Has the USCF Board Learned from the Errors of the Past?
samsloan
attention of most of the chess playing world, I would find it
difficult or improbable for errors of the past to occur now, and for
the foreseeable future. With all of us shooting from the hip, I thank
those still brave enough to serve. I think this will be a highlight
for many who have braved the journey during these trying financial
times. I applaud are the parents and caregivers who have sacrificed
the time and money for their children, the volunteers and organizers,
and all the back of the house people.
Texas Rob [/quote]
You are mistaken. The errors of the past are being repeated. They have
learned that they are getting away with these errors and thus are
repeating them.
Take for example the item of "imaginary money". Every year the
financial statements include about $100,000 that the USCF is
theoretically supposed to get from the Life Members but does not
actually receive. This means that real revenues are about $100,000
less than what is actually reported. So, for example, last year when
the USCF reported a loss of $70,000, the real loss was actually
$170,000 for that item alone. This means that for every year of the
last four years that Bill Goichberg has been president, the USCF has
lost $100,000 more per year than has been reported.
At the 2007 USCF delegates meeting in Cherry Hill, the delegates voted
to reduce this $100,000 to $50,000 by changing the estimated life span
of a life member from 20 years to 40 years, thereby cutting the
imaginary money from $100,000 to $50,000. However, at the 2008 meeting
in Dallas, we found that that Bill Hall and the board had decided to
ignore that delegate mandate and had put the $100,000 in fake money
back in, so as to make their performance look better than it actually
was.
If I am elected, I will demand that ALL of the fake money be
eliminated from the financial statements. The office will have to
learn to survive on what money actually comes in. They will no longer
be allowed to claim that they received money that they did not
actually get.
Sam Sloan
Offramp
samsloan
even agree with him because he won't listen and cannot seem to connect
unless you say exactly what he is saying.[/quote]
The problem I have with Allen Priest is that he is new to the USCF,
does not know the history and tied up the delegate's meeting with his
long winded views.
In the first place, I did not shout or speak at all when Allen Priest
was speaking. I was at the very back of the meeting room and as he was
at the front facing the podium so he could not have known who was
interrupting him.
The shouts probably came from a conservative group of old timers who
sat at the back right hand side of the meeting room if observed from
the rear. A lot of members, not only me, were upset that the board and
the office had chosen to completely ignore the resolutions passed by
the delegates in the 2007 meeting.
Secondly, these accounting issues have been debated and discussed at
every delegates meeting for at least the last 20-30 years. We have had
some top quality people involved in this. I do not know what
qualifications Allen Priest has. I am not impressed with his CPA
license. My wife is an accounting major. She is in the final semester
before getting her BS in accounting and she plans to take the CPA test
before the end of this year. Yet, SHE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT.
I passed the New York Stock Exchange Exam, the SEC Principals exam,
and numerous exams pertaining to reading and analyzing financial
statements of publicly held corporations. I have written 10-K reports
filed with the SEC by publicly held companies and I have written a
widely acclaimed book on this subject. Yet I do not go around telling
everybody about how great my knowledge is of financial statements.
Instead of spending time telling us his own long-winded views of how
he believes the USCF accounting systems should be modified and changed
to the way he believes it should be, I think Allen Priest would have
better served the USCF by asking the board why it has repeatedly
decided to ignore delegate resolutions passed during pervious years
when this subject was debated and discussed.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
surplus because the LMA has insufficient assets to cover the liability
to life members makes sense. The idea that if the current board
breaks even, it is really losing $100,000 because other boards years
ago lost that amount is ridiculous.
Bill Goichberg[/quote]
It is Bill Goichberg's reply that is ridiculous.
Every year, the financial statements under Bill Goichberg shows the
receipt of $100,000 more than it actually got.
This extra $100,000 is derived from a perverted interpretation of
accrual accounting.
Thus, in 2008, the USCF lost $170,000, not the $70,000 that it
reported losing.
Sam Sloa
Jürgen R.
When reading a balance sheet one must look at both sides.
There is an entry that balances the dastardly $100K - what is it?
samsloan
No there is not. There is no offsetting entry.
On the 2007-2008 financial statements it shows membership revenue as
$1,757,853.
In reality, the USCF received $100,000 less, or $1,657,853.
There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a footnote, to
indicate this.
Sam Sloan
Jürgen R.
In that case the balance sheet doesn't balance and you really would have
something to bleet about.
However, the balance sheet does balance - so where is the off-setting entry?
samsloan
I do not know. Why don't you ask some of the USCF bigshots here, such
as Randy Bauer who comes here occasionally?
Sam Sloan
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
deferred revenue?
Jürgen R.
No - you are the one who claims something is wrong with the books.
Jürgen R.
Most likely you will find two fictitious payments balancing each
other - one from the fund for current expenses servicing lifetime
members, and one to the fund reducing the debt. That would be
entirely reasonable.
samsloan
by Allen on Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:54 am #136717
samsloan wrote:On the 2007-2008 financial statements it shows
membership revenue as $1,757,853.
In reality, the USCF received about $100,000 less, or about
$1,657,853.
There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a footnote,
to indicate this.
Sam Sloan
My suggestions:
Read the cash flow statement.
Read the deferred revenue notes - note 1 bottom of page 7.
Read the deferred revenue note top of page 8.
Read Note D.
Read Note E and notice that it has the required schedule showing
collections and recognition, along with expected future amortization
of existing life memberships.
For someone with your extensive experience in corporate finance I
would have thought those disclosures would have been clear. They were
to me, but then I am just a lowly CPA who has only been in the
business 27 years. It is a pretty straight-forward disclosure for
folks who work with these all the time.
samsloan
Mr. Priest must be reading some other document, because I am reading
2007-2008-audited-financials.pdf from the uschess.org website.
The document I am reading does not contain a note 1. It does contain a
note A however. Note A states what we all already know, which is that
the federation offers life and sustaining memberships to its members.
