[bid_em_up]

jocdelevat, on Oct 24 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

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.

Sorry jocdelevat,

1) Their behavior was inappropriate in the eyes of many.

2) The actions being taken are to follow the procedures involved to determine what type of disciplinary action, if any, needs to occur.

3) It's fairly clear (at least from my reading of it) that they did indeed violate the "Code of Conduct" outlined in the USBF rules.

4) The problem with doing laundry in the house is that you end up with a wet house or it can be just swept under the rug. By doing the laundry in public, everyone can see the actions being taken and be somewhat assured that proper procedures were followed and that the bylaws of the USBF are being followed.

5) I don't think anybody expects the ladies to get much more than a warning and perhaps a probationary period. The USBF appears to have 4 levels of disciplinary actions that can be taken, depending on the severity of the offense. The disciplinary actions that can be taken are listed in the USBF's "GRIEVANCE, APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES".

Appeals and Grievances are handled by USBF Appeals & Grievance Committee in accordance with USBF Appeals, Grievance & Disciplinary Procedures which can be found here:

http://usbf.org/docs...evanceprocs.pdf


In this case, it is my understanding that the BoD first must hear the charges/accusation of misconduct to decide whether or not it warrants further action. So far, this is all the BoD has done. Now that it has been determined that it did indeed rise to level of possibly requiring sanctions/disciplinary action, a grievance committee must be established to hear the complaint. This committee will be a panel of 3-15 USBF members, at least three of which must be on the BoD (if I read it correctly).

This panel may decide to take no action versus the ladies at all or they may impose some level of sanctions on them.

The USBF is simply following its own published laws in this matter.

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Oct 25 2007, 07:32 AM, said:

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. IF you do not want bridge bofd to vote on issues involving conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest..they will never get to vote.

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.

Of course there are and I addressed them. sigh....

I really wonder if people bother to read the posts.

No where did I say the legal advice was wrong.

IF you are stating that lawyers often tell members of BofD to abstain, not vote for reasons, A or B or C I fully agree. I just happen to think this is dangerous and a bad precedent. As I said I prefer full and timely disclosure but let's have these smart people make the decision or give their power to another smart person on these difficult decisions. The easy ones are easy.

If you do not want a bridge bofd to vote on issues involving conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest..they will never vote on any difficult issue.


I in fact discussed fiduciary duty and conflicts of interest, in fact I mentioned them numerous times.


If you disagree the main function of directors on a BofD is to make decisions and not abdicate their decision making then you did not make that clear.

No where do I say abdicate your fiduciary duty, in fact I said just the opposite.
No where do I say do not disclose your conflicts of interest, in fact I said disclose them in a timely fashion.

If posters think members of a Bofd have some other job other than make decisons, please state your arguement. ty. Keep in mind even the auditing section of a bofd basically just make decisions...they do not audit.

I repeat if you have a law/rule that says you cannot vote for some reason fair enough. IF you do not want a members of of a bridge bofd to not vote because they may be sued, have conflicts of interest, bias, relationships with certain bridge players or you name the reason then I submit on any difficult, controversial issue they may give up their only real job..to make the decision.

I have been on BofD and involved with others....that is really their main job..not to do staff work, research, teach or implement decisions.

As I said this vote is done but these types of issues will come up time and time again if you want members of the board to abstain..on difficult decisions, why give them the power of the vote? Disclose in a timely fashion sure....

[mike777]

mrdct, on Oct 25 2007, 07:53 AM, said:

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 ..."

Lovely to be compared to a racist or at the very least have my honor questioned. I better stop posting in this thread.

[bid_em_up]

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)

Thank you Jan for providing this information when you were certainly under no obligation to do so. I hope you got advice from USBF counsel prior to doing so, though.

If I am reading the USBF procedures correctly, the original complaint had to be made directly to you. You then presented the complaint to the BoD to vote on. The BoD then votes and either the the complaint is voted in favor of or it is voted down. Now that it has been voted in favor of, it is returned to you. Assuming I understand it correctly, do you still have the option of refusing to take any action or are you bound to follow the BoD's recommendation?

If you still have the option of not taking any action, it is completely understandable why you should not vote in the BoD's vote. It would become clear ahead of time what your position on any matter is. So far, you have not given any indication of where you stand on this matter, and rightfully so, if this is the case. However, at some point in time, you must, and I would not want to be in your position at the moment.

