SLOAN CHARGES "INSIDER CANDIDATES" DID NOT PAY FILING FEES

On November 13, 2006, 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 Texas organizer 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.   

samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:28 am    Post subject: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Files Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  
 
 
ChessPromotion 12123950



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 332
Location: Forest Hills, NY

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:40 am    Post subject: Question for Mr. Goichberg, Channing, Schultz, Tanner, Hough Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website  
 
 
nolan 10339324



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3919

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email  
 
 
rfeditor 10010250



Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 1211

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:57 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger  
 
 
samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:08 am    Post subject: Re: Question for Mr. Goichberg, Channing, Schultz, Tanner, H Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  
 
 
samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:31 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  
 
 
Smythe Dakota 10339022



Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 1054
Location: Chicago, IL

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:47 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
Jim Flesher 20056161



Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 30
Location: Weston, WV

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:14 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
nolan 10339324



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3919

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email  
 
 
Jim Flesher 20056161



Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 30
Location: Weston, WV

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:18 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
tanstaafl 11246770



Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1363

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:20 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
gregory 13474581



Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 280
Location: Seattle, Wa

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website  
 
 
ChessPromotion 12123950



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 332
Location: Forest Hills, NY

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:55 am    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website  
 
 
gregory 13474581



Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 280
Location: Seattle, Wa

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website  
 
 
nolan 10339324



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3919

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  
 
 
gregory 13474581



Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 280
Location: Seattle, Wa

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website  
 
 
JonH 12444802



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 68
Location: Florida

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
Jim Flesher 20056161



Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 30
Location: Weston, WV

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay File Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
tanstaafl 11246770



Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1363

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
ChessPromotion 12123950



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 332
Location: Forest Hills, NY

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website  
 
 
nolan 10339324



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3919

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, what proof do you have that Sam Sloan is mentally ill?

If none, then please remove or edit your post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email  
 
 
nolan 10339324



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3919

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email  
 
 
wzim 11315844



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 227
Location: Peoria, Il

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
 
nolan 10339324



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3919

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email  
 
 
ChessPromotion 12123950



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 332
Location: Forest Hills, NY

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website  
 
 
tanstaafl 11246770



Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1363

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
 
   
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger  
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
 
View user's profile Send private message Send email  
 
 
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
 
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
 
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  
 
 
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
 
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
 
View user's profile Send private message Send email  
 
 
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger  
 
 
artichoke 10167825



Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 476

 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
 
 
samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  
 
 
tanstaafl 11246770



Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1363

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Smile
rfeditor 10010250



Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 1211

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger  
 
 
rfeditor 10010250



Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 1211

 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

Home              Sam Sloan