United States Chess Federation

March 26, 2001

TRANSCRIPT OF CONFERENCE CALL

OPERATOR: Thank you all for holding, and welcome to your conference. If you need further assistance on the call, you may dial 1-800-232-1234. Reference ID is HGD4935.

Mr. De Feis, would you like - I'm so sorry. Ms. Barry, if you'd like to go ahead and do the roll call.

DORIS BARRY: Yes, I will.

OPERATOR: Thank you.

BARRY: All right. Bob Smith (ph)?

Bob Smith (ph)?

Redman Hello?

DEFEIS: Hello.

LOOMIS: Hello.

BARRY: Hello. Bob Smith (ph)? I'm calling the roll

REDMAN: He's apparently not available.

BARRY: He's not available. OK.

Helen Warren?

HELEN WARREN: Here.

BARRY: Joe Ippolito?

JOE IPPOLITO: He's definitely here.

BARRY: Tim Redman?

TIM REDMAN: Hi.

BARRY: John McCrary?

JOHN MCCRARY: Here.

BARRY: Jim Pechac?

JIM PECHAC: Hello.

BARRY: And of course, I'm here. George De Feis?

GEORGE DE FEIS: Here. And thank God of that.

BARRY: Yes. Welcome.

WARREN, REDMAN: Welcome back, George.

DE FEIS: (INAUDIBLE)

BARRY: I understand that Judy Misner is also present.

JUDY MISNER: I'm here.

BARRY: OK, Judy.

REDMAN: Hello, Judy.

MISNER: Hi.

BARRY: And Jeff Loomis.

JEFF LOOMIS: I'm here.

BARRY: OK. All right. Are we waiting for Bob (ph), what’s the situation?

REDMAN: No. We're just going to continue. Bob (ph) had some reservations that he expressed in various e-mails about the wisdom of this call.

BARRY: Oh.

REDMAN: I can only assume that he has chosen not to participate.

BARRY: I see.

MCCRARY: Is there any way to verify that with the phone company?

REDMAN: Well, yes. If someone has another line and would like to call 1-800-232-1234, identify ourselves as HGD4935, you are welcome to that.

LOOMIS: OK. You want me to do that? I have another line right here.

BARRY: OK, Jeff.

REDMAN: OK.

BARRY: I think it's important that we make sure that – he's not being excluded.

DEFEIS: Did the - did the phone company say that they would continue to try him?

BARRY: They didn't say anything, only that he wasn't available.

DEFEIS: OK.

BARRY: I think we should continue to try, because otherwise, it would seem that we're excluding him.

LOOMIS: I would like to check on …

REDMAN: I agree with Doris

BARRY: Yes.

REDMAN: Jeff, can you kind of keep going on that? And - OK. We've got three agenda items. Should we wait one minute to see if Jeff is successful in finding Bob (ph), or continue?

WARREN: I think it would be a good idea to give a grace period here of a minute or two.

REDMAN: OK. Then we'll do that. In which case, I'd like to bring up an unscheduled agenda item.

LOOMIS: Hello?

REDMAN: Yeah.

LOOMIS: Oh, I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. They left a message for Bob (ph). He was unavailable.

REDMAN: OK.

BARRY: OK.

REDMAN: Thanks, Jeff. That was good.

LOOMIS: You're welcome.

WARREN: Did we get prior notice that he would be unavailable?

REDMAN: No. He gave his number by e-mail where he could be reached. So no, we did not get prior notice. At least I did not as of 3:30 p.m.

REDMAN: We'll now continue with the three-point agenda, which will start with George.

DE FEIS: OK. Well, I am back, as you know, from my medical illness. And I am very pleased to be here.

BARRY: We're glad to have you, George.

CLOSED SESSION:

Personnel Issues

OPEN SESSION

REDMAN: Are there other questions from the board?

OK. I'd like just to go through the list of - and thank everyone - not only did we survive this crisis, but I was able to, you know, go to Italy for two weeks and (INAUDIBLE), you know, no one missed me, which I think is terrific. So, let me ...

DEFEIS: Only your e-mails missed you.

REDMAN: Yeah. My e-mails missed me. I'd like to go through and just start with John Mc Crary. John, could you fill us in on what you did briefly, and ...

MCCRARY: Well, of course, I did not participate in the staff meetings because, fortunately, George is able to do that. I did talk with Jeff and Judy two or three times by phone. I basically touched bus base with them on where things were. I was not able to do the Olympic work because it was not sent to me, but I know that you're going to be sending it to me in the next few days.

One suggestion I made - or actually, I think Judy made, it was that we try to publicize our Internet membership more aggressively with our organizers. And I think some steps will be made to do that. But on the whole, I thought the staff was doing a great job.

REDMAN: Thank you, John. Jim?

PECHAC: Yeah. Jim Pechac. I participated through, I guess, my normal technique with Jeff Loomis in fairly frequent conversations and updates on financial matters on, let's call it legal matters and on staff HR aspects of what occurred.

And for your benefit, George – and you may or may not be aware – I did write a couple of suggestions down on how we may want to address this type of situation in the future from a standpoint of policy. Do we - how do we handle it from a benefits standpoint, that type of thing. And I think it's important that we clarify in everybody's mind just what the rules would be with respect to offering to an employee that's off the option of taking disability, that type of thing. So that topic was written up, and that information will be made available to you.

And also, from a standpoint of a personal situation, you know, I think it was important that, you know, in this case, some - there was some understanding of your contract arrangement and your acceptance as just another one of the employees, let's say, in terms of benefits purposes. I think our team in Windsor (ph) made the decisions on it, Judy and Jeff made the interpretation on it, and I think they worked very well in this and came to reasonable conclusions on making sure our risk was protected in this area. Jeff was able to follow up, you know, with the insurance company on things.

A couple other topics of note that are significant. One is the games parlor (ph) relationship. There's a lot of obvious sensitivity in this area. Jeff and I have worked and talked a lot about it. We have not come to a conclusion on it, obviously, because your active involvement in this was eventually of the most important. But we did at least keep up to date on it, and also, obviously, Doris participated in a lot of the conversations on this.

One other item of note is that I did assist Jeff in accounts payable processing. This was first further amplified by a recent visit that I made to the office last weekend, a couple of days. And am working with Jeff to address a process where we can separate inventory vendors from all other vendors in the database for purposes of monitoring their payment requirements. And I think that's going to be a very important process.

