In a message dated 3/19/2007 2:32:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mike.goodall@comcast.xxx writes:
Dear Bill,
 
Sam has offered a point-by-point rebuttal of your claim that Sam issued falsehoods.  Now it's up to you to explain.
 
Mike
My replies are in bold.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chessoffice@aol.xxx
To: mike.goodall@comcast.xxx ; Chessdon@aol.xxx; Beatchess@aol.xxx ; randallhough@yahoo.xxx ; CHESSJOEL@aol.xxx ; joel@channingcorporation.xxx ; bhall@uschess.xxx ; binfo@uschess.xxx
Cc: Samhsloan@aol.xxx ; pknight@uschess.xxx ; queencapa@cox.xxx ; jnanna@uschess.xxx ; mnolan@uschess.xxx ; samsloan@samsloan.xxx ; Chessoffice@aol.xxx
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: "Firing shots at random"

 
In a message dated 3/19/2007 11:27:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mike.goodall@comcast.xxx writes:
Dear Bill,
 
I carefully reviewed the list of falsehoods by Sam in your last e-mail.  I don't see how any of it "damaged" the USCF.
OK, we disagree.  I believe that having a Board member who makes reckless, unproven charges makes USCF appear ridiculous and makes it more difficult to obtain sponsorship and other beneficial relationships with other groups.
  Sam takes the scatter-gun approach, firing shots at random and occasionally hitting a target.  That puts him way ahead of most Board members, who never say anything but are always polite.
What is our objective here, to "hit targets" or to provide proper anaylsis of the problems facing the federation?  If you judge a Board member by how many targets he hits then Sam is quite good, his machine gun is continually pointed out the window and is firing away at legitimate targets and innocents alike, mostly the latter. If you were one of the innocent people hit by this gunfire, perhaps you might view things differently.
  Sam is only one of seven (or is it six?) members of the Board, which can reign in Sam if he gets too preposterous.
He has, and we have, but our time would be far more constructively spent discussing constructive ideas for the improvement of USCF.
  He's likely to be re-elected, even with the awesome Goichberg machine against him.  The members perceive him to be a rebel, and any healthy organization needs a few rebels.
It is indeed healthy to have some people speak out and make the arguments for change in USCF policies.  Whether they are right or wrong, the resulting debate is often useful.  But that is not the same thing as "firing shots at random."  In the discussion regarding the best policies for USCF to adopt, Sam's random smear attacks on people without evidence are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
 
Bill Goichberg  
 
Mike
Goichberg's List

USCF President Bill Goichberg has been circulating a list of statements
made by Sam Sloan since Sam Sloan has been on the board which, according to
Goichberg, were clearly false.

However, upon examining the list, is can be seen that none of the
statements were clearly false. Many were completely true. Many others still
have not been answered and in other cases Sam Sloan opened the door to
inquiry which resulted in the development of new facts previously unknown
or undisclosed to the membership.

Let us take a look at Goichberg's list. Please note that this analysis will
not be posted on the USCF Forums because Goichberg has appointed Goichberg
stooges as moderators of the forums (it is even being said that Goichberg
himself is one of the moderators), as a result of which Sam Sloan has been
suspended from posting to the forums. In addition, it is against the rules
of the USCF Forums to call a liar a liar.

First, here is a direct quote from Bill Goichberg,

    "Don't like to repeat myself, but public false statements by an EB member
damage USCF, and among those from Sam since he's been on the Board are the
following:

    "Virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed, Polgar
tournaments were rerated for political reasons, EB candidates were allowed
to run without paying filing fees, Polgar/Truong stole a computer from
USCF, Polgar didn't pay her Gold Affiliate fee, Polgar never paid any money
to USCF at all for anything, USCF paid Polgar over $13,000 in 2003 to
appear at the US Open, Grant Perks didn't want Sam elected because he knew
this would mean he would have to spend time in jail, Jay Sabine went to New
Windsor and led a team of high school students who threw away USCF records,
Bill Goichberg pestered Erik Anderson to hold the US Championship but Erik
didn't want to, the majority of US Championship qualifiers come from CCA
tournaments, only one of the US Championship qualifying tournaments held in
2006 had a TLA in Chess Life, Bill Hall didn't send out the email proposing
moderating committee appointees, the Board didn't vote to have such a
committee before members were nominated, the Board voted at Monrovia to
meet at the National Elementary, Dewain Barber didn't recommend at Monrovia
that the Board not meet at the Elementary and must have been pressured by
Polgar and Truong to say that, Bill Goichberg announced that the US
Championship would be in Oklahoma before the Board approved the bid, the
Board doesn't have the right to lower the dues, no audited financials were
available at Oak Brook, and too many others to recall, all untrue and
unsupported by evidence.

    "Also, Sam took an email from <mailto:bhall@uschess.org>bhall@uschess.org,
with Bill Hall's name and address at the end, altered it to be from
<mailto:chessoffice@aol.com>chessoffice@aol.com with "Bill Goichberg" at
the end, and posted it in the Forums.

    "I believe it is clear that all the Sam charges above are clearly false;
none are a matter of opinion.

    "Bill Goichberg"


Now. Let us take a look at the above list, point by point:

1. Virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed

This was revealed by Bill Hall on August 14, 2006 at the first meeting of
the board Sloan that attended after being seated on the board. Bill Hall
made this statement.
 
There is no evidence that Bill Hall made any such statement.
 
 Subsequently Bill Hall backtracked somewhat. After
several weeks of arguing about this, Bill Hall stated that the records were
not in the Crossville Landfill but were in 125 storage boxes in a warehouse
facility. The board then instructed Bill Hall to inventory what was in
those storage boxes and report back. Bill Hall agreed to do so.

