On November 13, Sloan once again, without first checking his facts with the USCF office, went public on the internet with the "Even Bigger Scandal" that three candidates in the 2005 election had allegedly been allowed to run despite not paying their $250 filing fees.  As with the re-rating issue, facts quickly surfaced proving that Sloan was wrong, but he refused to admit his mistake and continued his argument.

During the discussion Sloan also accused George John of changing his last name- presenting no evidence, but even if true, why would this common and legal practice warrant an attack by a Board member on a local organizer?

Sloan, who has also complained about not receiving "per diem" Board expense reimbursement, charged that $7500 in such "per diem" reimbursements were paid in 2005.  After this was denied by many (USCF stopped paying "per diems" in 1999), Sloan tried to back up his claim by citing per diems paid to Beatriz Marinello while she was both President and CEO, even though it is clear that these per diems were only for her role as CEO, and no per diems were paid to any other Board member.   

All Forum posts of this thread through December 8 follow.

samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:28 am    Post subject: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Files Even Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Filing Fees Looking at the list of Candidates for the 2005 elections, it seems that several approved candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee. The following candidates DID pay the $250 fee: Joel Channing Greg Shahade William Goichberg Sam Sloan Randy Bauer Elizabeth Shaughnessy However, the following candidates appear not to have paid the required $250 fee: Robert Tanner George John Steve Shutt Of particular interest to me is the case of George John. I have long suspected that George John does not exist. By that I mean that although I have met several times a person who calls himself George John, I suspect that this is not his real name. Therefore, I have searched for payments of exactly $250.00 by anybody, thinking that in this way I might be able to find out the real name of George John. Looking for payments of exactly $250, I find that this amount was paid by St. Benilde Chess on January 28, 2005. I suspect that this was the payment for Steve Shutt. I find a payment in the amount of $250 by Vela Middle School on 12/1/04. I suspect that this was unrelated to the election. There are no other payments of $250 by anybody during the relevant time period. Therefore, at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee, one of whom was elected. Kindly investigate this. Sam Sloan
Back to top
ChessPromotion 12123950 Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 332 Location: Forest Hills, NY	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:40 am    Post subject: Question for Mr. Goichberg, Channing, Schultz, Tanner, Hough samsloan wrote: Even Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Filing Fees Looking at the list of Candidates for the 2005 elections, it seems that several approved candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee. The following candidates DID pay the $250 fee: Joel Channing Greg Shahade William Goichberg Sam Sloan Randy Bauer Elizabeth Shaughnessy However, the following candidates appear not to have paid the required $250 fee: Robert Tanner George John Steve Shutt Of particular interest to me is the case of George John. I have long suspected that George John does not exist. By that I mean that although I have met several times a person who calls himself George John, I suspect that this is not his real name. Therefore, I have searched for payments of exactly $250.00 by anybody, thinking that in this way I might be able to find out the real name of George John. Looking for payments of exactly $250, I find that this amount was paid by St. Benilde Chess on January 28, 2005. I suspect that this was the payment for Steve Shutt. I find a payment in the amount of $250 by Vela Middle School on 12/1/04. I suspect that this was unrelated to the election. There are no other payments of $250 by anybody during the relevant time period. Therefore, at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee, one of whom was elected. Kindly investigate this. Sam Sloan Why do you allow this kind of behavior? How many more innocent people must pay for this man's despicable actions before something will be done? How many EB code of conducts has he broken since he was elected? You create rules for this forum for others to follow but he can post whatever he wants and falsely attack anyone he wants? When will you say enough is enough? Does the USCF have the right to refuse / revoke memberships? _________________ Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:25 am    Post subject: As I recall, several of the candidate fees in the 2005 election were paid by credit card. These would have been 'manual' charges through the USCF's credit card terminal, I'm not sure exactly how they would have been posted to the general ledger, but I doubt they'd be discrete transactions, probably just mixed in with 'miscellaneous income' entries. More detailed tracking of credit card transactions, including the 'manual' ones, is one of the goals of the new cash receipts tracking system. The first phase of this went into use in late October.
Back to top
rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:57 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File samsloan wrote: Of particular interest to me is the case of George John. I have long suspected that George John does not exist. By that I mean that although I have met several times a person who calls himself George John, I suspect that this is not his real name. Sam Sloan In an endorsement letter, Selby Anderson wrote,   Quote: Dear Voter: I've known George John since he ran computer pairings for the Texas Scholastic in 1996. A devoted chess dad, he channeled his energies into improving chess organizations. He started by creating TCA's first website later that year. He became one of the ablest Texas delegates to USCF, and a voice of reason in the flame-plagued newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics. As chair of the Computer/Internet committee, he put his computer expertise to work in modernizing the systems at USCF. George has been a positive force for change in USCF at a difficult time in its history, and he brings high-level corporate experience as well as technical ability to the job. George John listens to people, but he does not bend on principle. Years ago he split with our state's senior Delegate and supported One Member One Vote. In February, as TCA president he called a special meeting at the Texas Scholastic to deny a petition to change team eligibility rules in mid-tournament for one high school player. George admitted that the particulars made him sympathetic to the petition, but added that it would be worse to tinker with a rule (even one that needs changing) with the tournament in progress. His motion to deny the petition carried. George takes public service seriously, and he raises the tone of the debate wherever he is found. He is just the sort of leader USCF needs to stay on track with its continued improvement. Sincerely, Selby Anderson Texas Knights editor, 1988-2003 Of course, he might be part of the conspiracy as well. Perhaps everyone is, except Sam. Perhaps they follow Sam around, dismantling cities when they aren't needed maintain the illusion that there is a world out there beyond Sam's immediate view. Or perhaps not. _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:08 am    Post subject: Re: Question for Mr. Goichberg, Channing, Schultz, Tanner, H ChessPromotion wrote: Why do you allow this kind of behavior? How many more innocent people must pay for this man's despicable actions before something will be done? How many EB code of conducts has he broken since he was elected? You create rules for this forum for others to follow but he can post whatever he wants and falsely attack anyone he wants? When will you say enough is enough? Does the USCF have the right to refuse / revoke memberships? While fighting for the rights of our children, would you kindly explain why Susan Polgar and you received the following payments: Why don't you go out and get a job? 8/04/02 48099 Polgar Chess 1500.00 9/27/02 57657 (voided) Susan Polgar 2500.00 10/9/02 57742 Polgar Chess Inc. 2500.00 11/22/02 58175 Polgar Chess Inc. 1164.55 12/03/02 58276 Susan Polgar 300.00 12/03/02 58304 Susan Polgar 300.00 3/20/03 59134 Susan Polgar 500.00 3/20/03 59140 Paul Truong 100.00 4/11/03 59353 Susan Polgar 500.00 4/18/03 59391 Polgar Chess Inc. 1469.91 4/21/03 59456 Polgar Chess Author 500.00 4/21/03 59484 Susan Polgar 500.00 4/28/03 59577 Susan Polgar 576.00 4/28/03 59593 Polgar Chess Inc. 1469.91 4/28/03 59631 Susan Polgar 500.00 4/28/03 59636 Paul Hoainhan Truong 325.00 4/28/03 59643 Paul Hoainhan Truong 325.00 4/28/03 59669 Paul Hoainhan Truong 100.00 10/30/03 60655 Polgar Chess Authority 500.00 11/10/03 60739 (voided) Polgar Chess Authority 500.00 11/12/03 60745 Polgar Chess Authority 500.00 11/21/03 60898 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 11/21/03 60907 Paul Hoainhan Truong 140.00 11/21/03 60922 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 11/21/03 60931 Paul Hoainhan Truong 215.00 12/1/03 62003 (voided) Polgar Chess Inc. 5932.50 12/5/03 60983 Polgar Chess Inc. 4105.86 12/15/03 61128 Polgar Chess Inc. 2000.00 12/16/03 61181 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 12/16/03 61185 Paul Hoainhan Truong 150.00 12/23/03 61255 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 12/23/03 61275 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 1/06/04 61339 Polgar Chess Inc. 2000.00 3/31/04 61807 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 4/17/04 61971 Polgar Chess Inc. 582.90 4/29/04 62013 Polgar Chess Inc. 5932.50 5/13/04 62102 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 5/14/04 62127 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 6/14/04 62318 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 6/28/04 62384 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 8/16/04 62586 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 8/24/04 62613 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 10/14/04 62829 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 10/29/04 62919 Polgar Chess Inc. 500.00 11/18/04 63000 Susan Polgar 500.00 12/09/04 63137 Susan Polgar 500.00 12/27/04 63209 Susan Polgar 500.00 1/06/05 63268 (voided) Susan Polgar 2100.00 2/03/05 63374 Polgar Chess Inc. 2032.00 2/24/05 63490 Susan Polgar 500.00
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:31 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File rfeditor wrote: Of course, he might be part of the conspiracy as well. Perhaps everyone is, except Sam. Perhaps they follow Sam around, dismantling cities when they aren't needed maintain the illusion that there is a world out there beyond Sam's immediate view. Or perhaps not. Ever since George John started coming around to chess tournaments in 1996, there has been speculation as to what his real name is. Carol Jarecki told me in about 1999 that she believes that his real name is George St. John. Do a Google search and you will not find that name of George John coming up in any field other than chess. This is strange for a self proclaimed computer expert. At the 2005 delegate's meeting in Phoenix, I confronted George John and asked him to show me his drivers license or other photo ID showing what his real name is. He refused. He must have had photo ID on him, because he was required to carry photo ID to board an aircraft to fly to Phoenix. George John could end all this speculation in a minute by producing a drivers license for example. One wonders why he refuses to do this, especially when he is running for election. The fact that he apparently did not pay his $250 filing fee can only add to this speculation. Although Bill Smythe states that George John could have paid by credit card, the election rules clearly stated that the candidate must send a check for $250 to the secretary. George John did not do that and thus his candidacy should have been declared invalid. Incidentally, George John finished dead last in the election. Sam Sloan
Back to top
Smythe Dakota 10339022 Joined: 29 Jun 2004 Posts: 1054 Location: Chicago, IL	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:47 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File samsloan wrote: .... Although Bill Smythe states that George John could have paid by credit card .... That was Mike Nolan, not me. Although I usually agree with Mike (and George John too, for that matter), that is no excuse for mixing us up. Bill Smythe
Back to top
Jim Flesher 20056161 Joined: 25 Jun 2006 Posts: 30 Location: Weston, WV	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:14 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File samsloan wrote: Even Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Filing Fees Looking at the list of Candidates for the 2005 elections, it seems that several approved candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee. The following candidates DID pay the $250 fee: Joel Channing Greg Shahade William Goichberg Sam Sloan Randy Bauer Elizabeth Shaughnessy However, the following candidates appear not to have paid the required $250 fee: Robert Tanner George John Steve Shutt Of particular interest to me is the case of George John. I have long suspected that George John does not exist. By that I mean that although I have met several times a person who calls himself George John, I suspect that this is not his real name. Therefore, I have searched for payments of exactly $250.00 by anybody, thinking that in this way I might be able to find out the real name of George John. Looking for payments of exactly $250, I find that this amount was paid by St. Benilde Chess on January 28, 2005. I suspect that this was the payment for Steve Shutt. I find a payment in the amount of $250 by Vela Middle School on 12/1/04. I suspect that this was unrelated to the election. There are no other payments of $250 by anybody during the relevant time period. Therefore, at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee, one of whom was elected. Kindly investigate this. Sam Sloan Who at the USCF office did you verify this information with? _________________ James A Flesher USCF ID: 20056161
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:15 am    Post subject: There was nothing in the Bylaws in effect for the 2005 election about requiring the filing fee be paid by check. It says the filing fee must be "made payable to the USCF", which a credit card charge would be. I suppose that language was put in to make sure a check wasn't made payable to the USCF Secretary. Last edited by nolan 10339324 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:21 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Jim Flesher 20056161 Joined: 25 Jun 2006 Posts: 30 Location: Weston, WV	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:18 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File samsloan wrote: rfeditor wrote: Of course, he might be part of the conspiracy as well. Perhaps everyone is, except Sam. Perhaps they follow Sam around, dismantling cities when they aren't needed maintain the illusion that there is a world out there beyond Sam's immediate view. Or perhaps not. Ever since George John started coming around to chess tournaments in 1996, there has been speculation as to what his real name is. Carol Jarecki told me in about 1999 that she believes that his real name is George St. John. Do a Google search and you will not find that name of George John coming up in any field other than chess. This is strange for a self proclaimed computer expert. At the 2005 delegate's meeting in Phoenix, I confronted George John and asked him to show me his drivers license or other photo ID showing what his real name is. He refused. He must have had photo ID on him, because he was required to carry photo ID to board an aircraft to fly to Phoenix. George John could end all this speculation in a minute by producing a drivers license for example. One wonders why he refuses to do this, especially when he is running for election. The fact that he apparently did not pay his $250 filing fee can only add to this speculation. Although Bill Smythe states that George John could have paid by credit card, the election rules clearly stated that the candidate must send a check for $250 to the secretary. George John did not do that and thus his candidacy should have been declared invalid. Incidentally, George John finished dead last in the election. Sam Sloan Why should he have to show you his drivers lic? If you asked to see mine I wouldn't be likely to produce it. How do I know your name is really Sam Sloan? Never mind no one else would want to be Sam Sloan... except the fake Sam Sloan, or maybe the other fake Sam Sloan, or maybe even Sam Sloan himself. _________________ James A Flesher USCF ID: 20056161
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:20 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File samsloan wrote: ... the election rules clearly stated that the candidate must send a check for $250 to the secretary. George John did not do that and thus his candidacy should have been declared invalid. ...Sam Sloan Mr. Sloan continues to prove that his is clearly unfit for office. In this latest bit of "scandal" he shows that he lacks the ability to read simple english sentences. The candidates are NOT required to pay by check. In fact, the word "check" doesn't even appear in the section of the bylaws that deals with EB elections. Mr. Sloan, RESIGN NOW BEFORE YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELF FURTHER! You are clearly not capable of fulfilling your duties to the USCF. Quit! _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
gregory 13474581 Joined: 01 Mar 2006 Posts: 280 Location: Seattle, Wa	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:53 am    Post subject: I don't want my personal financial records available to Sam Sloan. The other problem is Mr. Sloan apparently has access to our information using the good office of the EB and is now making our records public to justify some new wild claim. Someone please tell me that he does not have our financial records available. Mike, can't someone put a stop to his intrusion into the records of others? I hope that someone in the EB can suspend his privileges to look into member data until his behavior of using our own data to meet his own needs is stopped. This is nonsense and it could be used by a member to sue the office of the USCF. Please address this, _________________ Gregory Alexander USCF ID 13474581 www.collegechessleague.com
Back to top
ChessPromotion 12123950 Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 332 Location: Forest Hills, NY	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:55 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File tanstaafl wrote: samsloan wrote: ... the election rules clearly stated that the candidate must send a check for $250 to the secretary. George John did not do that and thus his candidacy should have been declared invalid. ...Sam Sloan Mr. Sloan continues to prove that his is clearly unfit for office. In this latest bit of "scandal" he shows that he lacks the ability to read simple english sentences. The candidates are NOT required to pay by check. In fact, the word "check" doesn't even appear in the section of the bylaws that deals with EB elections. Mr. Sloan, RESIGN NOW BEFORE YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELF FURTHER! You are clearly not capable of fulfilling your duties to the USCF. Quit! He's never about the good of the USCF or chess. He's about himself. If he speaks normally, no one would listen to him. So the only way he can get attention for himself is by linking his name to well known individuals. And since most of them don't want to associate themselves with a lunatic, he has no choice but to fabricate things and deceive the readers pretending there's a serious issue to get attention. You can't blame a sick and mentally ill individual. The real question is what kind of people would support a lying despicable lunatic? And the other question why is the USCF so afraid to revoke the membership of an individual like this? _________________ Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!
