On 03 Feb 2003 16:53:37 GMT, ascachess@aol.com (ASCACHESS) wrote:
In the beginning of the year 2000, the USCF settled the case. In protest for>>this decision, I resigned to the position of USCF Scholastic Director.>>
I would suggest that in the future you use someone else in you case against>>Mrs. Jarecki. In my view, this situation is history. A long time ago, I>>moved>>on to better things.>>
Cordially,>>
WIM Beatriz Marinello>>
Beatriz,>What were you protesting?>
Were you protesting the two conflicting financials of 7/20/99 which had your>name on them that were produced as evidence by USCF's attorneys?>
Were you protesting the John L White report which was hidden by the>administration and which reported that no one in the office had done ANY>tournament financials during 1999 and that "no one seemed to care". The report>didn't pull any punches. It said this in so many words.>Why did the subsequent audit agree with the conclusion of the John L White>report?>
You brought this subject up or I would have let it go, but I won't allow you to>lie.>
This is where Beatriz goes bye-bye. She can't answer.>Tell us Beatriz, how did you report all the entries received by the office and>paid by credit card?>Where did you get or not get those numbers?>
The fact is you didn't do any financials and consequently underreported>tournament income received by the office by as much as $20,000.>
Did Cavallo order this?>Did Schultz?>Who xeroxed my name on the second contract? How did it get datestamped in the>office?>In December 1999, you claimed you had never seen the second (xerox) contract>produced in discovery by USCF's attorneys when Bob Smith showed it to you in>Louisville.>
You should have known that Schlutz would never really back you.>You made a mistake in choosing your friends.>
Richard Peterson
I just came across this old posting from Feburary, 2003. In it, Beatriz Marinello says that she resigned as USCF Scholastic Director in protest of the decision to settle the suit by the USCF against Richard Peterson.
At that time, I was defending Beatriz from attacks by Peterson. Perhaps it is time to take another look at this situation.
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message news:41bf86b8.106968812@ca.news.verio.net...> On 03 Feb 2003 16:53:37 GMT, ascachess@aol.com (ASCACHESS) wrote:>
In the beginning of the year 2000, the USCF settled the case. In
protest for> >>this decision, I resigned to the position of USCF Scholastic Director.> >>
I would suggest that in the future you use someone else in you case
against> >>Mrs. Jarecki. In my view, this situation is history. A long time ago, I> >>moved> >>on to better things.> >>
Cordially,> >>
WIM Beatriz Marinello> >>
Beatriz,> >What were you protesting?> >
Were you protesting the two conflicting financials of 7/20/99 which had
your> >name on them that were produced as evidence by USCF's attorneys?> >
Were you protesting the John L White report which was hidden by the> >administration and which reported that no one in the office had done ANY> >tournament financials during 1999 and that "no one seemed to care". The
report> >didn't pull any punches. It said this in so many words.> >Why did the subsequent audit agree with the conclusion of the John L White> >report?> >
You brought this subject up or I would have let it go, but I won't allow
you to> >lie.> >
This is where Beatriz goes bye-bye. She can't answer.> >Tell us Beatriz, how did you report all the entries received by the
office and> >paid by credit card?> >Where did you get or not get those numbers?> >
The fact is you didn't do any financials and consequently underreported> >tournament income received by the office by as much as $20,000.> >
Did Cavallo order this?> >Did Schultz?> >Who xeroxed my name on the second contract? How did it get datestamped
in the> >office?> >In December 1999, you claimed you had never seen the second (xerox) contract> >produced in discovery by USCF's attorneys when Bob Smith showed it to you
Louisville.> >
You should have known that Schlutz would never really back you.> >You made a mistake in choosing your friends.> >
Richard Peterson>
I just came across this old posting from Feburary, 2003. In it,> Beatriz Marinello says that she resigned as USCF Scholastic Director> in protest of the decision to settle the suit by the USCF against> Richard Peterson.>
At that time, I was defending Beatriz from attacks by Peterson.> Perhaps it is time to take another look at this situation.>
Sam Sloan
I thought it was a "leopard changing his spots", not a rat jumping to another ship.
Perhaps it's time you took a look at what you did in Nevada.
While I agree with Richard Peterson completely about the likely forger, he had proof. You never have. You just make it up as you ooze along.
-- Tom Klem
"Slanders, Libels and Defamations are our business!" ---sign hanging up in the back of Spam Sloan's rusting cab.
