Sam Scores Glorious Victory
A hearing was held today in Orange County Supreme Court in Goshen New
York in Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739. The USCF represented by
attorney Michael J. Matsler of Rider, Weiner & Frankel filed a
cross-motion to dismiss.
The case was argued before Judge Lawrence I.. Horowitz. At the
conclusion, the judge ordered the case adjourned for ten days until
December 10, and ordered the bank account at Key Bank in Newburgh
which contains the $513,000 representing the proceeds of the sale of
the building frozen until further order of the court.
Judge Horowitz said that he wanted counsel for the USCF to stipulate
that the money would not be moved out of the Key Bank in Newburgh.
The attorney for the USCF replied that he would agree to stipulate
that the money would be held in an FDIC Insured Bank.
The judge said that no, he was ordering that the money stay in the
bank in Newburgh. He was not agreeing to allow the money to be moved
to a bank in another state absent an order of this court.
Since this is what I was asking the judge to do, I consider this to be
a complete victory.
It seems clear that the judge will not allow the money to be moved
until there is a showing that it will be used for a proper purpose.
Since the defendants have thus far refused to state what the purpose
of the move of the money is, much less whether the purpose is proper
or not, I think that it is likely that it will be a long time before
the money is moved at all.
Sam Sloan

Sam Scores Glorious Victory
A hearing was held today in Orange County Supreme Court in Goshen New
York in Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739. The USCF represented by
attorney Michael J. Matsler of Rider, Weiner & Frankel filed a
cross-motion to dismiss.
The case was argued before Judge Lawrence I.. Horowitz. At the
conclusion, the judge ordered the case adjourned for ten days until
December 10, and ordered the bank account at Key Bank in Newburgh
which contains the $513,000 representing the proceeds of the sale of
the building frozen until further order of the court.
Judge Horowitz said that he wanted counsel for the USCF to stipulate
that the money would not be moved out of the Key Bank in Newburgh.
The attorney for the USCF replied that he would agree to stipulate
that the money would be held in an FDIC Insured Bank.
The judge said that no, he was ordering that the money stay in the
bank in Newburgh. He was not agreeing to allow the money to be moved
to a bank in another state absent an order of this court.
Since this is what I was asking the judge to do, I consider this to be
a complete victory.

It seems clear that the judge will not allow the money to be moved
until there is a showing that it will be used for a proper purpose.

of the move of the money is, much less whether the purpose is proper
or not, I think that it is likely that it will be a long time before
the money is moved at all.

Sam Sloan

Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739

I thought that an independent person would also have 'questions' Sam.

I see that all those who thought you had no objective reason for your action
must now reconsider, since an impartial consideration by a justice has
concurred to freeze half a million dollars pending further developments.

I had personally only been asking for an open newsnet discussion. Meanwhile
no doubt we will continue to hear about your armpits and people's
understanding of George bloody Orwell ;)
Phil Innes


"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:41ad308d.9591000@ca.news.verio.net...

Or, pending adjudication of prior actions, such as the alleged evasion
of New York State Not-for-Profit law.

In article <b78177d4.0412010408.b484343@posting.google.com>,
robmtchl@bellsouth.net (Rob Mitchell) wrote:
If this Marinello guy is rated 7739, why isn't he world champion?
--Harold Buck

"David Ames" <worldrecord@juno.com> wrote in message
I see that all those who thought you had no objective reason for your
action
must now reconsider, since an impartial consideration by a justice has
concurred to freeze half a million dollars pending further developments.
Dear David Ames,
For me, Larry Parr has already made the substantive point: that this
injunction is no goal in itself, merely the legal means and opportunity to
advance a real dialog about USCF's future.
Phil Innes

Hmm, to this political outsider, it looks more like the plot of the
Scorsese/DeNiro film King of Comedy. Rupert Pupkin is an aspiring
standup comedian who lives with his mother and is repeatedly snubbed
by potential employers. So he kidnaps a famous late-night talk show
host to secure a spot on the show. I suppose you could call this
"advancing a real dialog", if you like.

