More about the Fake Financial Crisis
Sam Sloan
I have received a surprisingly strong response to the letter I sent
out two days ago entitled "The fake 'Financial Crisis' created by USCF
Treasurer Tom Dorsch". I did not think many people would be interested
in this, because it concerned only money matters, but it turns out
that an exceptionally large number of people were interested. So great
was the interest that several persons who received it forwarded it to
their own private lists, so I find myself receiving replies from
people I have never corresponded with before, particularly in the UK.
Since I have received private e-mails, I cannot post them, but I would
like to show some points I have developed in my running debates over
the past two days.
Please note: I do not mind it when somebody tells me that I am full of
it and do not know what I am talking about. One reason why I write
these things is I am trying to learn myself, so if somebody can prove
I am wrong, I appreciate it. I have no ego, much.
Here are my major points (Please note that these are a composite of
comments I made in response to quires or criticisms from other
parties):
The USCF does not have serious problems "of late". The USCF has had
serious problems over the long term. I will not go into details
because I do not know which side you are on, but over a period of at
least the past 10-15 years, there have been serious problems with the
USCF. Cavallo is doing the best job anybody could do in dealing with
these long term problems. In addition, when Cavallo took over, the
USCF was a defendant in many lawsuits, the best known of which was
brought by Stan Vaughan, a Dorsch supporter. Cavallo has disposed of
all of this litigation. There are right now no suits pending against
the USCF, for the first time in many years.
I am a candidate for election and I am painfully aware that only 453
persons have the right to vote. The voting members tend to be the same
persons who are guilty of mismanaging the USCF in past years. If I
start pointing out the inadequacies of the former executive directors,
presidents, treasurers, policy board members and other USCF officers,
I will not accomplish anything and will simply insure my own defeat.
I agree that the USCF website could be vastly improved. What I do not
understand is the USCF has as members some of the most highly
qualified people in the computer field, but ignores their offers to
help and instead goes out and hires some local yokel in New Windsor
who ultimately proves incapable of doing the job.
If you look at the USCF web site at http://www.uschess.org you will
see almost none of what you describe. I was shocked when I recently
learned that the USCF pays $37,000 per year for an outside company,
Jade, to maintain this site. (The site is hosted by ICC. The USCF pays
nothing for that but rather receives money from ICC because ICC wants
to be seen as affiliated with the USCF.)
I need to mention that Richard Koepcke, a programmer for Sun
Microsystems and a developer of the Java Programming language, who is
also the President of the California Chess Association and a rated
chess master, made a detailed presentation to the Policy Board meeting
on May 31, 1998. To my astonishment, no consideration whatever was
given to Koepcke's proposals. The presentation by Koepcke was not even
mentioned in the official minutes:
http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/pb9805f.html Koepcke has forgotten
more than Jade will ever know about how to set up and maintain a web
site.
The facts are that the USCF owns the building free and clear (no
mortgage) plus has a LMA fund for Life Membership Assets of well over
a million dollars (I am not sure of the actual amount and would like
to know) plus has current revenue of $6.5 million. It would be almost
impossible for the USCF to go under, as long as things continue as
they are going.
I am not shilling for Goichberg. I have not been in touch with
Goichberg during this campaign.
I know Tom Dorsch a lot better than you do and the USCF will have a
really serious problem and might not survive if he is able to put into
effect what seem to be his plans. I am not saying this because I am a
candidate. I know him.
Also, since Dorsch is a hard core opponent of One Man One Vote (even
his friend Jim Eade, who is pro-OMOV, says that) I cannot understand
why you support him.
The unaudited figures for the 1997-1998 fiscal year showed a profit of
over $300,000. The auditors cut this down to a loss of $20,000. I do
not know the details.
However, the big ticket item in the USCF has been in the LMA fund and
how much money the USCF must set aside each year for that fund. The
LMA fund is relatively new. In the past, when Life Members joined,
their dues were treated as current income and immediately spent. Now,
the USCF has to set aside money each year in a fund as a reserve to
protect those life members. This is why even as the overall financial
picture improves as more and more is deposited into this fund, the
balance sheet can show a loss, whereas in years before there was a LMA
fund it might show a profit.