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:24:29 -0800, "Tom Klem" <thewiz@wizville.es> wrote:
While I agree with Richard Peterson completely about the likely forger, he>had proof. You never have. You just make it up as you ooze along.>-- >Tom Klem
I thought that you were on the side of Beatriz. So, who do you think it was?
Did Beatriz forge the signature of Richard Peterson or did Eric Johnson forge the signature of Richard Peterson or did Richard Peterson forge his own signature?
That seems to take care of all the reasonable possibilities.
The move to Crossville on the other hand, is an EXCELLENT idea that will prove meritorious over the years.
-- Tom Klem
And, the third rail of USCF politics is Bill Goichberg. Say something bad about him ... off to the gulag (TDCC, Ethix committees) you go. And don't forget, choose wisely when they ask you if you like to sew left hand or right hand gloves.
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message news:41c0270b.148003328@ca.news.verio.net...> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:24:29 -0800, "Tom Klem" <thewiz@wizville.es>> wrote:>
While I agree with Richard Peterson completely about the likely forger,
had proof. You never have. You just make it up as you ooze along.> >-- > >Tom Klem>
I thought that you were on the side of Beatriz. So, who do you think> it was?>
Did Beatriz forge the signature of Richard Peterson or did Eric> Johnson forge the signature of Richard Peterson or did Richard> Peterson forge his own signature?>
That seems to take care of all the reasonable possibilities.>
On 16 Dec 2004 10:32:05 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
According to Allied:>
Transportation Charge $6,550.00 - $8,000.00>Full Service Packing $4,010.00 - $4,900.00>
Thats 12,900 dollars max.>Pulling phone line and cable shouldn't cost more than a thousand max.>But lets say it runs $10,000. We are now just up to 22,900 dollars.>I would estomate that the economic costs associated with the move to>adversly effect income for three quarters of the next fiscal year. I>would imagine that impact to be about five percent for those>months.(This is a worse case number mind you, $187,500.).>So now the total cost is $210,400.>
I would anticipate the fourth quarter for 2005 to show revenue up by>20% over fourth quarter last year adding an additional $250,000>dollars.>
$250,000 - $210,400 = a gain of $39,600 dollars for the year after the>move. Thats more than enough to cover the costs of a relocation>coordinator.>
Take Care,>Rob
One factor which has not been consideed is that part of the plan is for current employees to fly down to Crossville to teach the newcomers their jobs.
However, this is unrealistic. What employee is going to be willing to train their own replacement?
A more realistic idea wiould be to pay the new people in Crossville to fly up to New Windsor to have the established employees train them.
At least the new empolyees would have an incentive to spend a few weeks away from their families.
But would people be found in Crossville willing to do this, and how much would this cost?
It is my understanding that most of the job protocols have already been standardized onto disks and placed in manuels. Having been a trainer and a manager in a past life, most semi-complex jobs can be taught in two weeks with propersupport material. Six months is the average to become proficient and one year for mastery. Training an hiring while important is an immaterial point in reality, but a vaild concern.
You can hire adequate staff for between 18,000 to 22,000 per year each. There will be no need for anyone other than Judy to be there. take care, Rob Sam Sloan wrote:> On 16 Dec 2004 10:32:05 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:>
Thats 12,900 dollars max.> >Pulling phone line and cable shouldn't cost more than a thousand
max.> >But lets say it runs $10,000. We are now just up to 22,900 dollars.> >I would estomate that the economic costs associated with the move to> >adversly effect income for three quarters of the next fiscal year. I> >would imagine that impact to be about five percent for those> >months.(This is a worse case number mind you, $187,500.).> >So now the total cost is $210,400.> >
I would anticipate the fourth quarter for 2005 to show revenue up by> >20% over fourth quarter last year adding an additional $250,000> >dollars.> >
$250,000 - $210,400 = a gain of $39,600 dollars for the year after
move. Thats more than enough to cover the costs of a relocation> >coordinator.> >
Take Care,> >Rob>
One factor which has not been consideed is that part of the plan is> for current employees to fly down to Crossville to teach the
newcomers> their jobs.>
However, this is unrealistic. What employee is going to be willing to> train their own replacement?>
A more realistic idea wiould be to pay the new people in Crossville
fly up to New Windsor to have the established employees train them.>
At least the new empolyees would have an incentive to spend a few> weeks away from their families.>
But would people be found in Crossville willing to do this, and how> much would this cost?>
Sam, I read it in this forum less than a week ago. You must have missed it. I can try to find it for you but it may take me a while. thanks, Rob Sam Sloan wrote:> On 16 Dec 2004 11:24:08 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:>
It is my understanding that most of the job protocols have already
been> >standardized onto disks and placed in manuels.>
Who told you that? That is absolutely not true at all.>
This is one of the big problems the USCF has. Every time a new person> is hired he does the job differently from the last person.>
Sam, This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral: "Well, how well organized are things in New Windsor, and how portable are the operations? They are more portable, TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:
- computer software is reliable and operates pretty much without human fixups: you put in a tournament disk, for example, and it updates the ratings without glitches
- desk manuals, training materials, and orientation materials exist for all positions
- financial procedures are routinized and don't depend on anyone's special knowledge or experience
- there is lots of documentation, in the form of computerized records, easily searchable: if anyone wants to know why something is done, or what the association's past experiences with someone are, or the history of anything, it can all be found out very quickly
In other words, all the current USCF staff have put all their knowledge and habits and experience into files which can then be accessed by the new staff in Crossville, so that people without any experience with a chess federation can access the previous staff's experience and operate the USCF without
crippling downtime. That is, the USCF is MORE than just a smoothly operating office - it is a smoothly operating office which has documented all its procedures and activities to an amazingly high extent""
Petral works in a not for profit and has knowledge of the internal systemation. I am just taking his word for it. I have no reason to belive he is anything but honest and accurate.
