"We didn't vote for Bush"

[jtfanclub]

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]

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]

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

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :ph34r:

[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?

[jonottawa]

I'm starting to see the light. If we don't come down hard on the Venice Cup team, the next thing you know this sort of behavior will happen and we'll devolve into a state of anarchy:

 

Girls Punished for Hugging

[blackshoe]

Robert Heinlein, back about the middle of the last century, labelled the second half of that century "The Crazy Years". Seems he was right - except that they aren't over yet.

[hrothgar]

Henk Uijterwaal posted the following on rec.games.bridge. I make no claims regarding the veracity of the Volkskrant's account. (I'd go so far as to say that I don't believe it)

 

I think that it would be a mistake for the USBF to link itself to the ACBL by banning participation in ACBL events. It behoves the management of the USBF to maintain the "Chinese Wall" between the two organizations.

 

Moreover, the punishment seems way out of proportion to the supposed offense. As I noted before, if I were a pro and anyone tried to impose these types of sanctions on me, I'd sue them...

 

The Volkskrant (one of the Dutch newspapers with a well informed

author for their bridge news) has an item on it:

 

http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/bericht/165269.  For those who don't

read Dutch, it says that the ACBL Grievance Panel (without a hearing of

the involved players) offered the following sentence to the 6 players and

NPC for their conduct during the closing ceremony:

 

  1. Suspension from any ACBL game for 1 year.  Suspension for the 2008

     Olympiad in Beijing.

  2. Probation for another year after 1, during which the players can

     enter ACBL events again.

  3. 200 hours of community service for all players, half of which must

     have been carried out before the probation period.

  4. The team has to write a letter of apology.  The ACBL will decide to

     publish the letter or not.

  5. The team has to write a document specifying all details of the incident.

     (Who had the idea, who made the sign, ...).  This document can be

     used as evidence in a court of law.

 

 

This is apparently a compromise, if the players don't accept it, more

severe punishment will follow.

 

 

Henk

 

 

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---

Henk Uijterwaal       

[Echognome]

Henk Uijterwaal posted the following on rec.games.bridge. I make no claims regarding the veracity of the Volkskrant's account. (I'd go so far as to say that I don't believe it)

I don't believe it either. You start banning them from ACBL events and you will start having a whole lot of lawsuits on your hands. Bridge is the livelihood of many (if not all) of these women and once you start denying them employment, you are going to have some serious litigation.

 

To me, it all sounds like speculative poppycock. In fact, if this person published this on his website *and* it is untrue, I would say it borders on libel.

[helene_t]

Kees Tammens is generally a reliable source, but this is hard to believe. I find this story very strange.

 

Some mistakes in Henk's translation:

- "court of law" is not to be found in the Dutch version. The letter they are supposed to write is intended for use in further USBF procedures.

- "before the probation period" must be "before the US team trials".

- ACBL greviance panel is not mentioned. Presumably the punishment was decided by the usbf greviance panel but that is not mentioned in Kees Tammens' text.

- The organisation that can select to publish the letter of apology is refered to as the American Bridge Federation". It's unclear to me if that means ABF or USBF, but probably not ACBL (my speculation).

[jonottawa]

Assuming this is true ...

 

That's why I was so disheartened to see people like Fred going over to the 'dark side.' I figured that would give the wingnuts political cover to make a reprehensible decision like this. This will not stand.

[blackshoe]

- The organisation that can select to publish the letter of apology is refered to as the American Bridge Federation". It's unclear to me if that means ABF or USBF, but probably not ACBL (my speculation).

To the best of my knowledge, there is no "American Bridge Federation". The United States Bridge Federation is, technically, the NBO for the United States. The American Contract Bridge League is, technically, the Zonal Authority for North America. There is also in the US the American Bridge Association. And that's it, at the national level.