The big issue is how much money does the fund really need to have to
protect the interests of these life members, most of whom joined by
paying either $60 or $100 or who won their life membership as a prize.
Life Memberships were often awarded to winners of junior tournaments,
which was a bad idea because juniors have a long life expectancy.
Until very recently, the USCF did not follow Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles. Cavallo is the person who started this
practice. When I ran for election in 1996, I made this an issue in my
campaign.
As I understand it, when the accountants came up with a loss of
$20,000 for fiscal 1998, they gave a clean accounting letter. In other
words, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles were followed. I know
for a fact they were not completely followed in the 1996 fiscal year.
I do not know about 1997. This may explain why some seem to feel that
the USCF has experienced financial difficulties only "of late".
I appreciate your telling me what really happened at the 1995 US
Amateur Team East. However, I am not a person who carries grudges. I
do not hold that against Doyle at this late stage. I do wonder why
there is tremendous animosity against Doyle. I have received a lot of
anti-Doyle e-mail from a variety of sources. (Of course, I must keep
these confidential). Obviously, a lot of people do not like Mr. Doyle
and I wonder the reason.
I seriously consider Dorsch to be a big threat to the future of the
USCF in the coming election. I believe that if Dorsch is elected and
if Dorsch carries out what seem to be his policies, the USCF could be
in serious trouble. Cavallo will immediately resign or be fired.
Goichberg will be forced out of the USCF and Immitt and many other big
chess organizers will follow. I get a lot of anti-Dorsch e-mail from
his home state of Northern California. They do not like him there,
either. Yet, my sources tell me that Dorsch is winning the election,
mainly because people want change and he is seen as a person who will
bring about change.
Sam Sloan
PS Please note, I am posting this because I am hoping to receive
replies and comments. I am not completely sure of my facts, especially
concerning the LMA fund and other areas, particularly with respect to
accounting matters.
Mike Nolan
>Until very recently, the USCF did not follow Generally Accepted
>Accounting Principles. Cavallo is the person who started this
>practice.
Sam's retelling of history frequently departs from reality. The USCF Bylaws
were modified to require GAAP before Mike Cavallo was hired as Executive
Director.
--
Mike Nolan, USCF Bylaws Committee co-chair
Sam Sloan
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles were adopted.
Sam Sloan
On 21 Jun 1999 03:38:16 GMT, no...@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) wrote:
>sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:
>
>>Until very recently, the USCF did not follow Generally Accepted
>>Accounting Principles. Cavallo is the person who started this
>>practice.
>
Paul Rubin
>If you look at the USCF web site at http://www.uschess.org you will
>see almost none of what you describe. I was shocked when I recently
>learned that the USCF pays $37,000 per year for an outside company,
>Jade, to maintain this site. (The site is hosted by ICC. The USCF pays
>nothing for that but rather receives money from ICC because ICC wants
>to be seen as affiliated with the USCF.)
Has someone volunteered to do it for less, who has shown the ability
to do as good a job? I've seen the site; it could be improved in
some ways but it isn't bad.
>I need to mention that Richard Koepcke, a programmer for Sun
>Microsystems and a developer of the Java Programming language, who is
>also the President of the California Chess Association and a rated
>chess master, made a detailed presentation to the Policy Board meeting
>on May 31, 1998. To my astonishment, no consideration whatever was
>given to Koepcke's proposals. The presentation by Koepcke was not even
>mentioned in the official minutes:
>http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/pb9805f.html Koepcke has forgotten
>more than Jade will ever know about how to set up and maintain a web
>site.
Being a terrific software developer and having the time and ability to
set up an attractive web site are by no means the same thing. And
then there is the little matter of maintaining the contents, which is
generally much more expensive than building the site in the first
place.
