. He heard the whole of Dorsch's speech on
> this subject. After a while, he leaned over to me with a puzzled
> expression on his face. "I don't get it", he said. "What are they
> arguing about - it's obviously conflict of interest." I didn't know
> how to answer him.
>
>
> Based on what I heard that day, if a formal complaint of
> conflict of interest had been sent to the Ethics Committee, under the
> Policy Board Standards of Conduct, I would absolutely, positively

have

quote:

> voted to convict. But no such complaint was ever filed.
>
> End quote.

George John

2005-03-01, 5:53 pm

Stan,

Which type of not-for-profit is this organization?

I would be interested in reviewing this organization's Form 990
reports. It is my understanding that unless exempt an organization is
required to report if it has gross receipts greater than $25,000 in any
given fiscal year. I assume this organization does have receipts
greater than $25,000. I searched Guidestar and found nothing.

Best regards,

George John

George John

2005-03-01, 5:53 pm

All,

I did a bit of research and found the following (see below) on the New
York Department of State Website. The county location is Westchester;
although, the CCA's Website shows Salisbury Mills, NY, which is in
Orange Country. I would assume the NY DOS's information is out of
date.

I am interesting in learning which type of not-for-profit the CCA is,
and how to gain access to copies of their Form 990 reports, assuming
this organization is required to file IRS Form 990 reports, and their
reports are available to the public.

Best regards,

George John

******************

Entity Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selected Entity Name: CONTINENTAL CHESS ASSOCIATION INC.

Current Entity Name: CONTINENTAL CHESS ASSOCIATION INC.
Initial DOS Filing Date: AUGUST 05, 1974
County: WESTCHESTER
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: ACTIVE

DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on
behalf of the entity)
NONE

Registered Agent
NONE

NOTE: New York State does not issue organizational identification
numbers.

George John

2005-03-01, 5:53 pm

All,

I did a bit more searching and found out that copies of an exempt
organization's Form 990 returns can be obtained directly from the IRS
using FORM 4506-A or by contacting the organization directly. See:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506a.pdf

"Public disclosure by the organization. Exempt or political
organizations must make their returns, reports, notices, and exempt
applications available for public inspection. You can visit the
organization to inspect the material instead of requesting it from the
IRS. The organization may be able to mail the copies to you."

I wonder if any of the above applies to the CCA?

Best regards,

George John

George John

2005-03-01, 9:50 pm

Wick wrote:

[SNIP]

quote:

> Let's quote from Hal Terrie, who is not given to sleazy political
> writing:

[SNIP]

All,

FYI, Hal is a current member of the USCF Ethics Committee, whose
members are appointed by the USCF Board of Delegates.

See: http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/committees2004-05.pdf

Best regards,

George John

StanB

2005-03-02, 3:52 am

"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1109700155.609556.201370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Stan,
>
> Which type of not-for-profit is this organization?
>
> I would be interested in reviewing this organization's Form 990
> reports. It is my understanding that unless exempt an organization is
> required to report if it has gross receipts greater than $25,000 in any
> given fiscal year. I assume this organization does have receipts
> greater than $25,000. I searched Guidestar and found nothing.

I suspect it is inactive.

StanB

2005-03-02, 3:52 am

"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1109714248.571883.323300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> All,
>
> I did a bit more searching and found out that copies of an exempt
> organization's Form 990 returns can be obtained directly from the IRS
> using FORM 4506-A or by contacting the organization directly. See:
> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506a.pdf
>
> "Public disclosure by the organization. Exempt or political
> organizations must make their returns, reports, notices, and exempt
> applications available for public inspection. You can visit the
> organization to inspect the material instead of requesting it from the
> IRS. The organization may be able to mail the copies to you."
>
> I wonder if any of the above applies to the CCA?

It does.

George John

2005-03-02, 3:52 am

Stan,

Sorry, I don't understand. What do you think is inactive?

Best regards,

George John

StanB

2005-03-02, 5:56 pm

"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1109743363.719824.169400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Stan,
>
> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you think is inactive?
>

What were you referring to?

Tom Martinak

2005-03-02, 5:56 pm

>> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you think is

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> What were you referring to?

No, What's on second. Who's a non-profit.

- Tom Martinak

George John

2005-03-02, 5:56 pm

Stan,

Sorry, this is what I am referring to (see below). I couldn't find the
CCA in Guidestar, and you answered that something was inactive. That
something may have been the CCA, Guidestar, or other.

I would be surprised if the CCA is inactive because it seems they are
organizing the 2005 World Open.

Best regards,

George John

quote:

> Stan,

quote:

> Which type of not-for-profit is this organization?

quote:

> I would be interested in reviewing this organization's Form 990
> reports. It is my understanding that unless exempt an organization

quote:

> required to report if it has gross receipts greater than $25,000 in

any

quote:

> given fiscal year. I assume this organization does have receipts
> greater than $25,000. I searched Guidestar and found nothing.

I suspect it is inactive.

George John

2005-03-02, 5:56 pm

Wick wrote:

[SNIP]

quote:

> That's not rumor or innuendo. That's documented fact.

[SNIP]

Wick,

Thanks for posting this. When I previously said "It's an area I have
been concerned about for some time now, too, since some time in 1997 or
98 when I first started hearing the 'rumors' from eye witnesses. ;-)",
this is what I had in mind.

It is so important for those in leadership positions to acknowledge
their errors, state what they have learned from them, and what steps
they have taken to assure they won't happen again. SFAIK, Bill
Goichberg has never acknowledged having made any errors in this
reported incident.

Best regards,

George John

StanB

2005-03-03, 3:51 am

"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1109779826.191061.65160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Stan,
>
> Sorry, this is what I am referring to (see below). I couldn't find the
> CCA in Guidestar, and you answered that something was inactive. That
> something may have been the CCA, Guidestar, or other.
>
> I would be surprised if the CCA is inactive because it seems they are
> organizing the 2005 World Open.

Perhaps. And perhaps the nonstock corp. is inactive and the CCA we know and
love is a for-profit. I'll write a letter to the IRS and ask.

George John

2005-03-03, 3:51 am

Stan,

Thank you for your offer to write to the IRS (is the correct form
4506-A?). I will be interested in learning what you find out. If the
not-for-profit CCA is inactive, the New York Department of State
Website needs to be updated, because it shows the Continental Chess
Association Inc to be an active not-for-profit (please see my prior
post on this subject in this thread).

Best regards,

George John

StanB

2005-03-04, 5:51 pm

"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1109743363.719824.169400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Stan,
>
> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you think is inactive?
>

What were you referring to?

George John

2005-03-04, 5:51 pm

quote:

> Stan,

quote:

> Which type of not-for-profit is this organization?

quote:

> I would be interested in reviewing this organization's Form 990
> reports. It is my understanding that unless exempt an organization

quote:

> required to report if it has gross receipts greater than $25,000 in

any

quote:

> given fiscal year. I assume this organization does have receipts
> greater than $25,000. I searched Guidestar and found nothing.

I suspect it is inactive.

George John

2005-03-04, 9:50 pm

Wick wrote:

[SNIP]

quote:

> That's not rumor or innuendo. That's documented fact.

George John

2005-03-06, 9:49 pm

Tom Martinak

2005-03-08, 3:56 am

>> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you think is

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> What were you referring to?

No, What's on second. Who's a non-profit.

- Tom Martinak