This is something that I know you've been working with Jeff on, and I wanted to mention that I also consider it critical. It is - it's an art, really, to pay the correct amount (ph) at the correct time, but to also have adequate cash flow. And it is not something that you develop overnight. And Jeff’s been using his own best interest in developing a process for it. And I want to see it develop to the point where we integrate it into our fabric, rather than just have it being done on judgment purposes.

So that gives you some of the highpoints of the items that we covered. I'll be issuing a more comprehensive report on my visit, obviously, later this week.

REDMAN: Thank you. Doris?

BARRY: Well, I don't know whether you know, but I was up there in the middle of a snowstorm. I drive up on Sunday night, and Monday it was snowing pretty hard. I went into the office - Jeff -was kind enough to pick me up about 7:30, so I left a car at the hotel. And I guess I was in the office until about 7:00 that night. Tom Browncomb (ph) drove me back to the hotel and joined me for dinner.

While I was there, there were several people, of course, that weren't able to make it to work. So I had to talk with some of them-- by phone. Laura (ph) I spoke to on the phone. We discussed several issues, primarily about disposing of the old computers. I told her that I was able to get some numbers of some companies in the New York area that might be interested in the disposal to - I guess, to - able to recover or salvage some materials - from the computers and they might be willing to pick up the computers for nothing.

DE FEIS: Are these computers in the basement?

BARRY: Those are the ones in the basement.

DE FEIS: OK.

BARRY: That was one of our priorities, to try to get rid of those old computers, to make space. Laura (ph) mentioned that it was very difficult because she would have to go through them to determine if anything was on there that was important or confidential and it would take up a lot of her time. So I offered to – independently of what she was able to do, I offered to call up various companies, first of all, to see whether or not they would be interested. So I haven't accomplished that yet, but I do have the numbers, and there's a possibility that we may be able to get rid of them, and without any additional cost, other than Laura's (ph) time.

Now, I don't know what would be confidential on them, but I'm sure, George, you'll determine that.

DE FEIS: Oh, yeah.

BARRY: I thought maybe we could just dispose of them and Laura (ph) said no, she didn't think that that was possible.

I also spoke to Peter (ph), the editor, while I was there. I asked him about when the reports would be going out. I was concerned about the annual report, the executive board newsletter, and the BINFO (ph), because I was under the impression that the BINFO (ph) had already been sent out and found out that that wasn't the case. I also spoke to - by phone - to Barbara (ph). I spoke to Jamie (ph) in publishing about these same projects to see when they were going to be available.

And I spent most of the time, with Judy's help, pulling out accounts receivables that were overdue. The problem is there are no phone numbers. So I'm in the process of getting numbers. I counted several of the companies who were already out of business. So I don't think we have any chance of collecting any money there.

But I am working on it, slowly but surely. And I'll do my best to try to get either some of the money or to determine whether or not we should just write them off.

DE FEIS: Which ones, Doris, were you given?

BARRY: I don't have them in front of me.

DE FEIS: No – I mean, did they fall under a certain criteria?

BARRY: They were - they were very old ones. Some of them were from '98.

DE FEIS: OK.

BARRY: One of them was a Meridian (ph). I found out that - they were out of business, and that it was for a bill for the return of some clocks that weren't working.

DE FEIS: OK.

BARRY: There was - let me see - there was one for-------- for insurance payments. (INAUDIBLE) for about six months, I guess it was. The rest fails me. I've been looking at so many …

DE FEIS: OK. That's ...

LOOMIS: Doris, there was no basic criteria. We just went through a list of - from, you know, high to low and ...

BARRY: No. The ones - yes, the ones that I picked - the ones that you gave me were older ones.

DE FEIS: OK.

BARRY: The other ones were over , 90 days or more, I think. So ...

REDMAN: OK. Thank you, Doris. Helen?

WARREN: Yeah. I've been concentrating in four areas. First, I've been doing some liaison work with a couple of my - with a couple of my committees. Second, I've been drudging away with the Social Security death file on the Ellen May (ph). But I will stop doing that now because of the impending mailing of the life member newsletter. And when that has been sent and when a sufficient amount of time has passed and balances (ph) come back, I'll be coming to the office for a day to assemble that material so that I can have a really rich source of names to get back for deletion.

Third, I've been organizing “Koltanowski” (ph) seminars all over the country. And the first one, as you know, has been held and I'm organizing the second one with Steve Kamp (ph) in Phoenix. And I'm doing one of my own here in Chicago and setting up others with John Donaldson (ph) in San Francisco. And two yet to be determined. So that has taken considerable time, especially with discussion with local organizers.

And finally, I have spent a total of 14 hours with the February financials and – in preparation for the April meeting and knowing that I will have yet one more set to look at. And I intend to approach this budget with vigor and with a great deal of vocalism.

REDMAN: OK. Thank you. Joe?

IPPOLITO: I'm having a difficult time concentrating after watching Jennifer Lopez's dress on the thing last night at Academy Awards. But I'll try to do my best here.

DE FEIS: That was the thing that snapped me out of it.

IPPOLITO: You, too. You (INAUDIBLE). Yes. When I went up to the office, I met with Jeff and Joan (ph) and Tom (ph). And the biggest portion of the day was spent involving the Super Nationals (ph). And as everybody knows, we've had a few minor problems, because sometimes Ralph (ph) likes to dig in his heels. And everybody's been very diplomatic, and Ralph (ph) is on task. And I think, you know, he feels little more comfortable now knowing that - you know, we go back a long time. And so what we have now is companies that are coming forward with sponsorships and they - it should be an outstanding event. If it's anybody over 6,000 people, we're looking at seeing a profit of close to $62,000.

REDMAN: OK. Thank you, Joe. I'll go last, and just tell you that, when this terrible accident happened, I got a call at 7:30 a.m. on Monday morning from George’s sister-in-law. And I acted rapidly because I thought it was important that there be a continued confidence that we were functioning and there were people in charge, to appoint Jeff Loomis and Judy Misner as, essentially, co-acting executive directors.

I then called every board member that morning to inform them about the situation, and was gratified at all of your support for my decision, and especially gratified, the first time I did talk to George, that he said that that was exactly what he would have done.

I was asked on some technical matters to give advice. This is fairly common - not common. It's actually fairly rare, but in those - in those situations where George is, for some reason, not available, the staff will ask me for some advice, which I'm usually able to give. One example of that was the request from Jingy (ph) for a Visa application and letters to senators that occurred when George was traveling to India. Barb Vandermark (ph) asked me what to do, and I just said, go ahead with it.

