Some USCF Executive Board members are known in the past to make incredible blunders that resulted in loss of major sponsors and strong supporters. But what took place in the past 24 hours in the USCF forum has to be ranked as one of the most unprofessional conducts in the USCF history.
The American Foundation for Chess (AF4C and formerly known as the Seattle Chess Foundation) has done so much to help the USCF since around 2000. One of the biggest things they have done was to rescue the US Championship and the US Women’s Championship. These are 2 major events that would cost the USCF a LOT of money every year and it was something the USCF had a hard time putting together due to lack of funding.
In the last few years, the prize funds for each of the US Championship and US Women’s Championship were more than $250,000 not counting the organizational fees!! Countless players benefited from this. In order to maintain this level of prize funds, the AF4C had to test various formats to attract more sponsors and media attention.
Some people liked the various formats. Some did not. That is understandable. Did the AF4C make mistakes along the way? Probably! But so what? They were trying hard to improve things for our professional players. The bottom line is this organization has done so much for US Chess, the USCF and American Chess Professionals. So if you do not agree with their decisions, let them know in a constructive manner. Do it in politely and professionally at the negotiating / meeting table.
Instead of thanking the AF4C and helping them every which way possible, a current board member started to publicly attack and insult the AF4C. I would not be surprised if the AF4C pulled out in the near future and not sponsor events with the USCF again. This would be a monumental loss for the USCF and the American Chess Professionals.
The problem is some of these people do not use their heads when they shoot off their mouths. They do not care about the welfare of chess or chess players. The reason for the attack toward the AF4C is to pressure the current USCF President to resign. It was purely a chess political move while disregarding the well being of the federation.
I am really sick and tired of this kind of destructive chess politics. This kind of chess politicians do not spare anyone. They will attack EVERYONE even if it would destroy the reputation and welfare of the USCF. They have no positive ideas. They have no plans to turn around the USCF. All they do is lie and deceive the members. My goal is to end this kind of nonsense once in for all. We would definitely have to work hard to restore the credibility and respectability to the public eyes. Otherwise, this federation cannot continue to survive if sponsors and supporters keep walking away.
Susan, if you’re referring to the thread I’m thinking of, and which I jsut read again, I found no attacks on Mr. Anderson. I did see a dispute over the status and experience of a Mr. Henderson, who was identified as a former employee of AF4C and a chess journalist, not a founder of the organization. Granted, Sloan has been his usual rabid self, but the discussion between Goichberg, Bogner, and ICC-TD Duncan has actually been interesting. Where did you see direct attacks on Mr. Anderson?
That aside, I agree completely with your comments.
It was on another thread but I have changed it to avoid any confusion.
Thanks!
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
I don’t think there’s any credible pressure on Bill Goichberg from Sam Sloan.
I know you don’t feel the board has done enough to restrain Mr. Sloan, but Bill Goichberg did push through a motion of censure against him and is supporting his recall.
I am constantly surprised that anyone pays any attention to what Mr. Sloan posts, but the fact that he can fool a few “conspiracy theorists” doesn’t mean anyone serious will pay him the least attention. I certainly hope Mr. Anderson wouldn’t.
I don’t think there’s any credible pressure on Bill Goichberg from Sam Sloan.
I agree. Bill seems capable of handling Sam, though I imagine he’s picked up more than a few gray hairs over the last several months.
I used to think the recall of Sloan was a waste of time and effort, given that his term is only for a year. Now, however, I support his recall, even if it’s decided the day before the next Delegates’ meeting.
A New Year’s resolution:
Topalov and Sam Sloan form their own new chess league!
Although I’m sure you know the tactics of the enemy, I would suggest that they are just trying to bait you into an outburst for the simple reason that they could then say you lied about not wanting to get into negative politics.
The Self Destruction of the USCF ….this is not true
USCF rocks! Why else would so many Russians emigrate to play chess here???
Sloan was caught lying about a million times. He’s the most immoral individual in the USCF. He’s no clue about professionalism. He’s no job and he currently claims that he’s cheating on his wife. Is that someone I want to represent the USCF? I think not! That’s why I signed the petition to recall his election and get rid of him permanently.
People like Marinello and Sloan must go! It’s time. I would vote for anyone else but them. Adios!
Individual members of the USCF Executive Board don’t speak for the organization. Everybody who deals with the USCF must understand this by now. That said, whether anybody wants to be involved with that organization when it means dealing with Sloan and some of the other characters — well that is another matter.
It seems to me that the flaws in the USCF are structural and fundamental. Sloan is the extreme case, but an organization has to be Sloan-proof somehow, and the USCF isn’t.
I don’t see how Susan, or any other “new blood” is going to be able to overcome the basic problems of the USCF, no matter how hard they work at it.
It would only take a reasonable alternative and a few prominent chess organizers shifting their support from the USCF to the alternative … and the USCF would die.
Preface: Gabor had asked me a question in ”Top Chess Moments in 2006” (see the Susan’s Post before this one) and I am answering it here to respect Susan’s topics.
My abbreviated quote of his question: “Jack, you seem to be regular around here, so please answer the following question if you can. [–SNIP–] she one day popped up with the huge anti USCF-FIDE statements and now runs for a position at USCF. [–SNIP–] several times she accused these organizations without any specifics [–SNIP–] a person like I, like to know the objective reasons. Do you know them? If yes, please post them.
——————–
No, I have no more contact with Susan Polgar than you or anybody else does. Since there’s been several comments about me, I thought I’d give a summary of who I am and why I’m here. That’s on the “Top 10 Chess Moments in 2006” post below this one. In the future, I’ll just refer people to that post when it is needed. I’m not trying to blow my horn; I say those things only to clarify.