 

Interesting. A Google search for "american bridge federation" brings up the ACBL, the WBF, the Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation (CACBF), the ABA, and a link to a UK site which refers to a review of Ron Klinger's The Power of Shape in "the American Bridge Federation Newsletter". :(

 

Jon: "Assuming this is true ..." would seem to be rash, at this point. :)

[fred]

Presumably at some point there was a conversation between the USBF's Punishment Committee and the Team or its representatives. Here is how I think the conversation should have gone:

 

USBF: We are very proud that you won the Gold Medal, but many of our members strongly disagreed with your actions at the closing ceremonies. They want us to make sure this does not happen again. Is that going to be a problem for you?

 

Team: No.

 

USBF: Good. We would like you to write letters of apology to the USBF, the WBF, the CCBA, etc. Is that going to be a problem for you?

 

Team: No.

 

USBF: Thanks.

 

Team: Thanks.

 

*** End of conversation ***

 

If the USBF Punishment Committee had already made up their minds that a harsh penalty was in order regardless of the remorse shown by the Team, then perhaps the temporary collective insanity that the Team experienced in Shanghai is contagious.

 

If the Team failed to show remorse, then it is hard for me to feel too sorry for them. I can understand why the USBF Punishment Committee would feel they had to take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that this never happens again.

 

That being said, it is hard for me to imagine that the actual punishment (if indeed the report is accurate) is a good way to accomplish this goal. IMO it would have been much better for the Punishment Committee to say nothing more than:

 

USBF: You cannot represent the USBF until you promise it won't happen again.

 

It sounds to me that the punishment reported is outrageous regardless of how the conversation actually went and regardless of what confusion may exist with respect to ACBL/USBF, but I don't know anywhere close to all the facts.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jonottawa]

Jon: "Assuming this is true ..." would seem to be rash, at this point. B)

We'll see ... It seems more likely to me that someone merely mistranslated the name of the USBF than that someone is sitting around inventing rulings that never happened. I defer to Helene on the reliability of the source. If it is true, hopefully we can find a few prominent and respected members of the US bridge community with enough class, common sense and cajones to start a petition against the ruling. Where do I sign?

 

Does this mean that the Women's teams in Beijing next year will be USA II and USA III ?

 

And what's up with China being the host every year, anyway? (Ya, I know, some mind sports olympics thing, but what's the advantage of lumping bridge in with that?)

[hrothgar]

Here's a second positng on the same topic which claims to be a quote from the USBF's lawyer to the Team members. This contains some significant differences from the Dutch article. (Note the distinction between ACBL and USBF events)

 

It should therefore come as no surprise that the USBF Board of

Directors unanimously agrees that a significant disciplinary sanction

is appropriate. The Board was adamant that nothing short of a

suspension, which would preclude you from playing internationally for

at least one full year, would suffice as a mark of the seriousness of

the situation-provided it were agreed upon, and then duly approved by

the Hearing Panel of the Grievance and Appeals Committee (which has

sole authority to determine the appropriate discipline), without the

necessity of a hearing. I am instructed to press for a greater

sanction against anyone who rejects this compromise offer.

You therefore have an opportunity to accept the following discipline,

subject to approval of the Hearing Panel:

1. A one year suspension, during which you will be ineligible to

participate in USBF-sponsored events in any capacity, specifically

including the World Bridge Olympiad in Beijing, PRC;

2. One year of probation, to begin after the conclusion of the one

year suspension, during which you will be fully eligible to

participate in USBF-sponsored events subject to condition #3;

3. Two hundred (200) hours of "community service", to be performed

during the probationary period, of which 100 hours must be completed

before the USWBC in 2009 in order for you to be eligible to compete;

4. A signed, written apology in a form drafted by myself, which the

USBF may publish or disseminate as it chooses;

5. A detailed written statement truthfully reporting the facts of the

incident (who broached the idea of displaying the sign, when the idea

was adopted, etc.), subject to my approval as to form and content,

which may be used in evidence at any hearing of this matter involving

other respondents, and, if required by me, your participation as

witnesses at the GAC hearings currently scheduled to be held in San

Francisco, or at such other place and time for which the hearings may

be adjourned or continued.