In this case, there was a request for the use of our ratings - portion of our ratings for a mathematical study by a professor at a university. I gave permission to do that. Only Bob (ph) objected to that. There was a request from Tom Brownscomb (ph) and Jeff Loomis to give them advice about a publishing contract that was pending, which I did.

And I participated in two staff conference calls, one a week, and that was a – I think a very good learning exercise for me, and also confirmation of the very high opinion I have of the professional staff. So, you know, I - in all cases -- well, maybe all except one case. But all cases since the accident, have - whatever I did, I informed the board, and I'm gratified by the board's support.

And I really do compliment both the professional staff and the executive board for outstanding - really, truly outstanding work in a difficult time. So I'm glad to see we're past this, and I think now we can move on to our second agenda item.

BARRY: May I - just, may I interrupt a moment.

REDMAN: Yes, Doris.

BARRY: I also would like to thank the staff for the cooperation they gave me, and Judy, particularly, because I kept bothering her to find the invoices. But after awhile, I got along by myself. But we did fine. And everybody was very cooperative and very helpful when I was in the office.

REDMAN: That's the - kind of universal unanimous report that I'm giving.

DE FEIS: And let me just give one more report - that it goes without saying that my support and the endurance of the staff goes beyond parallel.

BARRY: May I make one other announcement, if it's ...

BARRY: Oh, go ahead.

BARRY: It isn't on the agenda ...

REDMAN: That's OK.

BARRY: ... but I just wanted to mention that we have five certified candidates to date. I've sent e-mails to everybody on the board, but I don't know whether you looked at your e-mail today. So ...

REDMAN: OK. I want to go to the second agenda item, which has to do with the statement on Spyware (ph) that is now gone through three iterations. And I will read to the board and ask for your close attention, and then I will reread the motion that I just drafted and was finishing when the conference call came through.

I'm sorry Bob (ph) is not participating, because Bob (ph) was, I'm sure, with justification, one of my vocal critics that I was not leading the board in some kind of statement about the Spyware (ph) allegations, charges, whatever. And yet I was disappointed because, when I did make motions and did try motions, he didn't like those either. So as a result of, really, the need to absorb a considerable amount of highly technical information, I delayed any kind of final motion to - I'm waiting for the report from our volunteer committee, waiting for the statements from Joel Berez (ph), and waiting for John McArthur's (ph) report.

But having absorbed those, and with the caveat that I am not a computer specialist by any means, I think that I've arrived at a motion that clarifies my own thinking, for me, anyway. And I hope you're going to find it sufficiently clear for you also.

It's a long motion, so I'm going to read it, and then, of course, I will fax a copy to Doris, if something like it passes. I do agree with Bob (ph) that we need a statement from the board. And I've tried out two statements without much success. So here's my third try. I have been studying this issue to the best of my capability and I've certainly relied on a number of good sources.

But without further preamble, I'm going to read it through once, all the way through, and then I'm going to ask for questions to see if we can come to some kind of agreement. So – and as you know, I did file an ethics complaint against Mr. Sloan (ph) because I believe, myself, that he has materially damaged the U.S. Chess Federation and Games Parlor (ph) with his widely circulated statement, that I consider to be false. I fully informed the board about the ethics complaint, and no one seemed to respond in any angry manner except, perhaps, our missing colleague.

But that aside, I'm going to start with asking George, Judy, Jeff one question. Then I'll read the motion. And the one question that I have for whoever on staff is, I know we did a mailing of 30,000 postcards to lapsed members, and my own expectation, since the mailing, highlighted the new membership category of the $32 Internet adult membership, which has all of the privileges of the regular adult membership, except it does not have the mailed print copy of “Chess Life.”

My own expectation would be that we would get a - probably a five percent response, with the majority opting for this Internet membership. Do we have some results on that initiative?

DEFEIS: Judy?

MISNER: The only results we have are as of the end of the month of February …

REDMAN: OK.

MISNER: … and those numbers at that time was - and I'm looking through all these papers here to get ...

REDMAN: Take your time.

BARRY: Is that the report that you gave me when I was in the office, Judy?

MISNER: Yes. One of those reports that I gave you. Yeah.

BARRY: Yeah. I know there was an increase in adult members of 108.

REDMAN: That - no, that was the February increase.

MISNER: … February. OK.

REDMAN: I'm talking about the specific ...

BARRY: Oh, the - oh, I'm sorry.

REDMAN: … regard mailing 30,000 lapsed members.

MISNER: Right. OK. At that time, we had a response of 44 people from the mailing.

REDMAN: OK.

MISNER: And I believe, 25 - and I will find that report here - became the Internet member.

REDMAN: OK.

MISNER: If I'm not mistaken.

REDMAN: You can - you can look ...

LOOMIS: If I may add to that?

REDMAN: Yeah, Jeff.

LOOMIS: As of about a week ago, as I recall, about another $500 and some-odd in Internet memberships. I don't know if they're a direct result of the mailing.

REDMAN: OK. Well, I - you - we can dig out the figures and we can talk about them in April. But this response confirms my impression, anyway, that the statements by Mr. Sloan (ph) have done material damage to the Federation. And the reason that I say that is this - we all receive way too much in the way of direct mail advertising. And usually there is a five-second decision window where you look at the postcard or the piece and you say yes or no. And if there's any reason to doubt, such as a statement that we've got Spyware (ph) infecting and everything else our system, it goes into the we'll decide later category or into the wastebasket, and those two categories are essentially the same.

So anyway, here's the motion.

DE FEIS: Let me just add two other pieces. One, the five percent result would have yielded 1,500.

REDMAN: Right.

DE FEIS: So that's quite a few. And the other thing is, Judy, didn't we give a free gift if they would respond by a certain time?

MISNER: Yes. By March 1, we were giving a free gift.

DE FEIS: OK.

MISNER: And – yes.

DE FEIS: That's another trigger by which we would be able to measure ...

REDMAN: Yes.

DE FEIS: … by that date. Even though more will come in, there's been substantial harm.

REDMAN: Yes. Anyway, here's the motion, and I just beg for your careful attention, and then comments and questions. It's kind of long.

Mr. Sam Sloan (ph) has mailed and posted the following statement. "U.S. Chess Live's software is infected with Spyware (ph). It installs Spyware (ph) into your system, enabling the operators to read your entire hard drive, including your credit card numbers, your bank account passwords, and the like.”