Back to top
gregory 13474581 Joined: 01 Mar 2006 Posts: 280 Location: Seattle, Wa	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:11 pm    Post subject: To start; I just want his ability to look at personal membership records revoked. I don't relish having an irresponsible board member to be able to look at any of our financial data and then post it on his own site on the internet. It is irresponsible for the USCF to let this happen now that we have a solid track record of Mr. Sloan's willingness to circumnavigate normal processes the board, and release this data publicly. As a member of the USCF, I resent having him having access to look at my own data; and his behavior is uncalled for. Surely the USCF can act quickly on this to prevent a potential violation of privacy? _________________ Gregory Alexander USCF ID 13474581 www.collegechessleague.com
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:24 pm    Post subject: As far as I know, no member of the Board has access to any current personal member information (such as addresses or birthdates) from USCF records. Members of the Board and the LMA, Finance and Audit Committees were recently sent a CD with copies of the general ledger files for the last 7 fiscal years, I assume that's where he's gleaning this data from. Bill Hall has just confirmed that the USCF office has copies of the $250 filing fee checks from Robert Tanner, George John and Steve Shutt. I don't know why Sam couldn't find those transactions on the CD. (I must have been confused as to in which election a filing fee was paid by credit card, that may have been the special board election in 2006.)

samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Jim Flesher wrote: Why should he have to show you his drivers lic? If you asked to see mine I wouldn't be likely to produce it. How do I know your name is really Sam Sloan? Never mind no one else would want to be Sam Sloan... except the fake Sam Sloan, or maybe the other fake Sam Sloan, or maybe even Sam Sloan himself. If you happen to see me, I shall be happy to show you or anybody else my drivers license, to prove that my real name really is Sam Sloan. It so happens that this often comes up, because I have the same name as three famous people in history: 1. A famous railroad tycoon, one of the richest men in America, whose statue stands near the PATH Train Station in Hoboken New Jersey because he built the Erie Lakawanna Railroad. 2. A famous architect of Philadelphia who built many famous buildings in downtown Philadelphia and who wrote the book "Sloan's Victorian Houses". 3. A famous floor broker and member of the New York Stock Exchange. I believe that all three of these men are my distant relatives, but I am unable to prove it. Therefore, whenever anybody challenges me and suggests that my real name is not Sam Sloan, I am always ready to whip out my drivers license and birth certificate to prove that this really is my real name. Sam Sloan
Back to top
gregory 13474581 Joined: 01 Mar 2006 Posts: 280 Location: Seattle, Wa	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:32 pm    Post subject: Thanks Nolan. I sure hope that someone is watching the wild bull in the china shop carefully before too many things get broken. I sure wish a team of folks could cuff the guy while in a role of prominence though. Take care, _________________ Gregory Alexander USCF ID 13474581 www.collegechessleague.com
Back to top
JonH 12444802 Joined: 24 Apr 2005 Posts: 68 Location: Florida	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File samsloan wrote: Ever since George John started coming around to chess tournaments in 1996, there has been speculation as to what his real name is. Carol Jarecki told me in about 1999 that she believes that his real name is George St. John. Do a Google search and you will not find that name of George John coming up in any field other than chess. This is strange for a self proclaimed computer expert. At the 2005 delegate's meeting in Phoenix, I confronted George John and asked him to show me his drivers license or other photo ID showing what his real name is. He refused. He must have had photo ID on him, because he was required to carry photo ID to board an aircraft to fly to Phoenix. George John could end all this speculation in a minute by producing a drivers license for example. One wonders why he refuses to do this, especially when he is running for election. What a waste of time. There are many more important things that you, as a Board member, could be doing for chess.
Back to top
Jim Flesher 20056161 Joined: 25 Jun 2006 Posts: 30 Location: Weston, WV	Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File JonH wrote: samsloan wrote: Ever since George John started coming around to chess tournaments in 1996, there has been speculation as to what his real name is. Carol Jarecki told me in about 1999 that she believes that his real name is George St. John. Do a Google search and you will not find that name of George John coming up in any field other than chess. This is strange for a self proclaimed computer expert. At the 2005 delegate's meeting in Phoenix, I confronted George John and asked him to show me his drivers license or other photo ID showing what his real name is. He refused. He must have had photo ID on him, because he was required to carry photo ID to board an aircraft to fly to Phoenix. George John could end all this speculation in a minute by producing a drivers license for example. One wonders why he refuses to do this, especially when he is running for election. What a waste of time. There are many more important things that you, as a Board member, could be doing for chess. I couldn't agree with you more Jon. I have stated in other posts that it is time to move past such diversions and concentrate on promoting chess. Jim _________________ James A Flesher USCF ID: 20056161
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:16 am    Post subject: Apparently, Mr. Sloan has known for a week now that his original post in this thread was simply a false accusation. The BINFO message that all candidates had paid their fees (and we have copies of the checks to prove it) has now been released. Instead of issuing a retraction or appology, Mr. Sloan has let this falsehood stand for a week and continue to libel the individuals he identified (improperly and incorrectly) as not having paid their filing fee. By letting his statement stand AFTER he learned that it was false, what COULD have been an innocent mistake has become an intentional act. I call on the moderator (AGAIN) to address Mr. Sloan's actions. His false statements about other people should not be allowed to stand. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
ChessPromotion 12123950 Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 332 Location: Forest Hills, NY	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:36 am    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: Apparently, Mr. Sloan has known for a week now that his original post in this thread was simply a false accusation. The BINFO message that all candidates had paid their fees (and we have copies of the checks to prove it) has now been released. Instead of issuing a retraction or appology, Mr. Sloan has let this falsehood stand for a week and continue to libel the individuals he identified (improperly and incorrectly) as not having paid their filing fee. By letting his statement stand AFTER he learned that it was false, what COULD have been an innocent mistake has become an intentional act. I call on the moderator (AGAIN) to address Mr. Sloan's actions. His false statements about other people should not be allowed to stand. Not going to happen. The USCF is so scared of him. He should have been banned from this federation long ago but they are too scared to take actions. I don't blame him. I view him as a mentally ill person. I blame his supporters. _________________ Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children! Last edited by ChessPromotion 12123950 on Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:25 am    Post subject: Paul, what proof do you have that Sam Sloan is mentally ill? If none, then please remove or edit your post.
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:28 am    Post subject: Sam, you should by now have received the Executive Director's note indicating that the office has copies of the cancelled checks for all of the candidates in the 2005 EB election. Please modify or remove your earlier post.
Back to top
wzim 11315844 Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 227 Location: Peoria, Il	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:20 pm    Post subject: ChessPromotion wrote: ... I view him as a mentally ill person. I blame his supporters. Note here that ChessPromotion isn't calling anyone mentally ill, He is merely stating his opinion that he views so and so as a mentally ill person. This is entirely different then actually calling someone crazy. But my first reaction to the post was that that bit of info could have been left out.
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:39 pm    Post subject: He has edited his post to change the wording, but I don't think you're off base in reading it as a gratutiously unnecessary negative comment. However, if the moderators have to review every post for something that someone might consider negative, we might as well shut the Forums down completely!
Back to top
ChessPromotion 12123950 Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 332 Location: Forest Hills, NY	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:03 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: He has edited his post to change the wording, but I don't think you're off base in reading it as a gratutiously unnecessary negative comment. However, if the moderators have to review every post for something that someone might consider negative, we might as well shut the Forums down completely! Has anyone read posts by Mr. Big Shot of the EB? Am I the only one who see the double standard? Are we telling the members that board members can shoot their mouths off and post attacks and lies any time they want? By the way, I am the moderator of various sites with over a million unique users a month. This kind of nonsense would never be tolerated there. _________________ Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:13 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: Sam, you should by now have received the Executive Director's note indicating that the office has copies of the cancelled checks for all of the candidates in the 2005 EB election. Please modify or remove your earlier post. I have about a hundred OTHER examples of the same sort of thing. Mr. Sloan makes an outrageous charge, is presented with proof that his charge was false, and then he changes the subject or reasserts his previous false statement. I'm only aware of two cases that he has EVER appologized or retracted a statement. One of these was the Jay Sabine appology (though his FALSE statements about Jay and the others was still on the forums without correction, last time I checked). The other was his "appology" to Grant Perks, which was just a thinly veiled attempt to further attack Grant, myself, and others. If you're going to ask him to fix this ONE transgression, how about all the others? _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:28 pm    Post subject: Tighter moderation has to start SOMEWHERE. Earlier people were complaining that there wasn't any, now they're complaiining that there is. Make up your minds!! I don't know that I have time to review all of the back posts to find things someone might find problematical with them. Do you?
Back to top
WPraeder 12887461 Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 99 Location: PA, USA	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:41 pm    Post subject: ChessPromotion wrote: nolan wrote: He has edited his post to change the wording, but I don't think you're off base in reading it as a gratutiously unnecessary negative comment. However, if the moderators have to review every post for something that someone might consider negative, we might as well shut the Forums down completely! Has anyone read posts by Mr. Big Shot of the EB? Am I the only one who see the double standard? Are we telling the members that board members can shoot their mouths off and post attacks and lies any time they want? By the way, I am the moderator of various sites with over a million unique users a month. This kind of nonsense would never be tolerated there. Paul, Perhaps only a few observe that our USCF officials appear to continue to do and say whatever they want with no apparent accountability. It seems not uncommon if you want to get away with abusing somebody - you first launch a pre-emptive attack on their character, so that nobody will believe them when they soon complain about what you are doing to them. We often see this type of behavior or a change of subject when officials are faced with difficult questions. Even though our officials have a duty to know and follow the rules governing the corporation, it continues to appear these laws, rules, or standards are not always enforced, no sanctions imposed, nor have there been penalties for inaction. Such is the legacy of our old unaccountable political system. It is a noble beginning to try to get our officials to adhere to the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board. As much as a challenge it is to get our leadership to acknowledge that they are subject to these standards, it may be even more difficult to consistently apply such standards. USCF officials’ are quick to challenge or even sanction an abuse from outsiders but stopping an abuse among their own superficially appears subject to extreme due process and rigorous proof. It is understandable that to enforce standards for one implies enforcing said standards consistently for all. Something however can be done. Recall is always an option, but encouraging more independent successful business professionals to be on the board and working to get out the vote during the next Executive Board election may help even better. It will take time to develop a new more accountable business oriented system. Ultimately accountability will need to be enforced over time by the membership with the process of being able to elect or reject the leaders and their policies that oversee the direction of the corporation. Regards, Wayne Praeder
Back to top
ChessPromotion 12123950 Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 332 Location: Forest Hills, NY	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:55 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: Tighter moderation has to start SOMEWHERE. Earlier people were complaining that there wasn't any, now they're complaiining that there is. Make up your minds!! I don't know that I have time to review all of the back posts to find things someone might find problematical with them. Do you? It should start with the person who IS the biggest abuser of the forum rule. I would be more than happy to apply for the moderator position to give you more time for other more important areas. _________________ Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!

ChessPromotion 12123950 Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 332 Location: Forest Hills, NY	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:57 pm    Post subject: WPraeder wrote: ChessPromotion wrote: nolan wrote: He has edited his post to change the wording, but I don't think you're off base in reading it as a gratutiously unnecessary negative comment. However, if the moderators have to review every post for something that someone might consider negative, we might as well shut the Forums down completely! Has anyone read posts by Mr. Big Shot of the EB? Am I the only one who see the double standard? Are we telling the members that board members can shoot their mouths off and post attacks and lies any time they want? By the way, I am the moderator of various sites with over a million unique users a month. This kind of nonsense would never be tolerated there. Paul, Perhaps only a few observe that our USCF officials appear to continue to do and say whatever they want with no apparent accountability. It seems not uncommon if you want to get away with abusing somebody - you first launch a pre-emptive attack on their character, so that nobody will believe them when they soon complain about what you are doing to them. We often see this type of behavior or a change of subject when officials are faced with difficult questions. Even though our officials have a duty to know and follow the rules governing the corporation, it continues to appear these laws, rules, or standards are not always enforced, no sanctions imposed, nor have there been penalties for inaction. Such is the legacy of our old unaccountable political system. It is a noble beginning to try to get our officials to adhere to the Standards of Conduct for the USCF Executive Board. As much as a challenge it is to get our leadership to acknowledge that they are subject to these standards, it may be even more difficult to consistently apply such standards. USCF officials’ are quick to challenge or even sanction an abuse from outsiders but stopping an abuse among their own superficially appears subject to extreme due process and rigorous proof. It is understandable that to enforce standards for one implies enforcing said standards consistently for all. Something however can be done. Recall is always an option, but encouraging more independent successful business professionals to be on the board and working to get out the vote during the next Executive Board election may help even better. It will take time to develop a new more accountable business oriented system. Ultimately accountability will need to be enforced over time by the membership with the process of being able to elect or reject the leaders and their policies that oversee the direction of the corporation. Regards, Wayne Praeder Agreed. Can you suggest 3-4 people who you think should run for the next EB to help the USCF? _________________ Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:11 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: Tighter moderation has to start SOMEWHERE. Earlier people were complaining that there wasn't any, now they're complaiining that there is. Make up your minds!! I don't know that I have time to review all of the back posts to find things someone might find problematical with them. Do you? I agree that tighter moderation has to start somewhere. I AM NOT complaining about tighter moderation. I will point out that the history of enforcement SEEMS to indicate that Mr. Sloan can get away with whatever he wants. IF THAT ISN'T THE INTENT, THEN PLEASE CORRECT THAT APPEARANCE. If you don't want to go through the history of posts on the Forum, that's fine. I don't recall anyone requesting this. I merely pointed out that *I* had several other examples -- I'd simply like to see a more "blanket" request made to Mr. Sloan. Something like: "Mr. Sloan please remove or edit all previous posts that are now known to have been false charges". I could list several examples if that would help -- charges KNOWN to be false. For example the charges against Jay Sabine, the accusations of criminal activity made against Grant Perks, the charge that Mr. Truong demanded and was paid a specific amount of money ($39,000?), ... I have NO expectations that this request would be honored, but HE HASN'T EVEN BEEN ASKED!!! _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
Ron Suarez 12483626 Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 357 Location: Peoria, Illinois ... the Middle	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:52 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl voices my point EXACTLY. Mike, when are you going to address the gross violations of the forum rules done by Sam Sloan? No one has asked you to spend an inordinate amount of time searching every past post for wrongs. We are simply asking you to show true competence in your job as moderator by enforcing the rules of this forum evenhandedly. You have consistently ignored my other posts and threads regarding this lack of performance by you, Mike, in this. Kindly respond. _________________ ...from the Middle, Ron Suarez ID# 12483626
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:20 pm    Post subject: Ron, No offense, but you're making your point more strongly than I would choose. I think the issue and forum moderation IN GENERAL has become political -- perhaps IN SPITE of Mike's best intentions. The WORST solution, IMHO, would be to name a clear partisan as a moderator (like Paul Truong). We badly need one or more neutral parties to help with the job of moderating the forums and enforcing the rules, but I can't think of anyone offhand that would be seen as neutral. I also would be glad to help with this task, but on the subject of Mr. Sloan, I am definately not a "neutral party". Perhaps somebody could be found to act as a volunteer moderator that would be willing to limit his actions AS MODERATOR to only certain subjects (say, everything but Mr. Sloan's actions, for exampe). _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
Ron Suarez 12483626 Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 357 Location: Peoria, Illinois ... the Middle	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl, I agree with you except I don't think that I was too strong in my wording. I don't think it would be hard to be equal and fair in the delivery of the moderator's job, even with Sam Sloan. If I say that something that someone does is stupid, or say less, you can bet that my post would be deleted. Sam has used that exact word and other more strong adjectives to describe decisions made by powers that be in the USCF. His postings go untouched by the moderator(s). I am not complaining just asking that the rules be applied evenly to everyone in the forum. I actually think politics and personal likes and dislikes can and should be put aside in the moderator's job. _________________ ...from the Middle, Ron Suarez ID# 12483626
Back to top
WPraeder 12887461 Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 99 Location: PA, USA	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:56 pm    Post subject: ChessPromotion wrote: Agreed. Can you suggest 3-4 people who you think should run for the next EB to help the USCF? Paul, I’m sure today’s call for candidates on Susan Polgar’s Blog will provide some good feedback and suggestions. These will be a good start. In my view our problem to attract talent stems from our lack of focus and our style of political clientelism that most potential candidates may find unattractive. We often set our expectations very low only because we have not been successful. You never know however until you ask. Perhaps a successful example was Susan Polgar’s recruitment of Delilah? Of course as an organization we must crawl before walking, and walk before running, but that should not stop us from imagining what could be. Imagine a USCF Executive Board consisting of such individuals as Roxanne Spillett, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jennifer Capriati, Sting, Luz A. Vega-Marquis, Jimmy Carter, Frances Hesselbein, and Bill Gates. Imagine all that talent channeled to guide and advance chess in America. If you can visualize this type of Executive Board then the next step is to imagine what type of governance system would be necessary to attract, elect and support such talent on behalf of chess. Food for thought, perhaps? Regards, Wayne Praeder
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject: I've asked Sam (and others) to edit or delete recent posts in still-active threads. I do not plan to do a review of past posts. Let's let Sam and the others respond, I will then take whatever action I consider appropriate.
