Re: Definition of a USCF Employee

[quote="nolan"]Ernie Schlich was neither working in the office (he
lives in Virginia, and as far as I know has only visited Crossville
once) nor was/is he being paid for his work helping with FIDE
reports.  He did serve as a TD at several national scholastic events
in the months leading up to the election in 2006.[/quote]

As I understand it, Ernie was being paid for some of the work he did
but was not paid for some of the other work he did. In particular, he
was not paid for bringing the delinquent FIDE rating reports up to
date.

Ernie was also a long time USCF office employee. He was technical
director for many years. Other than working for the USCF, Ernie, had
no other job. His only other income was his retirement check from the
Navy.

I believe that Ernie is quite happy that he was not elected. His
campaign petition was circulated by Robert Tanner not by Ernie, and
Tanner also paid the $250 filing fee for Ernie to run. Ernie was never
very enthusiastic about running for election.

Now, the question is, who paid the $250 filing fee for Polgar and
Truong, or was it paid?

Sam Sloan

[quote="nolan"]The list of Board candidates who have served as TDs at
national events in the year preceding their election is fairly long,
and the policy of not considering them employees is long-standing even
if it wasn't in the Bylaws until 2006.

Sam, what taxes is it you think someone could avoid by having a
corporation be not-for-profit and board members be employees of that
not-for-profit corporation?[/quote]

In the case of the USCF, since the USCF loses money every year, it
would make no difference.

However, back when Al Lawrence was Executive Director and the USCF was
hugely profitable, I understand that there was at least one IRS
investigation of the USCF.

Let us hope that someday the USCF starts making money again and the
IRS has reason to come back.

I realize that this is the opposite of the question you are actually
asking.

Sam Sloan

[quote="Allen"][quote="samsloan"]
In that case, the by-laws committee was wrong.

A person who works in the office and gets paid for their work on an
hourly basis is an employee.

Sam Sloan[/quote]

Not according to the federal government.  There is a 20 point test to
establish whether one is an employee or an independent contractor.
Your statement is way too simplistic and just factually wrong.

Allen Priest, CPA[/quote]

The real issue here is that the rule that an employee may not be a
board member or a candidate for election to the board is not just a
USCF rule. It is a standard rule that applies generally to all not-for-
profit corporations.

Not-for-profit corporations do not have to pay taxes. If employees
could be board members and run the organization then all corporations
would convert to not-for-profit status, just to avoid the payment of
taxes.

This issue never came up until recently because in all the years that
I have been a USCF member since 1956 I do not recall it ever happening
that the lines between being a board member and an employee were ever
blurred. However, in the last few years there have been several
dubious cases, the 2006 election being one of them. In the 2006
election, two of the candidates were doing office work for the USCF.
In the 2005 election, Bill Goichberg was employed as Executive
Director and then resigned just in time to announce that he was
running for the board. In the 2007 election, Polgar claimed to have a
contract to write a monthly column in Chess Life magazine for five
years (although this turned out not to be a signed contract, but a
verbal contract based in part on email exchanges) and nevertheless ran
for the board.

These questions need to be addressed, and that is probably the reason
why Larry Cohen raised the issue in starting this thread.

Sam Sloan