After consulting with various volunteer and staff professionals, including Myron Lieberman (ph), Chair of the U.S. Chess Live's subcommittee of the USEF Computer and Internet Committee, and John McArthur (ph), USEF Webmaster, and relying on the statements of - statement of Joel (ph) - I'm sorry - the statements of Joel Berez (ph), CEO of Games Parlor (ph), Incorporated, the board has determined, one, the statement by Mr. Sam Sloan (ph) is false and has materially damaged the USEF and Games Parlor (ph)

Two, Conducent (ph) software does not collect personally identifiable information.

Three, the new software, Value Click (ph), whose use had been planned at the point where U.S. Chess Live reached 10,000 subscribers, carries no more risk to users than most major Web sites on the Internet that contain ads.

The board endorses the report of the U.S. Chess Live subcommittee, the statement by John McArthur (ph) in the May issue of Chess Life, and the statements on Conducent (ph) versus Radiate advertising by Joel Berez (ph) on the USEF Web site, and regarding - and his statements regarding Value Click (ph) software, as to the safety of U.S. Chess Live."

That's the end of the motion. Questions?

LOOMIS: Can I pick a nit?

REDMAN: Absolutely.

LOOMIS: This is Jeff Loomis. John McArthur's title, just for the sake of accuracy, is not Webmaster.

REDMAN: Yes. Thank you. What is it?

LOOMIS: It's online manager.

REDMAN: Online manager. Thank you. I knew I had that wrong. OK. USCF online manager. OK. Doris, do I have that committee right? Is it called the USCF Computer and Internet Committee?

BARRY: Yes.

REDMAN: OK. Thank you. Well ….

BARRY: And of course, you know that George is the Chairman.

REDMAN: Yeah. Right.

BARRY: OK. Now, did you also consult with Laura Marks (ph)?

REDMAN: No.

BARRY: With the MIS (ph)?

REDMAN: No, I did not.

BARRY: OK.

REDMAN: Other questions, discussions? You want me to read it again?

MCCRARY: I have some comments.

REDMAN: John.

MCCRARY: Yes. This is John McCrary. You know, I have concerns in several areas on this statement. First of all, I don't think that we should be using someone's name. Secondly, when you put out your original motion about objections, I did ask Myron's (ph) opinion on it, and he was uncomfortable with it, and with the use of his report to repute someone else's allegations. He felt his report should stand as a simple statement by itself, without being a refutation (ph) of something else.

Thirdly, I'm not sure that we can clearly demonstrate *proximate causality of material damage. We can

*corrected from approximate

propose it, but that would be very difficult to prove. And the reputation partly involves some legal definitions, and they haven't been defined yet by Congress.

And furthermore, your motion refers to Conducent software doesn't collect. But my understanding is there's more than one type of Conducent software and some of it does things the others doesn't do. And I'm comfortable, as a manager, in saying that we have a good position at this point. I'm pleased that the committee report has bolstered that. But I don't think we should take on the additional legal risks that would be involved in issuing an unnecessary statement of this type.

REDMAN: OK. On point two, I thought I was careful to word the motion in such a way that did not directly state, in any manner, that we were tying Myron (ph) to a position on the Sam Sloan (ph) statement.

Point three that you made - I do agree that it is difficult to prove causality here. The board is expressing an opinion. The further point that you made, I think, would be addressed if I amended point two to say, instead of, “Conducent (ph) software does not collect personally identifiable information,” to say, “Conducent (ph) software used by U.S. Chess Live does not collect personally identifiable information.”

And point five, as to the legal point you raised, you will note that I have added a very important qualifying statement - “and relying on the statements of Joel Berez (ph)” - and I think that covers us legally.

WARREN: Yes. Helen Warren here.

REDMAN: Helen?

WARREN: I concur. The statement by John regarding causality is really, you know, contrary to legal practicum (ph). Opinion carries into court, and it is up to a trial and discovery of fact to determine fact. So opinion is certainly a valid basis for a statement of position.

REDMAN: OK. Other comments?

MCCRARY: I have a couple more. I've probably had ...

REDMAN: John?

MCCRARY: … if that's all right. This is John McCrary again. And I - and when you're talking about things that may be potentially damaging to the Federation, you may – also might have to defend why you're singling out the actions of one person when a lot of persons (ph) post things on the Internet that could be damaging to the Federation.

REDMAN: He, in his capacity as an alternate delegate, mailed this statement to more than 500 USCF leaders.

MCCRARY: Which, again, he's not the only person who's done something like that. I think that is the question.

REDMAN: Let me - let me read the statement again, John, to refresh your memory.

MCCRARY: Well, my memory is clear.

REDMAN: OK. I mean, this is what he said, though. Let's make it clear to everyone.

“U.S. Chess Life Software (ph) is infected with Spyware (ph).” If he had stopped there, it would have been in a very gray area, and I would not have pursued this. However, he adds the following statement – “It installs Spyware (ph) into your system, enabling the operators to read your entire hard drive, including your credit card numbers, your bank account passwords, and the like.”

Now, although I certainly do not identify myself as a computer professional, you know, like many people of my generation, I have written some computer programs. And the discussion on the Internet universally rejected this claim by Mr. Sloan (ph), and in fact, went so far as to say, can anyone write code to identify credit card numbers and bank account passwords? And in fact, there is really no way to do it short of someone having on their hard drive a file called “my bank account passwords” and having a human operator go in and look through information collected for such a statement.

So Spyware (ph) is a very - and as you can see, the reason for my delay in this is that I really did want to get acquainted - reacquainted with the field and look into this. Spyware (ph) is a very big gray term that could mean anything. But that's not what he said. He said quite specifically that it enables the operators to read your entire hard drive, including your credit card numbers, your bank account passwords, and the like.

And he made that statement and continued to make that statement despite a kind of universal condemnation (ph) (INAUDIBLE) position (INAUDIBLE) participants (INAUDIBLE) rec games politics, and also despite the fact that there was a clear statement on our Website by Joel Berez (ph) that just contradicts it.

So, you know, I don't want to define any behavior as reckless, but I agree with Helen that the board expressing an opinion that this is damaging is quite within its legal rights.