Page 8 also tels us what we all already know, which is that the USCF
maintains deferred membership categories, including multi-year
memberships.
Note D says that the USCF is required to have an appraisal done on the
Crossville Land and Building every three years, and the last appraisal
was done on July 15, 2003, which is six years ago. That is certainly
alarming, especially since many have stated that the Crossville Land
and Building are worth far less than the total of $855,101 that is
carried on the books. The actual value of the land and building is
said to be in the high five to low six figures. I guess this explains
why a current appraisal has not been done.
Note E page 11 is the only one that seems to pertain to the issue
here. It says under "deferred life and sustaining membership income",
"Amount Recorded as Income (118,670)". So, in other words, this amount
of (118,670) is the offset to the amount showed as membership dues
received. This means that $118,670 is the amount of imaginary money
recorded as having been received as membership dues this year.
I guess Mr. Priest was hoping that I would not actually read the
documents he told me to read.
One bit of good news in the financial statements comes in Note J on
page 12 regarding the current litigation involving the USCF. It
states, "After taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of
such actions, management is of the opinion that their outcome will not
have a significant effect on the federations financial statements."
Boy, I sure am relieved to learn that.
It certainly is good to have someone with Mr. Priests' vast experience
helping us out on this.
Sam Sloan
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
Income statements work on revenue earned
not received. Any new receipts of Life and
sustaining memberships would not be shown
as revenue but rather as an increase in deferred
revenue net of this year's recognition.
Sam you're either incompetent or an idiot or both.
samsloan
samsloan wrote:
Allen wrote:
Sam Sloan
My suggestions:
Read Note D.
Page 8 also tells us what we all already know, which is that the
Sam Sloan
Very good Sam. You found the right document!
Note 1 -Note A - big deal - the first footnote then. This note
indicates that the organization uses the accrual basis of accounting.
Now that tells us that or statement of activities will not be the cash
inflows and outflows but will represent the cash plus changes in the
amounts owed and the amounts due to the organization. And, yes, it
says the organization offers memberships lasting longer than one year.
So we turn back through the footntoes to learn about those. Still with
me buddy?
Note D is titled Life Membership Assets. You will note that those
consist of cash, CD's and securities as well as land, building and
building improvements. So regardless of your red herring about an
appraisal - which I agree ought to be done but has nothing to do with
tracing through the membership cash and revenue - Note D tells the
reader that there are some assets set aside for such memberships. But
is it enough? Note D doesn't tell us that (because it is not supposed
to do so), therefore we move on through the footnotes. But Note D does
tell us that $27,145 more cash was added into the LMA investments
during the year. Still hanging in there Sam?
Note E is titled Deferred Revenue Life and Sustaining Memberships.
This note tells us that the organization had deferred revenue of
$1,082,201 at 6/1/06. We collected $87,119 for these types of
memerbships for the year ended 5/07. Under the revenue recognition
policy the organization has consistently used it recognized $101,095
in revenue from such memberships in recognition that all those members
are one year older and need one less year of membership services. That
leaves $1,068,225 in deferred revenue at 5/07. In the last year we
collected $65,262 for these types of memberships. Under the revenue
recognition policy the organization has we recognized $118,670 in
revenue from such memberships in recognition that all those members
are one year older and need one less year of membership services. Thus
at 5/08 there remained $1,014,817 of deferred revenue reflecting the
liability to provide member services to those members through the
estimated remainder of their membership periods. Then there is a
schedule to show how much will be recognized in each year until total
deferred revenue is fully recognized.
You still with me?
Now you noted that the $118,670 was recognized as revenue. Very good.
So let's turn back to the cash flow statement and compare that to the
statement of activities and changes in net assets (which just for ease
of use let's call the income statement). The income statement has
membership revenue of $1,757,853. Comparing that to the cash flow
statement we find that the indirect method is presented. Now I prefer
the direct method becuase I think it has more information, but I'm
sure you can toggle back and forth between the two, Sam, as we know it
isn't that hard to do for experienced users of financial statements.
The cash flow statement shows that the deferred revenue for our life
and sustaining members declined by $53,408. Of course it did as that
is the difference between the revenue recognized of $118,670 and the
additional membership receipts from this class of members of $65,262.
($118,670-$65,262=$53,408) So cash inflow from memberships would be
reduced by the $53,408. One would do a similar exercise with multi-
year memberships. Still there?
Now remember back in Note D we saw that the LMA fund got $27,145 more
in cash over the year. But the deferred revenue number went up by
$53,408. Now we would like for the deposits tot he LMA to equal or
exceed the amount of deferred revenue. Since it didn't it means that
the organization should have set aside more money into the LMA than it
did - at least $26,000 more - more or less. I would for it to be more
and not less. But it was a start. There should be as much cash in the
LMA as there is deferred revenue so that funds will be avaialble in
the future to deliver the membership benefits to those life and
sustaining members. I fully agree with that. It isn't there becuase at
some point in the past that money was spent in the year received
instead of being set aside as it should ahve been. That was not a good
thing to do. I have said that over and over. But that has been done
and we cannot change the past. What needs to happen going forward is
that the cash needs to be set aside as we go on But that will take
many years to clean up unless the finances change substantially. Fewer
lawsuits would help don't you think?
There is no "imaginary money", whatever that is supposed to mean.
There is a difference between the member revenues recognized and cash
received and there was money put into the LMA fund. More needs to be
put there.
Thanks for your recognition of my expertise.
I was counting on you reading the documents.
I'm just disappointed that your analysis was not more astute given
your self-proclaimed financial expertise. Or maybe you were going so
fast that you skipped over the obvious stuff so we could talk on a
higher level. But I thought we ought to go back through the details
for the benefit of those who don't read these things every day.
I hope you didn't mind that Sam. Thanks for the opportunity to explain
this in greater detail for them. I didn't want to be too long-winded
in my post before as that seemed to trouble you. These things usually
take more time to explain that one can do in a pithy sound bite.