LT

WOW!
sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<41ad308d.9591000@ca.news.verio.net>...
What would be considered a "proper ourpose" by the judge?

Since the defendants have thus far refused to state what the purpose
What if the move was to secure a better interest rate? Would not being
a good money steward dictate that one shoud get the best possible
return on investment?

Rob Mitchell

"Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Dear Larry Tapper,
All the talk is here is currently about what USCF can or cannot currently
get away with under the law - and laws represent minimum standards of
behavior acceptable in any society. At the moment they do not appear to have
been met, hence the funds 'freeze'.

OK, but the way you put it begs the question of whether USCF
management has been trying to "get away with" anything at all. Of
course Sam Sloan has an elaborate theory about this, involving a power
grab, ransacking the treasury, etc., all the way down to details like
secret, politically motivated layoff plans and handing Tim Hanke the
immensely lucrative CL editing job. But reading rgcp, I see little
reason to take the theory any more seriously than Sam's numerous other
theories about who's doing what to whom.
Also, there's a big difference between the complaint that the debate
about relocation hasn't gotten enough public airing, and the complaint
that significant debate hasn't taken place at all. The first
complaint, if true, _might_ indicate lack of democratic process and so
on; the second, if true, _would_ indicate gross incompetence. But
reading the one and only recent rgcp post by Relocation Committee
member Dr. Leroy Dubeck...
http://tinyurl.com/7ywug
...it's pretty clear to me that there's not much to the accusation
that the Crossville moving plan was hatched in extreme haste, without
regard for any of the alternatives, to suit some cabal's ulterior
motives. Unless you think that Dr. Dubeck, too, is part of some vast
nefarious conspiracy.
Larry T.

"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<U0qrd.4652$_E3.1045@trndny06>...
Phil,
OK, but the way you put it begs the question of whether USCF
management has been trying to "get away with" anything at all.

Of
course Sam Sloan has an elaborate theory about this, involving a power
grab, ransacking the treasury, etc., all the way down to details like
secret, politically motivated layoff plans and handing Tim Hanke the
immensely lucrative CL editing job. But reading rgcp, I see little
reason to take the theory any more seriously than Sam's numerous other
theories about who's doing what to whom.

Also, there's a big difference between the complaint that the debate
about relocation hasn't gotten enough public airing, and the complaint
that significant debate hasn't taken place at all. The first
complaint, if true, _might_ indicate lack of democratic process and so
on; the second, if true, _would_ indicate gross incompetence. But
reading the one and only recent rgcp post by Relocation Committee
member Dr. Leroy Dubeck...
http://tinyurl.com/7ywug
...it's pretty clear to me that there's not much to the accusation
that the Crossville moving plan was hatched in extreme haste, without
regard for any of the alternatives, to suit some cabal's ulterior
motives. Unless you think that Dr. Dubeck, too, is part of some vast
nefarious conspiracy.

So, from my point of view, it takes much more solid evidence of
misconduct than Sam has presented to justify a lawsuit, which in the
short term is obviously destructive to the USCF (though possibly to
only a small degree, depending on how things turn out). I've been a
USCF member for over 40 years, and it goes without saying that I've
seen plenty of appallingly bad management. But I can assure you that
one thing I'm _not_ thinking is, finally someone is taking a
courageous stand against mismanagement and corruption.

Larry T.

"Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a1fe0ee8.0412021003.575247c7@posting.google.com...
Yes. I see your point. However, I might reply the same way, and rather than
discuss Mr. Sloan, agree that it is equally inappropriate to discuss Mr.
Dubeck.
What is //missing// is a discussion of what the move is intended to achieve
[no strategic plan in evidence], and I belive that the Justice also took
note of this, may I say [?], //significant// absense.
There is no evidence of misconduct at all! There is only a check on
potential misconduct, which is yet to be determined, and hence the freeze on
finances. It is at least significant that a Justice should consider the
freeze warranted, and if this serves as justification, then it is case
proved.