WARREN: Helen here. It's also a very, what I would call measured (ph) response. It's not nearly as incendiary as the initial assertion - the initial false assertion. Also, I think you'd have to draw a very clear distinction between all other mailings that in the past have been sent out to 500 or 400 or 350 or whatever the voting (ph) base happened to be at the time, speculating on an issue and giving a strong opinion on an issue and making here what amounts to a libelous indictment of an entire system or an entire service that is offered by the Federation to its members.

There is no comparison between this kind of overall attack on the Federation as a body and anything that has ever happened in the past in any kind of major mailing.

DEFEIS: (INAUDIBLE)

PECHAC: Hi.

REDMAN: Who's ...

BARRY: I'll wait - I'll wait my turn.

PECHAC: Jim Pechac.

REDMAN: Jim?

PECHAC: One, I guess, oblique aspect of this, unfortunately also, is the fact that the same individual -- and maybe I guess this is almost like concurrently put through documentation to ask the membership to vote to have certain people removed from office.

And I just question whether we necessarily want to put out a statement or take the risk of even voting on a statement like this where we may end up with only those four people saying yes. I just raise it as a topic.

REDMAN: I - if I can respond Doris, and then you go next.

BARRY: Yes.

REDMAN: I have no objection to everything else that Sam (ph) said in his mailing. I may have personal objection. I think, you know, we were slandered (ph) and liable (ph) and lied and all the rest of it, but that's neither here nor there. He is perfectly free to express his opinion about the way we're doing our jobs.

And thus, none of his other statements really bothered me. But this particular statement kind of stuck out, because I do believe that it has caused material damage to the Chess Federation - Doris.

BARRY: It is also totally inaccurate and wrong.

The other question I had here was the motion pertaining to individuals on the Internet Committee – for example, Myron Lieberman (ph) and John McArthur (ph), who is an employee of the - of the U.S. Chess Federation. I question whether or not we can just make a general statement of the title of the individuals instead of naming them. Would you think that would be appropriate?

REDMAN: I don't understand. How should we change …

BARRY: Well, instead of saying, after consulting with Myron Lieberman (ph), we would just say his position as the chairman of the subcommittee.

REDMAN: OK, then I ...

BARRY: And then when you're talking about the - and I ...

REDMAN: Right.

BARRY: … would raise ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (INAUDIBLE)

BARRY: … the question for George whether he would want an employee named.

MCCRARY: Well, if you're not going to name Myron (ph), I would not name the employee either …

BARRY: (INAUDIBLE)

DEFEIS: … and I tend to agree with you, Doris, that just giving the titles would be enough said.

REDMAN: OK. I think that's a very good suggestion ...

BARRY: Yes.

REDMAN: OK.

REDMAN: … and so I will amend it to incorporate that.

OK. Other comments or questions?

Should I read it again?

BARRY: Yes.

REDMAN: OK. Let me read it as amended.

“Mr. Sam Sloan (ph) has mailed and posted the following statement. "U.S. Chess Life Software is infected with Spyware (ph). It installs Spyware (ph) into your system, enabling the operators to read your entire hard drive, including your credit card numbers, your bank account password, and the like.

After consulting with various volunteers and staff professionals, including chair of the U.S. Chess Life Subcommittee of the USCF Computer and Internet Committee, and the USCF online manager, and relying on the statements of Joel Berez (ph), CEO of Games Parlor (ph) ...

BARRY: How about - how about just leaving out his name and ...

DEFEIS: Yeah. CEO (INAUDIBLE).

REDMAN: Yeah.

REDMAN: OK and relying on the statements of the CEO.

: … the CEO of Games Parlor Incorporated (ph), the board has determined, one, the statement by Mr. Sam Sloan (ph) is false and has materially damaged the USCF and Games Parlor (ph).

“Two, conducent (ph) software used by U.S. Chess Live (ph) does not collect personally identifiable information.

Three, the new software, Value Click (ph), whose use had been planned at the point where U.S. Chess Life (ph) reached 10,000 subscribers, carries no more risk to users than most major Web sites on the Internet that contain ads.

“The Board endorses the report of the U.S. Chess Life Subcommittee (ph). The statement by the online manager – by the USCF online manager in the May issue of "Chess Life" and the statements on Conducent (ph) versus Radiate (ph) advertising by the CEO of Games Parlor (ph) on the USCF Web site, and his statements regarding Value Click (ph) software adds to the safety of U.S. Chess Life (ph).

Further questions or discussion?

PECHAC: TIM (ph) - yeah, Jim Pechac.

REDMAN: Yeah.

PECHAC: We - at one point, you mentioned, “The board has concluded,” and then you mention these four or five items.

REDMAN (ph) : OK. Let me just look at this again. “The board has determined ...”

PECHAC: That's the word I was - and is that an appropriate term?

REDMAN (ph): Well, it's an expression of opinion, but it's an expression of opinion that contains a forceful verb. Do you have another ...

WARREN: You want to use concluded?

REDMAN(ph): Concluded is all right. Concluded - OK, concluded is actually better. OK, yeah, that - yeah, good. Thanks, Jim, and especially (ph) Helen(INAUDIBLE).

OK. Other comments or questions?

BARRY: Instead of being definite about (INAUDIBLE) it's, that this could - that this damaged the Federation. If you could couch that in a different way and say that it's likely that it could have happened or

REDMAN (ph): OK.

BARRY: … some other term. I just - I just think that most of the time you're better off couching your bets when you make statements like this.

REDMAN (ph): OK. OK. So what you're suggesting is the statement by Mr. Sam Sloan (ph) is false and it has, in all likelihood, materially damaged the USCF and Games Parlor (ph). Is that ...

BARRY: I'm not sure that that's strong enough. Helen, do you ...

WARREN: No, I don't. I think that that dilutes it ...

BARRY: Yeah.

WARREN: …quite a bit. (INAUDIBLE)

BARRY: Yes

WARREN: George, how do you hone (ph) in on that?

DE FEIS: Let me hear the suggestion again.

REDMAN (ph): OK. The statement that we have here is the statement by Mr. Sam Sloan (ph) is false and has materially damaged the USCF and Games Parlor (ph). The suggestion that Doris is stating is that we've softened that a bit by saying “and has, in all likelihood, materially damaged.”

DE FEIS: “And has, in all likelihood” - well, I don't like “in all likelihood.”

REDMAN (ph): OK.

DE FEIS: … I don't think that does enough, and it leaves it very loose.

BARRY: Yeah.

REDMAN: Yeah.

WARREN: Yeah.

BARRY: Could we say that we concluded that it has ...

REDMAN: Well, we did change ...