Allen
samsloan
You obviously do not understand the issue.
When a new life member joins the USCF and pays $1000, that money is
supposed to be deposited into the LMA account and a small amount
deducted, about $15, to pay to send Chess Life to that member for one
year.
This was done throughout the 1980s up until 1996 when Goichberg was
elected Vice-President of the USCF.
By that time the LMA had $2 million in it.
However, starting in 1996, USCF operations would regularly "borrow"
money from the LMA. This was not supposed to happen and was not
permitted when Anthony Cottell, a CPA of New Jersey, who had been
instrumental in setting up the LMA, had been USCF Treasurer.
Starting in 1996, the LMA started going down as more and more money
was borrowed by operations from the LMA. Finally, by 2003, because of
the huge operating losses under three successive executive directors,
Cavallo, DeFeis and Niro, the entire $2 million in the LMA had been
spent and the account was closed. Niro then changed accounting methods
in 2003 it hide the fact that the LMA accoount no longer existed. If
you search yoiu will see that there was a tremendous outcry on rgcp
when Niro did this.
The $2 million that had been lost was still carried as a "debt" to the
LMA. Since there were about 10,000 life members, every year about $10
for each life member was supposed to be transferred from the LMA
account to operations. However, because the LMA account no longer
existed, this transfer did not actually take place. It was a
bookkeeping entry as no money was involved. That is why it is called
"imaginary money".
In 2004 Bill Goichberg sold the USCF's headquarters building in New
Windsor for $513,000. A new LMA account was created and that $513,000
was put in it. The funds in the NEW LMA account did not in any way
come from dues paid by the Life members. This is one point that Allen
Priest does not seem to understand.
It was not until I was on the board in 2007 that Beatriz Marinello
discovered and pointed out that funds from the sales of new Life
Memberships was not being put into the LMA account as required but was
being treated as operating income. This led to the delegate
resolutions passed in Cherry Hill in August 2007.
The problem now is that the delegate resolutions that were passed in
2007 are being ignored by the board and by the executive director.
They are still making the paper transfer of the old LMA Finds to
Operations every year, transferring about $100,000 each year, thereby
making it seem that the USCF is getting $100,000 more in membership
revenues than it actually receives. If the Old LMA account still
existed and still had money in it, this would make sense. However,
because the Old LMA Account no longer exists this is a fraudulent
transfer.
What is so upsetting about Mr. Allen Priest is that he is a new member
of the USCF and was not around when all these things were happening
and he does not understand the difference between the Old LMA account
(that no longer exists) and the New LMA account (that contains
entirely of money derived from the sale of the building in 2004 plus a
small amount from the sale of life memberships since 2007). He keeps
saying that a transfer of funds from the Old LMA account is "required
by GAAP' when that is obviously nonsense. Prison cells are filled with
accountants who made similar claims. Note that even Grant Perks has
specifically stated that he does not go along with this and has
nothing to do with the fact that the office, the executive board and
Mr. Allen Priest are continuing to ignore the delegate resolutions
passed in Cherry Hill in 2007.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
understanding that if operations defaults and does not repay the funds
on schedule, there would be no more "loans".
Amazingly, for the first time ever in USCF recorded history, the loan
was repaid. Of course, by this time the bequest of $350,000 had been
received so there were ample funds to repay the loan.
However, at the present rate, before long the $350,000 bequest will
have been used up and when operations stops repaying it will be a
different story.
As far as "professional CPAs" having passed on the propriety of USCF
accounting, at least 20 CPAs over the years have been involved in USCF
finances, and the views of Mr. Allen Priest are unique in that as far
as I know no oher CPA has agreed with them. Most of the others, I
admit, have given up and left.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
passed on the propriety of USCF accounting, at least 20 CPAs over the
years have been involved in USCF finances, and the views of Mr. Allen
Priest are unique in that as far as I know no oher CPA has agreed with
them. Most of the others, I admit, have given up and left.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
How many gave up and left because they were tired of being abused by
you and decided they would rather do things they get paid to do? For
example, why, even in the quoted post, cast aspersions on the
professional qualifications of those with which you disagree?
Allen Priest [/quote]
The answer is: None of them. Tony Cottell, a CPA who was USCF
Treasurer for many years and who set up the initial LMA account, last
appeared at the USCF Delegate's meeting in Framingham in 2001. He made
a motion to put the LMA Funds into a seperate corporation so that it
could not be reached by operations, not even in bankruptcy.
His motion failed by only a few votes. Cottell moved to Florida and
has not attended a meeting since. I voted against the Cottell motion
because I accepted Goichberg's argument that there are times when
operations legitimately needs to access LMA funds. I did not realize
and indeed nobody except possibly Tony Cottell realized that in just
two more years the entire LMA account would be emptied and the account
closed.
I deeply regret voting against Cottell's motion. Had his motion
passed, the USCF would be in far better financial shape today.
Another CPA who was chased away was Stan Booz. He was kicked out
because of obscene statements he often made on the Internet. We now
know that most of the obscene statements were by "The Fake Stan Booz"
who was the same person as "The Fake Sam Sloan".
Another person who was chased away was Tom Dorsch. His case was
different because he claimed to have a financial background and led
people to believe that he was a CPA, when he was not. He had no
financial background at all. However, his wife, Carolyn, had a
financial background.
The one accountant I have openly criticized is Grant Perks. However,
got on his case not because of accounting matters but because he paid
out more than $7500 in "per diem" allowances when that was clearly not
allowed by IRA Rules.
Again, not one of the CPAs that I know of agree with Mr. Allen
Priest's assertions on how the USCF's financial statements should be
done.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
there are no limits on the same. The only issue is the tax treatment
of them if they exceed actual costs incurred, which is a matter
reported at the recipient level.[/quote]
Once again, you do not know what the issue was and did not bother to
check the archives to find out what it was.