Beyond that, what it does not do is determine anything much about USCF's
clarity in proceeding. What is also unclear is how much anyone actually
cares about that subject, since the majority of public posts ignore that
subject altogether, and are content to sniff at armpits, real or
metaphorical ones.
But you personally are of a serious cast of mind, and experienced over the
years. Beyond any of the above, do you have a sense that USCF know what they
are about in terms of supporting the future of chess in the USA without
reading any planning document, or do you generally trust the incumbent board
to do the right thing without any need to examine the same?

Phil,
I may be mistaken --- I have not read all of the posts about the legal
proceedings --- but it seems to me that you are seriously misreading
the import of the freeze. My impression is that the main issue is
whether the sale of the building was conducted in conformity with the
New York State not-for-profit laws. If the sale did in fact violate
the laws, as Sam, the plaintiff, alleges, then the USCF has committed
a serious legal blunder which really has nothing to do with the
soundness of its strategic plan or the wisdom or folly of moving to
Crossville.

Suppose that the board had done exactly what you, Sam Sloan and Larry
Parr wanted. That is, suppose that they had taken the extra weeks to
ponder the Liberty possibility; that they had finally decided to
choose Liberty over Crossville; and that the whole process met
anyone's reasonable expectations regarding transparency and fiduciary
responsibility and whatever. In that scenario, the USCF could, as I
understand it, _still_ have been vulnerable to legal action because of
its failure to conduct the building sale properly.

A disgruntled
Crossvillian hoping to get a job could have filed a lawsuit and
conceivably the same outcome could have occurred: a temporary
injunction throwing a spanner in the works. But then the Liberty
advocates would be complaining about the deleterious effects of the
lawsuit instead of the Crossville advocates.

As a rank-and-file member with no special political axe to ground, I
care more about administrative competence than about transparency or
democratic process. This is not to say of course that the board
doesn't need to be held accountable for its actions.
Regarding the Crossville move in particular, I find Dr. Dubeck's
argument compelling that if Crossville turns out to be a mistake, it
will be a relatively small and reversible mistake. He thinks that even
the worst-case Crossville scenarios are likely to avoid massive
hemorrhaging of funds or unexpected liabilities such as we've seen too
many times in the recent past.

In contrast to Dr. Dubeck's view, Sam Sloan has been insisting that
the Crossville move will somehow be totally disastrous, the whole
future of the organization is at stake and we must act now to stop
this terrible thing, etc. etc. I simply do not understand what all
this alarmism is about.

I suppose it would be justified if it really
turned out that Beatriz and allies had the ethics of robber barons,
and had no qualms about destroying the USCF for personal gain.

But
does anyone really take this sort of talk seriously? I am no
Pollyanna, but I don't see why it's so hard to give _all_ the
interested parties a little credit for actually caring about the
future of US chess.

Regards, Larry T.