Assuming now that the BoD has formally returned the complaint to you, and assuming you choose to proceed with the matter, it is my understanding that a grievance/disciplinary panel needs to be formed and that this panel will consist of bewteen 3-15 USBF members, at least 3 of which are on the BoD. Did I read that correctly?

If that is the case, in all fairness to the Venice Cup team, while I do not agree with their actions, I would hope that the BoD sees fit to form a full 15 member panel, if possible. I think it needs to be clear to everyone that any action resulting from this was not the "decision" of a select few people who were offended by their actions.

jmoo.

[markleon]

mike777, on Oct 25 2007, 07:56 AM, 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.

A quick Google search seems to indicate that consulting with General Counsel about abstaining because of conflict of interest is not considered dangerous, but is in fact a "general principle"

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange

Voting.
1. In the event of any potential or actual conflict of interest involving a board member, including a director having a material financial interest in a matter to be considered by the Board of Directors, the Board, after consultation with the General Counsel and outside legal counsel if necessary, shall determine the appropriate action to be taken.
As a general matter, CME believes it is appropriate for a director to abstain from voting on a matter in which he has a material financial interest.
2. In the event a director abstains because of a conflict of interest, the abstention shall be noted in the minutes of the meeting.

The full Conflict of Interest policy can be found at:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CME...WebDoc_2335.pdf

[jtfanclub]

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

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.

Huh. Interesting definition of abstention, but I guess a lot of places do that.

To me, an abstention is a vote, and implies that you were a part of the discussion. In at least your and Rose's cases, you didn't participate and did not vote at all. I guess to me that's closer to an "absent" than an abstention. I believe the U.S. Congress calls it "Present but not voting".

Anyhow, those aren't the sort of abstentions that give me qualms. Bill Pollack...I guess I feel he should have voted. There's only 250 USBF members. Everybody has a personal relationship with everybody else. If you can't put aside those feelings and vote, you shouldn't be on the board.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Oct 25 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

Bill Pollack...I guess I feel he should have voted. There's only 250 USBF members. Everybody has a personal relationship with everybody else.

Is everyone married to everyone else?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Oct 25 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

I in fact discussed fiduciary duty and conflicts of interest, in fact I mentioned them numerous times.

Comment 1: I can't find any examples where you used the expression "fiduciary" prior to this posting. Moreover, I don't think that you really understand the concept.

Comment 2: You discussed the concept of bias and provide a personal opinion how things should work. I think that the following example is indicative of your position

Quote

Matt I was just thinking of this situation.. Say one of these women was your daughter....Fully disclose this but vote...do not abstain......

Voting for your daughter is fair.....it is not unfair or unjust...

Your perfectly entitled to your opinion how people should behave. I simple pointed out that this is in very sharp contrast to established legal practice. Any Board member behaving in the manner that you suggest would be sued in short order (unless, of course, the stakes were so minor that no one gave a damn what they did).

[jonottawa]

I did not vote for Beatty, Gerard, Hamman or O'Rourke.

[hrothgar]

bid_em_up, on Oct 25 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

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)

If I am reading the USBF procedures correctly, the original complaint had to be made directly to you. You then presented the complaint to the BoD to vote on. The BoD then votes and either the the complaint is voted in favor of or it is voted down. Now that it has been voted in favor of, it is returned to you. Assuming I understand it correctly, do you still have the option of refusing to take any action or are you bound to follow the BoD's recommendation?

I read this differently

1. The incident occured
2. A member of the BoD initiated a complaint
3. The Bod voted on the complaint and passed it on to the President

We have now reached the stage where the President takes action on the complaint

[jonottawa]

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

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.

Indeed. Voting to make a complaint demonstrated a complete lack of judgment. No judgment whatsoever.

If you're going to start micromanaging behavior in parking lots, hotel bars, elevators, etc., I suggest you start with the folks who voted in favor of this absurd so-called complaint.

I saw this Hamman guy participating in some sort of sexual innuendo at the site of the Spring 2006 Dallas NABC. I found that sort of sexual innuendo very inappropriate for a bridge championship. It was in the context of something described as the 'not so newlywed' game. Please launch an investigation immediately and file the appropriate complaints so that the issue can be presented in a fair and complete way to an impartial panel for decision.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Oct 25 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Oct 25 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

Bill Pollack...I guess I feel he should have voted.  There's only 250 USBF members.  Everybody has a personal relationship with everybody else.

Is everyone married to everyone else?

No...but Rozanne didn't play on USA1 this year, so she wasn't one of the principles.