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:23 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: nolan wrote: Sam, you should by now have received the Executive Director's note indicating that the office has copies of the cancelled checks for all of the candidates in the 2005 EB election. Please modify or remove your earlier post. I have about a hundred OTHER examples of the same sort of thing. Mr. Sloan makes an outrageous charge, is presented with proof that his charge was false, and then he changes the subject or reasserts his previous false statement. I'm only aware of two cases that he has EVER appologized or retracted a statement. One of these was the Jay Sabine appology (though his FALSE statements about Jay and the others was still on the forums without correction, last time I checked). The other was his "appology" to Grant Perks, which was just a thinly veiled attempt to further attack Grant, myself, and others. If you're going to ask him to fix this ONE transgression, how about all the others? I'm going to surprise you and suggest that you start a thread and list these false accusations. If you're right, it should be documented.
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:39 pm    Post subject: I've tried to respond to each one on a case-by-case basis. All you have to do is follow Mr. Sloan's threads and you'll see where somebody has pointed out factual errors. I've also been asked NOT to "try in public" my ethics complaint against Mr. Sloan, so I'm going to try to stick to MORE RECENT actions by Mr. Sloan. There are plenty of examples. Are there 100? Not if I limit myself to the more recent posts -- after all, he was without his computer for several weeks... You might also note that Mr. Sloan has yet to comply with the moderator's request that he correct his original post in THIS thread (that has since been proven to be a false charge). _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:45 pm    Post subject: OK, how many minutes/hours/days would you allow for a response?
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:47 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: You might also note that Mr. Sloan has yet to comply with the moderator's request that he correct his original post in THIS thread (that has since been proven to be a false charge). Right as far as I know, he hasn't, and his original claim that some people didn't pay their filing fee has been refuted. It's the sort of charge that could be serious if true, because it could cause a procedural issue: if someone didn't pay the filing fee and won in the voting, should that person be barred from office and the runner-up installed instead? But if it's not true, it is nothing but an error. It's not a scandal, it's not a libel, it's not scurrilous, it's not going to ruin anyone's reputation. You can say Sam has made mistakes, and I've encouraged you to document them because you feel they are important. Still though -- to quote Walter Mondale quoting the Wendy's hamburger chain advert -- where's the beef?
Back to top
rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:01 pm    Post subject: artichoke wrote: tanstaafl wrote: You might also note that Mr. Sloan has yet to comply with the moderator's request that he correct his original post in THIS thread (that has since been proven to be a false charge). Right as far as I know, he hasn't, and his original claim that some people didn't pay their filing fee has been refuted. It's the sort of charge that could be serious if true, because it could cause a procedural issue: if someone didn't pay the filing fee and won in the voting, should that person be barred from office and the runner-up installed instead? But if it's not true, it is nothing but an error. It's not a scandal, it's not a libel, it's not scurrilous, it's not going to ruin anyone's reputation. You can say Sam has made mistakes, and I've encouraged you to document them because you feel they are important. Still though -- to quote Walter Mondale quoting the Wendy's hamburger chain advert -- where's the beef? If I were to accuse that Sam Sloan of violating every law in the Penal Code and committing every deviant act given in Krafft-Ebbing, there is a good chance that I would be right at least once. That would not justify my behavior, either legally or morally. _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
SteveTN 12467003 Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 176 Location: Nashville, TN	Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: OK, how many minutes/hours/days would you allow for a response? Sam told the fib on 13 nov 2006, YOU refuted it on 13 nov 2006. It is now 22 nov 2006. Shouldn't you have asked how many months/years/decades? It looks like the USCF will allow Sammy to say anything he wants, anytime he wants. What is the harm? Despite being presented proof of his falsehoods, Sammy keeps repeating them in perpetuity. Others pick up the chant not bothering to verify, and in some cases not caring about, the truth. It then becomes accepted "knowledge" despite being a falsehood. I'm sure all this is old news to you so I have to wonder why you ask such questions as you did above. _________________ Steve OWENS in Tennessee Just a USCF Member It is time to GROSS
Back to top
ChessPromotion 12123950 Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 332 Location: Forest Hills, NY	Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:57 pm    Post subject: SteveTN wrote: nolan wrote: OK, how many minutes/hours/days would you allow for a response? Sam told the fib on 13 nov 2006, YOU refuted it on 13 nov 2006. It is now 22 nov 2006. Shouldn't you have asked how many months/years/decades? It looks like the USCF will allow Sammy to say anything he wants, anytime he wants. What is the harm? Despite being presented proof of his falsehoods, Sammy keeps repeating them in perpetuity. Others pick up the chant not bothering to verify, and in some cases not caring about, the truth. It then becomes accepted "knowledge" despite being a falsehood. I'm sure all this is old news to you so I have to wonder why you ask such questions as you did above. One has to wonder why the USCF has not banned SS from posting on this forum for violating countless rules? But if an "ordinary" member says something about SS, that member has to immediately edit / delete his / her post. I guess 2+2=3 with the USCF. _________________ Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:13 pm    Post subject: artichoke wrote: tanstaafl wrote: You might also note that Mr. Sloan has yet to comply with the moderator's request that he correct his original post in THIS thread (that has since been proven to be a false charge). Right as far as I know, he hasn't, and his original claim that some people didn't pay their filing fee has been refuted. It's the sort of charge that could be serious if true, because it could cause a procedural issue: if someone didn't pay the filing fee and won in the voting, should that person be barred from office and the runner-up installed instead? But if it's not true, it is nothing but an error. It WAS an error when it was originally made. It was an error that was made with (as many of Mr. Sloan's "errors") RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH. And it hurt the reputations of the people Mr. Sloan named (in fact, I think it's clear that it was Mr. Sloan's INTENT to harm their reputations). Legally, I think that makes his original statement actionable. First you say it's a "serious charge", then that it was in error, then you claim "it's not a libel"! It certainly IS! "I made a mistake" is NOT a defense in a libel case! Of course, if he had RETRACTED his "mistake" when it was refuted, he COULD have limited the damage.   artichoke wrote: It's not a scandal, it's not a libel, it's not scurrilous, it's not going to ruin anyone's reputation. You can say Sam has made mistakes, and I've encouraged you to document them because you feel they are important. Still though -- to quote Walter Mondale quoting the Wendy's hamburger chain advert -- where's the beef? Not all "mistakes" are equal. A 9th grader that adds two numbers incorrectly and makes a "mistake" on a math exam hasn't injured anybody. A doctor that makes the same mistake and ends up giving a patient an overdose has made a different kind of "mistake". The fault that would be assigned is quite different -- again, not all mistakes are equal. My chief complaint against Mr. Sloan isn't that he makes mistakes. His mistakes cause harm, are made with a reckless disregard for the facts (he could easily have asked the office about the current "scandal" for example), and he makes no effort to correct these mistakes. Add to all of this that Mr. Sloan holds a position of trust within our organization. His words should be given more weight because he is in a postion where he should be able to determine the actual facts behind these "scandals". Also, because he has a duty as an officer of the USCF to preserve the reputation of the USCF and otherwise protect its interests, his transgressions are even more serious. (it's clearly NOT in the best interest of the USCF if all decent employees are driven to seek other employment because of Mr. Sloan's reckless charges). I'm not going to take the time tonight to detail all of Mr. Sloan's false charges. There are a bunch of them. In my mind, the most serious of these are the charges of criminal activity that were made by Mr. Sloan against a USCF employee. Mr. Sloan later admitted that the charge was incorrect. BUT HE NEVER EDITED OR MODIFIED THE ORIGINAL POST. It's still out there, still libeling the good name of a USCF employee. Anybody doing a quick search could easily see the original, false charges. Only if they took the time to read the entire thread and follow-ups could we be sure they'd see that the original post was false. FURTHER, Mr. Sloan's charges were a COMPLETE FABRICATION. He never had ANY information that actually connected THIS REAL PERSON with any criminal actions. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.

artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:30 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: ....First you say it's a "serious charge"... You're twisting what I wrote. You have completely misrepresented the situation.
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:54 pm    Post subject: I appologize to artichoke. I didn't mean to misrepresent his words. I don't think I'm misrepresenting the SITUATION, but we can agree to disagree on that point. I see Mr. Sloan's continued actions as a serious matter and I hope it is addressed soon. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:38 am    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: I appologize to artichoke. I didn't mean to misrepresent his words. ... No problem, thanks.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:44 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: I've tried to respond to each one on a case-by-case basis. All you have to do is follow Mr. Sloan's threads and you'll see where somebody has pointed out factual errors. I've also been asked NOT to "try in public" my ethics complaint against Mr. Sloan, so I'm going to try to stick to MORE RECENT actions by Mr. Sloan. There are plenty of examples. Are there 100? Not if I limit myself to the more recent posts -- after all, he was without his computer for several weeks... You might also note that Mr. Sloan has yet to comply with the moderator's request that he correct his original post in THIS thread (that has since been proven to be a false charge). I generally ignore that postings by Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl because all he does is attack me, he seems to have nothing to do with his life but attack me and, by contrast, I have other things to do. The statement by Bill Hall that Judy Misner has shown him "copies of checks received from Steve Shutt, Robert Tanner, and George John in the amount of $250 each". does not completely address the question. The election rules in 2005 stated that a check for the $250 filing fee plus a petition containing the signatures of 30 USCF voting members must be received by the USCF Secretary (who was Don Schultz at the time) by the filing deadline, which was January 10, 2005. A controversy arose when Randy Bauer admitted that he had been late in mailing his petition, and therefore he had called the office and Judy Misner had told him that she would take care of it. I now have access to the general ledger and I can see that the filing fee for Randy Bauer was received one day late in fact. However, there is no record in the general ledger that I have been able to find thus far showing that the $250 fee was ever actually received from Robert Tanner, George John or Steve Shutt. Thus, it is insufficient merely to show "copies of checks received from Steve Shutt, Robert Tanner, and George John in the amount of $250 each". It is necessary to show in addition that these checks were mailed to Don Schultz, that he received them on or before January 10 and that these checks were deposited in the USCF's bank account and cleared. It is entirely possible that there is a good explanation as to why these checks do not show up in the general ledger. However, no explanation has yet been offered and I am still waiting to hear it. Even if there is a good explanation, I would also like to hear an explanation as to why these three insider candidates were treated differently from the other six candidates, as checks from the other six candidates do appear in the general ledger. Randy Bauer wrote in rec.games.chess.politics that since his check would not reach the USCF Secretary on time, he had called Judy Misner and she had said that she would take care of it. The general ledger shows that the money was received from Bauer on January 11, 2005, which was one day late. The other issue was that the by-laws at that time stated that the money must be mailed to the Secretary, who was Don Schultz in Florida. This by-law has since been revised. However, the December 2004 issue of Chess Life had mistakenly stated that the check for $250 could be mailed to either the Secretary or to the USCF Office. I think that the office was still in New Windsor, but I am not sure. You can find the April, 2005 debate over these issues on rec.games.chess.politics by searching "Statementgate". There is still no answer to the question of, if these checks for $250 were mailed, why were not these checks deposited in the bank account and why do they not show up in the general ledger. Incidentally, Wayne Praeder filed an ethics complaint against this procedure a few months later and got it changed. Sam Sloan
Back to top
Vince Hart 12685294 Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 66	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:01 pm    Post subject: [quote="samsloan] Thus, it is insufficient merely to show "copies of checks received from Steve Shutt, Robert Tanner, and George John in the amount of $250 each". It is necessary to show in addition that these checks were mailed to Don Schultz, that he received them on or before January 10 and that these checks were deposited in the USCF's bank account and cleared. Sam Sloan[/quote] You alleged the filing fees were not paid. Why is it necessary to show anything in addition to the checks? Why should anybody be obligated to guess what your next baseless accusation is going to be?
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:04 pm    Post subject: So, Mr. Sloan has decided to ignore the moderators request. His false statement about the three candidates is STILL THERE even though he has acknowledged that the USCF had copies of the checks showing that the candidates DID pay. Is any action going to be taken against him? He says this doesn't answer all the questions! When will all his questions EVER be answered? So what if there are more questions, HE STILL KNOWS HIS STATEMENT THAT STARTED THIS THREAD MADE A FALSE ACCUSATION! Why hasn't he corrected it? Instead he brings up yet another matter -- an ethics complaint that was settled months ago. Why bring that up now? I notice he doesn't bother to identify the PERSON named in the complaint OR the OUTCOME of that complaint (the ethics committee voted in favor of the "defendant", didn't they?). Do they not serve your purpose, Mr. Sloan? It's funny that Mr. Sloan would say I spend all my time attacking HIM. Is that supposed to excuse HIS behavior? He made that claim against me once before and had it thoroughly refuted by several others. Since then, I've spent a far larger amount of my time than I'd like dealing with Mr. Sloan and his consistent violations of the rules. Did Mr. Sloan anticipate this and try for a "preemptive strike"? Or would this be giving him too much credit -- after all he's attacked just about everybody else also. Mr. Sloan, please edit your original post. You've been notified that the candidates in question really did pay their fees. When and how this was recorded in the general ledger has NOTHING to do with those candidates: they weren't in the office, they weren't in charge of recording payments, they didn't have the responsibility for deposting the checks. As has been noted previously, payment by CHECK wasn't even required -- it simply had to be "payable to the USCF". Why should we be wasting time on this issue? Mr. Sloan clearly wanted to damage the reputations of these candidates -- was he worried about having to face them in the next election? I guess he simply decided to start his dirty politics and mud-slinging a little early for this election. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:37 pm    Post subject: samsloan wrote: "The election rules in 2005 stated that a check for the $250 filing fee plus a petition containing the signatures of 30 USCF voting members must be received by the USCF Secretary (who was Don Schultz at the time) by the filing deadline, which was January 10, 2005." "The other issue was that the by-laws at that time stated that the money must be mailed to the Secretary, who was Don Schultz in Florida. This by-law has since been revised. However, the December 2004 issue of Chess Life had mistakenly stated that the check for $250 could be mailed to either the Secretary or to the USCF Office. I think that the office was still in New Windsor, but I am not sure." These two statements contradict one another. The second is clearly false. The Bylaws at the time required only "submission to" the Secretary, with no mention of how it should be sent. Sam, are you really under the delusion that no one will look these things up?   samsloan wrote: Even if there is a good explanation, I would also like to hear an explanation as to why these three insider candidates were treated differently from the other six candidates, as checks from the other six candidates do appear in the general ledger. Those "three insider candidates" were on opposite sides of a bitter election campaign. Your definition of "insider" seems to be "everyone except you." I suppose that's fair, since no sane person would tolerate your presence inside a tent of any size. _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:58 pm    Post subject: It was you Tanstaafl who restarted this thread, which is why "we are wasting time on it." Bill Hall was not yet working for the USCF in January 2005. He did not start until six months later. Thus, he has no personal knowledge of the facts. The CFO of the USCF in January 2005 was Grant Perks. We now know what his opinion is worth. Knowing when or if the checks for $250 were received by the USCF and when or if they were deposited in the bank is of paramount importance to this issue. Everybody knows that if I had been one day late in paying my filing fee, I would not have been certified as a candidate. Just to double check, have again today done a thorough search of the records. There is no record of a transaction of any kind involving George John (I still would like to know what his real name is). There are large payments involving thousands of dollars to Robert Tanner but no money received from him. There are mysterious transactions involving Steve Shutt for $182.30 but this obviously had nothing to do with the election. Sam Sloan
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:34 pm    Post subject: samsloan wrote: It was you Tanstaafl who restarted this thread, which is why "we are wasting time on it." ...Sam Sloan No, Mr. Sloan, your false charges are why we are "wasting time". You now know that your original statement was false. Yet you refuse to retract or correct your original charges. We know now that the original charges were false. He refuses to change his original post with these false charges. Does Mr. Sloan's continued refusal constitute legal malice? It certainly DOES constitute a violation of the forum rules. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
SteveTN 12467003 Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 176 Location: Nashville, TN	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:25 pm    Post subject: samsloan wrote: It was you Tanstaafl who restarted this thread, which is why "we are wasting time on it." Bill Hall was not yet working for the USCF in January 2005. He did not start until six months later. Thus, he has no personal knowledge of the facts. The CFO of the USCF in January 2005 was Grant Perks. We now know what his opinion is worth. Knowing when or if the checks for $250 were received by the USCF and when or if they were deposited in the bank is of paramount importance to this issue. Everybody knows that if I had been one day late in paying my filing fee, I would not have been certified as a candidate. Just to double check, have again today done a thorough search of the records. There is no record of a transaction of any kind involving George John (I still would like to know what his real name is). There are large payments involving thousands of dollars to Robert Tanner but no money received from him. There are mysterious transactions involving Steve Shutt for $182.30 but this obviously had nothing to do with the election. Sam Sloan MODERATOR, please note: -Sam Sloan made baseless charges regarding USCF members. -Several USCF officials have refuted these charges. -Sam Sloan has again made these BASELESS charges with FULL KNOWLEDGE that they are FALSE (as USCF officials have refuted them). If refusing to retract false charges and then again stating the falsehoods are not against Forum policy... THEN WHAT IS? _________________ Steve OWENS in Tennessee Just a USCF Member It is time to GROSS
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:31 pm    Post subject: it seems to me that Sam Sloan's response was similar to Hal Bogner's response, both of them disputing the claim that their posts were in violation of the Forum guidelines. Shouldn't they both get similar treatment? (The third person did modify his post.)