Nothing further has been heard from Bill Hall on this subject. No inventory
has ever been produced.
 
Bill Hall has reported to us that it does not appear that any USCF financial records were destroyed.

It is known that some of the contents of the former USCF Offices in New
Windsor NY were dumped in the New Windsor Landfill. It is said that these
were just overprinted issues of Chess Life. The old building had 12,000
square feet. The new building has only 5,000 square feet. Obviously, not
everything could have been kept. We still do not know what has been kept
and what has been thrown out.
 
We know that it is false that "virtually all" USCF financial records have been destroyed.  We know that it is false that most USCF financial records have been destroyed. Whether ANYTHING was destroyed I can't say but I am not aware that anything in particular was. 

For example, there was a binder in the cabinet near to Barbara Van Der
Mark's desk in New Windsor NY containing all of the contracts involving the
USCF. The binder went missing during the move to Crossville and still has
not been found.
 
Bill Hall would know better about these contracts than I, but the contracts Sam asked to see have been located, though with some delay.  Even if some contracts cannot be found, which I don't concede, this does not justify the charge that virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed. 

As to why this issue has not been discussed recently, it has become obvious that Bill Hall is falling further and further behind in his current work.  In spite of having a staff of 23 working under him in the Crossville
Office,
 
This issue has not been discussed recently because Sam was proven wrong and has moved on to other false statements on other subjects.
 
 Bill Hall cannot seem to get simple and trivially easy tasks performed. For example, Donna Alarie spent three weeks asking Bill Hall to produce a simple email. When it was finally produced, it was dated February
27, 2006. This was a task that should have required not more than 15 minutes. The board has created a list of Action Items which Bill Hall has committed to the board that he will get done. New items keep being added to the Action List. Almost none of the items on the list have ever been done or, if they were done, they were done by somebody other than Bill Hall. There are now more than one hundred items on the Action List. In addition to Bill Hall not keeping up with the current work and in not accomplishing any of the tasks on the Action List, he is often absent from the office on one pretext or another. For example, in a board telephone conference call on February 25, 2007, Bill Hall was directed by the board to contact Erik Anderson and see if Anderson would be willing to contribute to the US Championship Prize Fund. The board postponed any decision on the US Championship for three days to give Bill Hall time to perform this task.
 
All of this is irrelevant to the issue of whether virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed.

Instead, Bill Hall was out sick for the next week. As far as the board is aware, Bill Hall never did discuss the subject with Erik Anderson and still has not done so.
 
Bill Hall discussed the subject with Erik Anderson on the following evening (Feb 27), as I reported to the Board.  You have made the false statement that he did not have such a discussion with Anderson several times even though I have corrected your misstatement each time. 

In view of these circumstances, the board in no longer pressing Bill Hall for information about the old missing records, because it is obviously more important for him to do the current work. We are hoping that Bill Hall will not fall any further behind in the current work. We have abandoned all hope of any reconstruction of the old missing financial records.
 
The Board is not pressing Bill Hall regarding "virtually all financial records" being missing or destroyed because the Board knows they are not missing or destroyed.

Bill Goichberg recently instructed Bill Hall not to attend the National High School Championship in Kansas City but instead to stay in the office and try to get some of the back work done.
 
I did recommend this, but the President doesn't have the power to "instruct" the ED to do such a thing.

2. Polgar tournaments were rerated for political reasons

Several months ago, Mike Nolan started attaching a notice on the MSA to tournaments after they had been rerated.
 
This notice has been there for almost a year.
 
It so happened that as Mike Nolan was doing this, I was looking at some tournaments Polgar had played in in order to meet the activity requirement to play on the US Woman's Olympiad Team. These were tournaments where Polgar had played opponents rated around 1500 to 1600. Naturally, Polgar had won all the games.

The date on the notice showed that these tournaments had been rerated during the beginning of the USCF Committee Meetings at the 2006 Delegates meeting in Oak Brook IL. This led me to wonder whether this was bring done to enhance the reputation of Miss Polgar. However, over the next few days the same notice appeared on almost every tournament report in the MSA. 
 
The same notice was already there, you just weren't aware of it. 

Therefore, I concluded that I was mistaken and it was just a coincidence that the notice first appeared on a Polgar tournament I was looking at.
 
No you didn't, you went on the USCF Forums and made a post on October 16, 2006 saying of a Polgar tournament, "It seems obvious that this tournament was re-rated for some political reason."  Many people challenged your claim, but as usual you refused to retract it or apologize. I am glad that you have finally concluded that you were wrong, but you should have apologized to USCF staff for your outrageous charge five months ago.  

I subsequently mate a motion at the November board meeting in Stamford CT that this notice be removed. Mike Nolan agreed to do that.
 
No he didn't, you withdrew your motion because no one else was for it.
 
Instead, however, what he really did is just change the wording a little bit. I still believe that the notice should be removed from the USCf website. It now reads:

    "The ratings shown on this page are not official published ratings and may change from time to time. Using them for pairing purposes in tournaments should only be done if this has been advertised in all advance publicity and is announced to all players at the tournament."

I believe that this notice should be removed. I see no point in putting USCF ratings on the USCF website and then telling the readers that these ratings are unofficial.
 
I don't know anyone who agrees, but this is irrelevant to the issue which is that you made an irresponsible accusation that a tournament was rerated for political reasons. 

