One bad board member can prove costly
This was reported by Mig Greengard on his website, which is similar to what many of you have said:
...Such a circus was sure to cause controversy, but first there was the USCF board to deal with. It has been a circus of its own of late, mostly thanks to the predictably disastrous presence of Sam Sloan, who is to sleaze what Hershey's is to chocolate. (The best proof of this isn't the execrable content of his personal web pages but the fact that he didn't feel the need to remove it when he was elected to the board.) With some on the board favoring the AF4C agenda and others against, USCF President Goichberg, who, I understand, didn't much care for the online idea himself, was in a tough spot. It all ended with a whimper as the deadline to close a deal expired.
... the deal was broken when the corporate sponsor the AF4C had was checking around and found out about the erratic Sloan, who waged war to kick out the AF4C (as well as attacking other board members) and his pages of soft porn...
Source: ChessNinja.com
posted by Chess Daily News @ 1/12/2007 06:45:00 AM
6 Comments:
At Friday, January 12, 2007 10:41:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
Now I am confused. (Okay, I confuse easily.) Should we talk about him or not. I'm getting mixed signals here.
At Friday, January 12, 2007 10:50:00 AM,
Chess Daily News said…
Yes, you can point out the facts so others can understand and not personal attacks.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.PolgarChess.com
At Friday, January 12, 2007 1:13:00 PM,
gregory said…
It was a matter of time until the Sam Sloan issue came to negatively roost on the image of the USCF.
Mig is right. Mr. Sloan had ample time to remove the content once that he had an opportunity to serve. Yet he did not, and then he threw around a ton of other unsubstantiated and negative attacks.
What a shame,
Gregory
At Friday, January 12, 2007 2:30:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Susan,
Would you be in favor of some kind of "code of conduct" similar to morals clauses in certain high profile positions? It would seem to me that a boardmember of a non-profit organization -501(c)3 would try to be beyond reproach in their conduct.
I see primarily a current USCF executive Board that has lost sight of their purpose, and have lost their objectivity. Even the President of the USCF (Bill G) is conflicted with his business needs ..cheating at CCA events; rather than acting strictly in the best interests of USCF mission.
So how would you instill and maintain an impeccible credularity on the executive board?
USCF Delegate
At Friday, January 12, 2007 3:05:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Tanstaafl just posted on your general blog about that man and this situation. He appears to have knowledge that things are going on behind the scenes that the rest of the world is not privy to.
Consider the source. T certainly seems like a credible one to me. Also, things have gone in unexpected directions this week. I, too, was wondering why SS voted against the motion to lift his sanction. On rgcp (not a reliable source) two SS statements: (1) that he misunderstood the motion and the vote was a mistake; and (2) that he intended to bring the whole matter up to the Delegates Meeting but couldn't appeal the motion if he had voted yes.
But this doesn't explain the silence. The SS we've come to know should have been trumpeting his victory all over the net. Instead, he's been laying low.
I wonder what's going on.
P.S. He had previously laid the groundwork for an effective nullification of his suspension by surrogate posting. I certainly had expected that he was going to flood the forums with his surrogate statements. My own statements were made with that expectation. But that campaign didn't materialize, either.
Unless he's in jail, I can't see why he's laying low now.
At Friday, January 12, 2007 4:18:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
What exactly is the AF4C agenda anyway? Is there a legitmate reason why someone, in good faith, would see a problem with it? Do they place undue demands on USCF?
Post a Comment
<< Home