Bill Gletsos COI - Page 2 - OzChess

**Fischer-Fan** · 07-21-2007, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Exactly right. Unworkable. The ACF it is must be abandonned. If Australian chess is to avoid the risk of extinction, anew peak body must TAKE the power.

Would it not be sufficient for Bill Gletsos to simply recuse himself from NSWCA discussions and votes pertaining to this event?

Also, how does a conflict of interest arise when its only Bill Gletsos' friend who benefits and not Bill himself?

**Spiny Norman** · 07-21-2007, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Unfortunately, Bill Gletsos does have an interest in the Parramatta bid. Let me quote from the publically posted Parramatta bid.
"Tournament committee
Shane Burgess, Tarun Pant and Bill Gletsos."

That's selective quoting ... you missed out an important part ... the full quote from that section of the bid (as posted publicly on Chess Chat):

Tournament committee
Shane Burgess, Tarun Pant and Bill Gletsos (to comply with relevant ACF by-laws).

Highlighting in red by me (not in original). What by-law could that be, I wonders to myself. The only one that really makes sense, given the bit in red above:

Organising Committee
24. Upon granting the right to hold an ACF event to a state association or other body the ACF may nominate a person to be the ACF nominee on the organising committee. The ACF nominee on the organising committee shall be entitled to attend all meetings of the organising committee but shall not be entitled to vote at such meetings. He is to make the organisers aware of their responsibilities to the ACF in running the tournament and to inform and liaise with the ACF.

Ref: http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ournaments.txt

I expect that's the link. The bidder (Paramatta) is jumping the gun a little by suggesting that, if awarded the bid, they would want BG to be on the committee as the ACF's representative.

If you disagree with this assessment, perhaps you could suggest how else to reconcile the words "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" to a particular by-law relating to bidding for the tournament.

**Iconoclast** · 07-22-2007, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

Would it not be sufficient for Bill Gletsos to simply recuse himself from NSWCA discussions and votes pertaining to this event?

No. If you knew Bill Gletsos as many of us do, you would know that he has a strong personality. Hi sinfluence far exceeds a simple recuse measure.

Also, how does a conflict of interest arise when its only Bill Gletsos' friend who benefits and not Bill himself?

COI issues always include the benefits to relatives, business partners and group members, as constituting a COI - for obvious reasons.

**Iconoclast** · 07-22-2007, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by frosty

That's selective quoting ... you missed out an important part ... the full quote from that section of the bid (as posted publicly on Chess Chat):

I admit that my quote was "selective," as all quotes are/must be selective. However, the implication that I bwas being misleading is not justified. The phrase "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" is irrelevent to my arguement. That phrase could eqally apply to scores of points throughout the bid.

The bidder (Paramatta) is jumping the gun a little by suggesting that, if awarded the bid, they would want BG to be on the committee as the ACF's representative.

It is presumptuous and unethical of the Paramatta team to put forward Bill Gletsos forward as the ACF representitive. It is a clear COI. He would be the NSWCA Pres at a NSW run event run by NSWCA officers, yet reporting to the ACF on matters that may conflict with ACF objectives - such as safe guarding the ACF $2000 safety net from rorting.

If you disagree with this assessment, perhaps you could suggest how else to reconcile the words "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" to a particular by-law relating to bidding for the tournament.

The ACF has the power to appoint anyone it likes to a on executive position in the ACF. It could simply create the positon of "2008 Australian Chamionship Officer" and appoint any non-NSWCA councilor, non-Parramatta office holder, to that position.

Everyone take a step back and look at the situation. I feel like I have been taking crazy pills becuase it appears that I am the only person who sees that, Bill Gletsos sitting on both the NSWCA and the ACF, and also being involved with a bid has a serious COI facet to it?

Bill Gletsos must resign from either the NSWCA or the ACF.

**Spiny Norman** · 07-22-2007, 12:34 PM

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.