Dear Larry, I agree. Nothing to do with it, pro nor con.
Yes, this is also my understanding of current events.
Sure.
Beyond that, what it does not do is determine anything much about USCF's
clarity in proceeding. What is also unclear is how much anyone actually
cares about that subject, since the majority of public posts ignore that
subject altogether, and are content to sniff at armpits, real or
metaphorical ones.
But you personally are of a serious cast of mind, and experienced over
the
years. Beyond any of the above, do you have a sense that USCF know what
they
are about in terms of supporting the future of chess in the USA without
reading any planning document, or do you generally trust the incumbent
board
to do the right thing without any need to examine the same?
I should like to feel better assured of these facts. On the face of it, new
construction does not seem to be so reversible. It presumes there is an
active market in Crosssville for relatively small new office spaces. I don't
know whether this is true or otherwise.
But this is a departure from the first part of your text - which is only
legal, and perhaps financial.
We now encounter what is 'perspective', that is, what aids us in the future,
and this subject has only some relevance to location, but a greater
relevance to what functions USCF will perform within the overall US Chess
admixture.
To address the subject less inferentially, I should prefer to talk about
this subject at a strategic level, and if Crossville most suits this
strategic context, by all means let it be the new tactical HQ.
However, I note that any, [and I do mean any whatsoever], consideration from
this perspective is entirely lacking from any correspondance written here -
an absurdity if USCF were actually an enterprise that could call its
activity 'business' - and feel overall, in accord with statements already
made by Larry Parr, that we are witnessing a retreat, not into the
hinterland as much as from confronting vital needs of promoting chess in the
C21st.
No sir. It would not.
These people are the transitory managers of a trust placed in them by an
active chess public to promote the game as they think fit. We lack any sense
that the future needs of chess in this country are being served, and I might
add as an aside, that Russian commentators still refer to the US as the
'Sleeping Giant' of Chess, more so and more frequently than they currently
view China.
This is a good point. I do not really see it disputed here or anywhere.
Except I will now dispute it myself, to state that such 'care' must be
allied to some science in order to progress. And this requires a view to the
future, so that the foundations we are about to build will adequately
support the weight of future demand.
I would say that after personally interviewing Beatriz in a 20-questions
format, concentrating on vital factors for the future; and after
corresponding with Tim Hanke for over a year every couple of days in private
messages, I would still wish for greater assurance than I have hitherto seen
addressed, public or private, that an adequate appreciation has been made of
such future prospects and their necessary underpinnings.
Cordially, Phil Innes

Phil,
My dear friend.
I was shocked at the sheer number of 501(c)3 organizations in the US
promoting chess. As I see it, there should be one coherent plan of
action regarding these organizations. I do not know if that is
currently the case. Does the USCF communicate or attempt to coordinate
programs thorough the other organizations?

If not, perhaps this is
what the Russians ment.

If a strong central power were to act with
vision to coordinate the disparate actions of the various
organizations; perhaps the "sleeping giant" would awaken?

That is my hope. That is my vision. I would like to become a part of
that.

Rob Mitchell

Hi Rob.
Thank you for this address to a central topic.


"Rob Mitchell" <robmtchl@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:b78177d4.0412032225.435cb1f8@posting.google.com...
I would say that there is 'theory' and then there is practice. The practice
is 'no.'
Not only Russians, but others have commented on speed, issues of competency,
and a general aliveness and receptivity to ideas.
And here begins a potential discussion of the role of USCF in America and in
World Chess.
For some time I have be writing with Kaarlo Shepel in the Netherlands who
has wished to reform Fide, and also with some chess players prominent in
world chess. Not simply to change the figurehead, but to examine the basis
of future needs. Perhaps this may be some sort of guide to domestic
arrangements of chess?
I think we have currently resolved that there are two large categories, one
is Chess Management, and another is Chess Development. In the world, as in
the US, these two categories are quite divorced from each other, and suffer
no cohesive organisation at all.
USCF is squarely in the Chess Management arena; that is, it manages ratings,
certification of TDs, rule systems and arbitrations, and is the nominal
point-of-contact for domestic and international event management.
All the parties to the larger discussion do not dispute the need for good
management practices, however, all parties also agree that Chess Management
does very little to initiate big chess programs, to support professional
players, to financially sponsor chess, to support new initiatives, and in
general, promote it to the larger culture. These activities are undertaken
by Chess Development folks, who are more dispersed and form ad hoc groupings
to achieve these goals.
A significant weakness to any better integration of affairs is one of
'ownership'. In USCF's case there is very little coordination with Chess
Development, since USCF do not act to simply coordinate the management of an
event, but seek to take it over, and indeed, to own it. I believe the result
of this practice is that USCF currently have no sponsors at all, do not
initiate or even take part in new projects, and do not attain a level of
confidence by Chess Developers whereby useful conversations could take
place.
That is actually something of an understatement.
Previously these sorts of comments have been met with 'send us a proposal'
which <laugh> does not quite appreciate the point that Chess Developers
prefer to development their own Management in preference to engaging USCF,
who hadn't even admitted any interest in the subject but who seek to take it
over, and who besides, think themselves to be the persons to whom others
should 'submit.'
I would also welcome greater national cohesion with the national chess
managers. But it is no USCF policy nor practice to achieve it [!] and where
elsewhere, I have talked of a strategic plan, this would certainly be a
major element of any plan - some intelligent partnering.
As for Crossville as a future site, I have no objection whatever to moving
from a metropolitan to a rural location [although I understand that Larry
Parr and Sam Sloan do have reservations].
My objection is that the organisation seeks to make a major move, and
literally cement that move in a new building, without any open discussion of
what functions it will support for US chess in the future. I submit to you
that the current status-quo of partnering and generally relations which USCF
enjoys and practices, has almost killed it. To simply plow ahead, as if
there were nothing to discuss about its future role seems absurd, and the
people making these decisions are not more experienced nor 'immersed' in
chess than their critics.
The current legal proceedings are so much fiddle-faddle, and essentially a
red-herring. They mean nothing other than a current excitement about the
scandal of the month. What about the next 60 months? Where does the
organisation see itself supporting chess in America at that time, and
//how// will it partner with others?
Your note is encouraging the point that a real consequence is at stake here
for chess in the country, rather than a 'if you are not for us, you're
against us' attitude, which has successively marginalised over the years,
much of USCF's potential worth.
Cordially, Phil Innes