Back to top
ChessPromotion 12123950 Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 332 Location: Forest Hills, NY	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:38 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: it seems to me that Sam Sloan's response was similar to Hal Bogner's response, both of them disputing the claim that their posts were in violation of the Forum guidelines. Shouldn't they both get similar treatment? (The third person did modify his post.) Speechless! _________________ Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!
Back to top
SteveTN 12467003 Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 176 Location: Nashville, TN	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:38 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: it seems to me that Sam Sloan's response was similar to Hal Bogner's response, both of them disputing the claim that their posts were in violation of the Forum guidelines. Shouldn't they both get similar treatment? (The third person did modify his post.) If both made baseless charges and have had them refuted by USCF officials, why aren't both made to retract them or face penalties? Why do we have to abide by the rules and Sam Sloan does not? Also, where else on these forums has Bogner made false claims about USCF members and officials as has Sam Sloan? Why do you equate their behavior when Sam has shown he makes false charges on a serial basis and Bogner has not? _________________ Steve OWENS in Tennessee Just a USCF Member It is time to GROSS
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:47 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: it seems to me that Sam Sloan's response was similar to Hal Bogner's response, both of them disputing the claim that their posts were in violation of the Forum guidelines. Shouldn't they both get similar treatment? (The third person did modify his post.) Mike, I'm not sure you are correct. In Mr. Sloan's original post he said:   samsloan wrote: ... Therefore, at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee, one of whom was elected. ... I am convinced (partially by statements from you, Mike) that this statement is simply and clearly FALSE. Now Mr. Sloan says: samsloan wrote: Thus, it is insufficient merely to show "copies of checks received from Steve Shutt, Robert Tanner, and George John in the amount of $250 each". It is necessary to show in addition that these checks were mailed to Don Schultz, that he received them on or before January 10 and that these checks were deposited in the USCF's bank account and cleared. ... Even IF you allow that there is some merit in this statement (I don't), Mr. Sloan's original statement IS STILL FALSE. It doesn't affect the truth of Mr. Sloan's original statement whether the payment was received on-time, by Don Schultz, or deposited in the USCF's bank account. He SAID the payment had never been made. This is now known to be a FALSE statement. Enforce the rules. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:05 am    Post subject: Rodney, you like procedure so much, so what specific disciplinary procedures should be followed, and what due process rights do forum members have?

Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:22 am    Post subject: joelchanning wrote: samsloan wrote: [snip snip] There might be a perfectly valid explanation for this. On the other hand, it might be that the checks arrived late and therefore were not deposited. So, I am waiting for an answer. I have been waiting for several weeks now, and thus far no answer has been forthcoming. Sam Sloan Here Sam demonstrates his excellent investigative ability. It is what I was hoping would be his unique contribution to the Board. Me too. He's careful not to direct accusations at the three individuals whose filing fee he questions (read what he says above), so I can't see the reputational issue that's at stake. I'll admit that calling them "insiders" and calling this a "bigger scandal" was a bit over-the-top, but those characterizations aren't going to destroy reputations either. (Sam, you really don't have to exaggerate like this to be effective.) Only one of the three candidates got elected, and I think it's safe to say that this is not the issue that that EB member needs to worry about, from the viewpoint of his reputation at large.   joelchanning wrote: Nevertheless, the Standards of Conduct require that such questions be asked confidentially within the context of the board since they can create a toxic environment wherein innocent people may be hurt. The Standards are posted here: http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/conduct.html Which provision do you cite?
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:13 am    Post subject: For everyone else on these forums, we couldn't say that somebody had done something wrong -- like running for office without paying the filing fee -- unless WE had the proof. We'd see a note from the moderator demanding that we retract our statement. Mr. Sloan thinks he can post anything he likes unless WE can prove he's wrong! THIS ISN'T FAIR. He is using his position on the EB to allow him to continually libel other people. I'm tired of it. Artichoke, you seem willing to admit that only the MOST outrageous statements are libel. I believe you are clearly wrong. Saying that a candidate for office didn't follow the rules when he ran IS libel unless you have proof. Mr. Sloan DOESN'T. In fact, there's strong proof that the payments were made -- the office still has copies of the checks. What happened to the checks AFTER they were received by the office, why they don't show up the way Mr. Sloan expects them to in the General Ledger, is a completely separate matter from WHETHER THEY WERE PAID. Mr. Sloan's intention, from his choice of words, clearly demonstrates that his INTENTION was to cause harm to the reputations of those three people. You should be ashamed for supporting him in this OBVIOUS attempt at character assassination. But if you want an example that CLEARLY constitues libel, by ANY definition, how about what Mr. Sloan is publishing (using the USCF Forums) about Jay Sabine and this unnamed group of students? THESE STATEMENTS ARE STILL BEING PUBLISHED WITHOUT EDITING BY MR. SLOAN. He's still having these statements published, even though HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THEY ARE FALSE! _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:17 am    Post subject: artichoke wrote: He's careful not to direct accusations at the three individuals whose filing fee he questions (read what he says above), so I can't see the reputational issue that's at stake. ... Artichoke, this statement is FALSE. In this ONE POST that you've quoted, you may claim that he isn't directing an accusation. But he clearly IS doing that in the first post in this thread. That is the post the moderator demanded that Mr. Sloan edit. That is the post that Mr. Sloan refused to edit even though he knows it contains false statements about these three individuals. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:46 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: artichoke wrote: He's careful not to direct accusations at the three individuals whose filing fee he questions (read what he says above), so I can't see the reputational issue that's at stake. ... Artichoke, this statement is FALSE. In this ONE POST that you've quoted, you may claim that he isn't directing an accusation. But he clearly IS doing that in the first post in this thread. That is the post the moderator demanded that Mr. Sloan edit. That is the post that Mr. Sloan refused to edit even though he knows it contains false statements about these three individuals. Forgive me, but I don't see the false statement.
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:00 pm    Post subject: Quote: Forgive me, but I don't see the false statement. And THAT is what makes it difficult to draw precise lines as to what is and what is not acceptable!

tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:40 pm    Post subject: I thought I had made it perfectly clear what was false about Artichoke's statement. He claims that Mr. Sloan doesn't direct accusations at the three individuals. I pointed out that Mr. Sloan did, in fact, do just that in the first post in this thread. Artichoke quoted ONE post to prove his point, but IGNORED the post that Mr. Sloan had been instructed to correct. If that's STILL not clear, then I suggest you actually LOOK at that post. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
SteveTN 12467003 Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 176 Location: Nashville, TN	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:02 pm    Post subject: samsloan wrote: SteveTN wrote: samsloan wrote: SteveTN wrote: Either Sam broke the rules when he made false claims or he didn't. Which is it? Kindly tell us what proof you have seen, because I have not seen any. Sam Sloan Kindly read the BINFOs from the ED and the previous posts by Nolan in this thread.   That is not what I asked you. You are telling me that I should go read some stuff. I asked you what proof you have seen.   No, you did not ask me anything. There was a period at the end of your sentence. Yes, I am telling you to read what the ED has written directly to the EB regarding this matter (some stuff, indeed). To Wit:   BINFO #200604042 wrote: To the Executive Board: Judy just brought me copies of checks received from Steve Shutt, Robert Tanner, and George John in the amount of $250 each. These are the filing fees for the 2005 EB Election. Regards, Bill Hall Executive Director     samsloan wrote: You apparently have not seen any proof. Also, you have mis-quoted the ED.   I had not quoted him at all before this post. Now I have quoted him. In this quote he states that he has checks from Shutt, Tanner, and John for their filing fees. Either you are lying now or you are saying the ED lied. Which is it?   samsloan wrote: In this list, there is no check from Robert Tanner or from George John or from Steve Shutt. Thus, it appears that these checks, assuming that they exist, were not deposited in the bank. By contrast, checks from the other six candidates were deposited in the bank.   Either you are lying now or you are saying the ED lied. Which is it? _________________ Steve OWENS in Tennessee Just a USCF Member It is time to GROSS
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:07 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: artichoke wrote: He's careful not to direct accusations at the three individuals whose filing fee he questions (read what he says above), so I can't see the reputational issue that's at stake. ... Artichoke, this statement is FALSE. In this ONE POST that you've quoted, you may claim that he isn't directing an accusation. But he clearly IS doing that in the first post in this thread. That is the post the moderator demanded that Mr. Sloan edit. That is the post that Mr. Sloan refused to edit even though he knows it contains false statements about these three individuals.   tanstaafl wrote: I thought I had made it perfectly clear what was false about Artichoke's statement. He claims that Mr. Sloan doesn't direct accusations at the three individuals. I pointed out that Mr. Sloan did, in fact, do just that in the first post in this thread. Artichoke quoted ONE post to prove his point, but IGNORED the post that Mr. Sloan had been instructed to correct. If that's STILL not clear, then I suggest you actually LOOK at that post. You are somewhat right. Sam did come close to directing accusations in the first post of the thread by asserting that the three people apparently didn't pay their filing fee or that for some reason the money didn't get paid in to the USCF. (My post made a particular reference to a different post, which did not contain those accusations, but the first post was not excluded. The first post says that not all the filing fees were paid but does not say it was due to the fault of any of the three.) Nevertheless, I believe that just about all of us regular posters have made accusations. I hereby accuse you, tanstaafl, of having made accusations.
Back to top
wzim 11315844 Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 227 Location: Peoria, Il	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:41 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: For everyone else on these forums, we couldn't say that somebody had done something wrong -- like running for office without paying the filing fee -- unless WE had the proof. We'd see a note from the moderator demanding that we retract our statement. Mr. Sloan thinks he can post anything he likes unless WE can prove he's wrong! THIS ISN'T FAIR. He is using his position on the EB to allow him to continually libel other people. I'm tired of it. Artichoke, you seem willing to admit that only the MOST outrageous statements are libel. I believe you are clearly wrong. Saying that a candidate for office didn't follow the rules when he ran IS libel unless you have proof. Mr. Sloan DOESN'T. In fact, there's strong proof that the payments were made -- the office still has copies of the checks. What happened to the checks AFTER they were received by the office, why they don't show up the way Mr. Sloan expects them to in the General Ledger, is a completely separate matter from WHETHER THEY WERE PAID. Mr. Sloan's intention, from his choice of words, clearly demonstrates that his INTENTION was to cause harm to the reputations of those three people. You should be ashamed for supporting him in this OBVIOUS attempt at character assassination. But if you want an example that CLEARLY constitues libel, by ANY definition, how about what Mr. Sloan is publishing (using the USCF Forums) about Jay Sabine and this unnamed group of students? THESE STATEMENTS ARE STILL BEING PUBLISHED WITHOUT EDITING BY MR. SLOAN. He's still having these statements published, even though HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THEY ARE FALSE! "....I have since been asking around trying to find out how this could possibly have happened. The best explanation that I can come up with thus far is that after the vote by the old USCF board to move from New Windsor, New York to Crossville, Tennessee, it was discovered that the USCF did not have the money to hire professional movers to move all the old archives and financial records from the New Windsor offices to Crossville. As a result, a team of high school students led by Jay Sabine, son of Harry Sabine, former USCF Vice-President and the architect of the move to Crossville, was dispatched to New York to move all the stuff. Upon arriving in New Windsor, they found that the quantity of material that they were expected to move was huge, far greater than they had anticipated.... " This is part of the original post that you are claiming that Sam should delete or change. I would read the part that says The best explanation that I can come up with thus far as simply Sam's conjecture, not as a blanket statement of fact. I read everyone's stuff (except for Mike Nolan and maybe Tim Just) here as there opinion.
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:52 pm    Post subject: I have been known to post an opinion or two.
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:09 pm    Post subject: wzim wrote: ...I would read the part that says The best explanation that I can come up with thus far as simply Sam's conjecture, not as a blanket statement of fact. ...I read everyone's stuff (except for Mike Nolan and maybe Tim Just) here as there opinion. Even Mr. Sloan must have thought there was something wrong with what he had written. samsloan wrote: Apology to ... I wish to apologize to USCF staff member ... for in any way stating, implying or suggesting that he ... was in any way involved in moving the USCF records from New Windsor New York to Crossville Tennessee or in the possible loss or dumping of the records. I complimented Mr. Sloan on making the postive step of issuing this appology. But WHY is the original post still being published, still harming the good names of so many people? Why didn't Mr. Sloan appologize to the OTHER people he mentioned in his post? In the first post in this thread Mr. Sloan says samsloan wrote: ...at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee... Now, Mr. Sloan can question what was done with the payment, why he doesn't see it recorded, etc. BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT, since the USCF office has copies of the checks, THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE. It is clear that the candidates did what they were supposed to have done, but Mr. Sloan insists on posting a statement that says differently. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
wzim 11315844 Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 227 Location: Peoria, Il	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:22 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: In the first post in this thread Mr. Sloan says samsloan wrote: ...at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee... Now, Mr. Sloan can question what was done with the payment, why he doesn't see it recorded, etc. BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT, since the USCF office has copies of the checks, THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE. It is clear that the candidates did what they were supposed to have done, but Mr. Sloan insists on posting a statement that says differently. Again I think you are reading more into this. I would also highlight the word possibly. Isn't Sam simply saying possibly as many as three canidates did not pay? That doesn't imply to me that he is saying that three canidates did not pay.