**Spiny Norman** · 07-22-2007, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

The phrase "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" is irrelevent to my arguement. That phrase could eqally apply to scores of points throughout the bid.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, as I think that phrase being included just at that point in the document is completely relevant. The fact that it is included there, but not in hundreds of other places, speaks volumes about the intent of the writer in respect of the specific response that the writer is making in respect of certain ACF by-laws.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

It is presumptuous and unethical of the Paramatta team to put forward Bill Gletsos forward

It probably is presumtuous, in the way that it is worded. If indeed their intent is as I supposed above, then perhaps a better way would be to note the Paramatta-based members of the team, then in a separate sentence to suggest that they'd worked happily with Bill in the past and that if he were appointed as ACF rep then they'd happily work with him again. But that would take a lot more words. Anyway, I am speculating as to their intent, so I really don't know one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I feel like I have been taking crazy pills becuase it appears that I am the only person who sees that, Bill Gletsos sitting on both the NSWCA and the ACF, and also being involved with a bid has a serious COI facet to it?

You're not alone in suggesting that a COI might occur. But when you suggest that it has occurred and is irreconcilable, you might indeed find that you have fewer travelling companions.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Bill Gletsos must resign from either the NSWCA or the ACF.

That would be one way of resolving it. Not necessarily the only way, or the best way. Depends on specific circumstances and track record of conduct. In such situations I will also look at what fellow officials are saying, privately and publicly, in forming a view. If they, seeing all this "up close", are satisfied that all is well, then that's a big factor in assessing whether a real COI is occurring.

**Iconoclast** · 07-22-2007, 01:42 PM

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.

**Iconoclast** · 07-25-2007, 08:10 PM

Dear Egor,

Without anyone having chipped me for it, I would like to apologies for my overly agressive approach to your defence of Bill Gletsos. I should not have questioned your ability to stand-up to a tyrant, as I know that you can stand your ground when you feel strongly enough about a matter. The on-line tone I used with you was inconguous with my actual opinion of you. It ought not happen again

Icono

**Egor** · 07-26-2007, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

NSW players need you to put a motion of no confidence in Master Bill at the next NSWCA. That would put him off side. Do you have the stomach for it?

Which NSW players? Do you have a list? If you were able to show me that there is a significant number of NSW chess players who are disatified with Bill, I'm happy to be there voice. Please feel free to email me on this.

**Egor** · 07-26-2007, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Dear Egor,

Without anyone having chipped me for it, I would like to apologies for my overly agressive approach to your defence of Bill Gletsos. I should not have questioned your ability to stand-up to a tyrant, as I know that you can stand your ground when you feel strongly enough about a matter. The on-line tone I used with you was inconguous with my actual opinion of you. It ought not happen again

Icono

Thank you.

I didn't see myself as defending Bill Gletsos, he is capable of that for himself. My concern was that you were putting forward things that were just not correct. Perhaps you need to concider if your zeal to get Bill (not in a personal sense, but in the issues you have with him as a chess administrator) has lead to you not seeing things clearly?

**Brian_Jones** · 07-27-2007, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by frosty

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.

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.

I fully agree with Iconoclast that Bill has a COI, as many ACF officials have had before him.

Frosty appears to think it is not a problem and can be managed but I don't agree. There are many many things going on in the world of chess politics in Australia and Frosty cannot see them all. There is a lot of money involved (just look at the six figure turnover of the NSWJCL if you want your eyes opened). It is time that all state and national chess bodies published their minutes and financial accounts!

It is best if we treat the ACF is a mature organisation and do not allow people to hold executive office at both state and national level at the same time. Gary Wastell did the right thing when he became ACF President (by giving up his CV Presidency).

Our standards should be set very high if we are going to grow and get government support and increased sponsorship.

BTW I do hope this forum means sensible debate about chess in Australia and does not turn into another chesschat!

**MOZ** · 07-27-2007, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Brian_Jones

<snip> There is a lot of money involved (just look at the six figure turnover of the NSWJCL if you want your eyes opened). It is time that all state and national chess bodies published their minutes and financial accounts!

It is best if we treat the ACF is a mature organisation and do not allow people to hold executive office at both state and national level at the same time. Gary Wastell did the right thing when he became ACF President (by giving up his CV Presidency).

Our standards should be set very high if we are going to grow and get government support and increased sponsorship.