The issue was that "per diem allowances" are only to be paid for away
from home travel. Instead, they were paid by Mr. Perks as a tax free
salary of $50 per day or $350 per week for 22 weeks straight during
which there was little or no away from home travel.
By the way, during my one year one year on the board I received zero
in per diem allowances. I also claimed lower reimbursement of expenses
than any other board member claimed.
In the Grant Perks case, I was censured for making a statement that I
never made. I challenged the Ethics Committee to produce an instance
of me making that statement and they were never able to do so. This is
the problem with having a politically motivated ethics committee.
Sam Sloan
None
It wouldn't have changed shit. They would not receive one more dollar
in cash flow. Cottrell's concept had no connection with generally
accepted accounting principles. It kinda of explains why his
accounting practice was unable to support him and he had to give it up
and take a job in teaching. Proof that those that can do those that
can't teach.
None
If indeed he received 50 bucks a day it should have been reflected on
his 1099. There is nothing wrong with giving a travel allowance and
reporting it on his 1099. Now if it wasn't reported he would have had
to report travel expenses of 50 a day or more. That is what is termed
a reportable plan. It may be that they calculated his mileage from his
home in Ohio to corporate and came up with a mileage reimbursement
that conformed to IRS guidelines. Or maybe they considered his room
and board for overnight stay according to prevailing rates or IRS
guidelines. The fact that you are bandying about all sorts of
unsupported accusations is not really going to convince anyone due to
your proven history of lying and misstatement of facts.
help bot
> > In that case the balance sheet doesn't balance and you really would have
> > something to bleet about.
> > However, the balance sheet does balance - so where is the off-setting entry?
At 6:02 am Mr. Sloan was dead certain that
there was no offsetting entry. But by 3:41 pm,
the poor chap's brain was "reset", and he
then reported that he didn't know, one way
or the other.
> I do not know. Why don't you ask some of the USCF bigshots here, such
> as Randy Bauer who comes here occasionally?
As any rational person can plainly see, the
poor fellow's mind is in a shambles; he does
not "know" anything, except on a whim; and
if his bluster is resolutely challenged, poor
Mr. Sloan will quickly back down and reverse
course, admitting that what he said he knew
was nothing more than hot air escaping one
or another of his bodily orifices.
-- help bot
jkh...@aim.com
Sam, the way you phrased that implies that you declined the per diem
on principle. That's a flat-out lie. You /demanded/ a per diem. You
whined and complained about it. You continued to do this even after
you were shown the motion from six years earlier abolishing per diems
for EB members. And you have the gall to mention ethics?
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
Snarf!!!!!
samsloan
By the way, during my one year one year on the board I received zero
in per diem allowances. I also claimed lower reimbursement of expenses
than any other board member claimed.
A false statement. Go to the 2007 Delegate's call, page 7. Bill
Goichberg was reimbursed for $0.00 in expenses for that year. Sam
Sloan was reimbursed for $469.84.
Last time I looked, under any reasonable form of accounting, a $469.84
expense is greater than a $0.00 expense.
Yet another example of Sam Sloan's amazing grasp of simple facts.
Randy Bauer [/quote]
My statement is accurate. I wrote that I asked for less than anybody
else asked for. Since Goichberg did not ask for any reimbursement, his
request was not less than mine.
Also, to compare me to Goichberg is not appropriate. Goichberg
organizes the World Open with $400,000 in prizes. I derived no income
from chess. I am a true volunteer, as opposed to Goichberg who is able
to use his position on the board to help him in his business
interests.
Another difference is that Goichberg scheduled the board meetings so
that they would be held wherever he was. For example, the February
2-3, 2007 board meeting was held near the Santa Anita Race Track in
Los Angeles, because the horses are running there at that time of the
year, and Goichberg plays the horses, whereas the other board members
with the exception of Randy Hough had to fly in from all over the
country to attend the meeting.
Sam Sloan
jkh...@aim.com
There's no "pauper rule" in the USCF Bylaws, Sam. And is it really
true that you make no money from publishing chess books? If so, that
speaks more to your intelligence than anything else.
For what it's worth, your claim about Goichberg scheduling meetings
for his convenience is another lie (or stupidity). Of the five
meetings which took place during your pollution of the Board, two were
at the U.S. Open (no discretion there). November 2006 was in Stamford
(convenient for the New York area members). February 2007 was in
Arcadia (no expenses needed for Goichberg and Hough). May 2007 was at
the U.S. Championship in Stillwater.
Is there really anyone left who takes this dullard seriously?
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
Himself
Javert
Well there's a couple over at the USCF forums who still seem to.
samsloan
Crossville. We had hired somebody to assume that role, but they
abruptly left for another job soon thereafter. Given the short time
available to make this happen, there were few viable alternatives.
Beatriz did not ask for pay but did ask for per diem and expenses. I
think it was a wise investment on our part and don't believe it was
questionable. She did a good job when many of the critics were
suggesting the costs of the move would bankrupt the USCF or lead to a
major cash crunch - neither of which came to pass.
Randy Bauer [/quote]
I am so happy to learn that it has not come to pass, especially since
it has been my understanding that it has come to pass.
Sam Sloan
Rob
I am glad to learn there is no cash crunch with the USCF
samsloan
on your part. Once again you refuse to acknowledge that your opinion
on almost every issue (including support for Polgar and Truong) was
incorrect while at the same time forget that Sam Sloan lost as a
result of 3000 FSS obscene postings. If there is one thing we can say
about Randy, it's that he is fair and balanced.[/quote]
I doubt very many members ever saw a FSS post. One would have to
descend into the rgcp pit to do that and would actually have to think
that postings there had any meaning.