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:30 pm    Post subject: wzim wrote: ...Again I think you are reading more into this. I would also highlight the word possibly. Isn't Sam simply saying possibly as many as three canidates did not pay? That doesn't imply to me that he is saying that three canidates did not pay. He said "at least one". We now know that the office received checks from ALL THREE. So his statement about "at least one and possibly all three..." is now known to be false. Come on, this isn't difficult. Mr. Sloan posted something that has subsequently been shown to be incorrect. The moderator asked him to correct his post. He has refused. His original post is CLEARLY an attempt to bash the reputations of the the three individuals. That's why he used the term "scandal". We now know that all three people did what they were supposed to have done and sent the USCF a check. Even IF Mr. Sloan's original comment were a simple mistake, his subsequent refusal to correct the mistake (when presented with the facts) amounts to an INTENTIONAL slur on these three people. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:46 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: wzim wrote: ...Again I think you are reading more into this. I would also highlight the word possibly. Isn't Sam simply saying possibly as many as three canidates did not pay? That doesn't imply to me that he is saying that three canidates did not pay. He said "at least one". We now know that the office received checks from ALL THREE. So his statement about "at least one and possibly all three..." is now known to be false. Come on, this isn't difficult. Mr. Sloan posted something that has subsequently been shown to be incorrect. The moderator asked him to correct his post. He has refused. His original post is CLEARLY an attempt to bash the reputations of the the three individuals. That's why he used the term "scandal". We now know that all three people did what they were supposed to have done and sent the USCF a check. Even IF Mr. Sloan's original comment were a simple mistake, his subsequent refusal to correct the mistake (when presented with the facts) amounts to an INTENTIONAL slur on these three people. Oh come on tanstaafl, it's not very much of a slur. Maybe it qualifies as a legato. It's not clear to me that Sloan really cares about bashing those three people with this wet noodle of a charge -- although the possibility cannot be disproved either. At this point he might just be provoking you! And it is clear is that you are intentionally bashing Mr. Sloan with this repeated ... stuff.
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:52 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: I have been known to post an opinion or two. Indeed you have Mike, and so I hereby accuse you too!
Back to top
Grant Perks 11020607 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 573 Location: Miami, FL	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:55 pm    Post subject: samsloan wrote: In this list, there is no check from Robert Tanner or from George John or from Steve Shutt. Thus, it appears that these checks, assuming that they exist, were not deposited in the bank. By contrast, checks from the other six candidates were deposited in the bank.   They all paid with a bank card, which shows in the journal entry dated 1/31/05. The debit was to cash and the credit to executive board expense.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:31 pm    Post subject: GrantPerks wrote: samsloan wrote: In this list, there is no check from Robert Tanner or from George John or from Steve Shutt. Thus, it appears that these checks, assuming that they exist, were not deposited in the bank. By contrast, checks from the other six candidates were deposited in the bank.   They all paid with a bank card, which shows in the journal entry dated 1/31/05. The debit was to cash and the credit to executive board expense. The plot thickens. This contradicts the previous statement that they all paid by check. Which one is true? Sam Sloan
Back to top
Grant Perks 11020607 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 573 Location: Miami, FL	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Something other than the plot has gotten thickened. From Mike Nolan's post earlier in this thread:   nolan wrote: As I recall, several of the candidate fees in the 2005 election were paid by credit card. These would have been 'manual' charges through the USCF's credit card terminal, I'm not sure exactly how they would have been posted to the general ledger, but I doubt they'd be discrete transactions, probably just mixed in with 'miscellaneous income' entries. More detailed tracking of credit card transactions, including the 'manual' ones, is one of the goals of the new cash receipts tracking system. The first phase of this went into use in late October.
Back to top
Jim Flesher 20056161 Joined: 25 Jun 2006 Posts: 30 Location: Weston, WV	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:41 pm    Post subject: GrantPerks wrote: Something other than the plot has gotten thickened. From Mike Nolan's post earlier in this thread:   nolan wrote: As I recall, several of the candidate fees in the 2005 election were paid by credit card. These would have been 'manual' charges through the USCF's credit card terminal, I'm not sure exactly how they would have been posted to the general ledger, but I doubt they'd be discrete transactions, probably just mixed in with 'miscellaneous income' entries. More detailed tracking of credit card transactions, including the 'manual' ones, is one of the goals of the new cash receipts tracking system. The first phase of this went into use in late October. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm with Sam on this one. The quote from the binfo was as follows. BINFO #200604042 wrote: To the Executive Board: Judy just brought me copies of checks received from Steve Shutt, Robert Tanner, and George John in the amount of $250 each. These are the filing fees for the 2005 EB Election. Regards, Bill Hall Executive Director ... end of quote from binfo. So this begs the question ... Were they in fact paid by check or were they paid by credit card? Possibly the ED meant he had copies of receipts. Regards Jim _________________ James A Flesher USCF ID: 20056161
Back to top
Randy Bauer 10320372 Joined: 09 Mar 2004 Posts: 217 Location: Urbandale, Iowa	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:43 pm    Post subject: wzim wrote: tanstaafl wrote: For everyone else on these forums, we couldn't say that somebody had done something wrong -- like running for office without paying the filing fee -- unless WE had the proof. We'd see a note from the moderator demanding that we retract our statement. Mr. Sloan thinks he can post anything he likes unless WE can prove he's wrong! THIS ISN'T FAIR. He is using his position on the EB to allow him to continually libel other people. I'm tired of it. Artichoke, you seem willing to admit that only the MOST outrageous statements are libel. I believe you are clearly wrong. Saying that a candidate for office didn't follow the rules when he ran IS libel unless you have proof. Mr. Sloan DOESN'T. In fact, there's strong proof that the payments were made -- the office still has copies of the checks. What happened to the checks AFTER they were received by the office, why they don't show up the way Mr. Sloan expects them to in the General Ledger, is a completely separate matter from WHETHER THEY WERE PAID. Mr. Sloan's intention, from his choice of words, clearly demonstrates that his INTENTION was to cause harm to the reputations of those three people. You should be ashamed for supporting him in this OBVIOUS attempt at character assassination. But if you want an example that CLEARLY constitues libel, by ANY definition, how about what Mr. Sloan is publishing (using the USCF Forums) about Jay Sabine and this unnamed group of students? THESE STATEMENTS ARE STILL BEING PUBLISHED WITHOUT EDITING BY MR. SLOAN. He's still having these statements published, even though HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THEY ARE FALSE! "....I have since been asking around trying to find out how this could possibly have happened. The best explanation that I can come up with thus far is that after the vote by the old USCF board to move from New Windsor, New York to Crossville, Tennessee, it was discovered that the USCF did not have the money to hire professional movers to move all the old archives and financial records from the New Windsor offices to Crossville. As a result, a team of high school students led by Jay Sabine, son of Harry Sabine, former USCF Vice-President and the architect of the move to Crossville, was dispatched to New York to move all the stuff. Upon arriving in New Windsor, they found that the quantity of material that they were expected to move was huge, far greater than they had anticipated.... " This is part of the original post that you are claiming that Sam should delete or change. I would read the part that says The best explanation that I can come up with thus far as simply Sam's conjecture, not as a blanket statement of fact. I read everyone's stuff (except for Mike Nolan and maybe Tim Just) here as there opinion. So, if someone would write that "I have been asking around, and the best I can come up with is that WZIM is a liar and a thief who stole his parent's and children's money" that would be ok, because it was qualified as conjecture? I've been an object of Sloan's "conjecture" in the past, and it doesn't seem nearly so abstract when it is directed at specific people. _________________ Randy Bauer

tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:45 pm    Post subject: Or maybe they were entered in the General Ledger in an unusual way that made Grant think they were credit card payments. Either way, it'd be nice to know this for certain so that we could go on to more productive matters -- which would be almost anything since this seems to be a complete waste of time. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
Grant Perks 11020607 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 573 Location: Miami, FL	Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:45 pm    Post subject: I guess I was a bit preoccupied with watching the USC Notre Dame game when I researched the question. While the journal entry was posted on January 31, 2005, it isn't necessarily true that the monies were received in the form of bank card payments. Therefore, the 'missing' $750 that was recorded by this journal entry as being paid could have been in the form of bank drafts, as confirmed by the ED. Either case, the filing fees were paid for all candidates as evidenced by the general ledger.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 6:29 am    Post subject: GrantPerks wrote: I guess I was a bit preoccupied with watching the USC Notre Dame game when I researched the question. While the journal entry was posted on January 31, 2005, it isn't necessarily true that the monies were received in the form of bank card payments. Therefore, the 'missing' $750 that was recorded by this journal entry as being paid could have been in the form of bank drafts, as confirmed by the ED. Either case, the filing fees were paid for all candidates as evidenced by the general ledger. Could you please tell me where in the general ledger this payment of $750 is recorded, because I have searched and I can find no such payment or journal entry? Sam Sloan
Back to top
Grant Perks 11020607 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 573 Location: Miami, FL	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:09 am    Post subject: The journal entry is listed as 'access for january'. The debit is to account 111100 'cash' on January 31, 2005 in the amount of $97,094.28. The credit is to account 970000 'executive board' in the amount of $750.00. The payments for the other five candidates are all listed individually as debits to the 111100 account and credits to 472001 'other income'.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:30 am    Post subject: If Grant Perks is right, and Bill Hall did not actually see copies of the checks because no such checks exist, then I think we have a problem. Sam Sloan
Back to top
Grant Perks 11020607 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 573 Location: Miami, FL	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:38 am    Post subject: samsloan wrote: If Grant Perks is right, and Bill Hall did not actually see copies of the checks because no such checks exist, then I think we have a problem. Sam Sloan Sam, as I stated above, the checks or drafts could have been part of the cash as reported by the journal entry. Therefore the copies of the checks could exist.
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:07 am    Post subject: If the checks cannot be found this way, is there any other way of determining for sure whether the money was paid in to the USCF? This isn't my area of expertise, but it seems he's asking the sort of question that should have an answer. Suppose, instead of $750, we were talking about $10,000 : would it be recorded differently? Or maybe we just have to wait for Pat Knight to look it up this week.
Back to top
Randy Bauer 10320372 Joined: 09 Mar 2004 Posts: 217 Location: Urbandale, Iowa	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:48 am    Post subject: artichoke wrote: If the checks cannot be found this way, is there any other way of determining for sure whether the money was paid in to the USCF? This isn't my area of expertise, but it seems he's asking the sort of question that should have an answer. Suppose, instead of $750, we were talking about $10,000 : would it be recorded differently? Or maybe we just have to wait for Pat Knight to look it up this week. My guess is that yes, there is an answer and yes, it can be determined to just about anybody's satisfaction. The question is, at what cost? Keep in mind, it would be hard for Sam to suggest I'm just part of the conspiracy, since he has noted that they cashed my $250 check for my filing fee for the election in question. Should the USCF office be expected to spend a hour, two hours, several hours to hunt down the answer to a question that seems to have very little bearing on the organization, its mission, and the services it provides to the average dues paying member? There are only so many productive staff hours in a day, and satisfying Sam Sloan's abundant curiosity about this and no doubt a score of other conspiracy theories he holds will have an opportunity cost. Is it really worth it? _________________ Randy Bauer
Back to top
wzim 11315844 Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 227 Location: Peoria, Il	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:54 pm    Post subject: Randy Bauer wrote: So, if someone would write that "I have been asking around, and the best I can come up with is that WZIM is a liar and a thief who stole his parent's and children's money" that would be ok, because it was qualified as conjecture? I've been an object of Sloan's "conjecture" in the past, and it doesn't seem nearly so abstract when it is directed at specific people. Yes I agree that there is a certain amount of truth to what you are saying. And I wish I had a better answer or solution to offer. But I think wholesale banning and or deleting of posts is the wrong way to go. Some here feel that Mike is playing favorites or simply afraid to censor Sam Sloan. But if you look at the record I can only think of one or two people that have been outright banned since the forum as existed. I've thought of several methods to make moderating the forum more consistant and fair and every method that I've thought of have drawbacks. And even if someone is banned from here what is to keep him or her from posting their views elsewhere? And for the record, I didn't vote for Sam Sloan and have no intention of voting for him in the future.
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:12 pm    Post subject: Randy Bauer wrote: I've been an object of Sloan's "conjecture" in the past, and it doesn't seem nearly so abstract when it is directed at specific people. Can you point me to the thread? Thanks.
Back to top
DACP 12447542 Joined: 27 May 2005 Posts: 175 Location: Massachusetts	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:43 pm    Post subject: This is the sort of thread that makes me crazy. I do not have enough hours in the day, yet everyone here does? Facts below: Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:28 am Post subject: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Files However, the following candidates appear not to have paid the required $250 fee: Robert Tanner George John Steve Shutt … Therefore, at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee, one of whom was elected. Kindly investigate this. Sam Sloan BINFO 200604042 – 11/13/06 Judy just brought me copies of checks received from Steve Shutt, Robert Tanner, and George John in the amount of $250 each. These are the filing fees for the 2005 EB Election. Regards, Bill Hall Executive Director Note the date of the post from Sam and the date of the reply from the ED. Instead of discussing here, Mr. Sloan please ask the ED to simply send you copies of those checks Mr. Hall says he received on November 13. Everyone else who would like a copy of them, please do same. If Mr. Hall cannot produce the copies, then Mr. Sloan, please take that issue up with the Executive Board. That is the appropriate place to discuss such an issue - not here. Also, the statement that: "Therefore, at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee, one of whom was elected." is an accusation without proof. This is the sort of statement that could possibly cost the USCF money in a character assination lawsuit and is the type of statement that an Executive Board member absolutely should not be making in a public forum - it is an unnecessary legal liablity risk and totally unprofessional. As a USCF member, I expect more from my Executive Board. When I look at the amount of time, energy, and animosity created in this thread all I can think of is how much better off we all would be if that same time and energy was devoted to promoting chess in some fashion. _________________ Donna Alarie Chesspals, Inc.
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:02 pm    Post subject: Donna, I don't think I'd want the ED sending out copies of any checks I have sent to the USCF, maybe you're less worried about privacy than I am.
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:14 pm    Post subject: nolan wrote: Donna, I don't think I'd want the ED sending out copies of any checks I have sent to the USCF, maybe you're less worried about privacy than I am. Bill Hall says they have copies of the checks. Grant Perks has told Mr. Sloan where to find the entries in the General Ledger. THAT'S ALL THE INFORMATION MR. SLOAN SHOULD BE GIVEN. As Mike noted, Mr. Sloan (nor anyone else) should be allowed to see the actual copies of the checks. He would be able to see account numbers and other confidential information if he were allowed to see the checks. He's been given all the information he's entitled to see. I would strongly object to him being given access to the check copies. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: tanstaafl wrote: nolan wrote: Donna, I don't think I'd want the ED sending out copies of any checks I have sent to the USCF, maybe you're less worried about privacy than I am. Bill Hall says they have copies of the checks. Grant Perks has told Mr. Sloan where to find the entries in the General Ledger. THAT'S ALL THE INFORMATION MR. SLOAN SHOULD BE GIVEN. I do not believe that Grant Perks told me that but, if he did, he is wrong, because it is not there. Sam Sloan
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:38 pm    Post subject: DACP wrote: Instead of discussing here, Mr. Sloan please ask the ED to simply send you copies of those checks Mr. Hall says he received on November 13. Everyone else who would like a copy of them, please do same. If Mr. Hall cannot produce the copies, then Mr. Sloan, please take that issue up with the Executive Board. That is the appropriate place to discuss such an issue - not here. Of course, I did take it up with the ED. Tanstaafl copies it from the private board BINFOS and posted it here. That is how it got over here.

