[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...

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jdonn]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

if you do a job where you have to make decisions and you have a conflict of interest, then dont take the bloody job in the first place (IMHO)

We await your recommendations for members of the board on the US Bridge Federation who don't have a conflict on interest with a large number of US bridge players.

[cherdano]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 02:46 PM, said:

4 of them managed to make a decision and based on your note worthy comment, they had conflict of interests also, so why are they capable of making a decision

Maybe you should learn to read.
"Having a conflict of interest with a large number of US bridge players" is not the same as "...with every US bridge player" or as "...with one of the players of the USA1 team in Shanghai".

[blackshoe]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

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?

Are you assuming they would have voted against it? What if they had voted for it?

Ordinarily people have reasons for doing what they do. If they vote for or against something, they apparently believe that doing so is right. If they abstain, though, and don't say why (they don't have to say, so I don't think you can fault them if they don't), you have no idea why they abstained. It's not the abstention you should have a problem with, it's (perhaps) the reason for the abstention - but to "have a problem" when you don't know the reason is foolish.

[mike777]

Full and timely disclosure of potential conflicts sure, but bottom line BofD or similiar have only one real job. Make the difficult decisions, we do not need them for the easy ones.

To abstain on what is basically your only function. Make decisions.

I always chuckle when I see our Congressman who fail to vote or abstain in what is basically the only thing they do.... vote.....make the decision....

Note how often people running for President, fail to bother to vote on bills if they are in Congress, they just do not bother to show up....too busy.....not doing the job they are being paid to do..

To be fair these nonvoting people keep getting reelected so why change...

[Echognome]

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 01:01 PM, said:

Quote

Are you assuming they would have voted against it? What if they had voted for it?

I have no idea how they would vote my only issue is that people in positions like this should vote or why else are they ?

Sorry Wayne, I respect you and all, but this doesn't sound like a statement coming from someone that has actually been in such a situation.

One reason for an abstention is biasedness. You are too closely involved with the situation being voted upon and want the decision to be "fair". A good example here is that if one of your family members was involved.

Another reason is that you might be simply ignorant of the issue at hand. Imagine you are on a committee that goes through 100 different votes in a year. It might be perfectly reasonable to vote on 80 issues and abstain on 20. Abstaining means you are putting your lot in with the majority.

I think to presume cowardice is wrong.

[mike777]

Echognome, on Oct 24 2007, 04:09 PM, said:

sceptic, on Oct 24 2007, 01:01 PM, said:

Quote

Are you assuming they would have voted against it? What if they had voted for it?

I have no idea how they would vote my only issue is that people in positions like this should vote or why else are they ?

Sorry Wayne, I respect you and all, but this doesn't sound like a statement coming from someone that has actually been in such a situation.

One reason for an abstention is biasedness. You are too closely involved with the situation being voted upon and want the decision to be "fair". A good example here is that if one of your family members was involved.

Another reason is that you might be simply ignorant of the issue at hand. Imagine you are on a committee that goes through 100 different votes in a year. It might be perfectly reasonable to vote on 80 issues and abstain on 20. Abstaining means you are putting your lot in with the majority.

I think to presume cowardice is wrong.

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...

If people do not like it....kick me out of office.....

As for your second choice, ignorance is no excuse, you have one job....vote...yes or no....if you do not know then ask someone smarter than oneself and learn but geez vote.....it is the only think you really need to do.

If you are too busy to form an "informed opinion" then please leave and put someone in there who is not too busy....


Keep in mind on the tv show "60 minutes" they showed how Congress never reads the Bill they are voting..on......If you do not even have to read the bill, ever read the bill, to vote on it..just how busy can you be to not vote..

[jonottawa]

Echognome, on Oct 24 2007, 09:09 PM, said:

One reason for an abstention is biasedness.  You are too closely involved with the situation being voted upon and want the decision to be "fair".  A good example here is that if one of your family members was involved.

I totally concur. Biassedness. Or perhaps septiassedness in this case.

Edit: Sorry, I may have misinterpreted. Perhaps you meant that each MEMBER suffers from biassedness. Yes, that wouldn't surprise me at all.