My understanding (from one of your posts a few days ago) was that
Koepcke proposed something, the PB asked if he was volunteering to do
it, and he said no. So who was supposed to do it? Was he offering to
do it for pay, and if so, how much money was he asking? (Somehow I
doubt if he was offering that--if he is working at Sun, he won't have
time for stuff like that).
>Also, since Dorsch is a hard core opponent of One Man One Vote (even
>his friend Jim Eade, who is pro-OMOV, says that) I cannot understand
>why you support him.
I don't remember Eade ever calling Dorsch a hard core OMOV opponent. Cite?
>The unaudited figures for the 1997-1998 fiscal year showed a profit of
>over $300,000. The auditors cut this down to a loss of $20,000.
Now you sound like Dorsch! If the unaudited figures were vastly more
favorable than what the auditors would allow, that means that the
unaudited figures reflect a lot of wishful thinking that the auditors
didn't find grounded in reality. That's just what Dorsch and company
have been saying all along, and now you're providing figures to back
him up.
>However, the big ticket item in the USCF has been in the LMA fund and
>how much money the USCF must set aside each year for that fund. The
>LMA fund is relatively new. In the past, when Life Members joined,
>their dues were treated as current income and immediately spent. Now,
>the USCF has to set aside money each year in a fund as a reserve to
>protect those life members. This is why even as the overall financial
>picture improves as more and more is deposited into this fund, the
>balance sheet can show a loss, whereas in years before there was a LMA
>fund it might show a profit.
My understanding is that money is being (correctly) moved -out- of the
LMA fund every year, not -into- it. Frank Cammarrata posted a long
article a couple of years ago describing the mechanisms of the LMA
in detail. You can probably find it in dejanews. It was a little bit
short on figures, but still well worth reading.
>I seriously consider Dorsch to be a big threat to the future of the
>USCF in the coming election. I believe that if Dorsch is elected and
>if Dorsch carries out what seem to be his policies, the USCF could be
>in serious trouble. Cavallo will immediately resign or be fired.
>Goichberg will be forced out of the USCF and Immitt and many other big
>chess organizers will follow. I get a lot of anti-Dorsch e-mail from
>his home state of Northern California. They do not like him there,
>either. Yet, my sources tell me that Dorsch is winning the election,
>mainly because people want change and he is seen as a person who will
>bring about change.
I'm not aware of widespread anti-Dorsch sentiment here in Norcal,
though I've been away from the local chess scene ever since quitting
the USCF several years ago.
Robert Musicant
<snip>
>The big issue is how much money does the fund really need to have to
>protect the interests of these life members, most of whom joined by
>paying either $60 or $100 or who won their life membership as a prize.
I'm curious as to where you got those numbers. Back in the mid to late 70s,
when I first thought about becoming a life member, I could have done so for
$200. It's gone steadily up over the years, along with the annual
membership rate. When I finally got around to purchasing a life membership
2-3 years ago, I paid $600. Are you saying that the majority of life
members date back to the Fischer years?
Myron A. Lieberman
You also sent this post to a large mailing list, which included me.
I did not want to correct you publicly so I tried to reply to you.
Guess what.
I had the same result that Rachel had earlier when trying to reply another
of your messages.
The reply was returned with the comment that I am not authorized to reply/
For that reason and only for that reason I find it necessary to reply in
public.
The reply that I tried to send to you is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Sloan <sl...@ishipress.com>
To: che...@nic.surfnet.nl <che...@nic.surfnet.nl>
Date: Sunday, June 20, 1999 8:31 PM
Subject: More about the Fake Financial Crisis
>I need to mention that Richard Koepcke, a programmer for Sun Microsystems
>and a developer of the Java Programming language, who is also the President
>of the California Chess Association and a rated chess master, made a
>detailed presentation to the Policy Board meeting on May 31, 1998. To my
>astonishment, no consideration whatever was given to Koepcke's proposals.
>The presentation by Koepcke was not even mentioned in the official minutes:
>http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/pb9805f.html Koepcke has forgotten more
>than Jade will ever know about how to set up and maintain a web site.