If you're going to exclude everybody who used to play on USA1, might play on USA1 in the future or is married to somebody who might play on USA1 in the future, you're going to have a very small pool to work with.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Oct 25 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 25 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Oct 25 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

Bill Pollack...I guess I feel he should have voted.  There's only 250 USBF members.  Everybody has a personal relationship with everybody else.

Is everyone married to everyone else?

No...but Rozanne didn't play on USA1 this year, so she wasn't one of the principles.

If you're going to exclude everybody who used to play on USA1, might play on USA1 in the future or is married to somebody who might play on USA1 in the future, you're going to have a very small pool to work with.

Sorry I actually agree with you then, I didn't realize she was playing on the other team. I'm not sure why having your wife play on the team not "on trial" is a reason to abstain.

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Oct 25 2007, 08:02 PM, said:

I'm not sure why having your wife play on the team not "on trial" is a reason to abstain.

That was explained by Jan Martel. Because Rozanne will be replacing Livitina on the Narasimhan team. So there we go again: conflict of interest.

Roland

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Oct 25 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 25 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Oct 25 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

Bill Pollack...I guess I feel he should have voted.  There's only 250 USBF members.  Everybody has a personal relationship with everybody else.

Is everyone married to everyone else?

No...but Rozanne didn't play on USA1 this year, so she wasn't one of the principles.

If you're going to exclude everybody who used to play on USA1, might play on USA1 in the future or is married to somebody who might play on USA1 in the future, you're going to have a very small pool to work with.

Whether or not she has played on USA1 in the past or future is not relevant. The action is being taken vs. the players on the current Venice Cup team members.

As I said before, since he has a personal stake involved (either financially or emotionally), it could lead to the appearance of favoritism should he side with the current team. (Give us your vote or we kick your wife off our team).

Even if he did not abstain freely, the BoD could force him to abstain according to the current bylaws/procedures.

[jdonn]

Ok I get it now, his wife wasn't on the team but joined the team right after this event. I flip flop back

[kenrexford]

Not sure if this is already known here, but...

"Rose Meltzer, chairman of the GAC reported that in accordance with our procedures, she has formed a Hearing Panel to hear the charges against the Venice Cup USA1 team. The panel is: Rhoda Walsh (Chair), Wafik Abdou, Peter Boyd, Kitty Cooper and Nadine Wood. Only one of the members of the standing Grievance & Appeals Committee (Wafik Abdou) was eligible to hear this matter, all of the other members having conflicts. Therefore, Meltzer asked the Board to appoint four (4) temporary members of the Grievance & Appeals Committee to substitute for members who were ineligible. The Board appointed Rhoda Walsh, Peter Boyd, Kitty Cooper and Nadine Wood as temporary members of the Grievance & Appeals Committee."

-USBF

[kenrexford]

"Peter Rank reported that the USBF Board filed a written complaint with Jan Martel, President of the USBF concerning the USA1 Venice Cup team. The complaint referred to paragraph IV.A.10 in the USBF Grievance, Appeals and Disciplinary Procedures. Rena Hetzer, acting on behalf of the USBF has sent out a notice of this complaint and charge to the six (6) members of the USA1 Venice Cup Team and the non-playing Captain. The Chairman of the Grievance, Appeals and Disciplinary Committee, Rose Meltzer accepted the Charge from the President and selected the Hearing Panel and the Chairperson of the Panel.
Peter further stated that he will be representing the Hearing Panel on a pro bono basis, providing the panel with advice on legal matters and he will write up the decision of the Panel for their approval. Sometimes there are pre-hearing motions and Peter recommended that the USBF Board get their own legal counsel. All Questions for the Hearing Panel will go through Peter. Peter further explained questions about possible Hearing Panel bias and stated that the Panel itself can question its members and then come back to the Chairman of the GAC and ask for a replacement. The charged parties will also have an opportunity to object to the Hearing Panel.
Steve Beatty was appointed the liaison for the Board with our attorney and he will contact the people that we have suggested as possibilities and retain one of them to act as the Board’s attorney in this matter."

[kenrexford]

"A. Conduct and Ethics Discipline. Following are the grounds for disciplinary action:

* * *

Actions unbecoming a member of the USBF (or a person participating in a tournament conducted by the USBF), including, but not limited to, improper actions at the time and site of a tournament, including parking lots, elevators, restaurants, and hotels." G.A.D.P. §IV(A)(10)

[blackshoe]

Surely they didn't just reappoint the same ineligible people to the panel. That makes no sense. Why are they not still ineligible?