9. Motions - commentary only (A. (Denommee/Barron) Governors Ethics and Code...)

[Pierre Dénommée]

A Governor is perceived as a person in authority. Public criticism of organizers and arbiters undermine the public trust in those individuals. The problem is that is is not required to be an arbiter or an organizer in order to be a Governor.

A Governor without an Arbiter title that has never organized anything is likely to make error in his assessment of both the arbiter and the organizer. This will result in a damage to the honour and reputation of the the arbiters and organisers. This is like slandering. Be keeping his mouth shut, the Governor protect both himself and the CFC from libel lawsuits.

Furthermore, all FQE arbiters, including those officiating in CFC rated events, must sign a contract by which they are forbidden from writing on the Internet during the tournament. The poor arbiter publicly accused by a Governor will not even be able to defend himself.

We can rid ourselves of bad arbiters and poor organizers by using the proper channels. There is no need for any direct involvement from any individual Governor. This involvement is clearly detrimental to the right of the accused. How can you get a fair hearing in front of the TDOCP if all the members there knows that the President and 10 Governors have already condemned the accused? No fair hearing means that the bad arbiter will get away with it.

[Michael Barron]

Thank you, Vladimir, for your comments!

That's why we're having this discussion - to make our rules better!

Let me address your questions:

• Disclose one’s involvement with other organizations, businesses or individuals where such a relationship might be viewed as a conflict of interest. Involvement in chess clubs Leagues and Provincial Association, whether affiliated or not, does not constitute a conflict of interest.

I teach chess and sometimes charge for it. Is that a conflict of interest?

No - just don't try to change CFC rules to favour your students...

I buy chess books and videos from the CMA on occasion. Is that a conflict of interest?

No - just don't try to change CFC rules to oblige all members to buy ONLY from the CMA...

• Do not publicly comment on the performance of any arbiter or organiser. Direct complaints against arbiters or organisers to the relevant CFC Committee: NAC for rules of the game, Ethics for matters set out in the CFC Code of Ethics or TDOCP for failure to pay guaranteed prizes.

I have some concern with this clause as it seems to me you are muzzling the governors ability to comment publicly no matter how egregious or how wonderful the behaviour of the arbiter or organizer is. I could see violating this rule where one of my students or their parents asked my opinion on whether they should participate in a tournament based on who the arbiter or organizer was. Also the wording does not limit this prohibition to arbiters and organizers of CFC events so I could be deemed to be in violation for publicly commenting on the good job a USCF organizer or TD was doing.

Further the way the clause is written I could not publicly comment to defend any arbiter or organizer if he were subjected to public attacks which seems to me is a significant attack on my free speech rights. I can think of at least a couple of threads on discussion boards where governors have violated the letter of this rule since they rose to the defense of someone who was being attacked.

In the 1970s I went to a tournament in Detroit where the organizer bounced all the prize checks and later threatened the TD with extreme violence when he complained about the situation (presumably his check bounced too). Again this would lead to a muzzling of the governors.

I realize that this is not the intent of this motion but that is the effect. Before we put a motion on the floor we should be very sure that its wording reflects the intention of the authors.

Do you have any suggestions how could we improve the wording?
Does adding a word "negatively" make the difference?

• Do not publicly comment negatively on the performance of any arbiter or organizer...

Thanks again for your constructive criticism!

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Thank you, Vladimir, for your comments!

That's why we're having this discussion - to make our rules better!

Let me address your questions:

Do you have any suggestions how could we improve the wording?
Does adding a word "negatively" make the difference?

• Do not publicly comment negatively on the performance of any arbiter or organizer...

Thanks again for your constructive criticism!

I am not inclined to criticize arbiters and organizers in public in any case as I appreciate the job they do. I think the first action if you have a problem with an arbiter or organizer is to take him aside discretely and communicate the problem that you have with him or her. Usually it can be resolved there without any need to resort to a complaint to a CFC committee. The logic of the motion is similar to a rule in most sports where you do not abuse referees or officials, I suppose. In that case, if I can still tell the organizer and arbiters that I thought they did a good job then I can live with it.

Rather than "Do not publicly comment negatively on the performance of any arbiter or organizer" perhaps "Governors shall avoid making negative public comments on the performance of any arbiter or organizer."

[Christopher Mallon]

Rather than "Do not publicly comment negatively on the performance of any arbiter or organizer" perhaps "Governors shall avoid making negative public comments on the performance of any arbiter or organizer."

I still don't really like it. How are arbiters supposed to learn except from their mistakes and the mistakes of others?

If we remove all public negativity towards the performance of an arbiter, all we are doing is ensuring any mistakes they make can still be made by any other arbiter, since it hasn't been publicly corrected.

I definitely agree it should never be personal, and it should be done in a corrective and not punitive fashion.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I still don't really like it. How are arbiters supposed to learn except from their mistakes and the mistakes of others?

If we remove all public negativity towards the performance of an arbiter, all we are doing is ensuring any mistakes they make can still be made by any other arbiter, since it hasn't been publicly corrected.

I definitely agree it should never be personal, and it should be done in a corrective and not punitive fashion.

I think you can correct mistakes without resorting to negativity. For example, "Arbiter X made this ruling or pairing in tournament Y and is clearly mentally deficient as only an idiot would make such a ruling." would run afoul of the proposed rule.

"An arbiter made the following ruling in a recent tournament. I believe the ruling is incorrect but what do you think?" This second statement should not be proscribed.

[Christopher Mallon]

I think you can correct mistakes without resorting to negativity. For example, "Arbiter X made this ruling or pairing in tournament Y and is clearly mentally deficient as only an idiot would make such a ruling." would run afoul of the proposed rule.

"An arbiter made the following ruling in a recent tournament. I believe the ruling is incorrect but what do you think?" This second statement should not be proscribed.

I agree with what you say but I still think your second example would not be allowed by the rule.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I agree with what you say but I still think your second example would not be allowed by the rule.

I am still a bit uncomfortable with the rule. In the second instance neither the arbiter nor the event was named, though that may not have been clear in my post. We should err on the side of not muzzling rather than muzzling governors. If an arbiter or organizer makes a mistake it should be possible to offer constructive corrective criticism without running afoul of the code of conduct. With regard to teeth in this rule we should note that the only sanction we have is to remove a governor and if you are an effective governor running afoul of this rule then it means that you will no longer be called upon to do unpaid work on behalf of the CFC which doesn't seem sensible from the CFC's point of view.

[Ken Craft]

When will voting open on this motion?

[Pierre Dénommée]

I agree, very few cases goes to the NAC each year and in some years, no case gets there. 99.99% of all problems are solved on site privately by competent TD and organizers. Contrary to the USCF, we do not have an TD Code of Conduct in writing, but there seems to be little use for such a code.

I am not inclined to criticize arbiters and organizers in public in any case as I appreciate the job they do. I think the first action if you have a problem with an arbiter or organizer is to take him aside discretely and communicate the problem that you have with him or her. Usually it can be resolved there without any need to resort to a complaint to a CFC committee."

[Pierre Dénommée]

This is a friendly amendment.

Rather than "Do not publicly comment negatively on the performance of any arbiter or organizer" perhaps "Governors shall avoid making negative public comments on the performance of any arbiter or organizer."