DACP 12447542 Joined: 27 May 2005 Posts: 175 Location: Massachusetts	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:03 pm    Post subject: Okay, Mike your point is well taken. I'll stand corrected, Mr. Hall can send redacted copies of checks with account information and address information and bank information blotted out if you will. In essence an Executive Board member questions whether the Executive Director has copies of checks which the ED states that he has in hand. It would seem simple enough for the ED to show 50% of the check to the EB member to prove he really does have a copy of a check in hand and to show where it is deposited in the records. If the ED has lied about having checks in hand, that is an issue. If the EB member has accused without foundation, that is an issue. In the first case, that issue would be dealt with between the EB and the ED directly as the EB has oversight of the ED. Taking the issue up here is not the place for it. Mr. Sloan as far as your comment goes, you are the one who started this thread with an accusation. It would be much better business practice to find out the facts first, before making any accusations. You have the power to make motions through the board to get the proof you want in hand. We have proper procedures in place. Now would be a good time to start using them. _________________ Donna Alarie Chesspals, Inc.
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:26 pm    Post subject: On Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 4:35 pm samsloan wrote: tanstaafl wrote: ...Grant Perks has told Mr. Sloan where to find the entries in the General Ledger. THAT'S ALL THE INFORMATION MR. SLOAN SHOULD BE GIVEN. I do not believe that Grant Perks told me that but, if he did, he is wrong, because it is not there. Sam Sloan Let me see if I can help here. On Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 6:29 am samsloan wrote: GrantPerks wrote: I guess I was a bit preoccupied with watching the USC Notre Dame game when I researched the question. While the journal entry was posted on January 31, 2005, it isn't necessarily true that the monies were received in the form of bank card payments. Therefore, the 'missing' $750 that was recorded by this journal entry as being paid could have been in the form of bank drafts, as confirmed by the ED. Either case, the filing fees were paid for all candidates as evidenced by the general ledger. Could you please tell me where in the general ledger this payment of $750 is recorded, because I have searched and I can find no such payment or journal entry? Sam Sloan The reply was very quick:   On Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 7:09 am GrantPerks wrote: The journal entry is listed as 'access for january'. The debit is to account 111100 'cash' on January 31, 2005 in the amount of $97,094.28. The credit is to account 970000 'executive board' in the amount of $750.00. The payments for the other five candidates are all listed individually as debits to the 111100 account and credits to 472001 'other income'. Now, Mr. Sloan, do you acknowledge that you have received the information or are you going to continue to deny it? _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:47 pm    Post subject: Sorry, but no. There is no entry for $750.00 to the Executive Board on January 31, 2005. The 111100 account is the general operating account for all receipts and disbursements, and is not confined to Executive Board matters. The figure of $97,094.28 is apparently the end of the month balance. Everything in thrown in there, including the kitchen sink. Grant and Tanstaafl should try to bear in mind that I have access to the records now and actually check these things. Sam Sloan
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:56 pm    Post subject: *I* DON'T have access to those records. I am simply reporting what Grant Perks posted. A post that you CLAIMED to have never seen. Between the two of you, I'm more inclined to believe Grant, but we don't have to guess about this. Either the data is there or it isn't. Somebody else with access to this data can confirm or deny it. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:04 pm    Post subject: I did not say that I had not seen what Grant Perks posted. I had seen it. However, he had not said what you said that he had said. Sam Sloan
Back to top
Grant Perks 11020607 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 573 Location: Miami, FL	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:48 pm    Post subject: samsloan wrote: Sorry, but no. There is no entry for $750.00 to the Executive Board on January 31, 2005. Yes there is an entry for $750.00. It is on page 430a of the PDF that you and I both have access to. It is a credit to account 970000, 'executive board'.   Quote: The figure of $97,094.28 is apparently the end of the month balance. Everything in thrown in there, including the kitchen sink. No it isn't the end of the month balance. The end of the month balance is on the line that following the journal entry.
Back to top
Mulfish 10510376 Joined: 29 Apr 2004 Posts: 274 Location: Atlanta GA	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject: Grant, I'm curious as to why the $750 get posted to 970000 while the other fees went to 472001? Wouldn't the same type of income normally get posted to the same account? Yes, I realize the answer may simply be that one of the two entries was misposted.
Back to top
Grant Perks 11020607 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 573 Location: Miami, FL	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:21 pm    Post subject: Mulfish wrote: Grant, I'm curious as to why the $750 get posted to 970000 while the other fees went to 472001? Wouldn't the same type of income normally get posted to the same account? Yes, I realize the answer may simply be that one of the two entries was misposted. Either account is fine, and I probably could justify at least one other as well. But in the interest of consistency they should have been posted to the same account.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:30 pm    Post subject: GrantPerks wrote: samsloan wrote: Sorry, but no. There is no entry for $750.00 to the Executive Board on January 31, 2005. Yes there is an entry for $750.00. It is on page 430a of the PDF that you and I both have access to. It is a credit to account 970000, 'executive board'.   Quote: The figure of $97,094.28 is apparently the end of the month balance. Everything in thrown in there, including the kitchen sink. No it isn't the end of the month balance. The end of the month balance is on the line that following the journal entry. OK. I see the entry for $750 which is on page 859 of the document I have. However, it just says 1/31/05 ACCESS FO GENJ $750.00 There is nothing to indicate what this $750 is for. Also, it seems odd that this amount was credited to the Executive Board. These were candidate filing fees. They had not been elected to the Executive Board yet. Perhaps you just assumed that they were going to be elected. The other entries in that account were all payments to Beatriz Marinello. Since the candidate filing deadline was January 10, 2005, why were these entries made on January 31, 2005, three weeks later? Were these candidates late in paying their filing fees? Sam Sloan
Back to top
nolan 10339324 Joined: 20 Dec 2003 Posts: 3919	Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:40 am    Post subject: Perhaps they just weren't making general journal entries until the last day of the month. I think they were in the process of getting ready to move the accounting department to TN at that time, too, and I think one of the accounting clerks had already been laid off by mid-January. Do we know whether these petitions were sent to the USCF office or to the Secretary (Don Schultz)? If the latter, they might not have gotten forwarded to the USCF office right away.
Back to top
Grant Perks 11020607 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 573 Location: Miami, FL	Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:26 am    Post subject: The sales journal was kept on an access file called 'cash receipting' as I recall. Yes, it was posted to the general ledger once per month. At the time this entry would have been posted, some time in February, the New Windsor A/R employee had already been laid off and the new staff was already hired and possibly in the process of training. Again, the $750 should have been posted to the same place that the rest of the filing fees were posted, but it isn't worth an adjusting entry at quarter end nor is it worth the amount of discussion it has received in this thread.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:06 am    Post subject: GrantPerks wrote: The sales journal was kept on an access file called 'cash receipting' as I recall. Yes, it was posted to the general ledger once per month. At the time this entry would have been posted, some time in February, the New Windsor A/R employee had already been laid off and the new staff was already hired and possibly in the process of training. Again, the $750 should have been posted to the same place that the rest of the filing fees were posted, but it isn't worth an adjusting entry at quarter end nor is it worth the amount of discussion it has received in this thread. A remarkable statement by Grant Perks. If these three insider candidates, one of whom was an incumbent board member running for re-election, and the other two were approved friends-of-the-board candidates, were given an unofficial exemption and not required to pay the $250 filing fees that the other six candidates were required to pay, and were given space in Chess Life to advertise their candidacies, at great cost to the federation and its members, that certainly is a very serious matter worthy of discussion by this forum and other forums. Grant Perks admits above that these three candidates were given different treatment from the other six candidates, in that their filing fees were treated differently for accounting purposes. What else was different? We would like to know. Sam Sloan
Back to top
Mulfish 10510376 Joined: 29 Apr 2004 Posts: 274 Location: Atlanta GA	Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:29 am    Post subject: You're kidding, right? The only thing Grant "admitted" is that those three checks were posted to a different general ledger account, a point that had already been noted in previous posts. That's not "different treatment", it's merely inconsistent accounting. Someone who once worked in the financial arena would certainly understand what a GL account is. The income was merely classified differently. It was still received.
Back to top
Randy Bauer 10320372 Joined: 09 Mar 2004 Posts: 217 Location: Urbandale, Iowa	Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:36 am    Post subject: Mulfish wrote: You're kidding, right? The only thing Grant "admitted" is that those three checks were posted to a different general ledger account, a point that had already been noted in previous posts. That's not "different treatment", it's merely inconsistent accounting. Someone who once worked in the financial arena would certainly understand what a GL account is. The income was merely classified differently. It was still received. Exactly. When I was budget director for the State of Iowa, one of the biggest problems we encountered in financial reporting was inconsistant coding of expenditures -- it happens all the time, in organizations big and small. Once again, Sam concocts a tempest in a teapot, makes a mountain out of a molehill, etc., etc. Shouldn't our EB members have better things to do with their (and our) time? _________________ Randy Bauer
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:49 pm    Post subject: Randy Bauer wrote: When I was budget director for the State of Iowa, one of the biggest problems we encountered in financial reporting was inconsistant coding of expenditures -- it happens all the time, in organizations big and small. Once again, Sam concocts a tempest in a teapot, makes a mountain out of a molehill, etc., etc. Shouldn't our EB members have better things to do with their (and our) time? Well I suppose things may have been mis-coded or inconsistently coded, making it impossible to divine from the records what occurred in this case. But Sam certainly has reason to ask the questions, if the records are indecipherable and he's trying to follow the money. We cannot annul his inquiries by saying the records are indecipherable. He's shown the ability to find significant anomalies in the records, for example in the Tanner case. We should cooperate with his investigations into the financial records.

rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:59 pm    Post subject: artichoke wrote: Randy Bauer wrote: When I was budget director for the State of Iowa, one of the biggest problems we encountered in financial reporting was inconsistant coding of expenditures -- it happens all the time, in organizations big and small. Once again, Sam concocts a tempest in a teapot, makes a mountain out of a molehill, etc., etc. Shouldn't our EB members have better things to do with their (and our) time? Well I suppose things may have been mis-coded or inconsistently coded, making it impossible to divine from the records what occurred in this case. But Sam certainly has reason to ask the questions, if the records are indecipherable and he's trying to follow the money. We cannot annul his inquiries by saying the records are indecipherable. He's shown the ability to find significant anomalies in the records, for example in the Tanner case. We should cooperate with his investigations into the financial records. Aren't you grasping at straws here? Sloan's initial claim was that "insiders" had received special treatment. What he ended up with was inconsistent accounting practices in New Windsor. Hardly the same thing. Also in the Tanner affair, what Sloan originally alleged bears only the vaguest relationship to what the committee ended up with. Meanwhile, he's made half a dozen claims which are obvious nonsense (his demand for the nonexistent per diem, for example). How many times does he have to be proven wrong before you accept that's he just a loony with a loud voice? _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:10 pm    Post subject: rfeditor wrote: Aren't you grasping at straws here? No.   rfeditor wrote: Sloan's initial claim was that "insiders" had received special treatment. What he ended up with was inconsistent accounting practices in New Windsor. Hardly the same thing. The "insiders" bit was unnecessary, but the fundamental question about payment of filing fees has not yet been resolved! This is typical of his queries: they are things that should have easy answers but don't. That typically points to a weakness in the system that should be investigated and fixed. Sam has a talent for finding these things.   rfeditor wrote: Also in the Tanner affair, what Sloan originally alleged bears only the vaguest relationship to what the committee ended up with. The committee was being very nice to Mr. Tanner, imho, by saying that there was not evidence of fabricated players. They did say the events, real or imaginary, weren't consistent with proper ethical standards. "Vaguest relationship" is certainly a mis-characterization. Sam was spot-on.   rfeditor wrote: Meanwhile, he's made half a dozen claims which are obvious nonsense (his demand for the nonexistent per diem, for example). How many times does he have to be proven wrong before you accept that's he just a loony with a loud voice? It seems people are still debating when the per-diem policy was changed, which means that maybe it was not clearly enunciated. Feels to me like another of those Sam questions: it should be obvious but it isn't. Your characterization as "obvious nonsense" therefore is again inaccurate. Maybe I've missed something here, but this is what I get from what I read.