Sam,
The presentation made by Richard Koepcke to the Policy Board had to do with
the Tournament Administrator program and not his proposal re: the office
computerization. Furthermore it was mentioned in the official minutes. The
same minutes will also show that Richard Koepcke agreed to go to the office
to look at the computerization situation and provide his recommendations to
Mike.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Sam,
Perhaps ou can explain how it is consistent with democracy for you to make
mass mailings to a mailing list and set the list up so that replies will not
be accepted.
Honest mailing lists are set up so that all subscribers can read messages
from all subscribers and any subscriber can post messages that are available
to all subscribers.
As you are advocating OMOV, which is based on the right for people to have
input, please set an example by doing the same with your own mailing lists.
Set them up so that any subscriber can post a message or reply to any
message that they read. Unless this is done it is difficult to see how
anyone can take your support of OMOV seriously.
Sam, this is not meant in any way as an indication of support or non-support
of your candidacy. It is only meant as a helpful suggestion to enable better
communication between yourself and those that might be interested in what
you say.
Consider the last part of your message, which is quoted below.
>
>PS Please note, I am posting this because I am hoping to receive
>replies and comments. I am not completely sure of my facts, especially
>concerning the LMA fund and other areas, particularly with respect to
>accounting matters.
>
If you are seriously hoping to receive replies and comments I strongly
suggest that you allow all recipients of messages on your lists to reply to
any and all messages on your lists.
Sam Sloan
I am not the owner of the list. The reason your letter to the chess
list bounced is you have not joined the list. You can join the list
easily by sending a letter to list...@hearn.nic.surfnet.nl and
following the instructions you will receive back.
Also, I do not mind you replying to me in public. To the contrary, I
prefer that you reply in public. If I say something that is wrong (as
I often do), please say so. I know that my knowledge is often
inaccurate or incomplete and one of the reasons I make these postings
is that I am hoping to be enlightened by somebody who is telling me
that I am wrong.
However, regarding the presentation by Richard Koepcke, here is what
the official Policy Board minutes for the meeting on May 31, 1998
state:
"EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT (continued)
"Following closed session, Executive Director Michael Cavallo
continued his report. Software packages for the new computer systems
were reviewed. The USCF has two operations, book and equipment sales
and memberships. The goal is for the new accounting package to be more
flexible and have more power. Mike Cavallo stated that Richard Koepcke
(CA/N) will go to the office to examine software packages and offer
recommendations. Thanks, Richard.
---------------------------------
Nowhere in these minutes is there any mention of the presentation made
by Richard Koepcke. In reality, Koepcke addressed the board for nearly
an hour on a wide variety of computer related subjects. From reading
these minutes, one would not know that Keopcke even participated in
the meeting, much less that he made an extensive presentation
(although Koepcke is included, along with Sam Sloan and others, on the
list of "spectators" who attended the meeting).
The part of Koepcke's presentation which caught my interest was his
plan to have USCF tournament reports submitted by the tournament
organizers through the World Wide Web. Under Koepcke's plan, within
moments, the tournament organizer could receive back confirmation that
his tournament report had been submitted and soon thereafter the
organizer would receive back the new ratings for all the players.
These reports would also become available to the players through the
web. This would revolutionize the whole USCF chess rating system.
During a break in the meeting, Koepcke told me that this was not just
a proposal. He had already done it. However, it needed to be
thoroughly debugged and thus was not ready to go online.
Don Schultz indicated that Koepcke's proposal was interesting,
provided that Koepcke was willing to do the work for free. Obviously,
nobody in Koepcke's position is going to be willing to do such an
extensive programming job for free and why should he with the USCF
spending a hundred thousand dollars on other computer software (which
so far has proven to be unusable.)
None of this is mentioned in the minutes. Rather, the official USCF
minutes often contain matters of no consequence (such as repeated
statements that promoting chess will lead to a reduction in teenage
pregnancy).