Sort of like reading anonymous postings on chess discussion and
thinking that they represent actual people. So reading posts to any b
log and assuming that those posting have any clue what they are
talking about.[/quote]
Allen Priest keeps making all kinds of ridiculous statements. There is
little doubt that every USCF member who surfs the Internet at all saw
some of the thousands "Fake Sam Sloan" postings. Allen Priest just
joined the forum on Jan 20, 2007 and the first time I ever heard of
him was the 2008 Delegates Meeting in Dallas, so he was not even
around when many off the FSS postings appeared.
Only yesterday somebody posted as "Sam Sloan" and made a derogatory
statement about a federal judge. Now I have to worry that the FBI will
visit me, thinking I was the one who made that "Fake Sam Sloan"
posting.
Again, I question the fact that Allen Priest has been made a "Super-
Moderator" of the forum and many posts critical of him have been
deleted.
The Real Sam Sloan
samsloan
registration process (which few sites have) are not particularly
interesting to me since anyone can sound like they have a clue even
when they do not.
Allen Priest [/quote]
You seem to have overlooked the fact that the reason they are called
"Fake Sam Sloan" postings is that they were signed "Sam Sloan".
Therefore, they were not anonymous.
I believe that Allen Priest does not have a clue.
The Real Sam Sloan
samsloan
statements in the last audit would be more. The USCF finance
committee certainly understands it, as does the audit committe which
is comprised of 3 CPAs. One of the few who really does not get that
all of these folks are making the same point, and are not in
disagreement as to the impact on the USCF cash flow that he is trying
to make - just making use of the correct terms and proposing more
effective reporting models to point it out - is Mr. Sloan.
So since he doesn't seem to understand, he attacks the qualifications
and abilities of those who point out that he doesn't use the correct
terms and so confusing the issue as to make it easy for others to
right off his point, then gets in the way of those who are trying to
solve the problem. I guess you have to ask him why he attacks those
who are actually trying to accomplish the same thing he is on this
point.
Allen Priest [/quote]
I have yet to see any other CPA besides Allen Priest defend the claim
that money that was not received during fiscal 2007-2008 and will
never be received because it does not exist can be counted as "cash
receipts".
I would also like to see some evidence that the accountants who
certified the 2007-2008 financial statement knew about the delegate's
vote at the 2007 Delegate's Meeting in Cherry Hill and realized that
you had just decided to ignore that delegate's resolution. How did the
auditors know that there was something special about this $100,000
item buried in a $3 million financial statement, or did they?
As noted above, Grant Perks has specifically stated that he had
nothing to do with your decision to ignore the 2007 delegate's
resolution. I do not see you disputing that and also you have yet to
name a single qualified person who agrees with you.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
You keep saying that the USCF is required to follow GAAP and GAAP
requires the office to claim that it has received $100,000 that it has
not in fact received and will never receive because it does not exist.
You claim that you tried to do it the way that the delegates told you
to do it but the accountants over-ruled you and insisted that you put
$100,000 in non-existent money into your financial statements.
This is the first time I have ever heard of a situation where the
accountants claim that you did better than you say you did. Always
accountants are finding out that things are worse, not better, than
the office claims. This is the first time I have ever seen an auditing
firm improve the bottom line.
I am waiting to see the letter from the accountants telling you that
you must claim that you received that $100,000 that you did not
receive. You claim that such a letter exists, but I am calling your
bluff.
Produce the letter!
Sam Sloan
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Randy Bauer
<randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is what is so frustrating about these "discussions."
>
> WHO CARES?
>
> It is a moot point, and the Delegates themselves have deemed it moot,
> whether before or after the fact.
>
> Ergo, WHO CARES?
>
> Find something else to argue about.
>
> Randy Bauer
>
> --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Chess...@aol.com <Chess...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> From: Chess...@aol.com <Chess...@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Has the USCF Board Learned from the Errors of the Past?
> To: bh...@uschess.org, randyba...@yahoo.com, samh...@gmail.com,
> Chess...@aol.com, randal...@yahoo.com, A...@allawrence.com,
> JABe...@aol.com, Jo...@channingcorporation.com, Pault...@aol.com,
> Ches...@aol.com, Beat...@aol.com, red...@utdallas.edu,
> Jerry...@aol.com
> Cc: pkn...@uschess.org, quee...@cox.net, daniel....@gmail.com,
> mno...@uschess.org
> Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 8:35 PM
>
> Follow-up question. Was Donna's motion before or after the dust-up that Sam
> describes?
>
> If it was before...then fine.
>
> If after, then clearly it was meant to cover the action that already
> occurred (last year).
>
> If this is a motion passed at the 2008 meeting...which would be AFTER the
> discussions at the 2008 workshops, then this is a band-aid to cover the
> decision that was already made.
>
> Nice try. Clearly the $50K (vs. $100K) rule is a closed issue for 2009
> thanks to Donna's motion. But I took Sam's discussion (and Randy's defense)
> to be about 2008. Pre-delegates meeting. As in, Randy B.'s defense
> wouldn't even have been necessary if Donna's motion was preceding the
> debate. So clearly, it came after.
>
> I am not impressed. I'm not a hard audience, I just want the office to
> follow delegates motions....not have them passed after-the-fact to cover
> what they've already done.
>
> Eric J.
>
> In a message dated 4/29/2009 1:33:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> bh...@uschess.org writes:
>
> DM08-53 – NDM08-65 (Donna Alarie, MA) – Life Memberships shall be recognized
> according to GAAP in all internal
>
> reporting so as to match the same method as the auditors at year end. PASSED
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Hall
> Executive Director
> United States Chess Federation
> P.O. Box 3967
> Crossville , TN 38557-3967
> Phone: (931) 787-1234
> Fax: (931) 787-1200
> ________________________________
>
> From: Chess...@aol.com [mailto:Chess...@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 8:12 PM
> To: randyba...@yahoo.com; samh...@gmail.com; Chess...@aol.com;
> randal...@yahoo.com; A...@allawrence.com; JABe...@aol.com;
> Jo...@channingcorporation.com; Pault...@aol.com; bh...@uschess.org;
> Ches...@aol.com; Beat...@aol.com; red...@utdallas.edu;
> Jerry...@aol.com
> Cc: pkn...@uschess.org; quee...@cox.net; bi...@uschess.org;
> daniel....@gmail.com; mno...@uschess.org
> Subject: Re: Has the USCF Board Learned from the Errors of the Past?