"This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral: 'Well, how well organized are things in New Windsor, and how portable are the operations? They are more portable, TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:
- computer software is reliable and operates pretty much without human fixups: you put in a tournament disk, for example, and it updates the ratings without glitches [etc. etc. etc. etc.]'
Rob, please focus for a moment on the words "TO THE EXTENT" which are CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS. They mean that the USCF's operations are portable IF they are like the kind of operations which I then describe. IF they are. TO THE EXTENT that they are. But if the New Windsor operations are NOT like that, then there can be great problems. I am not testifying that they are like that. I have no first-hand knowledge on this point. In fact, if you go on to read the paragraph IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the section that you quoted, you will see that I really suspect they are NOT like that.
I guess I apologize for not making my skepticism clear enough. petrel
On 16 Dec 2004 13:42:42 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
Sam,>This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral:>"Well, how well organized are things in>New Windsor, and how portable are the operations? They are more>portable,>TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:
[SNIP]
Petral works in a not for profit and has knowledge of the internal>systemation.>I am just taking his word for it. I have no reason to belive he is>anything but honest and accurate.>
Thanks,>Rob
You completely misread what Petral wrote. He wrote that a move would be feasible if these things exist.
However, I just spoke to someone familiar with the New Windsor office and he conformed that none of these things exist.
So now you've admitted the inevitability of the move and are offering your advice how to best accomplish it?
Breathtaking.
-- Tom Klem
Keep your eyes on the prize! Solvency!
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message news:41c1d915.70379515@ca.news.verio.net...> On 16 Dec 2004 10:32:05 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:>
Thats 12,900 dollars max.> >Pulling phone line and cable shouldn't cost more than a thousand max.> >But lets say it runs $10,000. We are now just up to 22,900 dollars.> >I would estomate that the economic costs associated with the move to> >adversly effect income for three quarters of the next fiscal year. I> >would imagine that impact to be about five percent for those> >months.(This is a worse case number mind you, $187,500.).> >So now the total cost is $210,400.> >
I would anticipate the fourth quarter for 2005 to show revenue up by> >20% over fourth quarter last year adding an additional $250,000> >dollars.> >
$250,000 - $210,400 = a gain of $39,600 dollars for the year after the> >move. Thats more than enough to cover the costs of a relocation> >coordinator.> >
Take Care,> >Rob>
One factor which has not been consideed is that part of the plan is> for current employees to fly down to Crossville to teach the newcomers> their jobs.>
However, this is unrealistic. What employee is going to be willing to> train their own replacement?>
A more realistic idea wiould be to pay the new people in Crossville to> fly up to New Windsor to have the established employees train them.>
At least the new empolyees would have an incentive to spend a few> weeks away from their families.>
But would people be found in Crossville willing to do this, and how> much would this cost?>
Now Spammy, here's a real hot flash opportunity for you. Get yourself up to New Whimsy in your rusty taxi, take your notebook (c 1983 Osborne) and open WordStar and start typing.
LOL
-- Tom Klem
Coming to a National event near you, Spam Sloan, the pedophile. Hide your children.
