Originally Posted by frosty
[A] 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.
I contest that regardless of the individual identifying (or not) a COI, the organisations themselves should act. When they do not, they are open to accusations of sculduggery.
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.
And here you have identified the problem. Australian chess officials have been, and continue to exist in a tight cozy secretive group who's priorties are blurred between rolls. Thus the COI.
This current situation has arisen precisely *because* individuals are permitted to hold multiple positons in multple associations. It is blatently clear that when power is concentrated, systems become corruptable. The ACF is a made to measure example of the concentration of power. Its constitution prevents outsiders from seeing inside the black box. If Bill Gletsos had one iota of ethical sence, he would resign from either the NSWCA or the ACF. It is simple impossible to run an association where every vote taken has one or more of an already small number of individuals being recusive. It is absurd.
Furthermore, there are other reasons for preventing multiple office bearing. Not the least important is that others cannot fill one (or more) of the occupied postions. This leads to:
Over work of the current officials.
Few opportunities for other to learn the ropes.
Stagnation as a management style.
The Bill Gletsos COI issue is the perfect example for showing why the ACF must be open to Australia-wide elections rather than deals in the back room between those who have the keys.