I note that some take the view that a COI only arises when the person involved receives a
personal benefit. I don't agree with this view myself.
When you hold a position of trust with any organisation, be it an association, company, or otherwise, as a committee member or director you are expected to act solely in the interests of that organisation. Croydon Chess has a policy in place to ensure that our committee members recognise this responsibility:
http://www.croydonchess.com/About/Po...2/Default.aspx
When you hold a position of trust with multiple organisations, then you must be careful to act solely in the interests of those organisations as individual entities ... meaning that when the two entities are involved in "doing business" with each other, there is a risk of a conflict of interest involved.
Now the conflict might be non-existent, minor, inconsequential, or whatever. It is up to the individual involved to identify when a conflict arises and to take action to resolve the conflict. The normal mechanism for resolving this sort of conflict is for the person to be clear that they are either:
- acting for one party and not the other; or
- acting for neither party
This means being seen to be not involved in the process. In my experience in chess, some officials treat this sort of thing very lightly, as if it were of no consequence. Others are more aware and take steps to ensure that COI does not arise as a live issue.
Iconoclast, I don't agree with you that Bill must resign. The COI can be managed, provided he is careful about things. I know you have a different view ... you're entitled to that view ... but don't expect me to agree with you on it, because I don't.
