|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > April 2005 > Board Member Reimbursements
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Board Member Reimbursements
|
|
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
| >Beatriz Marinello's "expenses" should be made public for the simple
reason that we have been consistently told that she is not an employee,
but an independent contractor overseeing the move to Crossville (but
why can't others who already are on the payroll perform this function)?
Larry Parr
<Who? Who has the dedication? Who has the business credentials? Who
will put in long hours for heaping rations of shit. Who will prevail
while being
taken daily to pillory and post? The lady deserves a lot more respect
than
you could ever imagine.> Stan Booz
With all due respect, the issue is cash and not respect.
If memory serves, there is a requirement that all expenses and
reimbursements to board members must be listed on a regular basis.
Beatriz Marinello is not only USCF president but also acting COO,
yet we are told with a straight face by Randy Bauer that she is NOT an
employee. If she gets injured on the job of supervising the move to
Crossville, will Mr. Bauer and our resident CPA peddle the line that
the USCF isn't liable for worker's compensation?
If a board member wearing two hats, a new precedent, isn't a valid
election issue,I don't know what is. If salary annualized at $60,000 in
the guise of "expenses" isn't an election issue, I don't know what is.
And we still haven't received the board's estimates of leaving New
Windsor where a building twice as large as the proposed new one
(costing perhaps $650,000) would have cost around $80,000 to renovate.
By staying put, half the building in New Windsor could have been rented
out after nearly half the staff was terminated. Are the incumbents who
voted for the move going to seriously argue that the relovation was due
mainly to a parking problem?
Lotsa luck.
| |
| George John 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
[SNIP]
quote:
> If memory serves, there is a requirement that all expenses and
> reimbursements to board members must be listed on a regular basis.
"Volunteer Expenses. A summary of all reimbursements to each member of
the Executive Board, International Delegations, and all other
volunteers shall be published in the Executive Board Newsletters and on
the USCF website. (1990, 1998)"
See:
http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/d...nterest_03.html
[SNIP]
Best regards,
George John
| |
| 99% Kosher 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
| Larry, please get your story straight. These people are not lying to
you. These people are not hiding the numbers from you. They are just
too incompetent to know what the real numbers are. Can you really blame
them? After all, the members were the ones who voted for these clowns.
Randy is really a good guy. He just doesn't want to embarrass the other
clowns.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
| A BIG BLUNDER
<Larry, please get your story straight. These people are not lying to
you. These people are not hiding the numbers from you. They are just
too incompetent to know what the real numbers are. Can you really blame
them? After all, the members were the ones who voted for these clowns.
Randy is really a good guy. He just doesn't want to embarrass the other
clowns.> Kosher
Dear Halal,
A lot of people for quite a while have understood that there
are no detailed cost estimates -- the ones I keep asking for.
The Board made a big blunder. GM Evans probably would award their
move ?? annotating this game in Chess Life.
The board moved without advance planning and without any
diligence, let alone due diligence. The cost of the new building will
likely be more than double the initial estimate. Hence the need for a
cover story. Hence the evasions and doubletalk.
Stan Booz alleges that my insinuating USCF prez Beatriz Marinello
receiving $60,000 annualized in expenses is A BIG LIE. So why doesn't
he prove it by releasing the amount that this "volunteer" has received
so far? After all, didn't our resident CPA tell us this was the most
transparent board in ages?
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-07, 6:08 pm |
| TRANSPARENCY: BOOZ STYLE
< We have a resolution demanding that the expenses of Board
members be published, but those "expenses" consumed by Mrs. Marinello
are also being suppressed at this time. Why?... Stan Booz alleges that
my insinuating USCF prez Beatriz Marinello receiving $60,000 annualized
in expenses is A BIG LIE. So why doesn't he prove it by releasing the
amount that this "volunteer" has received so far? After all, didn't
our resident CPA tell us this was the most transparent board in ages?>
Larry Parr
<Sure! The amount she has recieved for expenses that are not
reasonable, ordinary, and necessary is exactly zero.> Stan Booz
Another proof from our resident CPA who doesn't know that "i"
comes before "e."
When asked for the amount Beatriz RECEIVED to prove his claim of
my BIG LIE, Mr. Booz ducks. This guy fits in well with the incumbents
who are running the USCF into the ground.
And so it goes.
| |
|
|
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1112108762.493536.277400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Beatriz Marinello is not only USCF president but also acting COO,
> yet we are told with a straight face by Randy Bauer that she is NOT an
> employee. If she gets injured on the job of supervising the move to
> Crossville, will Mr. Bauer and our resident CPA peddle the line that
> the USCF isn't liable for worker's compensation?
They are not required to provide workman's comp insurance insofar she is not
an employee. When I am at a client's office should I slip and fall they are
not required to provide me with workman's comp. Should through some
negligence on their part I am injured I can sue for damages. As may anyone
but an employee. In Pennsylvania employees may not sue their employers in
these circumstances. I might add that employers are required to carry WC
insurance for their employees.
quote:
> If a board member wearing two hats, a new precedent, isn't a valid
> election issue,I don't know what is. If salary annualized at $60,000 in
> the guise of "expenses" isn't an election issue, I don't know what is.
This BIG LIE of yourn is just that. You insinuate over and over that she is
promised a salary of 60,000 and it'll be booked as expenses. Such libelous
statements will soon attract Don's attention.
|
| |
|
|