[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Oct 20 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

The folks who are manipulating the conservatives are chasing after money, money, money...

and the folks manipulating the liberals aren't?

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Oct 20 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 20 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

The folks who are manipulating the conservatives are chasing after money, money, money...

and the folks manipulating the liberals aren't?

There was a survey recently among Dutch companies that are active in the US and sponsor American politics. The general picture was that they feed whomever is (or will be) in a better position to repay their services, and that they were quite frank about that. Some feed reps and dems simoultaneously. Some fed reps until the latest midterms and then suddenly turned democrats.

Maybe the most well-known recent example of corruption in US politics [deleted, maybe it's better not to accuse named persons for crime on this forum].

But the original question was about Scandinavia, and there (and in Europe generally) things are different. For a number of reasons, politicians are barely in positions to influence the government's relations with individual companies, so it doesn't make much economical sense to feed political parties. Color me naive but I think that if a Danish CEO generously donates some of his shareholders' money to a political party, it is because of sympaty or (maybe more likely) a stake in the party's general agenda such as better relations with Iran (if the company exports feta cheese) or simply lower corporate taxes, but not likely to be a case of corruption. (Of course as soon as a politician discovers that certain policies lead to more sponsor money he has de facto become corrupt, but the risk is lower than it is in the US because he can only influence general policies affecting a whole trade, not usually individual companies).

The way to improve relations with European governments is to feed bureacrats rather than politicians. Danish bureacrats are generally known to be difficult to influence (according to Transparancy International, only New Zealand and maybe Norway are less corrupt) but there are exceptions - it used to be easy to buy construction contracts with the Copenhagen townhall, not sure if it's still the case or if they have cleaned it up.

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2007-October-21, 17:11

[G_R__E_G]

The USBF has published their decision.

USBF Minutes

[Walddk]

" ... violation of Section IV.A.10 of the USBF Grievance, Appeals and Disciplinary Procedures (“Actions unbecoming a member...)".

What exactly did they violate? I guess you need to be a USBF member to log in and know because it seems impossible for non-members to get to the rules. Maybe I missed something on the USBF web site?

Roland

[G_R__E_G]

Here is the link to the document they are referring to.

Grievances

[jonottawa]

I'm saddened and disgusted but not surprised by this decision.

So much for letting the whole thing blow over.

[cherdano]

[jdonn]

Nope not surprising at all, this was very expected. What can you do.

[Foxx]

BULLSHIT.

Total, complete, utter, tight-arsed, and self-serving BULLSHIT.

[matmat]

odds on this ending up in the courts?

[mrdct]

It's refreshing to see an organisation like the USBF conducting itself in such a transparent manner and making minutes available on its website. The website also has the actual memo to the WBF and CCBA, the key extract from which is:

"The Board of Directors of the United States Bridge Federation sends to both of you as well as to the members of both of your organizations our regrets regarding the behavior of the members of the USA1 Venice Cup team at the prize-giving ceremony in Shanghai. Despite our pride in the bridge achievement of our team, we know that this was neither the time nor place for a political statement. Please accept our sincere apology and be assured that we are acting to prevent this or similar behavior in the future."

[mrdct]

matmat, on Oct 23 2007, 11:19 PM, said:

odds on this ending up in the courts?

I'd say quite low as I can't imagine the USBF will come up with a sanction that would result in any of the ladies in question suffering any economic loss. I'd expect something like a reprimand or probation period, so unless there is a repeat of the behaviour the individuals concerned can continue plying their trade.

[helene_t]

mrdct, on Oct 24 2007, 07:31 AM, said:

It's refreshing to see an organisation like the USBF conducting itself in such a transparent manner and making minutes available on its website.

Right, I can't imagine the Dutch BF doing the same. Publishing who abstained from voting? Cool.

As for the decision, it seems outrageous to me.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Oct 24 2007, 11:29 AM, said:

As for the decision, it seems outrageous to me.

24 pages. I think we have a hint as to how many approve, disapprove and who don't have strong feelings.

Roland

[sceptic]

I find that the 3 people that have abstained thier right to vote, that is BS, what is the point of being on a comittee if you dont make decisions

[Walddk]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

I find that the 3 people that have abstained thier right to vote, that is BS, what is the point of being on a comittee if you dont make decisions

I can't be sure, but I have a feeling that they were emotionally involved because of close relationship(s) with one or more players. If that is correct, I think abstaining is the only sensible option when they decided to attend at all (that would perhaps have been another option).

They decided against.

Roland

[helene_t]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

I find that the 3 people that have abstained thier right to vote, that  is BS, what is the point of being on a comittee if you dont make decisions

I very often abstain from voting when sitting in comitees, general meeting, BoD meetings or whatever. Roland gave one plausible explanation for this case. Other possible explanations (maybe not in this case, but more generally) include:
- They consider the particular voting, that happened to come up, a borderline decision
- They have a (formal or otherwise) obligation to represent a particular segment but were unable to interpret their mandate in the light of the particular voting that happened to come up

(I have also sometimes abstained from voting because my vote would be visible and whatever I voted would get me into troubles, but in such cases it would probably have been better not to attend. Also I have on one occasion abstained in order to demonstrate my contempt for the voting, but in that case I should probably not have attended either).

[mrdct]

The USBF seems quite an odd organisation. It only has about 250 "active" members, but there is some other class of membership which essentially brings in all US citizens who are members of the ACBL or ABA. There must be some mechanism for those two organisations (mainly the ACBL I expect) to fund the USBF.

I suspect that the 250 "active" member are pretty much just the players who contest the trials, which I think must be unique in world bridge.

[sceptic]

Quote

I can't be sure, but I have a feeling that they were emotionally involved because of close relationship(s) with one or more players. If that is correct, I think abstaining is the only sensible option when they decided to attend at all (that would perhaps have been another option).

This to me is still unacceptable, what happens if they were the only 3 on the comitee, I have often been put in positions where I have had to decide things against people I respect and friends, I just personally hate the idea people can abstain because it puts them in a difficult position, life is full of difficult situations, I just don't accept, people can do the nice bits of a job and as soon as it interferes with thier personal relationships or make it awkward for them they can abstain

OMG it is almost like they are politicians, sorry Roland, I still think they are not doing their job properly

[jillybean]

I won’t comment until the charges are heard, the USBF appear to be following the correct process.