Hi Rob.
Thank you for this address to a central topic.


"Rob Mitchell" <robmtchl@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:b78177d4.0412032225.435cb1f8@posting.google.com...
I would say that there is 'theory' and then there is practice. The practice
is 'no.'
Not only Russians, but others have commented on speed, issues of competency,
and a general aliveness and receptivity to ideas.
And here begins a potential discussion of the role of USCF in America and in
World Chess.
For some time I have be writing with Kaarlo Shepel in the Netherlands who
has wished to reform Fide, and also with some chess players prominent in
world chess. Not simply to change the figurehead, but to examine the basis
of future needs. Perhaps this may be some sort of guide to domestic
arrangements of chess?
I think we have currently resolved that there are two large categories, one
is Chess Management, and another is Chess Development. In the world, as in
the US, these two categories are quite divorced from each other, and suffer
no cohesive organisation at all.
USCF is squarely in the Chess Management arena; that is, it manages ratings,
certification of TDs, rule systems and arbitrations, and is the nominal
point-of-contact for domestic and international event management.
All the parties to the larger discussion do not dispute the need for good
management practices, however, all parties also agree that Chess Management
does very little to initiate big chess programs, to support professional
players, to financially sponsor chess, to support new initiatives, and in
general, promote it to the larger culture. These activities are undertaken
by Chess Development folks, who are more dispersed and form ad hoc groupings
to achieve these goals.
A significant weakness to any better integration of affairs is one of
'ownership'. In USCF's case there is very little coordination with Chess
Development, since USCF do not act to simply coordinate the management of an
event, but seek to take it over, and indeed, to own it. I believe the result
of this practice is that USCF currently have no sponsors at all, do not
initiate or even take part in new projects, and do not attain a level of
confidence by Chess Developers whereby useful conversations could take
place.
That is actually something of an understatement.
Previously these sorts of comments have been met with 'send us a proposal'
which <laugh> does not quite appreciate the point that Chess Developers
prefer to development their own Management in preference to engaging USCF,
who hadn't even admitted any interest in the subject but who seek to take it
over, and who besides, think themselves to be the persons to whom others
should 'submit.'
I would also welcome greater national cohesion with the national chess
managers. But it is no USCF policy nor practice to achieve it [!] and where
elsewhere, I have talked of a strategic plan, this would certainly be a
major element of any plan - some intelligent partnering.
As for Crossville as a future site, I have no objection whatever to moving
from a metropolitan to a rural location [although I understand that Larry
Parr and Sam Sloan do have reservations].
My objection is that the organisation seeks to make a major move, and
literally cement that move in a new building, without any open discussion of
what functions it will support for US chess in the future. I submit to you
that the current status-quo of partnering and generally relations which USCF
enjoys and practices, has almost killed it. To simply plow ahead, as if
there were nothing to discuss about its future role seems absurd, and the
people making these decisions are not more experienced nor 'immersed' in
chess than their critics.
The current legal proceedings are so much fiddle-faddle, and essentially a
red-herring. They mean nothing other than a current excitement about the
scandal of the month. What about the next 60 months? Where does the
organisation see itself supporting chess in America at that time, and
//how// will it partner with others?
Your note is encouraging the point that a real consequence is at stake here
for chess in the country, rather than a 'if you are not for us, you're
against us' attitude, which has successively marginalised over the years,
much of USCF's potential worth.
Cordially, Phil Innes