Mike Nolan has done a wonderful job on the MSA and on the various programs he is working on which have automated the labor intensive office jobs involving ratings, memberships and TLAs which previously had to be done by hand. This has greatly benefited the USCF by giving the office staff more time to play pinochle. I only wish that Mike Nolan would sometimes tell the board what he is doing so that we would not have these surprises.

3. EB candidates were allowed to run without paying filing fee

One of the first things I did after I took office on the board was to fulfill a campaign promise to demand a reconstruction of the USCF Finances to enable a determination of why the USCF lost two million dollars from
1999 to 2005. Because of this, the office produced a CD showing the general ledger accounts for that period.

I went through this entire records and I found a lot of questionable things such as large checks written to Polgar for no apparent reason plus checks Frank Niro wrote to himself plus a large going away present check of about $3,000 that Frank Niro wrote to himself on his last day in the office.

While I still have not found the missing two million dollars, one of the odd things I found was that while checks representing candidate filings were shown as having been deposited in January 2005 for six of the
candidates, the checks for the other three candidates were not shown as having been deposited in the bank. The three checks for whom the $250 fee was not deposited were all insider approved candidates.

No credible explanation has ever been provided as to why these three checks do not show up in the general ledger accounts. I eventually gave up asking about this. I am still hoping someday to get the answer to this question.
 
You asserted that these candidates were allowed to run without paying their filing fees and USCF staff checked on this and confirmed that every candidate did pay his or her fee.  Why the checks weren't in the ledger is a lesser issue and I don't recall the answer, but checks were not required; candidates were allowed to pay by credit card.

4. Polgar/Truong stole a computer from USCF

I wonder why Goichberg puts this item on his list of charges that are clearly false, when this one is clearly true.
 
So you have evidence that would convict them in court and send them to prison? Have you presented this evidence to the police?

With regard to the question of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong taking the USCFs laptop computer on August 20, 2003, we have the statement by Mike Nolan that as he was leaving the USCFs offices to go back to Nebraska he observed that the laptop computer was still sitting on the desk of the missing Executive Director Frank Niro and that just as he was leaving the office Paul Truong and Susan Polgar were arriving. We also have the statement that when Beatriz Marinello and Tim Hsnke arrived in the office a few minutes later the first thing they did was go to Frank Niro's desk to look at the laptop computer and see what was in it, to only to discover that the laptop was missing and Paul Truong and Susan Polgar had just left the office.

We also have the statement by Susan Polgar admitting that she took the laptop computer, but claiming that the board had authorized her to take it. She has failed to identify which board, which board member or which office employee authorized her to purloin the computer. What we do know is that to this day the computer has never been returned.
 
Niro, Polgar and Truong say that the computer was personally owned by Niro, not by the USCF, and that a USCF representative said it was OK to remove it.  It is always possible they are not telling the truth, but since no question regarding its removal was raised for over three years, it may be that no one remembers which USCF representative authorized its removal. To say that they "clearly stole" the computer is using a standard of guilty unless proven innocent. 

The missing laptop computer obviously would have contained the contracts with Polgar, a record of the emails exchanged with Polgar and the financial information concerning the large amounts of money that had been paid to Polgar while Niro was Executive Director. This clearly provides the motivation as to why Polgar would want to take that laptop computer.

The evidence is clear that Susan took the computer since she admits to having taken it and so far no evidence has been produced that she had the right, the authority or the permission to take it.
 
Nor has evidence been produced that she didn't have the right or permission.  It will be difficult to find evidence at this late date, and usually charges of theft are not made so long after the alleged infraction.

Clearly, the USCF membership has the right to know that Susan took the computer. It is obvious that Bill Goichberg wants to ban me from the USCF Forums so as to prevent the general membership from learning about this.
 
If the latter is true, why was your post alleging theft never removed from the Forums, as I think it should have been?

5. Polgar didn't pay her Gold Affiliate fee, Polgar never paid any money to USCF at all for anything.

The afore mentioned CD shows around 60 checks being paid to Polgar entities such as Sysan Polgar Foundation, Polgar Chess Inc, and Susan Polgar herself, but no checks ever being paid by Polgar to the USCF for anything.
 
Take another look at that CD and you will find many payments by Polgar for ads, rating fees, TLA fees. I don't remember if they were by check or credit card but that doesn't matter.  And the office has confirmed that she paid the Gold Affiliate fee.

We have letters from Bill Hall admitting that as part of a settlement after Polgar and Troung repe4eatedly threatened to sue that in addition to giving money to Polgar, it also gave two and a half pages of free Chess Life advertising to Polgar, a cover story in Chess Life to Polgar and it paid Polgar for celebrity appearances where she had only to show up and have her picture taken by Truong.
 
I have seen no such letters. There were some deals in which Polgar got ads in place of cash, but this doesn't support your claim that she never paid any money to USCF.  Any cover story she received was done because the Editor wanted her on the cover.  And the appearances USCF paid for were not just to have her picture taken, they were for lectures, simuls, speaking with players, coaches and parents, etc. 
 
 The USCF also paid Polgar to promote her own book.

If Bill Goichberg wants to dispute the claim that Polgar has never paid the USCF for anything, not even the rating fees for tournaments or memberships, he should produce a copy of any check from Polgar. So far, he has not produced one.
 
When you posted portions of that CD to the Forum, it included payments by Polgar.  I don't remember if they were by check or credit card.  Go back and read what you posted.

6. USCF paid Polgar over $13,000 in 2003 to appear at the US Open

In December, 2003, shortly after Bill Goichberg became volunteer acting Executive Director, he paid $13,358.36 to Polgar. This payment was not disclosed to the Executive Board. The board was vehemently opposed to paying any money to Polgar. Tim Hanke, who was VP of Finance at the time, stated that Polgar should not be paid a penny. This explains why Bill Goichberg never told the board that he had paid this money.
 