>
>
>
> Randy,
>
>
>
> IMHO you should have followed the delegates mandate...not the auditors
> guidance...on this point. Or, at minimum, you need to have a hand-out to
> the delegates that follows their instruction...IN ADDITION TO the the
> audited numbers. Perhaps that is the plan (which would be acceptable).
>
>
>
> I can accept any number of possible work-arounds...as long as it is crystal
> clear that everyone internal to the organization talks about the delegate
> mandated numbers...not the auditor-requested ones.
>
>
>
> And..and bare minimum...no person on the board should speak of the audited
> number without also adding "but following the delegate mandated action, the
> number is X (which I assume to be $50K less)". To do otherwise is
> deceptive.
>
>
>
> I agree that an unqualifed audit is nice -- a clean audit is always
> preferred, and if it can be achieved in accordance with internal governance
> mandates, it should be.
>
>
>
> The delegate mandate trumps the need to avoid a qualified audit. Unless the
> delegate mandate is illegal or immoral or internally contradictory, it must
> be followed. Period. Regardless of cost or consequence. You guys certainly
> can say NO to the auditors at times. Ten years ago, my bosses did that on
> occasion.
>
>
>
> So I am assuming your side is going to generate a presentation that gives
> GAAP numbers and the delegate mandated calculations. And I assume you will
> *not* try to minimize the delegate mandated numbers by saying "GAAP numbers
> show this, but those wacky delegate numbers are in appendix 17" -- because
> the delegate mandate is what directs the board and the office.
>
>
>
> That's our governance system...and to do otherwise is very much
> insubordination.
>
>
>
> ECJ
>
>
>
> In a message dated 4/27/2009 9:00:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> randyba...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> That's not what happened. The Office included it in the statements as
> directed by the Delegates, and the Auditors - you know, the guys/gals who
> are responsible for auditing our financial statements to ensure that they
> conform with GAAP basically told USCF to change the statement to conform to
> GAAP by revising the non-conforming to GAAP entries.
>
>
>
> If they would not have done so, we would not have gotten an unqualified
> audit opinion. It's hardly insubordination.
>
>
>
> Randy Bauer
jkh...@aim.com
samsloan wrote:
> Here is something to argue about:
>
> You keep saying that the USCF is required to follow GAAP and GAAP
> requires the office to claim that it has received $100,000 that it has
> not in fact received and will never receive because it does not exist.
>
> You claim that you tried to do it the way that the delegates told you
> to do it but the accountants over-ruled you and insisted that you put
> $100,000 in non-existent money into your financial statements.
>
> This is the first time I have ever heard of a situation where the
> accountants claim that you did better than you say you did. Always
> accountants are finding out that things are worse, not better, than
> the office claims. This is the first time I have ever seen an auditing
> firm improve the bottom line.
>
> I am waiting to see the letter from the accountants telling you that
> you must claim that you received that $100,000 that you did not
> receive. You claim that such a letter exists, but I am calling your
> bluff.
>
> Produce the letter!
>
> Sam Sloan
Instructions from the accountants to use GAAP could easily be
produced, but what's the point? Since you don't understand GAAP
(despite several kindergarten-level explanations), you won't
understand why it requires that treatment. Nitwit.
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are no such instructions. There are many
another comprehensive basis of accounting
that is acceptable. Sam is just going about
his usual muckraking. He thinks people
must be impressed by this obfuscation
of the facts and then people will
just have to vote for him. What the readers
seem to know is that Sam doesn't have
both oars in the water.
Paul Thomas, CPA
<jkh...@aim.com> wrote
> samsloan wrote:
>> You keep saying that the USCF is required to follow GAAP
>> I am waiting to see the letter from the accountants telling you
>> Produce the letter!
> Instructions from the accountants to use GAAP
> could easily be produced, but what's the point?
I doubt there is a "letter" from the audit firm that says "Dear client, use
GAAP".
What you might find are notes and other documentation that implies that
"GAAP requires that"...."revenues be recorded as goods or services are
performed". Also, the reports are to be prepared "as of" the year end most
often. And while some facts and circumstances that materialize after the
year end close and before the audit report is issued that may impact the
financials themselves, often times they just are presented in the notes to
the financials.
GAAP is not cash basis by a far stretch. There would be many
communications over many years, some verbal, some written, that try to keep
an organization on GAAP accounting.
As far as I recall, this issue has been ongoing for many years now, and it's
buried in what, 1998 audit papers maybe.
None
Yes it is amazing how little Sam knows about
nonprofit accounting. He has no business running
for the board until he has a better undersatnding
of accounting as it pertains to organizations
such as ours. Sam, please withdraw.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"None" <JoeSc...@gmail.com> wrote
> Yes it is amazing how little Sam knows about
> nonprofit accounting. He has no business running
> for the board until he has a better undersatnding
> of accounting as it pertains to organizations
Wow. In his defense, if you were to hold that line for every member of your
board, it'd be empty. Most people learn on the job, if even at that. Very
few know about how any organization manages it's accounting prior to serving
on the board.
None
wrote:
> "None" <JoeSchm...@gmail.com> wrote
So you're saying then that you support
Sam for the Board as Sam has prior
board service. I'm in shock!
Do you also support Sam's notion
that we should not defer and amortize
life membership receipts as it is bogus?
I don't think any other board members
are saying that. Wow, so much for the
need for GAAP and Fas 95.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"None" <JoeSc...@gmail.com> wrote
> So you're saying then that you support
> Sam for the Board as Sam has prior
> board service. I'm in shock!
