[sceptic]

Quote

Sorry Wayne, I respect you and all

I usually say this to someone that is talking bolloxs

[jdonn]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

Now to the ridiculous

10 people on a governemnt decison about slaughter houses

the motion can only be carried if more than 5 vote yes

6 vegitarians abstain


wtf do we do now

get real lads, if you are in a position to make decisons make them

You get real, they would obviously never vote yes anyway. And that is not even the situation that came up. The board members only abstain if they have a bias regarding one of the accused people, not if they have a very strong opinion about the topic being discussed.

It's not a matter of them knowing they can overcome their bias and make a fair decision. It's a matter they have no way of assuring the accused party (and to a lesser extent the USBF membership and general public) of that.

[mike777]

I wonder if people really understand what the word bias means...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

Of course people have all kinds of biases on issues they vote on....

In this smallish world, bridge, to expect a BoD to abstain whenever a person they have or may have bias towards is involved means they would never vote on anything.

If you want BofD to only vote on issues not involving Bias..then make it the law otherwise full and timely disclosure is more than enough.

Make a decision, take a stand.

Btw I am strongly against a US Supreme Court Justice not voting on an issue because of bias or conflict of interest. There are only 9 votes. The votes are often close.
People with conflict of interests often know more about an issue than those that have zero interest in the matter. I prefer to have a Supreme Court Justice vote on an issue they are very close to as opposed to those who may know nothing about it.

Fully disclose in a timely manner, sure but please vote yes or no.

[helene_t]

I'm split about Arend's point about politicians who claim to have strong opinion about issues that must be very close.

As far as my personal sympathy goes, I dislike politicians (or others) who are afraid of admitting that they are uninformed about an issue, or who think it would harm their macho image to say "I understand both sides". In particular, during negotiation and brainstorming, I think it's unwise to take a side too early because it would make it difficult to change one's pov in face of new evidence - it is difficult to control the fear of loosing face.

But from a theoretical point of view, I think it is usually (not always) wrong to abstain due to ignorance. I might abstain in a "Which formula 1 driver is more sexy" poll, but I would vote in a "should we nuke Iran" poll although I don't know much about Iran, or about nukes. Read (or google on) "the wisdom of crowds" to understand why. Also, Gnome's idea of grading the yes and nos is not good - it is asking for manipulation because people will claim to have strong opinions on everything because they want their vote have weight, even if they don't feel strongly about the issue.

As for Wayne's proposal of making public why one abstains, I think it could serve some useful purposes. But with respect to the decision of the committee, it doesn't matter.

As for bias: I would not normally abstain due to bias, unless required to. I agree with Mike that people with bias often are the ones who are best informed. But I think this sign incident was an exception. The votes would be made public, so someone who has a personal relation to one of the "accused" should clearly be released from the burden of voting.

When I abstain it is almost always because it would bring me in troubles to vote according to my sentiments. Yes, I'm a coward. And a strong believer in secret voting.

Btw, glad to see that this idiotic thread has turned into something interesting. Tx for th hi-jack, Wayne

[jocdelevat]

IMO any decision by USBF against the players will be inapropriate, not moral and unethical because:
1. those players are gold medalist and brought home the Venice Cup and instead to congratulate for that and advertise their success we make noise to compromise their success for a small and inocent misbehavior.
2.they misbehave for first time and if really needs to take actions better those should aplly for future tournaments in case a misbehavior will appear.
3. In my country(and I suppose in other countries too) is away to say "better do the laundry in house not in public"
4. The letter of regret to the host organization of World Bridge Championship and a discussion with players not to do that again should be enough for this incident.

[geller]

Quote

4. The letter of regret to the host organization of World Bridge Championship and a discussion with players not to do that again should be enough for this incident.

In order to close the books with regard to the USBF's relations with the WBF and CCBA some disciplinary action is needed. This is unavoidable. A token fine, a letter of reprimand, or some kind of probation is the best possible outcome for the players.

They'd better hope there aren't too many Republicans on the disciplinary panel. :-)

[JanM]

Perhaps I was correct at our meeting when I suggested that the Minutes should include the reasons for the three abstentions. We decided not to include them so as not to clutter things up, but your 3 pages of discussion suggests that clutter might have been better. So:

I abstained on advice of USBF counsel because I, as President, have the obligation to act on a complaint that is made against a USBF member and I could not do that if I had participated in the decision to make the complaint.

Rose Meltzer abstained on advice of USBF counsel because she, as Chair of the Grievance and Appeals Committee of the USBF would, if a complaint were filed, have the obligation of selecting the Hearing Panel to hear the matter.

Bill Pollack abstained because his wife has replaced Irina Levitina on the Narasimhan team.

And since I'm trying to clear the air here a little, let me point out to you that making a complaint is not a judgment, but is a way to see that the issue is presented in a fair and complete way to an impartial panel for decision.