The money was listed as accounts payable in October, before I became Office Manager in November.  I was never acting Executive Director; I was Office Manager from mid-November 2003 to mid-January 2004 and Executive Director for the rest of 2004.  Neither President Beatriz Marinello nor the Board supported trying to stiff Polgar by refusing to pay her for the national tournament appearances she had been hired to do.

I discovered this payment on the aforementioned CD that was provided to the board at my request. While it is true that not all of the $13,358.36 was for showing up at the 2003 US Open in Los Angeles, a considerable part of it was.
 
No more than a third was, and you posted that the entire amount was and did not admit your mistake when it was pointed out. 
 
Among the items that Polgar demanded payment for was airline tickets for herself, Paul Truong, her two children and a domestic servant to take care of the kids, plus 14 days in two hotel rooms in Los Angeles.
She also demanded payment for a celebrity appearance at a National Scholastic in Nashville in which she demanded payment in the amount of more than $4,000 for a one day appearance and $2 per book for book signings in which she promoted her own book.
 
Nashville was a national scholastic, and all those were three day appearances, not one day.  The word "demanded" is out of place as her compensation was determined by mutual agreement with the USCF Executive Director.  Granted that USCF was almost broke at the time and could not afford Susan's services, but that is the ED's fault, not Susan's.  Also, the above does not justify posting that she was paid over $13,000 for the US Open.

So, Bill Goichberg is corrects that the $13,358.36 was not only for appearing at the 2003 US Open in Los Angeles (in which she did not play but just attended the political meetings). It was for a few other things too.
 
Yes, it was, even though you at first charged that she did nothing else at the tournament. In several issues of Chess Life before the 2003 US Open, the TLA for that event stated, "GM Susan Polgar will give lectures and simultaneous exhibitions."
 
On the other hand, the $13,358.36 was just one of many questionable checks Polgar received, including a check for $2500 for a simultaneous exhibition at the Newburgh Rotary Club.
 
Why was the latter questionable? Are you suggesting she didn't give that simul? 

7. Grant Perks didn't want Sam elected because he knew this would mean he would have to spend time in jail

I did not make this statement and I did not call Grant Perks a criminal.
 
Following is your exact statement:
 
"The same questions must be asked of Grant Perks, who was Chief Financial Officer at the time. Perks has been extremely upset at the results of the election just concluded. Perks has been doing everything in his power to stop Sam Sloan from being certified as a member of the board. Now we understand the reason. Perks does not want to spend time in prison and he obviously realizes that once Sam Sloan gets on the board he is going to find out about this and make it public."
 
I did however say that many things that Grant Perks did were illegal such as paying $7500 in per diem allowances in violation of IRS rules. There is a difference between saying that something is illegal and saying that something is criminal. For example, castling a king out of check in chess is illegal but one will not go to jail for that (unless possibly it was done to win the $25,000 first prize in a Goichberg tournament).

I stand by my statement that many improprieties were committed by Grant Perks during the two times that he was Executive Director. I did not call him a criminal, however.
 
Grant Perks was never Executive Director, though he was once in charge of the office.  I didn't say you called him a criminal, but you implied that, and I described what you said (and now apparently don't remember) appropriately.

Incidentally, it is now clear that Grant Perks is one of the anonymous moderators to the USCF Forums. He is probably Moderator2. This explains why my postings to the Forum keep being deleted and why I have been suspended from posting there.
 
What proof do you have of this?

8. Jay Sabine went to New Windsor and led a team of high school students who threw away USCF records

It was widely believe that this was exactly what had happened. One former board member and one current board member told me that this had happened.

However, it has since been explained that although this was a proposal, it was never carried out. Jay Sabine and his team of high school students never even went to New Windsor.

I promptly publicly apologized to Jay Sabine for making this statement. I do not understand why Bill Goichberg keeps bringing this up months later. Jay Sabine has never complained about this. Meanwhile, there is still no explanation as to what happened to the financial records or whether they are in storage boxes or in a landfill.
 
I will give you credit, you did actually apologize for this one, but you never should have said it without checking with the Board or ED first.  Regarding where the records are, Bill Hall has explained many times that they are in storage boxes.  Why do you persist with this "landfill" nonsense?

8. Bill Goichberg pestered Erik Anderson to hold the US Championship but Erik didn't want to

Because Bill Goichberg refused to keep the board informed as to what was going on and conducted one-man negotiations for the US Championship, we do not know and probably will never know what went on. However, the following facts are known:

a. At a meeting in Seattle in February 2006, Erik Anderson stated that in the future he would be providing little if any of his own funds to sponsor the US Championship. The money would have to come from other sponsors.
 
Exaggerated. Erik stated that he had been donating $200,000 per year and wished to donate less.  "Little if any of his own funds" is not the impression those at the meeting obtained.
 
b. Erik Anderson did not show up at the prize award ceremony at the March 2006 US Championship in San Diego and did not announce any future US Championships.  In all previous years, Erik Anderson had personally handed out the prize checks and had announced the details for the next US Championship.

c. Shortly thereafter, Erik Anderson told Bill Goichberg to stop collecting qualifier fees for the US Championship and to stop publishing announcements in Chess Life referring to tournaments as US Championship qualifiers. As a result, by the June issue, no tournaments were listed as being qualifiers
to the US Championship.
 