Having looked at what the principals to this controversy have posted on the internet – this site as well as the USCF forums, I think that I can make some educated guesses.
A lot of the stuff I’ve seen in the USCF forums are over petty issues. If an overall summary of them can be made, the case against Susan Polgar is that she is a powermonger who uses men and drops them on her climb to the top. She wants to take over the USCF so she can rob it of its money.
The problem that SP faces with Sam Sloan is the same problem that people faced with Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950’s. He was the guy who ruined many people by labeling them “Communist”. His victims could never explain their actions fast enough. McCarthy could always come up with questions faster than they could answer them. After awhile the sheer volume of accusation/insinuation engulfed the victims in a fog of suspicion. Contemporaries urged President Eisenhower to take McCarthy on directly. He replied, “I refuse to get down into the gutter with that guy.”
So what should Susan do? In one case she took Sloan on directly. SS has claimed (no, I wrote a passage about SS’s claims that I’ve decided to censor.)
He has some pictures of him and SP and has posted them on his website. I checked them out. They are of a bunch of people including SP and SS at a chess event. They are all just standing and talking (fully clothed, of course). SP wrote and demanded that he take those pictures down. She attends lots of chess events and has her pictures taken with lots of people. They both posted a number of times in the USCF forums about the pictures. The net effect of the exchange to this outside observer was to bring SS up and SP down to his level. It all seemed very petty and tawdry. This is the hazards of SP getting into the specifics.
All of this seems so false to me. I bring all of this up for this one reason (in addition to satisfying the ongoing demands for specificity to SP’s accusations of lies and petty politics): one does not have to try hard to imagine the hurt that any human being would feel being in SP’s place and having to face stuff like this. People should keep this in mind before demanding SP for more “specifics”. –An also a little gratitude for not just walking away from the USCF and all this.
While the assault on SP’s sexual morality is disgusting, the assault on her finances is far more serious.
A number (it seems a majority of the posters on the USCF forums) opined that her USCF income should be cut off should she get elected. Their argument is that it is a conflict of interest for an Executive Board member to get money from the USCF. They’ve posted every transaction that SP has had with the USCF for the last couple of years. Explanations have been demanded for every single one. Goichberg and some others have tried to explain but SP’s attackers are not satisfied.
Here’s where I need to jump in. SS, like McCarthy in his time, starts out with a good point but then goes to extremes. His point is that people have a right to know the nature and the extent of the financial relationships their leaders have with their organizations. For reasonable people, yes. This whole matter could have been handled in just one or two posts. Then everybody could have put a period on it and moved on.
What the discussion has lacked is context. Since every transaction has been posted in the forum, I saw them. As a CPA, what struck me first was the size of these transactions. They were small. Imagine if you will, that instead of being a professional chessplayer, SP had chosen the field of law, or medicine, or accounting, or even architecture. If she was a lawyer, the USCF would be getting the para-legal rate, below even the junior staff lawyer rate. The partner rate would be many times higher than that. Now factor in that she is a world champion and the highest rated woman in the US and the 2nd. highest rated in the world. The top partner rate in the most prestigious law firm in the country would bill many, many times what she charges.
For her monthly article in Chess Life EVEN I couldn’t charge what she charges. I would have to double or even triple her charge – and I’m a nobody.
When the USCF had financial difficulties, she dropped her rates even more. Only the most hard-scrabble lawyer or accountant would bill the rates she bills.
A couple of footnotes to this:
(1) A contract may be a firm-fixed fee contract as opposed to a time-rate contract. Still the professional has to estimate time and expense in order to come to a price. This is just basic business sense. From the details on the USCF forums (which are more than anybody will ever want to know) and just common sense, one can get a rough order-of-magnitude idea of the hours SP must spend on the various projects. For example, her monthly article in Chess Life is available to all to read and evaluate.
(2) Not all of the transactions listed in the forums are payments of the USCF to SP. A minority of them were payments SP made to the USCF. Anybody with elementary accounting skills should have been able to tell at a glance what was what. After much wrangling, SS has stated that he now understands that.
There’s more but Gabor, I’ve written a lot and I hope that helps. Honestly, I believe that the above should have been sufficient to address any legitimate concerns the USCF posters had about her finances. This is how the USCF officials should have answered this stuff. To those folks that are attacking SP: put a period to this and move on people!
Gabor, I forgot to say above, but I appreciated your question. It gave me an opportunity to say something that was very much on my mind.
————–
Susan, now I am making a personal plea from me to you.
Do NOT give in to demands that you forgo your USCF income should you be elected. Apart from your own personal situation, this cuts off the USCF from having any other chess professional in leadership. There other ways to handle conflict of interest concerns that people legitimately may have. Cutting you off financially is extreme.
We don’t have to invent the wheel here. Non-profits, business, and governments have plenty of experience in dealing with these kinds of issues. The USCF should just use professional standards and common sense.
If you feel that you can’t politically take a stand on this, I think we can all understand. But PLEASE refrain from making any commitments for reducing your income.
If present ethics rules prevents you from continuing your monthly article and other paid services but on a pro-bono basis, then those rules should be changed.
Just because those folks at the USCF forums may have agreed among themselves that you should be cut off does not mean that you have to agree. This issue is larger than just you.
Susan, It is great that you have pledged to not engage in trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent/incumbent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one’s own positive attributes or preferred policies. In light of the vision to restore a strong cooperation and support between Adult, Collegiate, Military, Internet, Youth and Scholastic Chess, etc., the following thought piece may be of interest: http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/purpose.htm
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
Wayne, I read the page on your URL. This is a great statement. Everyone should read it.