I am disappointed that neither Eade nor Dorsch spoke in favor of
Koepcke's proposals, especially since Eade, Dorsch and Koepcke are all
from Northern California.
I will forward this letter to the same list which received my previous
letter, so that the readers will also have the benefit of Myron
Lieberman's reply.
Sam Sloan
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:34:44 GMT, "Myron A. Lieberman"
<drc...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>Sam,
>
>You also sent this post to a large mailing list, which included me.
>
>I did not want to correct you publicly so I tried to reply to you.
>
>Guess what.
>
>I had the same result that Rachel had earlier when trying to reply another
>of your messages.
>
>The reply was returned with the comment that I am not authorized to reply/
>
>For that reason and only for that reason I find it necessary to reply in
>public.
>
>The reply that I tried to send to you is as follows:
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sam Sloan <sl...@ishipress.com>
>To: che...@nic.surfnet.nl <che...@nic.surfnet.nl>
>Date: Sunday, June 20, 1999 8:31 PM
>Subject: More about the Fake Financial Crisis
>
>>I need to mention that Richard Koepcke, a programmer for Sun Microsystems
>>and a developer of the Java Programming language, who is also the President
>>of the California Chess Association and a rated chess master, made a
>>detailed presentation to the Policy Board meeting on May 31, 1998. To my
>>astonishment, no consideration whatever was given to Koepcke's proposals.
>>The presentation by Koepcke was not even mentioned in the official minutes:
>>http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/pb9805f.html Koepcke has forgotten more
>>than Jade will ever know about how to set up and maintain a web site.
>
>Sam,
>
>The presentation made by Richard Koepcke to the Policy Board had to do with
>the Tournament Administrator program and not his proposal re: the office
>computerization. Furthermore it was mentioned in the official minutes. The
>same minutes will also show that Richard Koepcke agreed to go to the office
>to look at the computerization situation and provide his recommendations to
>Mike.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------
>
>Sam,
>
>Perhaps you can explain how it is consistent with democracy for you to make
>mass mailings to a mailing list and set the list up so that replies will not
>be accepted.
>
>Honest mailing lists are set up so that all subscribers can read messages
>from all subscribers and any subscriber can post messages that are available
>to all subscribers.
>
>As you are advocating OMOV, which is based on the right for people to have
>input, please set an example by doing the same with your own mailing lists.
>Set them up so that any subscriber can post a message or reply to any
>message that they read. Unless this is done it is difficult to see how
>anyone can take your support of OMOV seriously.
>
>Sam, this is not meant in any way as an indication of support or non-support
>of your candidacy. It is only meant as a helpful suggestion to enable better
>communication between yourself and those that might be interested in what
>you say.
>
>Consider the last part of your message, which is quoted below.
>>
>>PS Please note, I am posting this because I am hoping to receive
>>replies and comments. I am not completely sure of my facts, especially
>>concerning the LMA fund and other areas, particularly with respect to
>>accounting matters.
>>
>
drc...@goodnet.com
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
(snip)
(snip)
Sam,
If you will be so kind as to read the minutes, not just a pull a
snippet from the Executive Director's report, you will find the
following:
"Richard Koepcke, a member of the Internet Committee, led a discussion
regarding the Tournament Administrator program. He stated that the long
term goal is to put it on the website, as well as make it available
through the office. A set of Tournament Administrator specifications,
written by Richard Koepcke, was distributed."
The subject of the discussion was Tournament Administrator, not office
computerization. This was a project of the Internet Committee and had
nothing to do with the Executive Director's report. Online submission
of rating reports and ratings is a goal we all look forward to.
Any discussions that you may have had with Richard Koepcke or anyone
else during a break in the meeting did not and should not appear in the
minutes. The minutes cover what takes place during the meeting, not
during breaks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Sam Sloan
http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/pb9805f.html
and I had missed that portion of the minutes. I regret the error.
Sam Sloan
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:27:35 GMT, drc...@goodnet.com wrote:
>In article <376e9820...@nntp.mindspring.com>,
> sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>