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message news:41c215de.85940015@ca.news.verio.net...> On 16 Dec 2004 13:42:42 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:>
Sam,> >This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral:> >"Well, how well organized are things in> >New Windsor, and how portable are the operations? They are more> >portable,> >TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:>
[SNIP]>
Petral works in a not for profit and has knowledge of the internal> >systemation.> >I am just taking his word for it. I have no reason to belive he is> >anything but honest and accurate.> >
Thanks,> >Rob>
You completely misread what Petral wrote. He wrote that a move would> be feasible if these things exist.>
However, I just spoke to someone familiar with the New Windsor office> and he conformed that none of these things exist.>
Petrel and Sam, If I misread your statements Petrel I am sorry. I personally have no knowledge myself of the New Windsor's office of operations. They should have detailed job descriptions and training material for each position. Forgive my error in reading. Rob petrelet@sbcglobal.net wrote:> Rob wrote,>
"This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral:> 'Well, how well organized are things in New Windsor, and how portable> are the operations? They are more> portable, TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:>
- computer software is reliable and operates pretty much without
human> fixups: you put in a tournament disk, for example, and it updates the> ratings without glitches [etc. etc. etc. etc.]'>
Rob, please focus for a moment on the words "TO THE EXTENT" which are> CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS. They mean that the USCF's operations are> portable IF they are like the kind of operations which I then
describe.> IF they are. TO THE EXTENT that they are. But if the New Windsor> operations are NOT like that, then there can be great problems. I am> not testifying that they are like that. I have no first-hand knowledge> on this point. In fact, if you go on to read the paragraph IMMEDIATELY> FOLLOWING the section that you quoted, you will see that I really> suspect they are NOT like that.>
I guess I apologize for not making my skepticism clear enough.> petrel
Petrel and Sam, If I misread your statements Petrel I am sorry. I personally have no knowledge myself of the New Windsor's office of operations. They should have detailed job descriptions and training material for each position. Forgive my error in reading. Rob petrelet@sbcglobal.net wrote:> Rob wrote,>
"This is the information provided in a quote snipped from Petral:> 'Well, how well organized are things in New Windsor, and how portable> are the operations? They are more> portable, TO THE EXTENT that they are like this:>
- computer software is reliable and operates pretty much without
human> fixups: you put in a tournament disk, for example, and it updates the> ratings without glitches [etc. etc. etc. etc.]'>
Rob, please focus for a moment on the words "TO THE EXTENT" which are> CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS. They mean that the USCF's operations are> portable IF they are like the kind of operations which I then
describe.> IF they are. TO THE EXTENT that they are. But if the New Windsor> operations are NOT like that, then there can be great problems. I am> not testifying that they are like that. I have no first-hand knowledge> on this point. In fact, if you go on to read the paragraph IMMEDIATELY> FOLLOWING the section that you quoted, you will see that I really> suspect they are NOT like that.>
I guess I apologize for not making my skepticism clear enough.> petrel
On 16 Dec 2004 16:05:16 -0800, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
Petrel and Sam,>If I misread your statements Petrel I am sorry. I personally have no>knowledge myself of the New Windsor's office of operations. They should>have detailed job descriptions and training material for each position.>Forgive my error in reading.>Rob
Now that you have been informed that none of the documentation which Petrel feels is required for a move exists, what do you think about the feasibility of the move?
Do you think it is realistic to expect the present staff to spend their last few days on the job to create the documentation to enable their replacements to slip easily into their jobs?
"Tom Klem" <thewiz@wizville.es> wrote in message news:10Pvd.34335$ve.31951@fed1read06...>
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message> news:41bf86b8.106968812@ca.news.verio.net...> > On 03 Feb 2003 16:53:37 GMT, ascachess@aol.com (ASCACHESS) wrote:> >
In the beginning of the year 2000, the USCF settled the case. In> protest for> > >>this decision, I resigned to the position of USCF Scholastic Director.> > >>
I would suggest that in the future you use someone else in you case> against> > >>Mrs. Jarecki. In my view, this situation is history. A long time ago,
moved> > >>on to better things.> > >>
Cordially,> > >>
WIM Beatriz Marinello> > >>
Beatriz,> > >What were you protesting?> > >
Were you protesting the two conflicting financials of 7/20/99 which had> your> > >name on them that were produced as evidence by USCF's attorneys?> > >
Were you protesting the John L White report which was hidden by the> > >administration and which reported that no one in the office had done
tournament financials during 1999 and that "no one seemed to care".