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:02 am    Post subject: rfeditor wrote: Also in the Tanner affair, what Sloan originally alleged bears only the vaguest relationship to what the committee ended up with. Would you please tell me the basis on which you make this statement? How do you know what I originally alleged? Have you seen my ethics complaint against Mr. Tanner? The reason I ask is that I have not shown my ethics complaint to anyone, except that I made one original which I sent to Pat Knight and kept one copy for myself. Still to this day I have never shown my ethics complaint to anybody, or revealed to anyone its contents. If anybody has seen my ethics complaint, they either got it from somebody in the office or somebody on the ethics committee. At this stage, now that he has been found guilty, I do think that it would be appropriate for my complaint and his answer to be made public. I am just trying to find out if this has happened already. Sam Sloan
Back to top
tanstaafl 11246770 Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 1363	Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:10 am    Post subject: artichoke wrote: rfeditor wrote: Aren't you grasping at straws here? No.   rfeditor wrote: Sloan's initial claim was that "insiders" had received special treatment. What he ended up with was inconsistent accounting practices in New Windsor. Hardly the same thing. The "insiders" bit was unnecessary, but the fundamental question about payment of filing fees has not yet been resolved! This is typical of his queries: they are things that should have easy answers but don't. That typically points to a weakness in the system that should be investigated and fixed. Sam has a talent for finding these things.   You may have some points, but on the core issue, John is correct. There is no doubt that fees WERE paid, that the "insiders" weren't, and that the "scandal" wasn't. Having more than one category that income or expense might fit is hardly new. Yes, it would be better if the staff had been more consistent, but the income WAS recorded and it was recorded in an appropriate category. That all this happened during a time of transition would explain any problem, but this is NOT an unusual event even in the best run organization. Mr. Sloan should never have made public accusations until he had checked the facts. He's known the facts for several days now and he's STILL leaving his original "insider scandal" post in it's original form. This isn't proper behavior for ANYBODY, but much less for a national officer!   artichoke wrote: It seems people are still debating when the per-diem policy was changed, which means that maybe it was not clearly enunciated. Feels to me like another of those Sam questions: it should be obvious but it isn't. Your characterization as "obvious nonsense" therefore is again inaccurate. ... I also am surprised that the travel policy wasn't published more aggresively. Having to dig back through old EB decisions to find it is not a reasonable burden to place on a traveler. Of course, Mr. Sloan has supposedly "investigated" per diems, so I'm not sure why HE didn't know. Maybe he should gather the travel related policies into one place and publish an official USCF travel policy document (after getting it approved by the rest of the EB). That would actually be something USEFUL he could do with his "research". Of course since it won't let him start a new "scandal", I doubt he'll be willing to do it. I'll leave aside whether Mr. Sloan did anything improper in his request for travel reimbursements -- that's the subject of another thread. _________________ There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --- I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
Back to top
rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:32 am    Post subject: samsloan wrote: rfeditor wrote: Also in the Tanner affair, what Sloan originally alleged bears only the vaguest relationship to what the committee ended up with. Would you please tell me the basis on which you make this statement? How do you know what I originally alleged? Have you seen my ethics complaint against Mr. Tanner? The reason I ask is that I have not shown my ethics complaint to anyone, except that I made one original which I sent to Pat Knight and kept one copy for myself. Still to this day I have never shown my ethics complaint to anybody, or revealed to anyone its contents. If anybody has seen my ethics complaint, they either got it from somebody in the office or somebody on the ethics committee. At this stage, now that he has been found guilty, I do think that it would be appropriate for my complaint and his answer to be made public. I am just trying to find out if this has happened already. Sam Sloan I know what you wrote here. (It's still there, unless you have deleted it. Along with Jay Sabine and the landfill.) Of course, you changed it as you went along. That's why debating with you is a waste of time and energy. _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:51 am    Post subject: artichoke wrote:   rfeditor wrote: Sloan's initial claim was that "insiders" had received special treatment. What he ended up with was inconsistent accounting practices in New Windsor. Hardly the same thing. The "insiders" bit was unnecessary, but the fundamental question about payment of filing fees has not yet been resolved! This is typical of his queries: they are things that should have easy answers but don't. That typically points to a weakness in the system that should be investigated and fixed. Sam has a talent for finding these things. Of course it has. Bill Hall and Judy Misner verified that the fees were paid, and Grant Perks even showed you which line they were entered on. If you don't choose to believe it, that's your privilege, but you can't expect anyone but Sloan and the other paranoids to talk to you about it.   Quote: rfeditor wrote: Also in the Tanner affair, what Sloan originally alleged bears only the vaguest relationship to what the committee ended up with. The committee was being very nice to Mr. Tanner, imho, by saying that there was not evidence of fabricated players. They did say the events, real or imaginary, weren't consistent with proper ethical standards. "Vaguest relationship" is certainly a mis-characterization. Sam was spot-on. I suggest you look up the postings in which Sloan started the Tanner business. What he began with was a claim that "all" or "many" EB members had asked for and received rating increases/floors from the office. The fact that he eventually found one EB member who had done something wrong (but not that) does not impress me.   Quote: rfeditor wrote: Meanwhile, he's made half a dozen claims which are obvious nonsense (his demand for the nonexistent per diem, for example). How many times does he have to be proven wrong before you accept that's he just a loony with a loud voice? It seems people are still debating when the per-diem policy was changed, which means that maybe it was not clearly enunciated. Feels to me like another of those Sam questions: it should be obvious but it isn't. Your characterization as "obvious nonsense" therefore is again inaccurate. Maybe I've missed something here, but this is what I get from what I read. Mike has already documented the existence of the "no per diem" as early as 2004 on another thread. The date the policy was adopted is of mild academic interest (I believe it was at least six years ago, probably more). What Sloan wrote, however, was that Joel Channing had refused to pay him the per diem he had asked for. I rather suspect that Joel would also refuse to give me a bag of money or the deed to the office if I asked for it. Are you going to argue that Sloan was disadvantaged by not being informed that he would not be given $50 a day as a Board member? Affirmative action for the ignorant and greedy? Sam Sloan is a walking joke. It offends me that chess players, who ought to be accustomed to logical thinking, take him seriously. _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:38 pm    Post subject: rfeditor wrote: artichoke wrote:   rfeditor wrote: Sloan's initial claim was that "insiders" had received special treatment. What he ended up with was inconsistent accounting practices in New Windsor. Hardly the same thing. The "insiders" bit was unnecessary, but the fundamental question about payment of filing fees has not yet been resolved! This is typical of his queries: they are things that should have easy answers but don't. That typically points to a weakness in the system that should be investigated and fixed. Sam has a talent for finding these things. Of course it has. Bill Hall and Judy Misner verified that the fees were paid, and Grant Perks even showed you which line they were entered on. If you don't choose to believe it, that's your privilege, but you can't expect anyone but Sloan and the other paranoids to talk to you about it. OK maybe I didn't find all the relevant posts. I was looking for documentation. Saying it was filed under a totally different or noninformative category name isn't good documentation. Without documentation we have to rely on the words of our colleagues as we appear to be doing.   rfeditor wrote: I suggest you look up the postings in which Sloan started the Tanner business. What he began with was a claim that "all" or "many" EB members had asked for and received rating increases/floors from the office. The fact that he eventually found one EB member who had done something wrong (but not that) does not impress me. But he did receive an increase in his rating floor. Eric Mark said it was justified by the submitted results of games that, I think, never happened.   rfeditor wrote: Mike has already documented the existence of the "no per diem" as early as 2004 on another thread. The date the policy was adopted is of mild academic interest (I believe it was at least six years ago, probably more). What Sloan wrote, however, was that Joel Channing had refused to pay him the per diem he had asked for. I rather suspect that Joel would also refuse to give me a bag of money or the deed to the office if I asked for it. Are you going to argue that Sloan was disadvantaged by not being informed that he would not be given $50 a day as a Board member? Affirmative action for the ignorant and greedy? As for ignorant, he would not be the only one. Several people weren't sure about the per-diem policy. If you were sure, you are in select company. But he should have checked what the per-diem policy was if he wasn't sure or was relying on the money to keep his cash-flow healthy. I don't think someone told him that he would be paid, did they?   rfeditor wrote: Sam Sloan is a walking joke. It offends me that chess players, who ought to be accustomed to logical thinking, take him seriously. Interesting perspective ... sometimes I am not so logical. And sometimes that hurts me. But sometimes I think intuition helps me. (I'm not even sure that logic has much to do with the way I play chess.) And my intuition about Sam, which I don't expect anyone else to find convincing, is that he's performing an important function by asking questions that don't have easy answers and getting in the way of what he considers bad ideas.
Back to top
rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:01 am    Post subject: artichoke wrote:   rfeditor wrote: I suggest you look up the postings in which Sloan started the Tanner business. What he began with was a claim that "all" or "many" EB members had asked for and received rating increases/floors from the office. The fact that he eventually found one EB member who had done something wrong (but not that) does not impress me. But he did receive an increase in his rating floor. Eric Mark said it was justified by the submitted results of games that, I think, never happened. So what? There is no resemblance between "Asked the office to raise his rating by fiat" and "Received a floor because he qualified for the OLM title." It is apparently true that he did not really deserve the title because some of those games were illegitimate, but that's an entirely different offense (one that should really have gone to the TDCC). You sound like those types who claim that it's okay to convict some thug even if he isn't exactly guilty, since he must have committed some other crimes for which he wasn't caught.   Quote: rfeditor wrote: Mike has already documented the existence of the "no per diem" as early as 2004 on another thread. The date the policy was adopted is of mild academic interest (I believe it was at least six years ago, probably more). What Sloan wrote, however, was that Joel Channing had refused to pay him the per diem he had asked for. I rather suspect that Joel would also refuse to give me a bag of money or the deed to the office if I asked for it. Are you going to argue that Sloan was disadvantaged by not being informed that he would not be given $50 a day as a Board member? Affirmative action for the ignorant and greedy? As for ignorant, he would not be the only one. Several people weren't sure about the per-diem policy. If you were sure, you are in select company. But he should have checked what the per-diem policy was if he wasn't sure or was relying on the money to keep his cash-flow healthy. I don't think someone told him that he would be paid, did they? You're begging the question, as your hero Sloan often does. He has repeatedly charged Joel Channing with refusing to pay him a per diem out of personal malice. It has been shown -- repeatedly -- that neither he nor any other EB member is entitled to such payments. It's one thing to make a mistake. Continuing to repeat things that are demonstrably false is evidence of either gross dishonesty or serious mental defect. Which one do you want to defend? _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
WPraeder 12887461 Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 99 Location: PA, USA	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:29 am    Post subject: rfeditor wrote: samsloan wrote: rfeditor wrote: Also in the Tanner affair, what Sloan originally alleged bears only the vaguest relationship to what the committee ended up with. Would you please tell me the basis on which you make this statement? How do you know what I originally alleged? Have you seen my ethics complaint against Mr. Tanner? The reason I ask is that I have not shown my ethics complaint to anyone, except that I made one original which I sent to Pat Knight and kept one copy for myself. Still to this day I have never shown my ethics complaint to anybody, or revealed to anyone its contents. If anybody has seen my ethics complaint, they either got it from somebody in the office or somebody on the ethics committee. At this stage, now that he has been found guilty, I do think that it would be appropriate for my complaint and his answer to be made public. I am just trying to find out if this has happened already. Sam Sloan I know what you wrote here. (It's still there, unless you have deleted it. Along with Jay Sabine and the landfill.) Of course, you changed it as you went along. That's why debating with you is a waste of time and energy. John, It appears Mr. Sloan’s posted text of his ethics compliant is still on rec.games.chess.politics at: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af85eaae0 and on this forum at: http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22953&highlight=#22953 Regards, Wayne Praeder
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:51 am    Post subject: WPraeder wrote: rfeditor wrote: samsloan wrote: rfeditor wrote: Also in the Tanner affair, what Sloan originally alleged bears only the vaguest relationship to what the committee ended up with. Would you please tell me the basis on which you make this statement? How do you know what I originally alleged? Have you seen my ethics complaint against Mr. Tanner? The reason I ask is that I have not shown my ethics complaint to anyone, except that I made one original which I sent to Pat Knight and kept one copy for myself. Still to this day I have never shown my ethics complaint to anybody, or revealed to anyone its contents. If anybody has seen my ethics complaint, they either got it from somebody in the office or somebody on the ethics committee. At this stage, now that he has been found guilty, I do think that it would be appropriate for my complaint and his answer to be made public. I am just trying to find out if this has happened already. Sam Sloan I know what you wrote here. (It's still there, unless you have deleted it. Along with Jay Sabine and the landfill.) Of course, you changed it as you went along. That's why debating with you is a waste of time and energy. John, It appears Mr. Sloan’s posted text of his ethics compliant is still on rec.games.chess.politics at: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af85eaae0 and on this forum at: http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22953&highlight=#22953 Regards, Wayne Praeder The heated exchange between John Hillary and myself above took place well before the Ethics Committee issued its report. I did not post the text of my ethics complaint until after the Ethics Committee released its report. I did not even tell anybody that I had even filed an ethics complaint until after the Ethics Committee released its report. Sam Sloan
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:57 am    Post subject: rfeditor wrote: artichoke wrote:   rfeditor wrote: I suggest you look up the postings in which Sloan started the Tanner business. What he began with was a claim that "all" or "many" EB members had asked for and received rating increases/floors from the office. The fact that he eventually found one EB member who had done something wrong (but not that) does not impress me. But he did receive an increase in his rating floor. Eric Mark said it was justified by the submitted results of games that, I think, never happened. So what? There is no resemblance between "Asked the office to raise his rating by fiat" and "Received a floor because he qualified for the OLM title." It is apparently true that he did not really deserve the title because some of those games were illegitimate, but that's an entirely different offense (one that should really have gone to the TDCC). You sound like those types who claim that it's okay to convict some thug even if he isn't exactly guilty, since he must have committed some other crimes for which he wasn't caught. To quote an esteemed colleague here on the board, please "don't put words in my mouth". I didn't say anything about fiat and neither did Sam. I think it would have been better if he had been more complete in laying out the story here as well as in his complaint, but maybe there was a reason not to disclose that part of his complaint to the Ethics Committee. If you're suggesting that now a new complaint should go to the TDCC to deal with the aspects of the case that the Ethics Committee could not address, that makes sense to me. But the EC did not apparently refuse jurisdiction over any part of the case presented to it.   rfeditor wrote: artichoke wrote: rfeditor wrote: Mike has already documented the existence of the "no per diem" as early as 2004 on another thread. The date the policy was adopted is of mild academic interest (I believe it was at least six years ago, probably more). What Sloan wrote, however, was that Joel Channing had refused to pay him the per diem he had asked for. I rather suspect that Joel would also refuse to give me a bag of money or the deed to the office if I asked for it. Are you going to argue that Sloan was disadvantaged by not being informed that he would not be given $50 a day as a Board member? Affirmative action for the ignorant and greedy? As for ignorant, he would not be the only one. Several people weren't sure about the per-diem policy. If you were sure, you are in select company. But he should have checked what the per-diem policy was if he wasn't sure or was relying on the money to keep his cash-flow healthy. I don't think someone told him that he would be paid, did they? You're begging the question, I couldn't have been begging for the question you ask below, because now that I see it I don't even agree with its premise. I was addressing a different question. rfeditor wrote: as your hero Sloan often does. Stop it, John.   rfeditor wrote: He has repeatedly charged Joel Channing with refusing to pay him a per diem out of personal malice. It has been shown -- repeatedly -- that neither he nor any other EB member is entitled to such payments. He says that the last board received per-diems. I agree with several people that it's now time for him to document that claim. I didn't think he claimed (certainly not repeatedly) that Joel did anything out of personal malice. I don't see the evidence for this premise. You've put words in people's mouths (see the beginning of the post) and thoughts in their heads (as I think you did here).   rfeditor wrote: It's one thing to make a mistake. Continuing to repeat things that are demonstrably false is evidence of either gross dishonesty or serious mental defect. Which one do you want to defend? I'm trying to keep things fact based as I'm sure you are too.
Back to top
rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:02 pm    Post subject: artichoke wrote: I didn't think he claimed (certainly not repeatedly) that Joel did anything out of personal malice. I don't see the evidence for this premise. You've put words in people's mouths (see the beginning of the post) and thoughts in their heads (as I think you did here). I don't make statements like that unless I can document them. On December 2, Sam Sloan wrote in a Forum post:   Quote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. Sam Sloan He has also made no attempt to support his claim that other Board members have received such payments. In August, giving Sloan the benefit of the doubt in such matters may have made sense. To do so now smacks of credophilia. _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:24 pm    Post subject: Let me raise the question directly and see if this can get resolved. Last year's Board members are mostly the current Board members aren't they, and most of them read this forum. Folks, did you get per-diems last year?
Back to top
CHESSDON 10516790 Joined: 14 Mar 2004 Posts: 187 Location: Highland Beach, Florida	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:52 pm    Post subject: [quote="rfeditor"] artichoke wrote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. He has also made no attempt to support his claim that other Board members have received such payments. In August, giving Sloan the benefit of the doubt in such matters may have made sense. To do so now smacks of credophilia. DS: I'm getting in this discussion late. A problem, I see ,is memories are blurred of past payments and what might have been easily explained a few years back is difficult now. But some things are clear. For example, I never received any per diems while serving on the Board during this century. Before then, there was a$35 per day per diem. Most if not all Board members fall into the same category as me. When Beatriz was on the Board she receicved (I believe) per diems, but not for Board work, but for her full time service as COO. These expenses were pre-approved by the Board at her appointment and as far as I know justifiable. I suspect her reimbursed expenses during this period were significantly less than her actual expenses. Robert Tanner served as Zonal President as well as EB Member. The expenses of the Zonal President to represent the USA at meetings are covered and he may have taken a per diem instead of expense acounting for it. I simply don't know. Either way it was a legit expense that was budgeted in advance. Maybe there were other expenses that were per diemed and legit for example an EB member participating in a meeting with a sponsor. Espenses of EB members to attend EB meetings are limited to transportation, hotel and meals served during meetings. All these are actual and not per diem. The room expenses are usually directly paid by staff as part of the hotel contract. Before the financial crisis starting around 2000 EB members got a $35 per diem per day. That was suspended and never brought back as USCF began running out of cash. Board members have numerous other expenses that are not paid. Two quick examples that come to mind: 1) When Beatriz was president, she and I travelled to Pittsburg to meet with the President of ICC regarding USCF business. None of our expenses were covered. 2) This past year, I went to Turino Italy as the US representative to the Bessel Kok Campaign team. I paid all my own expenses which were considerable. Frankly, it has been my experience that all Board members pay a great deal to serve USCF on the Board. The morale of this story is that unless you are willing topay a heftydollar price to serve, don't serve. As finances improve, IMO, we should return to past practices where Board members receive full reimbursements for expenses incurred to fullfill the duties of their position. Don Schultz
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:04 pm    Post subject: [quote="CHESSDON"] rfeditor wrote: artichoke wrote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. He has also made no attempt to support his claim that other Board members have received such payments. In August, giving Sloan the benefit of the doubt in such matters may have made sense. To do so now smacks of credophilia. Just to clarify, the first paragraph above was written by Sam Sloan. The second was written by John Hillery. Neither was written by me.

rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:07 pm    Post subject: Quote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. Sam Sloan BTW, has anyone bothered to do the math here? Six Board members (for much of the year it was five) at three days per meeting (it's usually two) times four meetings per year works out to $104 per day. Those who believe six impossible things from Sam Sloan before breakfast may have no problem with this, but most of us will regard it as a reductio ad absurdam. _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
samsloan 11115292 Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, New York	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:49 pm    Post subject: rfeditor wrote: I don't make statements like that unless I can document them. On December 2, Sam Sloan wrote in a Forum post:   Quote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. Sam Sloan If the tapes or transcripts of the board meetings ever get posted (as they should have been already) and you get to hear the way that Joel Channing screams at me during board meetings, that will erase all doubt that Joel Channing bears personal malice towards me. Sam Sloan
Back to top
CHESSDON 10516790 Joined: 14 Mar 2004 Posts: 187 Location: Highland Beach, Florida	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:46 pm    Post subject: [quote="artichoke"] CHESSDON wrote: rfeditor wrote: artichoke wrote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. He has also made no attempt to support his claim that other Board members have received such payments. In August, giving Sloan the benefit of the doubt in such matters may have made sense. To do so now smacks of credophilia. Just to clarify, the first paragraph above was written by Sam Sloan. The second was written by John Hillery. Neither was written by me. DS: Sorry, my apologies! Don Schultz.