Jan Martel, USBF President
(sorry, I don't know how to erase my normal signature for this post)

[Walddk]

JanM, on Oct 25 2007, 06:57 AM, said:

Jan Martel, USBF President
(sorry, I don't know how to erase my normal signature for this post)

Click on yourself, then "Edit my Signature". Erase the text and accept. Go to the thread you want to post in and type. Now you won't see the signature any more.

To get it back after you have posted, click on yourself again and start all over if you want to have a signature as before you edited. Perhaps it would be a good idea to copy and paste before you delete it. If it's quite long (as yours is), you may forget some of it when you need to put it back.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Oct 24 2007, 11:52 PM, said:

JanM, on Oct 25 2007, 06:57 AM, said:

Jan Martel, USBF President
(sorry, I don't know how to erase my normal signature for this post)

Click on yourself, then "Edit my Signature". Erase the text and accept. Go to the thread you want to post in and type. Now you won't see the signature any more.

To get it back after you have posted, click on yourself again and start all over if you want to have a signature as before you edited. Perhaps it would be a good idea to copy and paste before you delete it. If it's quite long (as yours is), you may forget some of it when you need to put it back.

This won't work. BBF always shows your current signature, regardless of what your signature was when you made a post.
I think the answer is it can't be done.

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Oct 25 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 24 2007, 11:52 PM, said:

JanM, on Oct 25 2007, 06:57 AM, said:

Jan Martel, USBF President
(sorry, I don't know how to erase my normal signature for this post)

Click on yourself, then "Edit my Signature". Erase the text and accept. Go to the thread you want to post in and type. Now you won't see the signature any more.

To get it back after you have posted, click on yourself again and start all over if you want to have a signature as before you edited. Perhaps it would be a good idea to copy and paste before you delete it. If it's quite long (as yours is), you may forget some of it when you need to put it back.

This won't work. BBF always shows your current signature, regardless of what your signature was when you made a post.
I think the answer is it can't be done.

I stand corrected. Guess there is nothing you can do unless you make a moderator delete the signature for that particular post. Is that possible I wonder.

Roland

[sceptic]

Quote

You get real, they would obviously never vote yes anyway. And that is not even the situation that came up. The board members only abstain if they have a bias regarding one of the accused people, not if they have a very strong opinion about the topic being discussed.

But this is what my issue is, if they have a bias because of the people involved, they should be honest and open aboout it.. woudl it not be quite amusing to discover that one of the abstainers knew what the women were going to do on the podium

this is why transparency is required..... if they are going to take the easy option and abstain

[Walddk]

No need to speculate any more. Jan Martel explained why three board members abstained.

Roland

[sceptic]

JanM, on Oct 25 2007, 04:57 AM, said:

Perhaps I was correct at our meeting when I suggested that the Minutes should include the reasons for the three abstentions. We decided not to include them so as not to clutter things up, but your 3 pages of discussion suggests that clutter might have been better. So:

I abstained on advice of USBF counsel because I, as President, have the obligation to act on a complaint that is made against a USBF member and I could not do that if I had participated in the decision to make the complaint.

Rose Meltzer abstained on advice of USBF counsel because she, as Chair of the Grievance and Appeals Committee of the USBF would, if a complaint were filed, have the obligation of selecting the Hearing Panel to hear the matter.

Bill Pollack abstained because his wife has replaced Irina Levitina on the Narasimhan team.

And since I'm trying to clear the air here a little, let me point out to you that making a complaint is not a judgment, but is a way to see that the issue is presented in a fair and complete way to an impartial panel for decision.

Jan Martel, USBF President
(sorry, I don't know how to erase my normal signature for this post)

The first two reasons in my opinion (not that it appears to be worth much here)

You should never have been allowed to abstain as you should never have been on the panel anyway due to the reasons you state, why you need legal advice for something a basic as grievance procedures, disciplinary or complaints procedures I will never understand, as they should have been in place anyway

as for the third person whilst I understand the reasons, but why not replace said person with a another to get an odd number of people so you do not get into a even number vote and cant decide on what to do, not that it mattered in this case as 4-0 is an overwhellming decision

p.s I do not expect an answer on this, just my thoughts

[geller]

Quote

You should never have been allowed to abstain as you should never have been on the panel anyway due to the reasons you state, why you need legal advice for something a basic as grievance procedures, disciplinary or complaints procedures I will never understand, as they should have been in place anyway

as for the third person whilst I understand the reasons, but why not replace said person with a another to get an odd number of people so you do not get into a even number vote and cant decide on what to do, not that it mattered in this case as 4-0 is an overwhellming decision

The above reflects several misunderstandings. (I am not an insider at all, but this is obvious from a moderately careful reading of the orginal documents.)