In early April, Erik told me that the qualifier tournaments would continue without fees being required.  In late April, Erik told Robert Tanner that USCF should suspend all mention of qualifying tournaments because he needed more time to work out the US Championship format. As a result of what he told Tanner, the June Chess Life removed all mention of qualifying tournaments.  

d. Erik Anderson had an option to hold the next US Championship but that option expired in May 2006. Erik Anderson never asked for an extension and never stated that he was going to organize the next US Championship.
 
He stated repeatedly to me, Don Schultz, Robert Tanner and possibly others that he was going to organize the 2007 US Championship.  I never "pestered" him to hold the Championship.

e. At the board meeting in August 2006, Bill Goichberg admitted that in spite of persistent efforts he had not been able to reach Erik Anderson in a long time and did not even know where he was. Nevertheless, he was
convinced that Erik Anderson would do something. (The tape of that meeting still to this day has not been posted to the website, in violation of the by-laws.)

e. In October, 2006 Bill Goichberg posted on the USCHESS.ORG website a list of qualifying tournaments to the US Championship. These included five Goichberg Tournaments,
 
Four were my tournaments and all four had been qualifiers in the past at Erik Anderson's request.  Foxwoods was authorized by Erik in the fall of 2005 and had already been held.  The World Open was authorized by Erik in the fall of 2005, removed from the June issue at his request, publicized again as a qualifier when Erik approved this in early June, and had already been held.  Two future tournaments, National Chess Congress and North American Open, were authorized by Erik in October 2006.
 
 one tournament organized by his political ally Randy Hough, and the Grand Prix Winner which is usually won my a winner of Goichberg big money tournaments.  Goichberg made this announcement without informing the board and without any vote by the board. At that time, Bill Goichberg had still not concluded a sponsorship deal to fund the US Championship.
 
No vote by the Board had ever been necessary to authorize qualifying tournaments in the past; since that system began in 2001 USCF just accepted whichever events AF4C designated, which were virtually always the open tournaments offering the largest prizes. 

f. At a board meeting on November 17-18, 2006, It was pointed out that the AF4C website still and no mention of a US Championship, in sharp contrast to previous years when AF4C had blasted all over everywhere that it was sponsoring the US Championship. Bill Goichberg admitted that he still had not concluded any deal with Erik Anderson to sponsor the US Championship. The board gave Bill Gioichberg a firm deadline of December 31, 2006 at midnight to conclude a deal or otherwise open the US Championship to bidding.

g. On December 27, 2006, Bill Goichberg posted a list of 30 players who had qualified to the US Championship, without a vote or permission from the board to post this list and still having not secured the sponsorship or the money to hold the US Championship.
 
This informational post was labeled as unofficial, and almost all these players already knew they had qualified.

h. On December 31, 2006 the board gave Bill a one week extension to secure sponsorship for the US Championship upon a representation by Bill that he was on the verge of concluding a deal.

i. On January 7, 2007, Erik Anderson called Don Schultz (but did not call Bill Goichberg) to inform him that AF4C would not be sponsoring the 2007 US Championship.

j. Shortly after the announcement of this, Bill Goichberg posted and continues to post that it was all because of Sam Sloan that AF4C would not be sponsoring the US Championship this year.
 
I posted that Sam's internet posts were a reason for this loss of sponsorship, but not the only reason.  Certainly Erik Anderson's diminished interest in donating his own money was also a reason.  Several people associated with AF4C have mentioned Sam's posts as causing AF4C's main sponsor to withdraw, and Erik Anderson himself told the New York Times that one of the reasons his sponsor pulled out was internet posts attacking the planned event.

9. The majority of US Championship qualifiers come from CCA tournaments.

Although a majority do not come from CCA tournaments, Bill Goichberg, owner of the CCA, made the list of qualifying tournaments.
 
Erik Anderson made this list, as in previous years.  You previously posted that a majority of the qualifiers come from CCA events when actually less than a third do.
 
The list includes five CCA tournaments with two qualifiers each, meaning that the players must pay
entry fees to Bill Goichberg if they want to qualify to the US Championship.
 
Actually four CCA tournaments.  During the period when Erik couldn't decide on the format, the Chicago Open lost its qualifier status after having long advertised it, but Foxwoods made up for that by obtaining four qualifiers at the last moment (literally a few hours before round one).
 
Two more qualifiers come from Randy Hough, a Goichberg ally and organizer of a minor tournament that would never otherwise be on the list,
 
Erik has been pretty consistent about using the tournaments with the largest prize funds.  The American Open is not a "minor tournament," it is the largest annual open tournament in California, both in terms of prizes and number of entries.  In 2006 this event awarded about $24,000 in prizes. Can you name a tournament that awarded more and was not a qualifier?    
 
 one comes from the Grand Prix winner who must play in Goichberg tournaments to have a chance to win. Most of the rest are from major tournaments that Goichberg cannot ignore such as the US Open and the National Open. Big tournaments like the New Jersey Open and other major-non-Goichberg tournaments do not make the list.
 
The New Jersey Open is a great old traditional tournament (I tied for first in it in 1967), but in 2006 it drew 90 players less than the American Open, and awarded about one-third as much in prizes.  If the New Jersey Open is a "big tournament," how can you call the American Open a "minor tournament" ? 
 
Which "major non-Goichberg tournaments" do not make the list? I believe that every tournament in the country that guaranteed $20,000 or more in 2006 was designated by Erik Anderson as a qualifier except for three: the Kings Island Open, Continental Open, and Pacific Coast Open.  All three are my tournaments. 