report> > >didn't pull any punches. It said this in so many words.> > >Why did the subsequent audit agree with the conclusion of the John L> White> > >report?> > >
You brought this subject up or I would have let it go, but I won't
allow> you to> > >lie.> > >
This is where Beatriz goes bye-bye. She can't answer.> > >Tell us Beatriz, how did you report all the entries received by the> office and> > >paid by credit card?> > >Where did you get or not get those numbers?> > >
The fact is you didn't do any financials and consequently underreported> > >tournament income received by the office by as much as $20,000.> > >
Did Cavallo order this?> > >Did Schultz?> > >Who xeroxed my name on the second contract? How did it get datestamped> in the> > >office?> > >In December 1999, you claimed you had never seen the second (xerox)> contract> > >produced in discovery by USCF's attorneys when Bob Smith showed it to
Louisville.> > >
You should have known that Schlutz would never really back you.> > >You made a mistake in choosing your friends.> > >
Richard Peterson> >
I just came across this old posting from Feburary, 2003. In it,> > Beatriz Marinello says that she resigned as USCF Scholastic Director> > in protest of the decision to settle the suit by the USCF against> > Richard Peterson.> >
At that time, I was defending Beatriz from attacks by Peterson.> > Perhaps it is time to take another look at this situation.> >
Sam Sloan>
I thought it was a "leopard changing his spots", not a rat jumping to> another ship.>
Perhaps it's time you took a look at what you did in Nevada.>
While I agree with Richard Peterson completely about the likely forger, he> had proof. You never have. You just make it up as you ooze along.>
Jerry W wrote:> "Tom Klem" <thewiz@wizville.es> wrote in message> news:10Pvd.34335$ve.31951@fed1read06...> >
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message> > news:41bf86b8.106968812@ca.news.verio.net...> > > On 03 Feb 2003 16:53:37 GMT, ascachess@aol.com (ASCACHESS) wrote:> > >
In the beginning of the year 2000, the USCF settled the case.
protest for> > > >>this decision, I resigned to the position of USCF Scholastic
Director.> > > >>
I would suggest that in the future you use someone else in you
case> > against> > > >>Mrs. Jarecki. In my view, this situation is history. A long time ago,> I> > > >>moved> > > >>on to better things.> > > >>
Cordially,> > > >>
WIM Beatriz Marinello> > > >>
Beatriz,> > > >What were you protesting?> > > >
Were you protesting the two conflicting financials of 7/20/99
which had> > your> > > >name on them that were produced as evidence by USCF's attorneys?> > > >
Were you protesting the John L White report which was hidden by
administration and which reported that no one in the office had
done> ANY> > > >tournament financials during 1999 and that "no one seemed to care".> The> > report> > > >didn't pull any punches. It said this in so many words.> > > >Why did the subsequent audit agree with the conclusion of the John L> > White> > > >report?> > > >
You brought this subject up or I would have let it go, but I
won't> allow> > you to> > > >lie.> > > >
This is where Beatriz goes bye-bye. She can't answer.> > > >Tell us Beatriz, how did you report all the entries received by
office and> > > >paid by credit card?> > > >Where did you get or not get those numbers?> > > >
The fact is you didn't do any financials and consequently
underreported> > > >tournament income received by the office by as much as $20,000.> > > >
Did Cavallo order this?> > > >Did Schultz?> > > >Who xeroxed my name on the second contract? How did it get
datestamped> > in the> > > >office?> > > >In December 1999, you claimed you had never seen the second (xerox)> > contract> > > >produced in discovery by USCF's attorneys when Bob Smith showed it to> you> > in> > > >Louisville.> > > >
You should have known that Schlutz would never really back you.> > > >You made a mistake in choosing your friends.> > > >
Richard Peterson> > >
I just came across this old posting from Feburary, 2003. In it,> > > Beatriz Marinello says that she resigned as USCF Scholastic
Director> > > in protest of the decision to settle the suit by the USCF against> > > Richard Peterson.> > >
At that time, I was defending Beatriz from attacks by Peterson.> > > Perhaps it is time to take another look at this situation.> > >
Sam Sloan> >
I thought it was a "leopard changing his spots", not a rat jumping
another ship.> >
Perhaps it's time you took a look at what you did in Nevada.> >
While I agree with Richard Peterson completely about the likely
forger, he> > had proof. You never have. You just make it up as you ooze along.> >
John's Beans 21 December 2004 07:36:04 [ permanent link ]
"Rob" <> Try this site. It is new and as of yet, not inclined to personal attacks and ill intentions.> You and Sam Sloan are the only ones posting there. You seem to enjoy the sound of yourself. Probably how you prefer making love also. Sam, he just likes to watch. A chess-list of just you and Sam Sloan is like some kind of "Waiting For Godot" on the e-list format.
