"We didn't vote for Bush"

[sceptic]

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]

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]

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]

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. :rolleyes:

[sceptic]

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.

 

as I said they are scared ( to lose their income) cowardice

 

is money the only thing that matters or is doing the right thing what matters most,

 

as I said does this not stink of cowardice?, you may wish to say money, livelyhood and bringing home the wages is all that matters. personally I think that bush went intop Iraq for that reason (money or oil) and you slate him for that so where is the moral high ground on this?

 

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)

[jdonn]

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.

[sceptic]

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

[cherdano]

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]

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. :rolleyes:

 

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...

[sceptic]

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 ?

[sceptic]

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.

 

sorry I thought I said that they should state why they abstain, if they dont how can you trust thier judgement?

[Echognome]

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]

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]

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.

[Echognome]

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.....

Presumably we would not want to be accused of nepotism.

 

It sounds like nepotism doesn't bother you though, so don't have any response to that.

[sceptic]

ok maybe I do not explain myself well

 

Arend, I can read and I realise what jdonn said

 

I will try simplicity

 

if you are in a position to vote on something, irrespective of what it is you need to understand the issue and vote on it, now to gain trust with the people effected

 

if you feel for some compelling reason you have to abstain,,, then make the issues clear to everyone, it is simply not good enough to tell the comitee or what ever and keep it private as that does not instill trust in the masses

 

to be honest I think what the girls did was funny as I think Bush is a twat, but that is just my opinion, I think the forum they chose to do it was poor and I think the comittee should discuss it and decide what if any thing to do about it, but as they choose to do things in public they should be held accountable in public

 

the examples of comittees or what ever it is a body of people in a position of power where they have to make decisions, should make decisions, if they have a very good reason for not making a decision it should be absolutey transparent for all effected to see

 

those that disagree with me may well be entitled to their views as I am of mine. try a poll should people be accounatble if in a position of power do do what they are elected to do. pr if they abstain do people have a right to know why they abstain and probably a few other ptions could be thrown in

[sceptic]

I think to presume cowardice is wrong.

 

OK I am not arguing that point you may well be right, may be just I cant think of a better way of putting it

[Echognome]

I think to presume cowardice is wrong.

 

OK I am not arguing that point you may well be right, may be just I cant think of a better way of putting it

It's an interesting point whether one should have to give a reason for abstaining, maybe something like:

 

biased

unaware of issue

other (explain)

 

but on the same token, one might then consider a more descriptive vote than yes or no:

 

strongly support

mildy support

neutral

mildy oppose

strongly oppose

[mike777]

OF course people who vote have Biases..:)

 

We hope they are fully disclosed in a timely manner and we hope they vote their Bias.....that is why we put them in power to vote....

 

If people are going to vote against their Bias..fair enough...just disclose that to us in a timely manner so we know that ahead of time...:)

 

We do not want you to abstain because you have some bias or personal feeling on an important decision...:)

 

You are a human voting..not some machine.....voting on pure logic....:)

 

In fact if you are a congressperson, we know you have not even read the law or bill you are on voting on.

[jdonn]

Mike....

[sceptic]

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.

 

actually you are right, I have never been on a committe that has to vote 80 times a year , but when ever I have been in a position to make a decsion ( possibly hundreds of disciplinary hearings or accident investigations, formal appeals, I usually find the facts out and make my decison based on that, when I have heard what has happened, what I have found from experience, I was never put in the position of doing something without knowing the facts, obviously I would not sit a hearing if I did not know what was going on as for personal conflicts, I had to sack my brother once (hahaha) not one person in the company objected to me sitting and doing this, nor did I shirk from my responsibility of doing what I was employed to do (and in his case what he deserved) I was more pissed he actually put me in the position I had to do it)

 

 

p.s I have never lost a Tribunal

 

and this aids my arguement, if these people had all the facts conflicts of interests and all, then they should stand down and let some others make the decision if they cant do what is right due to their own biases

[TimG]

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).

Don't they also run at least one regional? I believe there was one such regional in Dallas in the last year.

[sceptic]

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