10. Only one of the US Championship qualifying tournaments held in 2006 had a TLA in Chess Life

After the US Masters in which promising junior player 15-year-old Daniel Ludwig was excluded from playing in the US Championship only because he had failed to pay to Goichberg the $75 qualifying fee,
 
Goichberg!? Daniel Ludwig never had the option of paying the qualifying fee to Goichberg.  The local organizers in North Carolina sent the qualifying fees to AF4C.
 
Erik Anderson told Goichberg to remove all mention of US Championship qualifying fees from Chess Life magazine.

As a result, by the June 2006 issue, all reference to qualifier tournaments had been removed from Chess Life. I failed to realize that WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ERIK ANDESON, Bill Goichberg put all these announcements back in subsequent issues of Chess Life.
 
This is an utterly preposterous brand new false statement, even though it is in all caps!  I spoke to Erik Anderson a few days before the National Open, pointing out that they had advertised a qualifier in many issues of Chess Life prior to June, and he agreed to two qualifiers each for the National Open, World Open and US Open.
 
Let's get back to the ridiculous claim that Sam posted.  He said that only one of the qualifying tournaments was announced as such in Chess Life, and went on to argue that it was therefore OK to renege on the promise made to those players. Actually, ALL NINE open qualifying tournaments were announced as such in their Chess Life TLAs: US Masters, Foxwoods, National Open, World Open, US Open, Western States Open, American Open, National Chess Congress, North American Open. 

11. Bill Hall didn't send out the email proposing moderating committee appointees, the Board didn't vote to have such a committee before members were nominated.

It is perfectly obvious that the list of mostly hand picked Goichberg stooges was selected by Bill Goichberg.
 
Sam, Bill Hall sent out the email proposing moderating committee appointees.  You changed his email address to mine, changed his name to mine, and then posted this forged, altered email on the Forum.  That's dishonest.
 
Bill Hall is on thin ice right now. Almost the entire board has lost faith in him. After almost two years on
the job, it is difficult to think of anything that Bill Hall has accomplished. So, Bill Hall has to do whatever Bill Goichberg tells him. The only reason Bill Hall still has a job is that it is so close to election time that the board is too chicken to make changes.
 
I disagree, and you should allow the Board to speak for itself.  Attacking Bill Hall does not change the fact that he sent out an email and you claimed that I sent it.

What was discussed and voted in at the meeting in Los Angeles was completely different from what has taken place. In Los Angeles, it was supposed to require a vote by two moderators to remove a posting from the Forums and the committee was supposed to provide appellate review.
 
Requiring two moderators to agree was never discussed; listen to the tape. 
 
You claimed that it was improper to nominate a moderation committee when the Board hadn't approved the idea of having such a committee, and your claim was clearly wrong.

Instead, what has happened is that the committee members are also moderators and any one of the 13 people who are either committee members or moderators can remove a posting and there is no way to get it restored.
 
False.  The committee can restore a post by majority vote, and no committee member by himself can remove a post.  The plan was that it would take three committee members to remove a post, but it sounds like the committee may be considering changing this, whether to more or less I don't know.

The claim by Bill Goichberg that the board voted to approve this is ridiculous.
 
The Board voted that there would be a committee and appointed a subcommittee to propose members.  The subcommittee did so and the Board approved the members.  The Board did not vote on further details but if we don't like how the committee is operating, we can move to change their procedures.

12. The Board voted at Monrovia to meet at the National Elementary

I did not write that. What I did write was that all of the members of the board said that we wanted to meet next at the National Elementary Championship in Nashville on May 11-13, with the exception of Bill
Goichberg who said that he wanted one week to think about it.
 
As you write this above, you are correct.  When I posted that I was opposed to agreeing to meet at Nashville and needed time to think about it, you accused me of lying, apparently not realizing that being opposed to an immediate decision to meet there was not inconsistent with needing time to think about it.

13. Dewain Barber didn't recommend at Monrovia that the Board not meet at the Elementary

That is correct. Dewain Barber made no such recommendation and said nothing about this subject. The tapes of this meeting are available on line, the first tape of any board meeting since Bill Goichberg became president. Play the tape and see if you can find Dewain Barber making any such statement.
 
He definitely made that statement, so unless the recorder malfunctioned, it should be there.

14. Bill Goichberg announced that the US Championship would be in Oklahoma before the Board approved the bid

That is right and here is the announcement which was made before the voted even knew about it. The announcement was made on February 21, 2007. Both Don Schultz and I immediately protested and demanded a conference call on this issue:

    "To: USCF Exec Board

    "This E-mail is confirm $50,000.00  donation from Frank Berry to be used
toward sponsoring the 2007 Frank K. Berry US Chess Championship.

    "The event is planned as a 9-SS May 15-23, 2007 to be held in Stillwater,
Oklahoma.

    "Details will be determined later by the Organizing Committee and the USCF
Executive Board.

    "Members of the Organizing Committee are as follows:   Frank K. Berry, Jim
Berry, Jerry Hanken, Bill Goichberg,  John Donaldson and Bill Hall. 

    "Frank Berry hopes to make an additional $150,000 donation, but only the
$50,000 has been delivered. If this additional donation does not occur,
Frank would like for the USCF to contribute $15,000 to the tournament in
order to make it a more prestigious event. If Frank's additional donation
occurs, part of the money would be for a US Women's Championship to be held
in Stillwater this summer.

    "The Organizing Committee reserves the right to add as many as 3 other
players to the May event.

