Yes the EB approved it but the stakes are now higher - the loss of an
important Board member, who has opportunities in the oven and the fact
that at least one Board member feels that the very existence of the
USCF is at risk because of the potential magnitude of legal
developments. Personally I agree with that assessment. Right or wrong,
Susan's potential marketability is enormous and its destruction and
counter action by Susan could destroy the USCF as well. 3 or 4 Board
members should not, IMO unilaterally make this assessment no matter
what the reasons were when the insurance was first purchased.
Don Schultz
The above posting by Don Schultz, dated April 4, 2008, appears in the
BINFOS today.
This posting is in opposition to the pending motion to cancel the
"Internet Insurance" that is costing the USCF $13,000 per year. So
far, there are three votes to cancel the insurance. The vote is 3-0 to
cancel the insurance. Channing, Polgar and Truong have spoken against
the motion but have not actually voted against it. As the motion was
made on April 3, the board members have 7 days to vote. If there are
no more votes by the end of the day on April 10, the motion passes.
Channing has stated that he is resigning effective immediately upon
the passage of this motion.
The argument by Don Schultz, who is NOT a board member but gets his
views posted anyway, is interesting. He says that the "stakes are
high" because of the "loss of an important board member", referring to
Channing's threat to resign if the motion passes. (We should give
Governor Spitzer his girl back.) Channing writes that he wants his
"assets protected" by the insurance. When Channing ran for the board
in 2005 we were told that he was an enormously wealthy man. We thought
that he was going to provide some of his great wealth to the USCF.
That is why he was elected. Now, we are told that we have to spend
$13,000 that we would otherwise not have to spend just to keep him on
the board. Meanwhile, he has not provided one thin dime to the USCF
since he has been on the board. Every time he drinks a cup of coffee,
he charges it to the USCF.
Channing writes, in connection with the above motion, "I am not
willing to remain on the USCF Board unless we have a severely
moderated Forum." From this quote, we see that what he really wants is
a "severely moderated Forum" so that people like Sam Sloan who have
been critical of Channing will not be allowed to post there. Indeed,
Sam Sloan has just been banned for one year almost entirely because of
making remarks critical of Channing.
In the quote above, Don Schultz also writes, "counter action by Susan
could destroy the USCF". This reflects one fear of the board, that
Susan Polgar will start attacking the USCF even more. Channing is the
last ally that Polgar and Truong have on the board. If Channing
leaves, their dreams of taking control of the USCF Treasury will have
ended and they might leave too.
Sam Sloan
|