WARREN: The board has concluded ...

BARRY: Has concluded ...

WARREN: … did change that.

DEFEIS: OK.

BARRY: (INAUDIBLE) OK. OK.

BARRY: I was just trying to be cautious about ...

REDMAN (ph): Well, this is actually a fairly measured and cautious statement ...

DEFEIS: OK.

REDMAN: … as I think Helen pointed out, considering recklessness, in my view …

BARRY: OK.

REDMAN: (ph): … the recklessness of the original statement. Is there further discussion or any other question about this motion?

Hearing none, can we proceed to a vote on the motion?

I guess we can. Doris?

BARRY: OK. Well, Bob Smith (ph) is not here. So, Helen Warren (ph).

WARREN: Aye.

BARRY: Joe Ippolito.

IPPOLITO: Yes.

BARRY: Tim Redman.

REDMAN: Yes.

BARRY: John McCrary.

MCCRARY: Abstain.

BARRY: Jim Pechac.

PECHAC: Yes.

BARRY: And Doris Barry, yes.

REDMAN (ph): OK. So that's ...

BARRY: So that's one abstention, one absent, and one, two, three, four, five yeses.

REDMAN (ph): OK. Thank you for efficient consideration of a difficult and vexing question.

I think we now go to the third item on the agenda. So I'll just recognize John.

MCCRARY: Yes. I could ask Jeff, I had asked if he could give me a ballpark estimates of the three costs. The first being the cost of the last delegate's (INAUDIBLE) mailing.

LOOMIS: OK. The copy charges from the last mailing were approximately $2600.

REDMAN: OK, let me write that down. OK.

MCCRARY: (INAUDIBLE)

LOOMIS: The mailing estimating at about $1,000. We didn't keep track with them. I'm just estimating it would be about the size of the smaller mailing.

What I did was I went down to shipping, where we have our postage machine, and I took wads of paper approximately the same size as what we're mailing to find out how much they would cost, and my estimate of what the mailing charges would have been on the last one are about $1,000.

REDMAN: OK. So that was a $3,600 total?

LOOMIS: Yes.

REDMAN: OK.

MCCRARY: And my question is, what would be estimate on the current supposed mailing of the full package to 535 delegates (ph).

LOOMIS: OK. The full package copy charges are approximately $3,200, and an estimated charge of about $1,800.

REDMAN: OK. So that's an incremental charge – or an incremental of 1,400? That's - in other words, it's going to cost us $1400 more to do this one than the last one?

PECHAC: Why did the mail only go up - at what, 80 percent?

LOOMIS: Yeah.

PECHAC: Why was that? Did we change the rate?

LOOMIS: Well, the last time we sent everything out on singles - I believe we sent everything out on single pages. If I'm not mistaken this time ...

PECHAC: You mean - you mean - you mean the weight was different?

LOOMIS: Yes.

PECHAC: And did we also - have you - have you investigated the other suggestion ...

LOOMIS: That's still under investigation. I have Asha (ph), who's our ...

PECHAC: So we …

LOOMIS: (INAUDIBLE)

PECHAC: … possibility of a savings through using ...

LOOMIS: Yes.

PECHAC: … printed …

LOOMIS: Yeah, or some other avenue. He's trying to find out what the cheapest way we can send it out is. Unfortunately, we're dependent on the post office.

PECHAC: Oh, good Lord.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (INAUDIBLE)

REDMAN: I know a postmaster. He's a friend of mine.

PECHAC: Did the last mailing go out to the same number of people that this mailing would go to?

LOOMIS: I believe it did, yes.

DEFEIS: Jeff, remind me if I'm wrong, but the annual report in this mailing is going to be something that would be sent anyway, and will - would cost what?

LOOMIS: What I - what I did, I also estimated the mailing charges of not only the annual report, but of the executive board newsletter as both separate items.

DEFEIS: OK.

LOOMIS: And I'm estimating that they would have been about $500 a piece to mail.

REDMAN: So that would have been another 1,000?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DEFEIS: Yes.

WARREN: Well, I don't - there's no question in mind that this mailing is judicious and prudent and needs to - needs to go out as planned.

REDMAN: OK. I think - what I was interested in, certainly was interested in John's (ph) (INAUDIBLE) question about cost.

REDMAN: But, you know, I - what it appears is that we're talking about a $400 increase. Let me - let me explain ...

MCCRARY: … excuse me just a minute. John McCrary still has the floor.

REDMAN: Oh, I'm sorry, John. Go ahead, you're right.

MCCRARY: (INAUDIBLE)

REDMAN: Yes, go ahead.

MCCRARY: … you know, first of all, let me, you know, say that my impression is then – and I think this is confirmed in your e-mail as of January 15th, that these mailings went only to delegates and not to delegates and alternates. So this is the first time I've heard that the last one went to 535 (ph) delegates.

REDMAN: I think, actually, if I can just interject this, and then you have the floor again, is that the last mailing went to about 250 delegates and alternate delegates, because we were unable to determine kind of what the cutoff was because of some uncertainty. That's my guess.

MCCRARY: Well, the last mailing, I remember we discussed, actually we had some of the ties had not been broken.

REDMAN: Yeah ...

MCCRARY: And ...

REDMAN: Right.

MCCRARY: … number was less than 200, if I remember.

REDMAN: Well, we can find that out. But ...

WARREN: A point of information.

REDMAN: Yes.

WARREN: Under all circumstances, to whom would the annual report be mailed?

REDMAN: To ...

MCCRARY: … go to all …500

REDMAN: To ...

WARREN: Well, then, what are - what are we talking about here? The annual report is part of this mailing and would go to all 500 voters.

MCCRARY: OK, (INAUDIBLE) if I can continue ...

REDMAN: Yes, John, go ahead, yeah.

MCCRARY: You know, (INAUDIBLE) – so to clarify, the last mailing did not go to 535, it went to about 200, as far as we know.

REDMAN: I believe it went to about 250, but ...

MCCRARY: OK.

REDMAN: Yeah.

MCCRARY: All right. Now, my third estimate I was asking of Jeff was, if we mailed the larger mailing, which I believe you told me was over 200 pages, to only delegates, who are about 150, and sent only the annual report and minutes to the remaining alternates, would that make a significant difference in cost?

LOOMIS: Again, I came up with - the copy charges we got are fairly accurate. That's from the company that would do it. The copy charge will be $1,400, and again, my estimate on the mailing from taking a package down and weighing it, with the combination of part of it to the delegates and part of it to the alternate delegates would be about $1,600.

