18. Ethics Committee – Status Report – Bob Gillanders

[Ken Craft]

Actually, this is an example of why meetings need to be open so that Governors think twice before having these kinds of discussions.

[Lyle Craver]

While not opposed to the idea of opening these meetings after the fact (ie. not during) I do think that there is good reason for matters affecting a particular individual not be a matter of public discussion. Other organizations take these discussions 'in camera' all the time. With this in mind when the motion concerning making the online meeting public after the close, I e-mailed Bob and asked that he designate during the meeting any threads that he did not wish being seen by the public since I did not want to be seeking approvals after the meeting or risk having to do things retroactively.

Speaking personally, there's no question that while the Executive hasn't been wild about Kevin's regular denunciations of us it was the adult links that made us cut the link. It is my opinion we've been more patient with him than we might have been with a player of lesser stature but those links are what made it clear to us we had to act.

[Garland Best]

Interestingly enough, today he commented on the CFC newsletter and overall, he likes it!

He also questioned pubicly why his site isn't linked on the CFC website.

Can I assume Kevin was told in the past that the issue with Kevin's "sense of humor" was the reason for removing the link?

[Christopher Mallon]

Michael, if you feel that strongly about it, there is no need to go through any Ethics Committee.

By-law One, Article 16, CFC Handbook
16. Any member may withdraw from the Federation by delivering to the secretary a written resignation. Any member may be required to resign by a vote of three quarters of the voting members at the annual meeting.

Of course, without some kind of ethics committee report, it's highly unlikely you'll convince 75% of the voters.

[Lyle Craver]

One other subject touching on ethics that bothers me are the suggestions of conflict of interest I keep hearing.

I personally would not be comfortable voting on an event I was on the organizing committee of - I would probably vote though. I would probably NOT vote on an event I was slated to be TD of.

In neither case do I think I would be gaining a personal benefit by taking part in the event. I can understand some might think there would be a benefit if a title qualification was involved but as an International Arbiter already, that would not apply to me.

I have heard several Governors make some very sketchy accusations about 'conflict of interest' where there is not really any conflict. If I were to take $50 from a tournament where I worked 14+ hours a day during an entire long weekend (which I have done without complaint) I generally figure I've covered my meal expenses though I usually spend it on chess books. I have worked many other tournaments without any payment at all. How any of these constitute a personal 'benefit' in the sense of the legal meaning of conflict of interest is beyond me.

All I know is that I've seen several good and decent people's integrity impugned on conflict of interest accusations where no real conflict exists and that burns me big time.

Anybody who is in doubt on the meaning of a conflict of interest should check outhttp://www.businessethics.ca/definit...-interest.html and be clear on what that means before directing that term at anyone else.

Yes I'm making a rant - but this phrase has been used entirely too loosely entirely too long and it needs to stop before we drive away even more hard-working volunteers than the ones we have already lost.