|
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2004 04:56:07 -0800, Kevin L. Bachler
<Kbachler@cavemanchessnospam.com> wrote:
USCF gets a better fit of office space cheaply.
USCF gets current and future labor relatively cheaply.
Locally, USCF becomes a bigger fish in a small pond, hence more local clout.
USCF would be located in a town with a higher percentage of USCF members per
capita.
Other than Sloan's ramblings, why wouldn't you think it is legal? An
association can base itself where it wants to. At most, maybe USCF missed
something procedural, in which case it meets the procedure and moves on. In the
interim, one member wastes the money of all the members on a nuisance suit where
he takes the time to defame the officers of the association.
The EB was duly elected in an election where each member has a vote.
Where is there any rationale basis for any complaint?
--
Kevin L. Bachler
As Stan Booz has often pointed out, Kevin Bachler is not the sharpest
knife in the drawer when it comes to legal and financial matters, even
though Kevin claims that the CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies come to him
regularly for legal and financial advice.
Do a search for "zero-cupon bonds" and you will see what I mean.
The first thing Kevin needs to learn is that the USCF is not an
Association. It is a Not-For-Profit Corporation. There is a big
difference. One difference is that under New York Law a Not-For-Profit
Corporation must apply to the courts for permission to sell their
principle asset.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/charities/sales.pdf
An association is an informal group like the Republican Party with no
fixed assets and no fixed membership and therefore can move or change
at any time.
Kevin also thinks that if the USCF has failed to follow the required
proceedure, it will simply do so and be done with it.
However, that is not so easy. In addition, there is an election coming
up in August. Five new board members will be elected. Of the current
board, only Schultz and Hanke will continue. There will also be a
delegates meeting in August. It can be guaranteed that the delegates
will pass a resolution against the Crossville move and that the five
new board members will have a majority against the move, and that will
be the end of it.
Therefore, the current strategy is just to delay the move until
August, when a new election will be held.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2004 10:32:05 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
According to Allied:
Transportation Charge $6,550.00 - $8,000.00
Full Service Packing $4,010.00 - $4,900.00
Thats 12,900 dollars max.
Pulling phone line and cable shouldn't cost more than a thousand max.
But lets say it runs $10,000. We are now just up to 22,900 dollars.
I would estomate that the economic costs associated with the move to
adversly effect income for three quarters of the next fiscal year. I
would imagine that impact to be about five percent for those
months.(This is a worse case number mind you, $187,500.).
So now the total cost is $210,400.
I would anticipate the fourth quarter for 2005 to show revenue up by
20% over fourth quarter last year adding an additional $250,000
dollars.
$250,000 - $210,400 = a gain of $39,600 dollars for the year after the
move. Thats more than enough to cover the costs of a relocation
coordinator.
Take Care,
Rob
One factor which has not been consideed is that part of the plan is
for current employees to fly down to Crossville to teach the newcomers
their jobs.
However, this is unrealistic. What employee is going to be willing to
train their own replacement?
A more realistic idea wiould be to pay the new people in Crossville to
fly up to New Windsor to have the established employees train them.
At least the new empolyees would have an incentive to spend a few
weeks away from their families.
But would people be found in Crossville willing to do this, and how
much would this cost?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
| |
It is my understanding that most of the job protocols have already been
standardized onto disks and placed in manuels. Having been a trainer
and a manager in a past life, most semi-complex jobs can be taught in
two weeks with propersupport material. Six months is the average to
become proficient and one year for mastery. Training an hiring while
important is an immaterial point in reality, but a vaild concern.
You can hire adequate staff for between 18,000 to 22,000 per year each.
There will be no need for anyone other than Judy to be there.
take care,
Rob
Sam Sloan wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 10:32:05 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
One factor which has not been consideed is that part of the plan is
for current employees to fly down to Crossville to teach the
newcomers
their jobs.
However, this is unrealistic. What employee is going to be willing to
train their own replacement?
A more realistic idea wiould be to pay the new people in Crossville
to
fly up to New Windsor to have the established employees train them.
At least the new empolyees would have an incentive to spend a few
weeks away from their families.
But would people be found in Crossville willing to do this, and how
much would this cost?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2004 11:24:08 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
It is my understanding that most of the job protocols have already been
standardized onto disks and placed in manuels.
Who told you that? That is absolutely not true at all.
This is one of the big problems the USCF has. Every time a new person
is hired he does the job differently from the last person.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
| |
Sam,
I read it in this forum less than a week ago.
You must have missed it.
I can try to find it for you but it may take me a while.
thanks,
Rob
Sam Sloan wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 11:24:08 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
Who told you that? That is absolutely not true at all.
This is one of the big problems the USCF has. Every time a new person
is hired he does the job differently from the last person.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
| |
Sam,
This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral:
"Well, how well organized are things in
New Windsor, and how portable are the operations? They are more
portable,
TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:
- computer software is reliable and operates pretty much without human
fixups: you put in a tournament disk, for example, and it updates the
ratings without glitches
- desk manuals, training materials, and orientation materials exist for
all
positions
- financial procedures are routinized and don't depend on anyone's
special
knowledge or experience
- there is lots of documentation, in the form of computerized records,
easily searchable: if anyone wants to know why something is done, or
what
the association's past experiences with someone are, or the history of
anything, it can all be found out very quickly
In other words, all the current USCF staff have put all their knowledge
and
habits and experience into files which can then be accessed by the new
staff
in Crossville, so that people without any experience with a chess
federation
can access the previous staff's experience and operate the USCF without
crippling downtime. That is, the USCF is MORE than just a smoothly
operating office - it is a smoothly operating office which has
documented
all its procedures and activities to an amazingly high extent""
Petral works in a not for profit and has knowledge of the internal
systemation.