Back to top
rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:19 pm    Post subject: samsloan wrote: rfeditor wrote: I don't make statements like that unless I can document them. On December 2, Sam Sloan wrote in a Forum post:   Quote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. Sam Sloan If the tapes or transcripts of the board meetings ever get posted (as they should have been already) and you get to hear the way that Joel Channing screams at me during board meetings, that will erase all doubt that Joel Channing bears personal malice towards me. Sam Sloan So what? He may hate you like poison, but that has nothing to do with your improper demand for per diem money. Now, if you asked for something to which you were entitled, and he then refused to pay you, there would be something to discuss. But that hasn't happened, and you are not going to be allowed to get away with this sort of rhetorical sleight of hand. _________________ John Hillery
Back to top
joelchanning 12560070 Joined: 04 Oct 2005 Posts: 247	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:47 pm    Post subject: samsloan wrote: If the tapes or transcripts of the board meetings ever get posted (as they should have been already) and you get to hear the way that Joel Channing screams at me during board meetings, that will erase all doubt that Joel Channing bears personal malice towards me. Sam Sloan This is an absolute lie. Joel Channing
Back to top
joelchanning 12560070 Joined: 04 Oct 2005 Posts: 247	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:57 pm    Post subject: joelchanning wrote: samsloan wrote: If the tapes or transcripts of the board meetings ever get posted (as they should have been already) and you get to hear the way that Joel Channing screams at me during board meetings, that will erase all doubt that Joel Channing bears personal malice towards me. Sam Sloan This is an absolute lie. Joel Channing Neither the tapes nor the transcripts will show any such thing. I can only ascribe Sam's statement to one of two things: (a) he believes no one will actually look at the transcripts or listen to the tapes, in which case he has committed a bold lie, or (b) he's totally out of touch with reality. I think it's a toss-up. Joel Channing
Back to top
JediJoshua 12666993 Joined: 21 Nov 2005 Posts: 170 Location: Southern Indiana	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:58 pm    Post subject: If you watched Lord of the Rings, when Frodo had the ring on when attacked by the Ring Wraiths, he saw a different reality that the Ring Wraiths lived in. A sort of etheral plane of exhistence. We should have all accepted the fact that SS exhists in his own seperate plane of exhistance and never to take anything he says at face value. Of the thousands of claims he has made on these forums, I have only seen two of them to be true while the others have all be false. I applaud Sam for these two truths he did discover, but wish I didn't have to wade through the filth of the others to find them. _________________ God Save the Federation!
Back to top
Mulfish 10510376 Joined: 29 Apr 2004 Posts: 274 Location: Atlanta GA	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:40 pm    Post subject: joelchanning wrote: joelchanning wrote: samsloan wrote: If the tapes or transcripts of the board meetings ever get posted (as they should have been already) and you get to hear the way that Joel Channing screams at me during board meetings, that will erase all doubt that Joel Channing bears personal malice towards me. Sam Sloan This is an absolute lie. Joel Channing Neither the tapes nor the transcripts will show any such thing. I can only ascribe Sam's statement to one of two things: (a) he believes no one will actually look at the transcripts or listen to the tapes, in which case he has committed a bold lie, or (b) he's totally out of touch with reality. I think it's a toss-up. Joel Channing They aren't mutually exclusive.
Back to top
Vince Hart 12685294 Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 66	Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:50 pm    Post subject: JediJoshua wrote: If you watched Lord of the Rings, when Frodo had the ring on when attacked by the Ring Wraiths, he saw a different reality that the Ring Wraiths lived in. A sort of etheral plane of exhistence. We should have all accepted the fact that SS exhists in his own seperate plane of exhistance and never to take anything he says at face value. Of the thousands of claims he has made on these forums, I have only seen two of them to be true while the others have all be false. I applaud Sam for these two truths he did discover, but wish I didn't have to wade through the filth of the others to find them. You need to read "Sirens of Titan" by Kurt Vonnegut. Sam is clearly caught in a chrono-synclastic infundibulum.
Back to top
Randy Bauer 10320372 Joined: 09 Mar 2004 Posts: 217 Location: Urbandale, Iowa	Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:09 am    Post subject: [quote="CHESSDON"] rfeditor wrote: artichoke wrote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. He has also made no attempt to support his claim that other Board members have received such payments. In August, giving Sloan the benefit of the doubt in such matters may have made sense. To do so now smacks of credophilia. DS: I'm getting in this discussion late. A problem, I see ,is memories are blurred of past payments and what might have been easily explained a few years back is difficult now. But some things are clear. For example, I never received any per diems while serving on the Board during this century. Before then, there was a$35 per day per diem. Most if not all Board members fall into the same category as me. When Beatriz was on the Board she receicved (I believe) per diems, but not for Board work, but for her full time service as COO. These expenses were pre-approved by the Board at her appointment and as far as I know justifiable. I suspect her reimbursed expenses during this period were significantly less than her actual expenses. Robert Tanner served as Zonal President as well as EB Member. The expenses of the Zonal President to represent the USA at meetings are covered and he may have taken a per diem instead of expense acounting for it. I simply don't know. Either way it was a legit expense that was budgeted in advance. Maybe there were other expenses that were per diemed and legit for example an EB member participating in a meeting with a sponsor. Espenses of EB members to attend EB meetings are limited to transportation, hotel and meals served during meetings. All these are actual and not per diem. The room expenses are usually directly paid by staff as part of the hotel contract. Before the financial crisis starting around 2000 EB members got a $35 per diem per day. That was suspended and never brought back as USCF began running out of cash. Board members have numerous other expenses that are not paid. Two quick examples that come to mind: 1) When Beatriz was president, she and I travelled to Pittsburg to meet with the President of ICC regarding USCF business. None of our expenses were covered. 2) This past year, I went to Turino Italy as the US representative to the Bessel Kok Campaign team. I paid all my own expenses which were considerable. Frankly, it has been my experience that all Board members pay a great deal to serve USCF on the Board. The morale of this story is that unless you are willing topay a heftydollar price to serve, don't serve. As finances improve, IMO, we should return to past practices where Board members receive full reimbursements for expenses incurred to fullfill the duties of their position. Don Schultz In my year on the Board, which spanned portions of 2004 and 2005, I asked for no per diem and received no per diem. For that matter, I asked for no travel expenses -- I paid for all my air fare. I also paid for any meals that weren't a part of the Board meetings. The year I was elected to the Board, I also paid for my hotel accomodations at the US Open in Florida. _________________ Randy Bauer
Back to top
chessoffice 10088887 Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 131	Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:33 am    Post subject: [quote="Randy Bauer"] CHESSDON wrote: rfeditor wrote: artichoke wrote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. He has also made no attempt to support his claim that other Board members have received such payments. In August, giving Sloan the benefit of the doubt in such matters may have made sense. To do so now smacks of credophilia. DS: I'm getting in this discussion late. A problem, I see ,is memories are blurred of past payments and what might have been easily explained a few years back is difficult now. But some things are clear. For example, I never received any per diems while serving on the Board during this century. Before then, there was a$35 per day per diem. Most if not all Board members fall into the same category as me. When Beatriz was on the Board she receicved (I believe) per diems, but not for Board work, but for her full time service as COO. These expenses were pre-approved by the Board at her appointment and as far as I know justifiable. I suspect her reimbursed expenses during this period were significantly less than her actual expenses. Robert Tanner served as Zonal President as well as EB Member. The expenses of the Zonal President to represent the USA at meetings are covered and he may have taken a per diem instead of expense acounting for it. I simply don't know. Either way it was a legit expense that was budgeted in advance. Maybe there were other expenses that were per diemed and legit for example an EB member participating in a meeting with a sponsor. Espenses of EB members to attend EB meetings are limited to transportation, hotel and meals served during meetings. All these are actual and not per diem. The room expenses are usually directly paid by staff as part of the hotel contract. Before the financial crisis starting around 2000 EB members got a $35 per diem per day. That was suspended and never brought back as USCF began running out of cash. Board members have numerous other expenses that are not paid. Two quick examples that come to mind: 1) When Beatriz was president, she and I travelled to Pittsburg to meet with the President of ICC regarding USCF business. None of our expenses were covered. 2) This past year, I went to Turino Italy as the US representative to the Bessel Kok Campaign team. I paid all my own expenses which were considerable. Frankly, it has been my experience that all Board members pay a great deal to serve USCF on the Board. The morale of this story is that unless you are willing topay a heftydollar price to serve, don't serve. As finances improve, IMO, we should return to past practices where Board members receive full reimbursements for expenses incurred to fullfill the duties of their position. Don Schultz In my year on the Board, which spanned portions of 2004 and 2005, I asked for no per diem and received no per diem. For that matter, I asked for no travel expenses -- I paid for all my air fare. I also paid for any meals that weren't a part of the Board meetings. The year I was elected to the Board, I also paid for my hotel accomodations at the US Open in Florida. I have requested no reimbursement for board expenses since 1999 or earlier, or for expenses incurred in 2003/2004 as USCF Office Manager and Executive Director. "Per diem" expense reimbursements for food were suspended at the October 1999 board meeting and never reinstated. Sam Sloan should withdraw his claim that $7500 in such "per diem" expenses were paid in 2005, as nothing of the sort happened that year or for many years previous. Bill Goichberg
Back to top
ChessPromotion 12123950 Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 332 Location: Forest Hills, NY	Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:52 am    Post subject: [quote="chessoffice"] Randy Bauer wrote: CHESSDON wrote: rfeditor wrote: artichoke wrote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. He has also made no attempt to support his claim that other Board members have received such payments. In August, giving Sloan the benefit of the doubt in such matters may have made sense. To do so now smacks of credophilia. DS: I'm getting in this discussion late. A problem, I see ,is memories are blurred of past payments and what might have been easily explained a few years back is difficult now. But some things are clear. For example, I never received any per diems while serving on the Board during this century. Before then, there was a$35 per day per diem. Most if not all Board members fall into the same category as me. When Beatriz was on the Board she receicved (I believe) per diems, but not for Board work, but for her full time service as COO. These expenses were pre-approved by the Board at her appointment and as far as I know justifiable. I suspect her reimbursed expenses during this period were significantly less than her actual expenses. Robert Tanner served as Zonal President as well as EB Member. The expenses of the Zonal President to represent the USA at meetings are covered and he may have taken a per diem instead of expense acounting for it. I simply don't know. Either way it was a legit expense that was budgeted in advance. Maybe there were other expenses that were per diemed and legit for example an EB member participating in a meeting with a sponsor. Espenses of EB members to attend EB meetings are limited to transportation, hotel and meals served during meetings. All these are actual and not per diem. The room expenses are usually directly paid by staff as part of the hotel contract. Before the financial crisis starting around 2000 EB members got a $35 per diem per day. That was suspended and never brought back as USCF began running out of cash. Board members have numerous other expenses that are not paid. Two quick examples that come to mind: 1) When Beatriz was president, she and I travelled to Pittsburg to meet with the President of ICC regarding USCF business. None of our expenses were covered. 2) This past year, I went to Turino Italy as the US representative to the Bessel Kok Campaign team. I paid all my own expenses which were considerable. Frankly, it has been my experience that all Board members pay a great deal to serve USCF on the Board. The morale of this story is that unless you are willing topay a heftydollar price to serve, don't serve. As finances improve, IMO, we should return to past practices where Board members receive full reimbursements for expenses incurred to fullfill the duties of their position. Don Schultz In my year on the Board, which spanned portions of 2004 and 2005, I asked for no per diem and received no per diem. For that matter, I asked for no travel expenses -- I paid for all my air fare. I also paid for any meals that weren't a part of the Board meetings. The year I was elected to the Board, I also paid for my hotel accomodations at the US Open in Florida. I have requested no reimbursement for board expenses since 1999 or earlier, or for expenses incurred in 2003/2004 as USCF Office Manager and Executive Director. "Per diem" expense reimbursements for food were suspended at the October 1999 board meeting and never reinstated. Sam Sloan should withdraw his claim that $7500 in such "per diem" expenses were paid in 2005, as nothing of the sort happened that year or for many years previous. Bill Goichberg Thank you Bill and Randy for speaking out. I think the practice of no "per diem" by the USCF should continue. In fact, I applaud Randy's decision of not asking for expense reimbursements. Note to Mike Nolan: Bill Goichberg has once again shown the misinformation by Mr. SS. _________________ Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!
Back to top
artichoke 10167825 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 476	Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:05 pm    Post subject: Since this alleged quote from me has been repeated in about the past 8 posts, I repeat the fact that I never said it and Don had me in that quote because of a simple mistyping. Please folks try to trim the quotes to what's relevant rather than repeating an innocent mistake endlessly ...   CHESSDON wrote: artichoke wrote: CHESSDON wrote: artichoke wrote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. He has also made no attempt to support his claim that other Board members have received such payments. In August, giving Sloan the benefit of the doubt in such matters may have made sense. To do so now smacks of credophilia. Just to clarify, the first paragraph above was written by Sam Sloan. The second was written by John Hillery. Neither was written by me. DS: Sorry, my apologies! Don Schultz.
Back to top
joelchanning 12560070 Joined: 04 Oct 2005 Posts: 247	Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:22 pm    Post subject: artichoke wrote: Since this alleged quote from me has been repeated in about the past 8 posts, I repeat the fact that I never said it and Don had me in that quote because of a simple mistyping. Please folks try to trim the quotes to what's relevant rather than repeating an innocent mistake endlessly ...   CHESSDON wrote: artichoke wrote: CHESSDON wrote: artichoke wrote: I disagree. Board members received $7500 in per diems in 2005. Refusal to pay me per diems is obviously politically motivated by the fact that Mr. Channing obviously hates me, as anybody can see who has witnessed his attacks on me. He has also made no attempt to support his claim that other Board members have received such payments. In August, giving Sloan the benefit of the doubt in such matters may have made sense. To do so now smacks of credophilia. Just to clarify, the first paragraph above was written by Sam Sloan. The second was written by John Hillery. Neither was written by me. DS: Sorry, my apologies! Don Schultz. And I want take this opportunity to repeat that I have no problem with the idea of paying per diem expenses based on need. Joel Channing
Back to top
rfeditor 10010250 Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1211	Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:28 am    Post subject: Returning to the subject of this thread, the exchange below proves that it is hardly possible to caricature Sam Sloan. I'm sure USCF bookkeeping practices in 2005 are a matter of vital interest to our membership.   Quote: To the USCF Executive Board: Below is Joe Nanna's response regarding the candidate's fees in question. Bill Hall Executive Director United States Chess Federation P.O. Box 3967 Crossville, TN 38557-3967 Phone: (931) 787-1234 Fax: (931) 787-1200 -----Original Message----- From: Joe Nanna [mailto:jnanna@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:22 AM To: Bill Hall Subject: Re: Candidate Fees Bill: When you sent Sam copies of the three checks in question, all election fees have now been accounted for. We can show that the balance of the fees hit the general ledger in January, 2005. I have a copy of the general ledger account detail if you need it. Joe   Quote: Yes. I would like to see it, especially since this very issue has been raised in Joel Channing's motion to censure me and in Donna Alarie's petition to have me recalled. I would like an answer to the questions of why these three checks were not recorded in the general ledger, why they were not deposited in the bank account, of if they were deposited when and where, and why they were treated differently than the checks from the other six candidates. Sam Sloan "To argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason is a futile as to administer medicine to the dead." _________________ John Hillery

recall homepage