I agree Brian. Where money is involved I think the conflicted individual needs to step aside from some particular tasks.
At the 2006 CV AGM a motion was passed that effectively moved CV headquarters to the BHCC venue for 12 months. As I was Treasurer of both organisations it was clearly a conflict to engage in setting the sub-tenancy rent. One sides gain was the other sides loss. The rental-rate for CV needed to be set independently from me, obviously. So, I withdrew my nomination for the position of CV Treasurer for 2007. (I can still volunteer for the book-keeping, invoicing, and even reporting duties; of course).

The CV proposal (for the forthcoming Aus Ch.) was marked confidential in the hope that other bidders would not have the opportunity to cherry-pick the good points. I guess there was little hope of that when it could be read by another bidder, and then a time-extension was allowed to form competing bids.

Perhaps the old Chess Commission proposal at heart was really an attempt to avoid COI aspects rather than a grenade under the State powers.

BTW I do hope this forum means sensible debate about chess in Australia and does not turn into another chesschat!

Well, I guess it depends on us.

**Just2Good** · 07-28-2007, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Brian_Jones

It is time that all state and national chess bodies published their minutes and financial accounts!

Hi Brian

Welcome to OzChess.

In relation to the sentence above, aren't all state chess associations already doing this?

AO

**KiD** · 07-28-2007, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

I agree Brian. Where money is involved I think the conflicted individual needs to step aside from some particular tasks.

I should add that it should not necessarily be a real COI that should prompt the individual(s) concerned to step aside. A responsible administrator should find it within him/herself to recognise a possible public perception of a COI and take all means necessary - including resigning from one, two, or all of the perceived conflicting positions - to prevent such from happening.

**Zeitgeist** · 07-29-2007, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Brian_Jones

There is a lot of money involved (just look at the six figure turnover of the NSWJCL if you want your eyes opened). It is time that all state and national chess bodies published their minutes and financial accounts!

The Chess Victoria minutes and accounts are published and handed around at the public annual general meeting. The difficulty for those who live in the country is that the documentation does not seem to find its way onto the State web-site.

07-21-2007, 05:18 PM	#16 (permalink)
Fischer-Fan Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth Posts: 152	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Exactly right. Unworkable. The ACF it is must be abandonned. If Australian chess is to avoid the risk of extinction, anew peak body must TAKE the power. Would it not be sufficient for Bill Gletsos to simply recuse himself from NSWCA discussions and votes pertaining to this event? Also, how does a conflict of interest arise when its only Bill Gletsos' friend who benefits and not Bill himself? __________________ Patzer see check, patzer give check! - Bobby Fischer

07-21-2007, 05:54 PM	#17 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Unfortunately, Bill Gletsos does have an interest in the Parramatta bid. Let me quote from the publically posted Parramatta bid. "Tournament committee Shane Burgess, Tarun Pant and Bill Gletsos." That's selective quoting ... you missed out an important part ... the full quote from that section of the bid (as posted publicly on Chess Chat): Tournament committee Shane Burgess, Tarun Pant and Bill Gletsos (to comply with relevant ACF by-laws). Highlighting in red by me (not in original). What by-law could that be, I wonders to myself. The only one that really makes sense, given the bit in red above: Organising Committee 24. Upon granting the right to hold an ACF event to a state association or other body the ACF may nominate a person to be the ACF nominee on the organising committee. The ACF nominee on the organising committee shall be entitled to attend all meetings of the organising committee but shall not be entitled to vote at such meetings. He is to make the organisers aware of their responsibilities to the ACF in running the tournament and to inform and liaise with the ACF. Ref: http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ournaments.txt I expect that's the link. The bidder (Paramatta) is jumping the gun a little by suggesting that, if awarded the bid, they would want BG to be on the committee as the ACF's representative. If you disagree with this assessment, perhaps you could suggest how else to reconcile the words "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" to a particular by-law relating to bidding for the tournament.

07-22-2007, 10:48 AM	#18 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan Would it not be sufficient for Bill Gletsos to simply recuse himself from NSWCA discussions and votes pertaining to this event? No. If you knew Bill Gletsos as many of us do, you would know that he has a strong personality. Hi sinfluence far exceeds a simple recuse measure. Also, how does a conflict of interest arise when its only Bill Gletsos' friend who benefits and not Bill himself? COI issues always include the benefits to relatives, business partners and group members, as constituting a COI - for obvious reasons.