I am just taking his word for it. I have no reason to belive he is
anything but honest and accurate.
Thanks,
Rob
|
| |
| |
Rob wrote,
"This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral:
'Well, how well organized are things in New Windsor, and how portable
are the operations? They are more
portable, TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:
- computer software is reliable and operates pretty much without human
fixups: you put in a tournament disk, for example, and it updates the
ratings without glitches [etc. etc. etc. etc.]'
Rob, please focus for a moment on the words "TO THE EXTENT" which are
CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS. They mean that the USCF's operations are
portable IF they are like the kind of operations which I then describe.
IF they are. TO THE EXTENT that they are. But if the New Windsor
operations are NOT like that, then there can be great problems. I am
not testifying that they are like that. I have no first-hand knowledge
on this point. In fact, if you go on to read the paragraph IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING the section that you quoted, you will see that I really
suspect they are NOT like that.
I guess I apologize for not making my skepticism clear enough.
petrel
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2004 13:42:42 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
Sam,
This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral:
"Well, how well organized are things in
New Windsor, and how portable are the operations? They are more
portable,
TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:
[SNIP]
Petral works in a not for profit and has knowledge of the internal
systemation.
I am just taking his word for it. I have no reason to belive he is
anything but honest and accurate.
Thanks,
Rob
You completely misread what Petral wrote. He wrote that a move would
be feasible if these things exist.
However, I just spoke to someone familiar with the New Windsor office
and he conformed that none of these things exist.
I repeat: NONE OF THESE THINGS EXIST.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
| |
You're all over the map today, eh Spammy?
So now you've admitted the inevitability of the move and are offering your
advice how to best accomplish it?
Breathtaking.
--
Tom Klem
Keep your eyes on the prize! Solvency!
On 16 Dec 2004 10:32:05 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
One factor which has not been consideed is that part of the plan is
for current employees to fly down to Crossville to teach the newcomers
their jobs.
However, this is unrealistic. What employee is going to be willing to
train their own replacement?
A more realistic idea wiould be to pay the new people in Crossville to
fly up to New Windsor to have the established employees train them.
At least the new empolyees would have an incentive to spend a few
weeks away from their families.
But would people be found in Crossville willing to do this, and how
much would this cost?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
| |
Now Spammy, here's a real hot flash opportunity for you. Get yourself up to
New Whimsy in your rusty taxi, take your notebook (c 1983 Osborne) and open
WordStar and start typing.
LOL
--
Tom Klem
Coming to a National event near you, Spam Sloan, the pedophile. Hide your
children.
On 16 Dec 2004 13:42:42 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
You completely misread what Petral wrote. He wrote that a move would
be feasible if these things exist.
However, I just spoke to someone familiar with the New Windsor office
and he conformed that none of these things exist.
I repeat: NONE OF THESE THINGS EXIST.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
| |
Petrel and Sam,
If I misread your statements Petrel I am sorry. I personally have no
knowledge myself of the New Windsor's office of operations. They should
have detailed job descriptions and training material for each position.
Forgive my error in reading.
Rob
petrelet@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Rob wrote,
"This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral:
'Well, how well organized are things in New Windsor, and how portable
are the operations? They are more
portable, TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:
- computer software is reliable and operates pretty much without
human
fixups: you put in a tournament disk, for example, and it updates the
ratings without glitches [etc. etc. etc. etc.]'
Rob, please focus for a moment on the words "TO THE EXTENT" which are
CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS. They mean that the USCF's operations are
portable IF they are like the kind of operations which I then
describe.
IF they are. TO THE EXTENT that they are. But if the New Windsor
operations are NOT like that, then there can be great problems. I am
not testifying that they are like that. I have no first-hand
knowledge
on this point. In fact, if you go on to read the paragraph
IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING the section that you quoted, you will see that I really
suspect they are NOT like that.
I guess I apologize for not making my skepticism clear enough.
petrel
|
| |
| |
Petrel and Sam,
If I misread your statements Petrel I am sorry. I personally have no
knowledge myself of the New Windsor's office of operations. They should
have detailed job descriptions and training material for each position.
Forgive my error in reading.
Rob
petrelet@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Rob wrote,
"This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral:
'Well, how well organized are things in New Windsor, and how portable
are the operations? They are more
portable, TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:
- computer software is reliable and operates pretty much without
human
fixups: you put in a tournament disk, for example, and it updates the
ratings without glitches [etc. etc. etc. etc.]'
Rob, please focus for a moment on the words "TO THE EXTENT" which are
CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS. They mean that the USCF's operations are
portable IF they are like the kind of operations which I then
describe.
IF they are. TO THE EXTENT that they are. But if the New Windsor
operations are NOT like that, then there can be great problems. I am
not testifying that they are like that. I have no first-hand
knowledge
on this point. In fact, if you go on to read the paragraph
IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING the section that you quoted, you will see that I really
suspect they are NOT like that.
I guess I apologize for not making my skepticism clear enough.
petrel
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2004 16:05:16 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
Petrel and Sam,
If I misread your statements Petrel I am sorry. I personally have no
knowledge myself of the New Windsor's office of operations. They should
have detailed job descriptions and training material for each position.
Forgive my error in reading.
Rob
Now that you have been informed that none of the documentation which
Petrel feels is required for a move exists, what do you think about
the feasibility of the move?
Do you think it is realistic to expect the present staff to spend
their last few days on the job to create the documentation to enable
their replacements to slip easily into their jobs?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
| |
|