REDMAN: OK. So that's essentially a 1,200 reduction in copy charges, but a 600 increase in mailing charges. Is that right?

LOOMIS: No, it's about a 200 decrease in mailing charges.

PECHAC: Right.

BARRY: Yes.

WARREN: Yes (ph).

MCCRARY: So what would be the net difference …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (INAUDIBLE)

REDMAN: (INAUDIBLE) your rate, yes.

LOOMIS: It would be 3,000 versus approximately 5,000.

MCCRARY: Great, that was my proposal that we do it that way. (INAUDIBLE) larger package to delegates only, and the smaller package of minutes and the annual report to the full group. And if I understand correctly, that would save us about 2,000.

REDMAN: OK. So ...

BARRY: (INAUDIBLE)

REDMAN: Just – let me ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (INAUDIBLE)

REDMAN: Just ask John a question, and John, what you're saying is that the difference is $2,000.

MCCRARY: If that's what I ...

REDMAN: OK.

MCCRARY: … understand Jeff correctly.

REDMAN: OK, and ...

MCCRARY: (INAUDIBLE)

REDMAN: OK. Have - can I call on Doris?

BARRY: Yes. If we mail these out separately, as John suggested, would that increase the cost of the postage?

LOOMIS: I don't understand the question.

BARRY: Well, if - sometimes if you mail packages separately, because there's minimum postage for certain weights ... it could cost more for postage.

LOOMIS: Well, these are all ...

BARRY: … is that a consideration here or not?

LOOMIS: These are all based on first class postage.

BARRY: First class, OK. But there’s still one price for a package , if it falls within a certain weight---say 10 to 20 oz could be one price.

LOOMIS: That's all the estimates are, which hopefully we'll be able to reduce with another form of mailing. But that's the only figure I had available to me.

BARRY: Well, if you mail something from the post office, there’s usually - let's just, for example, say 10 ounces to 20 ounces is 55 cents. If you mail a package weighing less than 20 oz. you still pay 55 cents

LOOMIS: No. This was based on actually putting on a scale …

BARRY: OK.

LOOMIS: … on a postage scale that automatically kicks in cost per package. Again, it's only estimates because I didn't count pages. I just took a stack that looked approximately the same size.

REDMAN: OK. If - when everyone else is finished, I'd like to raise my hand. Is that all right?

WARREN: Go ahead.

REDMAN: I'm very cautious these days. I - you know, I wanted to try to explain to the board, you know, some of the changes in thinking that transpired since my communication to the board about this, and then various conversations that I had with - particularly with George, but then also with Jeff.

The intention here, by expanding the scope of the mailing, is to highlight the professionalism and achievement of our management team, to a group that essentially comprises all of the people who will be delegates, or nearly all the people who will be delegates, at the Boston meeting.

The intention was not to make this the standard practice, but to make this the one-time exception. Since my communication with the board about the original idea of this, which as John has said, was the delegate's mailing, George and I had a number of conversations in which we more or less arrived at the conclusion that, for this time only, because I am very interested and very proud of the management team and the staff reports and with (ph) Myron Lieberman (ph), who's been on the board as long as anyone, calls the best by far management reporting that we've ever had.

I was interested in letting everyone know about this, letting our most significant members know about this. So that was the real motivation for this. Having, essentially, come to that conclusion myself and having talked with George, and essentially, he agreed with this line of reasoning.

We then attempted to come up with some notion or some idea of cost to try to pare the cost as much as possible. And this is where I will confess that I probably did not keep the board extremely well informed about the deliberations that George and I were going through. Doris, for example, thought that this mailing had already gone out. So obviously, I failed in communicating to the board. And I'm usually very conscientious about copying (ph) you guys on everything - you guys and gals.

In this particular case, again, back and forth like a badminton game almost - friendly one, George says, well, wait a second, we've got to mail the annual report to everyone. So if we piggyback that on the binfo (ph) packet, you know, we can get some savings there based, obviously, on the differential between the first ounce of first class postage and subsequent ounces.

And I said yeah, that's a good idea. Then, I think somewhere I suggested that we - because these management reports were so clearly printed, that they would be highly legible if we did two to a page. And then, knowing that Doris was coming to the office and that we had the executive board newsletter and the minutes to get out, that also had to go to the alternate delegates - I think Jeff said, well, why don't we wait a little bit longer and put this also in the - in the package.

All of these things, and then my subsequent suggestion that the office look into the fact that we can - we can mail these, I think, by print rate, which is practically as fast in most cases as first class, but significant savings, all of these things were meant to contain the cost.

But the primary purpose of this has always been to highlight the significant achievements of staff. Then a secondary purpose didn't (ph) come up - namely, I'm very proud of this board, and I'm very proud of the things that everyone has been doing, and all the work that you have put in. So I asked everyone to, you know, pick out a binfo (ph) forward to (ph) or a memo or two or something that everyone thought would (INAUDIBLE) people thought would be appropriate and add that to the mailing.

I did not review them. I did not censor them. I just relied on every board member picking out something if they wanted or not - whatever. So that's kind of a secondary purpose became to, you know, show that the board was at work. It was not my intention to do this kind of large mailing again. It is my hope that we will do a binfo (ph) packet again, a third one to the delegates only, you know, sometime in May or June.

So that was kind of the reasoning that we all went through, and I think the reasoning is sound. I think we should be proud of the achievements of our professional staff. I projected, without Jim Pechac's permission (INAUDIBLE) rashly at the U.S. amateur (INAUDIBLE) that (INAUDIBLE) finish in the black, operations would finish in the black this year, and I gave public credit to the management team, and secondarily to the board, and we got a lot of applause.

So that was - that was the reasoning that I went through. And that's absent a motion that the board would reverse this. That's what's going to happen - this mailing will go out to the 535 as planned unless, of course, the board wishes to make a motion otherwise.

MCCRARY: Tim, could I just ask if there's any other board member who supports my suggestion that we go with the $3,000 alternative of sending only the minutes and annual report to the alternates and the full package to the delegates?

REDMAN: OK.

MCCRARY: Does anybody support that?

REDMAN: Hearing none, I guess not.

MCCRARY: Rather than belabor the point, I won't - I won't push it here, but I would like to have this matter put on the April agenda.