Phil, Have your ever served as a delegate to the USCF? WOuld you be
inclined to participate in such ?

Yours,
Rob Mitchell


"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<LJhsd.156$mS4.103@trndny04>...

Dear Rob,
No I have not served, and I may have some conflicts of interest since I also
work directly, and in the interests of, other chess federations and with
commercial entities, as well as groups of players who view themselves as
quite distinctly non-corporate.
Besides, the agenda which delegates pursue is not as much to my personal
interest - although it is a necessary agenda - as are chess development
issues for me.
I do not work in the foreground of these things, and am content to
manipulate from the shadows ;)
However, the issues we encountered before are real enough, and most real
influence in chess does not act very publicly - I rarely read anything here
which is exactly protean in scope, and not because of any quintessential
secrecy, but because what really has an influence on the chess scene is not
acknowledged to be the driving force which it is, and important issues
become lost with toilet paper jokes, however funny they may be.
It is an 'interesting' situation :)
Cordially, Phil

Dear Phil,
I decided to begin a new thread with this topic.
I have an idea.
USCF acts as an overall sanctioning body to move chess forward. The
membership would be made up of direct and indirect membership.
The USCF would restructure their EB to include appointed members from
other chess organisation in the United States providing those
organisations met certain membership requirements.(number of dues
paying members) Additionally, an organisational membership for that
organisation could be assessed.
So now the USCF would have members who belong directly to the USCF who
have no club affiliation; members who have direct affiliation through
clubs(ie. The Manhattan Chess Club, ect.; organisational membership
and indirect members through those organisations. Just as a working
point, if an organisation ever lost their membership due to declining
membership the indirect members would not lose their USCF affiliation.
If any member organisation wanted to conduct a tournament, they could
do so at any time. So long as they informed the USCF and paid the
appropriate fees for licensing and sanctioning with the USCF.
In this way the USCF would still maintain "command and control" but
would decentralise decision making more to the local level.
Like I said, it is more in a formative stage right now.
As for tournaments:
Well it has been said that the best way to insure the survival of an
animal is to turn it into food. If we want to expand the base and
quality of our chess community we have got to make it a way for being
fed. Chess must become a bill paying profession. The games of golf and
tennis give us perfect examples of how this should be done.
We need to have guaranteed minimums for invitationals. Highly
publicised American Invitational Tournaments could become quite
exciting.
Ken Burns might be commissioned to do a series on chess history. This
could excite an entirely new generation to play.
I would like to see if this might be seriously discussed. I am not
interested in intellectual "one up manship" which happens when
individuals feel that their turf has been challenged. I am in no way
suggesting that any EB of the USCF has ever not done their very best
for the good of the USCF. I hold each and every member in high regard.
I know the quality of your replies Phil and those of many others. I
trust that they will follow our lead in keeping this discussion open
and free from petty quabbles. I believe we all can agree that does
little to further any meaningful discussion.
thanks!
Rob Mitchell


"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<vJusd.508$HR4.456@trndny03>...
Phil, Have your ever served as a delegate to the USCF? WOuld you be
inclined to participate in such ?