    "signed
    "Frank K. Berry
    "Jim Berry
    "Jerry Hanken
    "2-21-2007
    "12:32 pm CST
 
Note that this is an email forwarded by me, not one I wrote.  The subject of the email, which you omit, was "Bid FW: 2007 Frank K Berry US Championship."  And the previous day, I wrote the Board saying that I would soon forward an email from Frank Berry containing his bid. Of course, the bidders have no right to approve their own bid and they should have said "If this bid is accepted, the following conditions will apply," but the Board understood that this was a bid and not an announcement, and a week later voted to approve the bid.

15. The Board doesn't have the right to lower the dues

This is a questionable interpretation of the by-laws by Bill Goichberg. The by-laws state that only the Delegates and not the board or the office can change the dues. Bill says that this means that the board cannot raise the dues but that it can have a long term dues-sale which has the effect of lowering the dues.

I did not object because I have long felt that the dues were too high and I wanted them lowered. However, I question Bill's interpretation of the by-laws.
 
It has long been established that the Board has the right to lower the dues in the form of promotional memberships.  Each year the Delegates pass a motion saying they have reviewed the promotional memberships offered by the Board and authorize their continuation.  At the 2004 delegates meeting when Harold Winston moved to refer a motion to lower dues to the Board, he pointed out that the Board had the right to use a promotional membership to lower dues, and no one questioned this.  At the 2006 delegates meeting when I withdrew my motion to lower dues and said that the Board might lower them anyway by using a promotional membership, no one questioned this.  So I was disappointed when Sam, a longtime supporter of low dues, would not back my effort at Monrovia to retain our $39 adult dues, and when he later said he thought the dues sale was not legal.

16. No audited financials were available at Oak Brook

I was mistaken about this because nobody gave me a copy of the financials.
 
Did you ask for a copy?  Did you complain to the Board about no audited financials being available before you posted this on the internet? 
 
I did not make it to the early committee meetings in Oak Brook because Bill Goichberg had told the office not to provide me with the travel expense money to attend the meetings.
 
I did not say any such thing.  The only question I was asked by the office was which nights at the hotel USCF paid for, and my answer was to follow past procedure. We followed the usual procedures which are that Board members submit expense requests after the meeting.  Apparently you were unable to attend without receiving payment in advance, and this was not understood until shortly before the meeting.  Now that we know this, no one on the Board has objected to your getting advance payment of expenses to attend meetings.   
 
I finally made it to the delegate meeting in Oak Brook Illinois entirely at my own expense.

Thus, it can be seen that almost all of the statements by me which Bill Goichberg claims were "clearly false" were in reality substantially true.

At the US Amateur Team East on February 17-18, 2007 in Parsippany NJ, I was presented an award for being the "Shining Light on the US Chess Federation", precisely because of my emails and postings which have revealed what is going on in the inner sanctum of the US Chess Federation which no insider has ever revealed before.
 
That "award" was provided by your major supporter Leroy Dubeck solely, in my opinion, to help your re-election campaign. 
 
 Bill Goichberg, who arrived at the event shortly after I was presented with this award, protested vehemently but it was too late as I had already received the award.

Sam Sloan
 
I only complained to Frank Brady, who Leroy got to present the award, telling Frank that I was concerned people might interpret his participation as reflecting support for your campaign.  Frank assured me that his involvement did not indicate such support and said he thought "the whole thing was a lark."
 
Bill Goichberg

 

In a message dated 3/19/2007 11:27:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mike.goodall@comcast.xxx writes:

Dear Bill,
 
I carefully reviewed the list of falsehoods by Sam in your last e-mail.  I don't see how any of it "damaged" the USCF.
OK, we disagree.  I believe that having a Board member who makes reckless, unproven charges makes USCF appear ridiculous and makes it more difficult to obtain sponsorship and other beneficial relationships with other groups.
  Sam takes the scatter-gun approach, firing shots at random and occasionally hitting a target.  That puts him way ahead of most Board members, who never say anything but are always polite.
What is our objective here, to "hit targets" or to provide proper anaylsis of the problems facing the federation?  If you judge a Board member by how many targets he hits then Sam is quite good, his machine gun is continually pointed out the window and is firing away at legitimate targets and innocents alike, mostly the latter. If you were one of the innocent people hit by this gunfire, perhaps you might view things differently.
  Sam is only one of seven (or is it six?) members of the Board, which can reign in Sam if he gets too preposterous.
He has, and we have, but our time would be far more constructively spent discussing constructive ideas for the improvement of USCF.
  He's likely to be re-elected, even with the awesome Goichberg machine against him.  The members perceive him to be a rebel, and any healthy organization needs a few rebels.
It is indeed healthy to have some people speak out and make the arguments for change in USCF policies.  Whether they are right or wrong, the resulting debate is often useful.  But that is not the same thing as "firing shots at random."  In the discussion regarding the best policies for USCF to adopt, Sam's random smear attacks on people without evidence are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
 
Bill Goichberg  
 
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Chessoffice@aol.xxx
To: mike.goodall@comcast.xxx; Chessdon@aol.xxx; Beatchess@aol.xxx; randallhough@yahoo.xxx; CHESSJOEL@aol.xxx; joel@channingcorporation.xxx; bhall@uschess.xxx; binfo@uschess.xxx
Cc: Samhsloan@aol.xxx; pknight@uschess.xxx; queencapa@cox.xxx; jnanna@uschess.xxx; mnolan@uschess.xxx; samsloan@samsloan.xxx; Chessoffice@aol.xxx
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: Motion: Only Members of the Executive Board are Allowed to Make Motions

 
In a message dated 3/18/2007 11:41:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike.goodall@comcast.xxx writes:
Dear Bill,
 
I think the electorate is far smarter than you think.  I think Sam was elected to stir things up.   As I told you yesterday I consider Sam to be a good board member because he lets me know what's happening, or at least a version of what's happening.  If you called me once in awhile my estimation of you would probably rise, from an already high level. 
I don't believe that a significant number of voters wanted EB members "stirring up" things by making false charges, or that they knew that would be the result of electing Sam.
 
