quote:

---

>I have just received word that the land provision stated in the
>auditor's report has been incorrectly worded and that the land will
>fully revert to USCF after the building is complete. As I previously
>said the leaders of Crossville are triple A class people and I could
>not equate that to what would have amounted to outright deception.
>
>What bothers me is that some very smart people here seemed to ignore
>what a terrible problem that would have been.
>
>Don Schultz

quote:

---

>I have just received word that the land provision stated in the
> auditor's report has been incorrectly worded and that the land will
> fully revert to USCF after the building is complete. As I previously
> said the leaders of Crossville are triple A class people and I could
> not equate that to what would have amounted to outright deception.
>
> What bothers me is that some very smart people here seemed to ignore
> what a terrible problem that would have been.

quote:

---

> I have just received word that the land provision stated in the
> auditor's report has been incorrectly worded and that the land will
> fully revert to USCF after the building is complete. As I previously
> said the leaders of Crossville are triple A class people and I could
> not equate that to what would have amounted to outright deception.
>
> What bothers me is that some very smart people here seemed to ignore
> what a terrible problem that would have been.

quote:

---

> The last point is very important. It is noteworthy that, for example,
> George John, [SNIP] said nothing about
> the one dollar provision disclosed on page 15 of the auditor's report.

quote:

---

>Just as I dreaded going to the 2002 Board of Delegates meeting because
>of the appearance of the FIDE President, whose term I truly hope will
>end in 2006, I have been dreading going to the 2005 meeting because I
>was sensing there would be a fight over Crossville. It now appears
>there won't be one. I truly hope that I am correct in this assessment.
>
>
>Most sincerely,
>
>George John

quote:

---

>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>
>I wrote on this very subject last night by private e-mail to Randy
>Bauer (he responded), and also in an e-mail that I sent to the full
>board, the new board members, and the Executive Director (no response,
>SFAIK, but maybe something went wrong with the transmission of it?). I
>believe Sam Sloan was included, since I was responding to an e-mail
>sent to a number of people (about 15 or so?) by someone else, and he
>was included. He should have a copy of this e-mail.
>
>This evening I will post the message under this one. The one dollar
>provision in question didn't sound right to me, and I questioned it. I
>recommended to those in charge that they verify the facts. It appears
>they did so, and found what I suspected was indeed true. For this I am
>very glad.
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John

quote:

---

>Don,
>
>I do hope you will eventually come to understand why I view what you
>have done as a low blow, one made against a community which has
>embraced the USCF, and whose continued good will we will benefit from.
>
>Please consider how what you have done might look to others. If they
>view it as I do, you have further diminished the reputation of USCF
>leadership, which is already quite low in many people's opinion. You
>aren't helping your new team or the organization by what you have done,
>and your unwillingness to acknowledge your mistake and apologize.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George John

quote:

---

>
> Do not worry. There will be no fight over Crossville in Phoenix. We
> are getting out of town.

quote:

---

>I think we can all understand why so many have such a low opinion of
>you.

quote:

---

>Hmmm do I trust Sam Sloan's word on this more or Bill Goichberg's
>written quote? Hmmmm let me think about that for a mille-second.......
>Okay I've decided to go with Bill.

quote:

---

> Hmmmm let me think about that for a mille-second.......

quote:

---

> That is not a valid excuse. The statement about the one dollar deal
> was in a certified financial statement issued by a CPA firm. If this
> statement is false, that is truly astounding. I say "if" because right
> now we only have Don Schultz's statement that it is not true. We still
> have nothing from Beatriz Marinello who is still USCF President for
> the next five days that the statement is wrong.

quote:

---

> I hope that some readers will understand why I have an extremely low
> opinion of George John.

quote:

---

>I think we can all understand why so many have such a low opinion of
> you.
>

quote:

---

> This evening I will post the message under this one. [SNIP]

quote:

---

>It appears from postings here [at RGCP] that there are people out there
>that do not like the idea of the USCF moving to Crossville. The main
>fact of the matter is that the delegates voted for this move. Now
>there are only 3 viable options at this point. Option 1 is that we go
>ahead and build a new builing on the donated land in Crossville.
>Option 2 is that we do not build on the donated land, but buy/rent a
>building in Crossville. Option 3 is that the USCF leaves Crossville
>and finds a vastly better site.
>
>Option 1 is clear cut and doesn't need further discussion for the
>moment.
>
>Option 2 and Option 3 have some points that must be considered. By not
>building on the land the USCF in effect would (eventually) be agreeing
>that Crossville can buy it back for $1. Futhermore, there are other
>costs that have to be considered. $43,000 for the architech as well as
>any money that would be owed to the construction company. No doubt a
>breach of contract would involve the USCF paying for any work already
>done, plus the possibility of paying for materials purchased. Also,
>the USCF would have to repay the loan before the sale of the land back
>to Crossville.
>
>I think that the great majority out there will agree that renting is
>about the worse idea for the USCF.
>
>Now if a building could be bought in or around a major metropolitan
>area at a reasonable cost (including the cost of leaving Crossville)
>should it not be considered? What if you could buy a building within
>30 minutes of Dulles airport for $300,000? Would this plus the costs
>of leaving Crossville be substantially less [$100,000 less] than that
>of spending a minimum of $561,000 to build in Crossville? If so, then
>why totally throw out the idea of reconsidering the move to Crossville?
>
>Of course this has not happened. Also, remember it is the Delegates
>that would have to agree [make and pass a motion] to reconsider the
>Crossville move.
>
>ChimeraCameleon
>
>Remember that even if you change your color that the Eagle will fly and
>the Lion roar.
>

quote:

---

> Good posting thank you, but just to correct one point, the delegates
> never voted to move to Crossville. That is just George John's
> misrepresentation of what happened.

quote:

---

>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>
>There is disagreement about what Board of Delegate ratification means.
>Some day I hope this issue is pinned down by the USCF. I have seen the
>written opinion of an expert, outside of the USCF governance, on this
>topic, and it strongly suggests that once the Board of Delegates has
>ratified an action of an Executive Board, a future Executive Board may
>not overturn it, only a future Board of Delegates may do so.
>
>The 2003 Board of Delegates explicitly ratified the 2003 McCrary
>board's decision to move to Crossville. Additionally, they approved a
>distinct Crossville move budget.

quote:

---

>The 2004 Board of Delegates could have blocked the decision to move to
>Crossville. They did not.
>

quote:

---

>IMO, the first Marinello Board (2003-04) may have acted improperly when
>they reopened the bidding, especially since it was done with *no*
>justification. IMO, the reasons would have had to have been
>compelling. To date I have seen no case made that there were
>compelling reasons to look elsewhere.

quote:

---

>The second Marinello Board (2004-05) undid the mistake of the first
>Marinello Board by reaffirming the move passed by the McCrary Board and
>ratified by the 2003 Board of Delegates. IMO, this action was
>necessary and proper.

quote:

---

>It is my strong opinion that it would be a mistake for the 2005 Board
>of Delegates to undo the Crossville move or allow the new Board to do
>so unless there is an absolutely compelling and fully verifiable reason
>to do so. The reputation of this organization's ability to honor its
>agreements is at stake IMO. It is essential the USCF maintain its good
>reputation as a not-for-profit. I fear any attempt to break any valid
>agreements made with the community of Crossville may seriously damage
>the reputation of the USCF. As a USCF member and Delegate from Texas,
>I do not want to see that happen. I hope and trust the 2005 USCF Board
>of Delegates will act accordingly.
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
>USCF Delegate, TX

quote:

---

> On 10 Aug 2005 08:50:04 -0700, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
> wrote:

quote:

---

>
> No they did not. There was a budgetary item drawn up by Frank
> Camaratta who was VP of Finance at the time but the move to Crossville
> was never discussed, debated or put up for a vote.

quote:

---

> By the time of the delegates meeting in 2004 it had already been
> decided not to move to Crossville.

quote:

---

> That is why it was not discussed at
> that meeting.

quote:

---

>
> The point is that they did re-open the bidding, which meant that they
> had decided to reconsider the move to Crossville. There was nothing
> improper about that.

quote:

---

>
> Wrong, as usual. This question should have been presented to the
> delegates, who would have voted against it.

quote:

---

> George I have to wonder why you waste your time to argue with Sam about
> his recollection of past events related to USCF delegates meetings and
> board meetings.

quote:

---

> Sam predicts in writing that USCF will never build the building in
> Crossville.

quote:

