I am not at all ashamed to say that all I know about the United States Chess Federation's (USCF) legal and political woes is what I read in the newspapers.  I don't even know why someone would spell the word "spouse" all uppercase...must be insider baseball rather than chess.  In any case, following decades of experience in growing/managing organizations, and in particular nonprofits, I do know a thing or three which causes me to view some of the comments made here with a bit of skepticism.

First off, the assertion that the legal process and its attendant controversies will damage the future of chess is, with all due respect,  silliness.  In point of fact, a good old-fashioned house cleaning resulting from public scrutiny might provide an opportunity for some apparently much needed new blood.  The future success of organized chess is hardly at the mercy of the USCF or those currently vested with the responsibility to pick up its mail. Many nonprofits, especially those who have become bloated and a bit long in the tooth, suffer greatly at the hands of members of their volunteer Board of Directors.  The USCF, like many nonprofits, is at much greater risk due to elitism, gossip and meddling in operations and management by Board Members than it is by a frivolous lawsuit instigated by an over the hill pawn pusher with too little to do.  Evidence that this is exactly the case may be seen in a story printed by the luminaries at the New York Times wherein it is pointed out that a significant portion of the suit has to do with a Board Member's criticism of details of the process whereby a website editor was recruited.  Clearly, this is a group who should have spent more time and money engaged in Board training and less in second guessing staff.  Can you say: the board does policy and the staff does operations?  Sure you can.  The offended board member claimed that EEOC reg's had been violated in recruiting a web design position.  EEOC must be shorthanded or they'd be dealing with their own complaint processes, rather than to delegate complaint investigation to individuals and their lawyers.

Finally, virtually all such organizations avail themselves of Officers and Directors liability coverage and, as a result, are in very little, if any, danger of financial injury,  nevermind extinction.

Some people are very VERY gifted chess players, and some of these people are also very famous (chesswise, anyway) and they have in fact made great contributions to the game.  Unfortunately, being smart and famous does not necessarily qualify someone for a leadership role . . . and it certainly does not qualify someone's SPOUSE for a leadership role.  Perhaps it would be best if these people continued with their true calling of playing and teaching chess and left the business of chess to more qualified people.

The USCF certainly had problems before these unfortunate events, and while at least some of what the board member in question had been complaining about was true . . . his actions have certainly put the USCF's very existence in jeoprody.  No good will come of this, not for the USCF, not for chess in America, and - perhaps most sadly, not for someone who once held a great potential as an ambassador for our game.

You are correct in this tangent. Not only at issue is the legal matter,  but the current USCF election for the Board of Directors. This could remove the two board members who are suing the USCF. I am dissappointed in them. I thought they would be good for the organization. Your temptation to write about politics is understandable and done with reserve - you did not mention names. I have noticed people writing as if they do not know which side is right and then go on to take the side of the suit against the USCF. That resembles the charge against one of them that he has impersonated others on line.