Sorry, I make very few calls (time consuming compared to email) but I do a lot of posting on the Forums and usually answer my emails.  Thanks for your compliment, even though we clearly disagree about Sam.  Granted he often lets you know something, while I do so only if you ask or read the right places, but doesn't it bother you that he so often makes false accusations?
 
Please list "the damage he has done to the Federation".  Try to separate fact from opinion.
 
Thank you,
Mike
Don't like to repeat myself, but public false statements by an EB member damage USCF, and among those from Sam since he's been on the Board are the following:
 
Virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed, Polgar tournaments were rerated for political reasons, EB candidates were allowed to run without paying filing fees, Polgar/Truong stole a computer from USCF, Polgar didn't pay her Gold Affiliate fee, Polgar never paid any money to USCF at all for anything, USCF paid Polgar over $13,000 in 2003 to appear at the US Open, Grant Perks didn't want Sam elected because he knew this would mean he would have to spend time in jail, Jay Sabine went to New Windsor and led a team of high school students who threw away USCF records, Bill Goichberg pestered Erik Anderson to hold the US Championship but Erik didn't want to, the majority of US Championship qualifiers come from CCA tournaments, only one of the US Championship qualifying tournaments held in 2006 had a TLA in Chess Life, Bill Hall didn't send out the email proposing moderating committee appointees, the Board didn't vote to have such a committee before members were nominated, the Board voted at Monrovia to meet at the National Elementary, Dewain Barber didn't recommend at Monrovia that the Board not meet at the Elementary and must have been pressured by Polgar and Truong to say that, Bill Goichberg announced that the US Championship would be in Oklahoma before the Board approved the bid, the Board doesn't have the right to lower the dues, no audited financials were available at Oak Brook, and too many others to recall, all untrue and unsupported by evidence.
 
Also, Sam took an email from bhall@uschess.xxx, with Bill Hall's name and address at the end, altered it to be from chessoffice@aol.xxx with "Bill Goichberg" at the end, and posted it in the Forums.
 
I believe it is clear that all the Sam charges above are clearly false; none are a matter of opinion.
 
Bill Goichberg 
----- Original Message -----
From: Chessoffice@aol.xxx
To: mike.goodall@comcast.xxx; Chessdon@aol.xxx; Beatchess@aol.xxx; randallhough@yahoo.xxx; CHESSJOEL@aol.xxx; joel@channingcorporation.xxx; bhall@uschess.xxx; binfo@uschess.xxx
Cc: Samhsloan@aol.xxx; pknight@uschess.xxx; queencapa@cox.xxx; jnanna@uschess.xxx; mnolan@uschess.xxx; samsloan@samsloan.xxx; Chessoffice@aol.xxx
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Motion: Only Members of the Executive Board are Allowed to Make Motions

 
In a message dated 3/18/2007 10:46:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike.goodall@comcast.net writes:
Dear Bill,
 
Sam finished second in the last election.  What message does that convey to you?
 
Mike
The message it conveys is that he wrote a reasonably good candidates statement, most voters were not aware of his tendency to circulate false information and make reckless attacks on people, and so he finished much higher than he would have if the voters had known the truth.  In the coming election he will not get a free pass again, as many USCF members are horrified by the damage he has done to the Federation and are determined to get the truth out regarding the type of board member he has been.
 
Bill Goichberg
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Motion: Only Members of the Executive Board are Allowed to Make Motions

 
In a message dated 3/18/2007 1:11:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike.goodall@comcast.xxx writes:
Dear Bill,
 
So my friendship with Sam damns me to irrevelence?  I'm told that if I lose this election it will be because of my friendship with Sam.  I don't judge people on the basis of who they're friends with, and I'm amazed that some people do.
There's nothing wrong with being friendly with Sam, but plenty wrong with thinking he's a good Board member.  I can't understand how you hope to be elected if you think Sam is a good Board member. 
  I'm aware of Sam's faults, and I don't condone some of his behavior.  But, yes, he has been a good EB member from my standpoint because he tells me what's going on.  I have to read between the lines, and reserve judgement much of the time.  But I've heard a damn sight more from him than I have from you, though some of it was wrong.
What have I refused to tell you? 
 
Have you been reading the USCF Forums?  I have made a great many posts there on USCF issues, and without the whoppers Sam keeps telling. 
 
I pointed out to you about 18 things Sam has posted that were wrong since he's been on the Board.  When he yells "scandal" he's wrong most of the time.
 
Who's idea was it to sell US Championship berths for $50,000?  Why was this not voted on by the EB?  Or is this completely wrong?
The idea of charging a high fee for nonqualified players was discussed by the Board in emails and no one expressed opposition.  It wasn't my idea, but I supported it.  It was then recommended by the US Championship Committee and a detailed version referred to the Board for comment.  No vote was necessary as Bill Hall is in charge of US Championship details.  Again, there was no opposition, except that this time Sam said that we should contact certain people privately to offer them these fees, certainly not a fair way to offer them.  Any Board member could have made a motion to stop or modify the offering of the Patron fees, but no one did so.  Bill Hall then announced the fees.
 
The Board does not manage tournaments or decide their details, the ED does.  The Board doesn't award them either, but made an exception for this year's US Championship because we lost our sponsor so close to the tournament.
 
Bill Goichberg
 
Thank you, Mike

 

Home