---

>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>
>I will let the readers draw their own conclusions by quoting from the
>minutes of that meeting (see below). Note: the June 9 meeting
>mentioned in the quote is where the 2003 McCrary board voted to move to
>Crossville. The decision to move to Crossville was *explicitly*
>discussed *during* the ratification motion. If the Board of Delegates
>objected to this decision, this was the time to raise the objection,
>but they did not.
>
>I quote:
>
>"Next to be considered was the ratification of the actions of the
>Executive Board (EB) since the last Delegates' Meeting. Minutes of a
>conference call held on June 9 were handed out to the Delegates and
>were added to the actions to be ratified by Harold Winston. President
>John McCrary read the motions as well. He and Harry Sabine presented
>information about the planned move to Crossville, TN. Brochures about
>Crossville and Cumberland County were available to everyone. President
>McCrary noted that neither the sale of the building in New Windsor nor
>the move have been finalized as yet. [SNIP] participated in the
>discussion after which the motion passed.
>
>DM03-07 - ADM 03-07 ([SNIP]): The delegates ratify all actions of the
>Executive Board appearing in Minutes published in Executive Board
>Newsletters and the Delegates' Call, since the conclusion of the 2002
>Delegates' Meeting and the minutes of the Executive Board conference
>call of June 9, 2003 that have been distributed to the USCF Delegates
>at this meeting. PASSED"
>
>"Delegates were given a printed report that included both as well as a
>one page summary of the capital planning budget for the move to
>Crossville, which will be considered separately after the approval of
>the budget for operations."
>
>"DM03-13 - NDM 03-40 - ([SNIP]): Moved, that the planning budget for
>the Crossville move be adopted. PASSED"
>
>
>There was no decision made to prevent a move to Crossville, only that
>other options were to be considered first. Nothing prevented an
>Executive Board from reaffirming the 2003 McCrary Board's decision as
>ratified by the 2003 Board of Delegates to move to Crossville.
>
>
>If the 2004 Board of Delegates did not want the USCF to move to
>Crossville, they could have explicitly directed the Executive Board to
>not move there. They did not. Therefore the Executive Board was
>completely in its power to reaffirm the decision made by the 2003
>McCrary board as ratified by the 2003 Board of Delegates.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>
>
>That depends upon one's interpretation of the 2003 Board of Delegate
>motion to ratify the McCrary Board's actions. There is sharp
>disagreement on this, which has not been resolved to my satisfaction.
>
>
>IMO, after the 2003 Board of Delegates ratified the McCrary Board's
>decision to move to Crossville, a later action of the Board of
>Delegates would have been necessary *only* if an Executive Board wanted
>to move to somewhere other than Crossville.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
>

quote:

---

>So, are you then claiming that if the Delegates take no action on the
>matter this weekend at the meeting then they have NOT given their
>approval?
>
>Since USCF is IN Crossville right now, are you suggesting that the
>Delegates never approved of them going there?
>
>Is it your claim that the Board moved the entire office to Crossville
>in a rogue move and that the delegates are outraged enough about it
>that they intend to reverse this decision this coming weekend?

quote:

---

>But you didn't answer the question. You said the Crossville deal is
>"dead". Does that mean you believe USCF is returning to New Windsor?
>

quote:

---

>Do you believe the new Board is definitely going to refuse to build the
>building in Crossville?

quote:

---

>Do you believe the Delegates will order the board to look to move
>elsewhere? Why don't you make some specific predictions so we can see
>how accurate they prove to be?

quote:

---

>Did Mike Nolan move his home near Omaha after a fire in it? LMAO!

quote:

---

> I thought he always lived near Ohama.

quote:

---

> Yes. I am sure that the building will never be built.

quote:

---

>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>
>Let's engage in the unthinkable and assume for a moment that Sam Sloan
>is correct. What would this possibly mean?
>
>1) The loss of an asset appraised at $256,000
>2) The possible loss of free rent until the building is complete
>3) The $45,000 paid to the architect will likely be a waste
>4) Whatever has been already paid to the construction company will be
>lost, and depending on how far along the construction is there may be
>demolition costs
>5) We will likely have to pay sizable cancellation fees
>6) We likely won't get a building custom made to our needs which will
>likely adversely impact employee productivity
>7) We will have short circuited a plan that had the support of two very
>different Executive Boards
>8) It will make it easier for insiders to move the USCF to a different
>location, an expensive and disruptive proposition
>9) We will have bailed out on one of the biggest and most public deals
>of the USCF's history, damaging the organization's public image, and
>making it less attractive to other businesses to partner with or
>sponsor.
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John

quote:

---

>Just out of curiosity what is the total amount of dollar damages that a
>USCF lawsuit has ever netted?

quote:

---

>I seem to recollect that duly elected officers of a Board could not be
>sued for actions taken while acting as Board members. I'm not a lawyer
>though and I still don't play one on tv either.

quote:

---

>I think most likely the person's suing will be Crossville for breach of
>contracts, if Sam's predictions turn out correct, but that's a topic
>for a whole other discussion.

quote:

---

> I seem to recollect that duly elected officers of a Board could not be
> sued for actions taken while acting as Board members.