07-22-2007, 11:14 AM	#19 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by frosty That's selective quoting ... you missed out an important part ... the full quote from that section of the bid (as posted publicly on Chess Chat): I admit that my quote was "selective," as all quotes are/must be selective. However, the implication that I bwas being misleading is not justified. The phrase "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" is irrelevent to my arguement. That phrase could eqally apply to scores of points throughout the bid. The bidder (Paramatta) is jumping the gun a little by suggesting that, if awarded the bid, they would want BG to be on the committee as the ACF's representative. It is presumptuous and unethical of the Paramatta team to put forward Bill Gletsos forward as the ACF representitive. It is a clear COI. He would be the NSWCA Pres at a NSW run event run by NSWCA officers, yet reporting to the ACF on matters that may conflict with ACF objectives - such as safe guarding the ACF $2000 safety net from rorting. If you disagree with this assessment, perhaps you could suggest how else to reconcile the words "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" to a particular by-law relating to bidding for the tournament. The ACF has the power to appoint anyone it likes to a on executive position in the ACF. It could simply create the positon of "2008 Australian Chamionship Officer" and appoint any non-NSWCA councilor, non-Parramatta office holder, to that position. Everyone take a step back and look at the situation. I feel like I have been taking crazy pills becuase it appears that I am the only person who sees that, Bill Gletsos sitting on both the NSWCA and the ACF, and also being involved with a bid has a serious COI facet to it? Bill Gletsos must resign from either the NSWCA or the ACF. Last edited by Iconoclast : 07-22-2007 at 11:16 AM

07-22-2007, 12:44 PM	#21 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast The phrase "(to comply with relevant ACF by-laws)" is irrelevent to my arguement. That phrase could eqally apply to scores of points throughout the bid. We'll have to agree to disagree then, as I think that phrase being included just at that point in the document is completely relevant. The fact that it is included there, but not in hundreds of other places, speaks volumes about the intent of the writer in respect of the specific response that the writer is making in respect of certain ACF by-laws. Originally Posted by Iconoclast It is presumptuous and unethical of the Paramatta team to put forward Bill Gletsos forward It probably is presumtuous, in the way that it is worded. If indeed their intent is as I supposed above, then perhaps a better way would be to note the Paramatta-based members of the team, then in a separate sentence to suggest that they'd worked happily with Bill in the past and that if he were appointed as ACF rep then they'd happily work with him again. But that would take a lot more words. Anyway, I am speculating as to their intent, so I really don't know one way or the other. Originally Posted by Iconoclast I feel like I have been taking crazy pills becuase it appears that I am the only person who sees that, Bill Gletsos sitting on both the NSWCA and the ACF, and also being involved with a bid has a serious COI facet to it? You're not alone in suggesting that a COI might occur. But when you suggest that it has occurred and is irreconcilable, you might indeed find that you have fewer travelling companions. Originally Posted by Iconoclast Bill Gletsos must resign from either the NSWCA or the ACF. That would be one way of resolving it. Not necessarily the only way, or the best way. Depends on specific circumstances and track record of conduct. In such situations I will also look at what fellow officials are saying, privately and publicly, in forming a view. If they, seeing all this "up close", are satisfied that all is well, then that's a big factor in assessing whether a real COI is occurring.

07-22-2007, 12:34 PM	#20 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	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.

07-22-2007, 01:42 PM	#22 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	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.

07-25-2007, 08:10 PM	#23 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Dear Egor, Without anyone having chipped me for it, I would like to apologies for my overly agressive approach to your defence of Bill Gletsos. I should not have questioned your ability to stand-up to a tyrant, as I know that you can stand your ground when you feel strongly enough about a matter. The on-line tone I used with you was inconguous with my actual opinion of you. It ought not happen again Icono

07-26-2007, 01:25 AM	#24 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by Iconoclast NSW players need you to put a motion of no confidence in Master Bill at the next NSWCA. That would put him off side. Do you have the stomach for it? Which NSW players? Do you have a list? If you were able to show me that there is a significant number of NSW chess players who are disatified with Bill, I'm happy to be there voice. Please feel free to email me on this.