Clearly what I said stands. That a requisite understanding of accounting
isn't necessary prior to becoming a board member.
His past experiences and the needs of the Organization should dictate if he
is a good fit for any vacant opening on the board.
That being said, he's probably not a good fit for the Audit Committee.
A good board would have a mix of tallents among it's members. Operations,
fundraising, marketing, legal, and accounting or finance all should be
represented. One person can't possibly know enough about all areas to be
effective. But you can find a number of people (hence a board) where each
board member can contribute their experiences and tallents to the
Organization.
samsloan
wrote:
> Clearly what I said stands. That a requisite understanding of accounting
> isn't necessary prior to becoming a board member.
>
> His past experiences and the needs of the Organization should dictate if he
> is a good fit for any vacant opening on the board.
>
> That being said, he's probably not a good fit for the Audit Committee.
>
> A good board would have a mix of tallents among it's members. Operations,
> fund raising, marketing, legal, and accounting or finance all should be
> represented. One person can't possibly know enough about all areas to be
> effective. But you can find a number of people (hence a board) where each
> board member can contribute their experiences and tallents to the
> Organization.
I am glad that a real accountant is in here.
Now, do you understand the issue?
The issue is that the USCF sells life memberships for $1000. This
amount is supposed to be amortized over a period of 20 years, the
expected life of a life member.
Just to keep the numbers round and easy to understand: The USCF has
set up an LMA Account, which stands for "Life Membership Assets". The
USCF deposits that $1000 received from the new life member in the LMA.
Then, every year for the next 20 years, the USCF transfers $50 per
Life Member to operations and this money is considered to be "cash
received".
That is what is supposed to happen, but that is not what really
happened.
What really happened is that an Executive Director "borrowed" the
money from the LMA, took it to a poker game in Foxwoods Casio and bet
it all on a poker hand in which he had four kings.
Sad to relate, another player in the poker game had four aces and for
that reason our Executive Director lost the entire LMA, which
previously had $2 million in it.
When an election was held in 2003 and a new board took over, they went
to the USCF Offices in New Windsor to check things out, only to
discover that the Executive Director had disappeared, never to be seen
again, plus the entire $2 million in the LMA was gone too, and
mysteriously a few hours later the laptop computer which had all the
financial data in it walked out the door too.
So the USCF was left with no money, no computer and no executive
director.
However, according to the way the LMA was set up, the LMA was supposed
to transfer $100,000 to operations every year. However, since there
was no money any more, they just created a fictitious paper transfer,
in which each year $100,000 was added to cash received and $100,000
was deducted from the theoretical debt that operations owed to the
LMA.
Now, Randy Bauer, Bill Goichberg and their house accountant Allen
Priest are saying that this fictitious annual transfer of $100,000 is
required by GAAP, and that it is just a coincidence that it makes them
look better than they really are by making it look like they only lost
$70,000 last year, when they really lost $170,000.
Now I ask you: Do you think that this fictitious transfer of $100,000
is required by GAAP? Stated differently, do you think that there is
any acceptable accounting basis for this annual paper transfer, which
increases "cash received" by $100,000, even though no real money is
actually received?
Sam Sloan
None
No but it is recognized. It is deferred revenue
not an escrow account you moron.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote
> Now, do you understand the issue?
I understand that y'all have way too much time on your hands.
> The issue is that the USCF sells life memberships for $1000.
Yeah. I bet there are plenty of folks willing to part with that dough these
days.
> This amount is supposed to be amortized over a period
> of 20 years, the sxpected life of a life member.
Ok. There is some basis for that time determination?
> Just to keep the numbers round and easy to understand:
> The USCF has set up an LMA Account, which stands for
> "Life Membership Assets". The USCF deposits that
> $1000 received from the new life member in the LMA.
> Then, every year for the next 20 years, the USCF transfers
> $50 per Life Member to operations and this money is
> considered to be "cash received".
But the accounting entry would be different.
Cash goes into the bank for the $1000 and a liability account is increased
by the amount of, I suppose, $950 and current year revenues of $50. Each
year the revenue is increased (credited) by $50 and the liability is
decreased (debited) by $50. The cash account never comes into play after
the initial deposit.
Even if all the cash were gone. The entity would STILL record the revenues
and decrease the liability.
After all, those people still have a paid up membership - right?
You are focusing on the cash and not the correct accounting for the revenues
from a paid in full lifetime membership.
The money came in. Yes it did. And revenues need to be recorded on an
accrual / annual basis. This, regardless of the actual cash flow after the
initial deposit.
Now, what actually happened to the cash and how that should be accounted for
is for another lesson.
--
Paul Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia
None
wrote:
> "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote
The 20 years was selected as no actual
histogram of ages was available. Any longer
period of amortization would not be
meaningful in that the NPV of $50 twenty
years from now was just about nil
anyway. To change it to $40 (25 years)
would not have a material effect. Sam knows
all this but he likes to fabricate any crisis he
can because he thinks it impresses people.
Rob
seek office... so,NO. So long as he is still a member the USCF is
doomed.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"None" <JoeSc...@gmail.com> wrote
> The 20 years was selected as no actual
> histogram of ages was available. Any longer
> period of amortization would not be
> meaningful in that the NPV of $50 twenty
> years from now was just about nil
> anyway. To change it to $40 (25 years)
> would not have a material effect.
Just wondering the thought behind it.
samsloan
loquitur. GAAP, as the current Directors certainly must be aware,
stands for Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures. "Requisite
understanding of accounting isn't necessary prior to becoming a board
know that you cannot amortize something that is not there. This is
not a case of imputed assets or imputed revenues or imputed anything.
If the $2million were embezzled you cannot amortize them. What's hard
to understand? Is the USCF Board composed of cretins or scoundrels,
or a combination of both? The IRS and FBI should be investigating
these charlatans and deceivers. Fred
Fred Lorenzino
Paul Thomas, CPA
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote
> "Requisite understanding of accounting isn't necessary
> prior to becoming a board member," is a ruse and obfuscation
Those are my words, and it is not necessary to have any understanding of
accounting rules to sit on a board.
There are many board members of major entities (both profit and non-profit)
that don't have a clue about GAAP. They don't need to know accounting to do
a good job as a board member. They have to have whatever skills that the
board is looking for, that's for sure.
> of the fact that any idiot would know that you cannot
> amortize something that is not there.
You are looking at it wrong. You amortize the transaction. The initial
$1000 transaction happened. And regardless of what happened to the cash,
that $1000 gets amortized into income at a clip of $50 per year, each and
every year, for 20 years.
> If the $2million were embezzled you cannot amortize them.
If the cash is gone, you indeed keep amortizing the revenues.
> What's hard to understand?
The only remaining question is what did indeed happen to the funds, and was
that transaction, or series of transactions, recorded properly under GAAP.
samsloan
wrote:
> The only remaining question is what did indeed happen to the funds, and was
> that transaction, or series of transactions, recorded properly under GAAP.
>
> --
> Paul Thomas, CPA
> Watkinsville, Georgia
This indeed is the $64 question. We do not know what happened to the
funds. The funds disappeared under three executive directors, Cavallo,
DeFeis and Niro. Each of them blames the others. I personally feel
that DeFeis lost most of it. However, it is an absolute fact that Niro
had a bad gambling habit and spent a lot of time at the poker tables
in Foxwoods.
Also, while executive director, Frank Niro changed the accounting
system (he said that he had taken almost enough accounting courses to
qualify him to take the CPA Exam) and due to this change in the
accounting system (which was announced on this group in about March
2003) it was not known until the new board arrived in the New Windsor
offices on August 20, 2003 to find that the $2 million had
disappeared, By then, Frank Niro had disappeared too, and a few hours
later the laptop computer with all the financial data on it walked out
the door all by itself.
If we can ever get ahold of Niro, he is the one whom we will asking
about what happened to the money.
When I was elected to the Executive Board in 2006, I pledged and
promised to find out what had happened to the $2 million. Although I
did find a few improper payments to USCF Insiders, the amounts were
relatively small, the largest one being $13,358.36, a drop in the
bucket compared to $2 million.
I was not able to make further progress on this issue due to
obfuscation by Bill Goichberg and other board members. I am now
running again and, if elected, I will try again to make progress on
this issue.
Sam Sloan
foad
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36dbc21f-40a9-40ce...@v17g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
When I was elected to the Executive Board in 2006, I pledged and
promised to find out what had happened to the $2 million.
[...]
I was not able to make further progress on this issue
[hose]
==============
So to recap: you're again revealed as a liar and an incompetent buffoon.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote
> We do not know what happened to the funds.
Well, that's what audits are for.
I suspect it's not "missing" in that it can't be traced, but that it was
spent on things. After all, a "lifetime" membership is a one-time cash
infusion while the costs of the Organization keep increasing on an annual
basis. Lifetime memberships are money losing programs. Without an
increasing number of regular folks, both willing and able to pay the
increasing annual dues, you run out of cash - fast.
It's like this. You can buy lunch for $10, or you can buy a "lifetime"
lunch pass for $1000. The restaurant costs increase over the years, food
costs, labor costs, and location costs (rent, utilities, etc). At some
point the restaurant can't keep it's obligation to feed you lunch for the
remainder of your life. They've spent the funds already. You're still
hungry.
Rev. J.D. Walker
wrote:
> "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote
>
" It's like this. You can buy lunch for $10, or you can buy a
"lifetime"
lunch pass for $1000. The restaurant costs increase over the years,
food
costs, labor costs, and location costs (rent, utilities, etc). At
some
point the restaurant can't keep it's obligation to feed you lunch for
the
remainder of your life. They've spent the funds already. You're
still
hungry."
You left out the part where the $1000 is also being lent out with the
other hand to pay Peter who will fail to repay it because the economy
will begin to stink to high heavens and he will claim bankruptcy. . .
Wait just a minute here.
Are you taking a cheap shot at Social Security? Are you one of those
rabble-rousers from the Austrian School of Economics?
The incognito Rev.
Mike Murray
<j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Are you taking a cheap shot at Social Security? Are you one of those
>rabble-rousers from the Austrian School of Economics?
>The incognito Rev.
Is this an Austrian Attack? Is that one of the Pircs of a man of the
cloth?
None
> "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
buffoon."--foad
No, he is quite competent
None
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 11:26:48 -0700 (PDT), "Rev. J.D. Walker"
>
> >Are you taking a cheap shot at Social Security? Are you one of those
> >rabble-rousers from the Austrian School of Economics?
> >The incognito Rev.
>
> Is this an Austrian Attack? Is that one of the Pircs of a man of the
> cloth?
If so he will ruy the day he put on his Roman Collar.
samsloan
the former - but both seem to be improving.
Allen Priest [/quote]
I hereby formally demand that you provide proof of the above
outrageous and completely unjustified statement, "both seem to be
improving".
Under the rules, you must provide proof of the statement "both seem to
be improving". Otherwise, you must apologize and retract your
statement.
Sam Sloan
Paul Thomas, CPA
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote
> Under the rules, you must provide proof of
> apologize and retract your statement.
You guys are too much.
Statement: "I farted"
Sloan: "Under the rules, you must provide proof of the statement,
otherwise, you must apologize and retract your statement.
Statement: "Ok, I'm sorry, I can't prove I farted, so I retract that
statement"
Sloan: "Why does it stink in here?"
samsloan
from bullying tatics.
Allen Priest [/quote]
It is astounding that Allen Priest finally admits that he has been
bullying us and will continue to do so.
Sam Sloan