REDMAN: I - yeah, and it will be on the April agenda, and I have actually decided to put this kind of item and items related to the president (ph) that Bob Smith (ph) has brought up, to be - and Doris and others to be the second item on the agenda. The first will be our financials and our budget process. But I'm not going to bury this. It'll be the second item.

MCCRARY: OK. If I could just close by making a couple of quick points. First, I don't - I'm not tying it to any process issues. To me it's purely a financial decision. And secondly, I'd like it to be on the transcript that I think 5,000 for this is too much.

REDMAN: OK. I think the incremental cost was 2,000. So you think the added $2,000 for this kind of exposure is too much. Is that right?

MCCRARY: I think the total cost of this is too much, yes.

REDMAN: Well, that's another …

MCCRARY: You can interpret it yes, as the incremental cost.

REDMAN: OK. It is - OK, thank you. Other comments or questions on this point?

BARRY: I'd like to make a comment, because normally I would agree with John about the aspect of saving money. However, under the circumstances, since we are already late with a couple of these reports, I think the fact that we're going to the trouble of giving the delegates all of this information, when we've been criticized quite often about not giving (INAUDIBLE) information, that it will help - well, it will help our relationship with our members substantially.

REDMAN: OK. Other comments or questions?

PECHAC: I have one also - Jim Pechac. There's some - I also agree with Doris' statement the same way. Normally I would not - I would be at least apprehensive about increasing on a cost just for the sake of sending out something like that. But my - one of my primary concerns on this is that I want to see the information continued in the future from the staff, and this is a way of lauding (ph) that staff out to the membership so that we do encourage the staff to continue to develop this material. It is extremely valuable decision-support material, and ...

DEFEIS: Yes, I need to get out to a call.

REDMAN: OK.

DEFEIS: I do not.

REDMAN: Other comments. I agree with that. I ...

DEFEIS: The name of the host is George De Feis.

REDMAN: This - we're getting - George, you're doing something else here.

DE FEIS: My phone is beeping.

REDMAN: OK.

DE FEIS: … so I am getting on another line.

REDMAN: Sorry, George.

DEFEIS OK.

LOOMIS: George ...

BARRY: Well, I think we can ...

LOOMIS: George before you go I need to ask you a question.

DE FEIS: (INAUDIBLE)

REDMAN I don't think you're going to get (INAUDIBLE). You can get him privately.

LOOMIS That's it.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (INAUDIBLE)

REDMAN, Yeah Doris?

BARRY: I think we’re about finished aren’t we?

REDMAN: I think we are finished.

LOOMIS: May I ask one favor of the board?

REDMAN: Jeff?

LOOMIS: Yes. A couple of weeks ago I sent out - Helen mentioned it - I sent out the first iteration - well, it's actually our - I think it was our iteration, but the first one to the board.

REDMAN: Right.

LOOMIS: I'm in the process of preparing the next iteration, and I would like as much feedback as possible prior to ...

DEFEIS: Doris

LOOMIS: …my issuing the next alliteration (ph) so that ...

REDMAN: OK. Let me reinforce that. I think that - this is my ninth year on the board and it - I have to say that this process that is being developed by Jeff and the office and Jim to get advanced comment on the - on the planning budget is a real innovation and – but it only works if we give them feedback. We'll have a lot to do in April, and I also promise you we'll have very little to do in August.

So everything that all of you can do to provide feedback on the planning budget to get several iterations going is going to save a lot of time in April, and we're going to need all the time because we have a big agenda. So, you know, I just endorse Jeff’s request there and hope we can get a good discussion going. I think we had to resolve some of these matters first, but now we've got a whole month before the board meeting and please, please, let's heed Jeff’s request and …

PECHAC: What we will do ... … to me too also

… what we will do is we're going to set some type of a model up where, if people want to make comments on things we're going …

(INAUDIBLE)

REDMAN: Yeah, Jim.

PECHAC: … we're going to have some means of being able to do it with a reference to line numbers and column numbers and that kind of stuff. So you'll see that pretty soon.

REDMAN: OK. Well, we're going to close the meeting.

BARRY: … just one second …

REDMAN: Yeah, Doris.

BARRY: Is there any portion of this meeting that you would like to be kept confidential?

REDMAN: That

DEFEIS: OK. I hear that the call is ending …

REDMAN: Is a - that's a interesting question that - yes, I think the - this personnel matter must be confidential.

BARRY: OK.

REDMAN: And that's the - you know the matter I'm talking about.

BARRY: OK.

REDMAN: OK. That’s—thank you, Doris that

BARRY: Well, when I have the transcript, I would delete that portion fro the transcript.

REDMAN: Right.

BARRY: I just wanted to make sure.

REDMAN Right.

BARRY: I would have done it anyway, but I thought I better get ...

REDMAN: Excellent.

BARRY: … everyone's) approval.

REDMAN: Yes, excellent.

BARRY: OK.

REDMAN: Excellent. OK. In that case, all I can say in closing is that Jeff and Judy, you guys did a spectacular job. All the board members present at this conference call really pitched in and worked heroically, and I think we're back on track, and I'm just very proud of this group.

I think we performed magnificently under difficult circumstances, and I - and I think part of that is due to the strength of the management team approach that George has developed. So thank you very much.

MISNER: You're welcome.

REDMAN: And so, good night, everyone.

WARREN: Good night.

BARRY: Good night. End of conference call.

Motion: (Redman) Mr. Sam Sloan has mailed and posted the following statement:

“US Chess Live software is infected with spyware. It installs spyware into your system, enabling the operators to read your entire hard drive, including your credit card numbers, your bank account passwords and the like.”

After consulting with various volunteer and staff professionals, including the Chair of the US Chess Live Subcommittee of the USCF Computer and Internet Committee and the USCF Online Manager, and relying on the statements of the CEO of Games Parlor, Inc., the Executive Board has concluded:

1) The statement by Mr. Sam Sloan is false and has materially damaged the USCF and Games Parlor

2) The Conducent software used by US Chess Live does not collect personally identifiable information.

3) The new software, Valueclick, whose use had been planned at the point were US Chess Live reached 10,000 subscribers, carries no more risk to users than most major websites on the Internet that carry ads.

The Board endorses the report of the US Chess Live Subcommittee, the statement by the USCF Online Manager in the May issue of Chess Life, and the statements on Conducent vs Radiate advertising by the CEO of Games Parlor on the USCF website and his statement regarding Valueclick software, as to the safety of US Chess Live.

Passed . 5 F or -- McCrary abstained, Smith not available for call.