The body in question was not a "panel," but rather the duly elected (by the membership in their annual vote) Board of Directors of the USBF. Obviously the members of the Board of Directors were not chosen with a view of solely adjudicating the holding up of a sign by six players at the Venice Cup Victory Banquet, so the occurrence of conflicts of interest is unavoidable. However, snce this is the duly elected Board, it's not like the President can just arbitrarily resign her office..... So recusual is the only practical step.

The Board of USBF will refer the matter to a panel for appropriate action. Presumably the panel members will be pre-screened to ensure an absence of conflicts of interest.

As for consulting attorneys, especially in a litigious country like the US, that's a prudent thing for the Board to do.

[brianshark]

I hope for a guilty verdict and a minor slap on the wrists.

[mike777]

JanM, on Oct 24 2007, 11:57 PM, said:

Perhaps I was correct at our meeting when I suggested that the Minutes should include the reasons for the three abstentions. We decided not to include them so as not to clutter things up, but your 3 pages of discussion suggests that clutter might have been better. So:

I abstained on advice of USBF counsel because I, as President, have the obligation to act on a complaint that is made against a USBF member and I could not do that if I had participated in the decision to make the complaint.

Rose Meltzer abstained on advice of USBF counsel because she, as Chair of the Grievance and Appeals Committee of the USBF would, if a complaint were filed, have the obligation of selecting the Hearing Panel to hear the matter.

Bill Pollack abstained because his wife has replaced Irina Levitina on the Narasimhan team.

And since I'm trying to clear the air here a little, let me point out to you that making a complaint is not a judgment, but is a way to see that the issue is presented in a fair and complete way to an impartial panel for decision.

Jan Martel, USBF President
(sorry, I don't know how to erase my normal signature for this post)

Most importantly thank you very much Jan for taking the time to post your comments.

I say the following with all due respect.

I think many posters do not seem to have any idea how dangerous what Jan has posted as a general principle.

Jan has told us legal counsel told some members of the BoD how to vote, in this case they should abstain, and they did so.

The Bod Of directors job is not to do staff work, teach, do research work or even implement their decisions. That is delegated to others.

The BofD basically have one real job, make decisions, make the difficult and controversial decisions. Decisions that affect people's lives.

In bridge these decision makers will often have biases, conflicts of interest and relationships directly and indirectly that affect people who are involved in the decision. In fact I find it difficult to think of any decision that Jan or Rose or other BofD would not have some conflict of interest at some level in any decision they make.

If you want to have legal counsel make the decision, in this example to abstain, ok but why bother to have a BofD, why bother to have a vote? If you do not want to vote on issues that have legal issues attached or make may people angry than it seems just have legal counsel be your board of directors or put others on the BofD.

This issue has been voted on but issues such as this will come up over and over again. Conflicts of interest will come up on almost every future vote. Disclose in a timely manner sure but keep in mind you guys and gals are on the B0fD because you are smarter than us and have more good common sense than us. You are trusted to do your best and make some decision often with incomplete information..not abstain or leave it to the lawyers.

Again thanks for posting Jan.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Oct 25 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

I think many posters do not seem to have any idea how dangerous what Jan has posted as a general principle.

Jan has told us legal counsel told some members of the BoD how to vote, in this case they should abstain, and they did so.

The Bod Of directors job is not to do staff work, teach, do research work or even implement their decisions. That is delegated to others.

The BofD basically have one real job, make decisions, make the difficult and controversial decisions. Decisions that affect people's lives.

In bridge these decision makers will often have biases, conflicts of interest and relationships directly and indirectly that affect people who are involved in the decision. In fact I find it difficult to think of any decision that Jan or Rose or other BofD would not have some conflict of interest at some level in any decision they make.

If you want to have legal counsel make the decision, in this example to abstain, ok but why bother to have a BofD, why bother to have a vote? If you do not want to vote on issues that have legal issues attached or make may people angry than it seems just have legal counsel be your board of directors or put others on the BofD.

This issue has been voted on but issues such as this will come up over and over again. Conflicts of interest will come up on almost every future vote. Disclose in a timely manner sure but keep in mind you guys and gals are on the B0fD because you are smarter than us and have more good common sense than us. You are trusted to do your best and make some decision often with incomplete information..not abstain or leave it to the lawyers.

I think that you are making a simple and fundamental mistake.

You are confusing the Board of Directors as an entity with individual members of the Board of Directors. The two are not synonymous.

You are making some broad and sweeping statements how an individual board member ought to behave. Your theories have no grounding in either law or established practice.

There are lots of legal precedents surrounding concepts like "Fiduciary Responsibility", "Conflict of duty and interest", and the like.

[mrdct]

mike777, on Oct 25 2007, 06:56 AM, said:

I say the following with all due respect.

The classical preface to a disrespectful statement. A bit like "I'm not a racist, but ..."

[bid_em_up]

deleted, somebody beat me to it.