[bid_em_up]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 09:07 AM, said:

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

Oh please, Wayne.

"By a 4-0 vote with Bill Pollack, Jan Martel and Rose Meltzer abstaining"

Of the three abstaining BoD members,

1) Bill Pollack had abstained from the vote on 10/15 due to conflict of interest. If he had a conflict of interest then, he still had it on the subsequent vote.

2) It is fairly normal for the President of a BoD to abstain from the original vote, as they would be the tiebreaking vote, if necessary. Notice, she did not abstain from the original vote taken on 10/15. Hopefully, Jan will be kind enough to weigh in on why she chose to abstain, but she is certainly under no obligation to do so.

3) I do not know Ms. Meltzers reasons for abstaining. Nor do I really care.

[helene_t]

Wayne, suppose it's a borderline decision. Would you rather flip a coin than voting "abstain"? Suppose there are seven members, three of which vote "yes". The other four all flip a coin and all four coins happen to say "no".

Kinda like those players at the club who don't want to say "no agreement", so when asked to explain their agreement they just give some random agreement.

Or all those brave citizens who think it's a moral obligation to vote so they vote for some random party.

[Walddk]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

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

But they are politicians, Wayne, bridge politicians, and just like in real life (parliaments) where the members have the right to abstain, the bridge politicans are, and should, be granted the same right. That's how it works in a democracy whether one likes it or not. I like it.

Roland

[mycroft]

What if the meeting were on more than one item? Don't show up because you have a conflict of interest on one item on the agenda?

If people don't do anything, that's a problem. If they abstain when it is correct to abstain, then it's usually easy to see.

Michael.

[jdonn]

Complaining about board members who have a bias abstaining from the vote? This is fast becoming an absurd discussion.

[geller]

Quote

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.

That's because the ACBL was both the zonal and national organization for the USA. There was no problem with this, but when the WBF affiliated with the Olympic movement it became necessary to have a separate national committee for each country or region, just like other sports. That's why the USBF was created. The only tourneys they run are the trials for the US international teams. Hence the only paid up members are people who compete in the trials (or a few others with a real interest in international bridge).

[hrothgar]

geller, on Oct 24 2007, 08:00 PM, said:

Quote

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.

That's because the ACBL was both the zonal and national organization for the USA. There was no problem with this, but when the WBF affiliated with the Olympic movement it became necessary to have a separate national committee for each country or region, just like other sports. That's why the USBF was created. The only tourneys they run are the trials for the US international teams. Hence the only paid up members are people who compete in the trials (or a few others with a real interest in international bridge).

I never realized that the USBF had so few members...

Not sure how many people know much about the history of the Southern Baptists. This was actually a relatively moderate organization until some conservatives organized an executive coup. They stacked a few elections, took control of the seminaries, and almost overnight the Southern Baptists morphed into a far right denomination.

Resident memberships in the USBF cost a grand total of $50 a year and convey voting privledges. Just think, we could invest a mere $12,500 and seize control of the BoD.

In practice, the USBF BoD needs to grant approval to every application for membership. However, I think that they'd run into trouble if they started bouncing applications left, right, and center.

Reminds me of the good old days when the local colleges would periodically seize control of the town government...

[sceptic]

Quote

Complaining about board members who have a bias abstaining from the vote? This is fast becoming an absurd discussion

hope this is not aimed at me, I am not complaining, you would know if I was, I merely voiced my opinion, free speech and all that, whether I am right or wrong (I know I am not always right) I just personally dislike people sitting on the fence on issues

There are a few posters here I sometimes think are talking crap, but I quite admire the fact that they have opinions and are prepared to take a stance on their view.

Quote

But they are politicians, Wayne, bridge politicians, and just like in real life (parliaments) where the members have the right to abstain, the bridge politicans are, and should, be granted the same right. That's how it works in a democracy whether one likes it or not. I like it.

I actually totally disagree with this statement about politicians and this is why.

We vote these idiots in (I would like to see an arguement proving me wrong in most cases) if we have elected a member of parliament, we expect him to make decisions on our behalf and abstaining is not democracy it is cowardice almost as contemptable as those people that dont vote in an election because they cant be bothered

[Walddk]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 08:10 PM, said:

I actually totally disagree with this statement about politicians and this is why.

We vote these idiots in (I would like to see an arguement proving me wrong in most cases)  if we have elected a member of parliament, we expect him to make decisions on our behalf and abstaining is not democracy it is cowardice almost as contemptable as those people that dont vote in an election because they cant be bothered

If you think they are idiots, why do you vote at all? You have a right to vote (if you are above a certain age), but you do not have an obligation in a legal sense of the word.

Perhaps you feel that you have an obligation from a moral point of view, fair enough, but no one can charge you if you decide to abstain. That has nothing to do with being a coward as I see it.

Let me give you a silly example. As a politician, if you don't know if it's good for USA to import oranges from Greenland, you are neither for nor against. So you decide to abstain. That is also a view.

"I don't know if it's good for our country or not; therefore I abstain".

Roland

[sceptic]

anotehr view is say 201 politicians have to vote to go to war in Vietnam or Iraq and 2 abstain, the vote goes 100 for war and 99 vote against, the decision is set on majority vote so the 100 win you go to war. do you still think the other 2 should abstain?

well that to me is not the point and yes I am probably using a silly arguement but thats just the way I think rightly or wrongly

some people could argee it was 4-0 so it made no difference if 3 abstain, but what if the vote went 2-2, this is why I do not personally like people abstaining as I still (rightly or wrongly belive it is cowardice) maybe I have chossen a bad word to describe it, I just cant think of another way I can put it

[Walddk]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 08:30 PM, said:

anotehr view is say 201 politicians have to vote to go to war in Vietnam or Iraq and 2 abstain, the vote goes 100 for war and 99 vote against, the decision is set on majority vote so the 100 win you go to war. do you still think the other 2 should abstain?

Yes I do, so the the majority decision is 100 for and 99 against. 2 abstain (for whatever reason). None of our business. Just don't vote for her/him next time if you don't like it; that's all you can do for now.

Roland

[geller]

If a member of the board has a conflict of interest he/she is essentially forced to abstain ("recuse himslf/herself"). If the abstainers have this as their reason we shouldn't criticize them.

[cherdano]

Actually I have the opposite problem with politicians. If you allow me to exaggerate a little, they always seem to have strong clear opinions even on matters where every reasonable person should be able to see that both sides have very sensible arguments, and that it is really a close decision.

But at least in the US, the appearance of being indecisive is close to political suicide for a politician.

[sceptic]

Quote

None of our business

Can you honestly say hand on heart if it was your kids going to war and died fighting, you would not feel a bit of disrepect for the two abstainers who could have prevented it

Quote

they always seem to have strong clear opinions

I agree with all you said, but I have seen them have strong opinions and and the buggers still abstain

ok lets say someone abstains from a decision and that I agree that you can abstain , do you not think the reasosn for abstaining should not be made clear in this open and honest world we live in, long live transparency

[jonottawa]

helene_t, on Oct 24 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

Wayne, suppose it's a borderline decision. Would you rather flip a coin than voting "abstain"? Suppose there are seven members, three of which vote "yes". The other four all flip a coin and all four coins happen to say "no".

Kinda like those players at the club who don't want to say "no agreement", so when asked to explain their agreement they just give some random agreement.

Or all those brave citizens who think it's a moral obligation to vote so they vote for some random party.

The decision to abstain certainly smacks of cowardice to me. I'm appalled at the lot of them. This is the worst ruling I've seen since the 'Oh *****' decision. (Oops, sorry Fred. )

If you consider it a close decision, you should either:

Choose the more lenient alternative and give the 'accused' the benefit of the doubt.

or

Vote in such a way that the overall vote reflects your belief.

In other words, if you think it's a close call and you know the vote is going to be 4-0, you should vote to make sure that the final vote is not unanimous.

Groupthink is a very common, almost universal, phenomenon. If experience has taught you that you don't have what it takes to resist it, you should avoid serving on such committees.

[sceptic]

helene_t, on Oct 24 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

Wayne, suppose it's a borderline decision. Would you rather flip a coin than voting "abstain"? Suppose there are seven members, three of which vote "yes". The other four all flip a coin and all four coins happen to say "no".

Kinda like those players at the club who don't want to say "no agreement", so when asked to explain their agreement they just give some random agreement.

Or all those brave citizens who think it's a moral obligation to vote so they vote for some random party.

sometimes you have to make a decision even if it is not clear cut and sitting on the fence is not the way to go forward (IMHO)

nor is tossing a coin

[Walddk]

geller, on Oct 24 2007, 08:40 PM, said:

If a member of the board has a conflict of interest he/she is essentially forced to abstain ("recuse himslf/herself"). If the abstainers have this as their reason we shouldn't criticize them.

Totally agree. You are so to speak in the "yes" and "no" camp at the same time. Conflict of interest, so there is only one sensible thing to do: abstain.

Roland

[pclayton]

Walddk, on Oct 24 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

geller, on Oct 24 2007, 08:40 PM, said:

If a member of the board has a conflict of interest he/she is essentially forced to abstain ("recuse himslf/herself").  If the abstainers have this as their reason we shouldn't criticize them.

Totally agree. You are so to speak in the "yes" and "no" camp at the same time. Conflict of interest, so there is only one sensible thing to do: abstain.

Roland

If someone recuses themselves on these grounds, its customary to state the reason why.

Yes its politics, but I'm always a little wary of those that abstain because they can see that their opinion won't carry a majority vote.

[bid_em_up]

Some of you appear to fail to recognize that some of the members on the BoD are (most likely) paid playing professionals (and at least one of the abstaining members is a sponsor).

Now, if you or a member of your family (or any other personal relation) happens to be paid by/with or are a frequent partner of one of the members on the Venice Cup team, don't you think you are ethically prohibited from voting on such an issue?

Otherwise, you risk your livelihood and/or it will lead to accusations of not being impartial in the vote.

If the sponsor wishes to hire any of the team members in the future, shouldnt she also abstain? Do you think these ladies would play with her in the future if she voted against them? She has a personal interest in her vote, and must therefore abstain.

Maybe one of them is the counsel that has been retained by the Team, should he still vote?

(EDIT: These are hypothetical reasons.)

Sorry, these people are almost required to abstain. Unless you know the reasons for abstention, you really cannot sit here in judgement of whether or not they should have voted.

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on Oct 24 2007, 02:39 PM, said:

If someone recuses themselves on these grounds, its customary to state the reason why.

It probably was stated, it just hasn't been made public.