07-26-2007, 01:34 AM	#25 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Dear Egor, Without anyone having chipped me for it, I would like to apologies for my overly agressive approach to your defence of Bill Gletsos. I should not have questioned your ability to stand-up to a tyrant, as I know that you can stand your ground when you feel strongly enough about a matter. The on-line tone I used with you was inconguous with my actual opinion of you. It ought not happen again Icono Thank you. I didn't see myself as defending Bill Gletsos, he is capable of that for himself. My concern was that you were putting forward things that were just not correct. Perhaps you need to concider if your zeal to get Bill (not in a personal sense, but in the issues you have with him as a chess administrator) has lead to you not seeing things clearly?

07-27-2007, 08:44 AM	#26 (permalink)
Brian_Jones Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 77	Originally Posted by frosty 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. 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. I fully agree with Iconoclast that Bill has a COI, as many ACF officials have had before him. Frosty appears to think it is not a problem and can be managed but I don't agree. There are many many things going on in the world of chess politics in Australia and Frosty cannot see them all. There is a lot of money involved (just look at the six figure turnover of the NSWJCL if you want your eyes opened). It is time that all state and national chess bodies published their minutes and financial accounts! It is best if we treat the ACF is a mature organisation and do not allow people to hold executive office at both state and national level at the same time. Gary Wastell did the right thing when he became ACF President (by giving up his CV Presidency). Our standards should be set very high if we are going to grow and get government support and increased sponsorship. BTW I do hope this forum means sensible debate about chess in Australia and does not turn into another chesschat! Last edited by Brian_Jones : 07-27-2007 at 08:55 AM

07-27-2007, 09:13 AM	#27 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	Originally Posted by Brian_Jones <snip> There is a lot of money involved (just look at the six figure turnover of the NSWJCL if you want your eyes opened). It is time that all state and national chess bodies published their minutes and financial accounts! It is best if we treat the ACF is a mature organisation and do not allow people to hold executive office at both state and national level at the same time. Gary Wastell did the right thing when he became ACF President (by giving up his CV Presidency). Our standards should be set very high if we are going to grow and get government support and increased sponsorship. I agree Brian. Where money is involved I think the conflicted individual needs to step aside from some particular tasks. At the 2006 CV AGM a motion was passed that effectively moved CV headquarters to the BHCC venue for 12 months. As I was Treasurer of both organisations it was clearly a conflict to engage in setting the sub-tenancy rent. One sides gain was the other sides loss. The rental-rate for CV needed to be set independently from me, obviously. So, I withdrew my nomination for the position of CV Treasurer for 2007. (I can still volunteer for the book-keeping, invoicing, and even reporting duties; of course). The CV proposal (for the forthcoming Aus Ch.) was marked confidential in the hope that other bidders would not have the opportunity to cherry-pick the good points. I guess there was little hope of that when it could be read by another bidder, and then a time-extension was allowed to form competing bids. Perhaps the old Chess Commission proposal at heart was really an attempt to avoid COI aspects rather than a grenade under the State powers. BTW I do hope this forum means sensible debate about chess in Australia and does not turn into another chesschat! Well, I guess it depends on us.

07-28-2007, 04:49 PM	#28 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Brian_Jones It is time that all state and national chess bodies published their minutes and financial accounts! Hi Brian Welcome to OzChess. In relation to the sentence above, aren't all state chess associations already doing this? AO

07-28-2007, 07:06 PM	#29 (permalink)
KiD Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 84	Originally Posted by MOZ I agree Brian. Where money is involved I think the conflicted individual needs to step aside from some particular tasks. I should add that it should not necessarily be a real COI that should prompt the individual(s) concerned to step aside. A responsible administrator should find it within him/herself to recognise a possible public perception of a COI and take all means necessary - including resigning from one, two, or all of the perceived conflicting positions - to prevent such from happening.

07-29-2007, 11:07 AM	#30 (permalink)
Zeitgeist Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 35	Originally Posted by Brian_Jones There is a lot of money involved (just look at the six figure turnover of the NSWJCL if you want your eyes opened). It is time that all state and national chess bodies published their minutes and financial accounts! The Chess Victoria minutes and accounts are published and handed around at the public annual general meeting. The difficulty for those who live in the country is that the documentation does not seem to find its way onto the State web-site.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: