Upcoming Elections - Feng Yun appears in the line up

Javaness2 · #1

In a move that may surprise many, Feng Yun appears to be running for the AGA board. The election page is here http://www.usgo.org/board/elections.html . Normally Feng Yun has tended to control AGA decisions from 'the benches'. It will be interesting to see what effect she can have if she is elected. The Eastern Region has the most candidates - Thomas Hsiang, Gurujeet Khalsa, and Zhiyuan [Edward] Zhang, are all also in the running.

I added in Feng Yun's running statement below, should have added the rest for balance, but was too lazy

Quote:

I am an American go professional, trained in China, a former world women’s go champion, and founder of the Feng Yun Go School, who is currently teaching go for a living in America. Go has been my life since I was a little girl, and I know what it takes to be successful.
I decided to run for the AGA Board because as a professional, and as a go teacher with more than hundred students every week, I have firsthand experience of how go is developing in this country. I have spent a lot of time with AGA officials over the past decade, and I can tell you that the AGA is not what it ought to be today. A vision of serving the go community has been supplanted too often by petty concerns about fees and control and perquisites. Available knowledge is ignored. Blunders are covered up. For every step forward, there is a step backward. We deserve better.
I want to promote a return to traditional values of honesty, objectivity, and responsibility that I have always understood to be American ideals. I want to make the AGA a friendlier and more inclusive organization devoted to making go better understood and more popular in America. I want to open competitions fairly to all players and encourage them to participate instead of devising ways to exclude them. Let us not turn anybody away and disqualify them because their AGA membership lapsed, and instead say “Welcome back!”; let us not be afraid of newcomers who might be good players and enhance our culture; let us invite expatriates like Michael Redmond to play for the USA.
I want to make AGA decision making more transparent, and to hold officials accountable for their mistakes so that we can learn from the past and do better in the future. The AGA lost tens of thousands of dollars at the 2011 Go Congress without explanation to members. While being financially negligent on a large scale, at the same time the AGA tried to squeeze players to give up their tournament prize money to pay for nothing in particular. Why should we put up with this?
Lastly, I want to sweep away delusional thinking so that we can concentrate on real opportunities and lay a stronger foundation for go in America. We need people with a clear mind and a good heart to turn this organization around. We can do this together.
Feng Yun, 9-dan professional

Javaness2 · #2

What other election is that?

gowan · #3

SInce the AGA is starting a pro program it could be a good idea to have a real pro on the board. Of course Feng Yun will also be able to look after her own strong students if she is on the board.

jts · #4

So basically this is the money money money candidacy?

Javaness2 · #5

jts wrote:

So basically this is the money money money candidacy?

my money? your money? or our money?

jts · #6

I'm color-coding this as pablum (red), things that everyone says they believe in (orange), and wanting to use the AGA to maximize the incomes of people who aspire to win tournaments (lilac). Perhaps I've misunderstood and someone can clarify for me the issues at stake.

Quote:

I am an American go professional, trained in China, a former world women’s go champion, and founder of the Feng Yun Go School, who is currently teaching go for a living in America. Go has been my life since I was a little girl, and I know what it takes to be successful.
I decided to run for the AGA Board because as a professional, and as a go teacher with more than hundred students every week, I have firsthand experience of how go is developing in this country. I have spent a lot of time with AGA officials over the past decade, and I can tell you that the AGA is not what it ought to be today. A vision of serving the go community has been supplanted too often by petty concerns about fees and control and perquisites. Available knowledge is ignored. Blunders are covered up. For every step forward, there is a step backward. We deserve better.
I want to promote a return to traditional values of honesty, objectivity, and responsibility that I have always understood to be American ideals. I want to make the AGA a friendlier and more inclusive organization devoted to making go better understood and more popular in America. I want to open competitions fairly to all players and encourage them to participate instead of devising ways to exclude them. Let us not turn anybody away and disqualify them because their AGA membership lapsed, and instead say “Welcome back!”; let us not be afraid of newcomers who might be good players and enhance our culture; let us invite expatriates like Michael Redmond to play for the USA.
I want to make AGA decision making more transparent, and to hold officials accountable for their mistakes so that we can learn from the past and do better in the future. The AGA lost tens of thousands of dollars at the 2011 Go Congress without explanation to members. While being financially negligent on a large scale, at the same time the AGA tried to squeeze players to give up their tournament prize money to pay for nothing in particular. Why should we put up with this?
Lastly, I want to sweep away delusional thinking so that we can concentrate on real opportunities and lay a stronger foundation for go in America. We need people with a clear mind and a good heart to turn this organization around. We can do this together.
Feng Yun, 9-dan professional

Not that I'm against letting people run public organizations as their own fiefdoms, when the circumstances are right and the people in question are clear-eyed. If a man is able to rob one house with impunity he's a thief, if he's able to rob a neighborhood with impunity he's a crime lord, but if he's able to rob an entire city with impunity he very frequently (not usually! but frequently) sets his mind to making the city flourish.

badukJr · #7

jts wrote:

I'm color-coding this as pablum (red), things that everyone says they believe in (orange), and wanting to use the AGA to maximize the incomes of people who aspire to win tournaments (lilac). Perhaps I've misunderstood and someone can clarify for me the issues at stake.

Not that I'm against letting people run public organizations as their own fiefdoms, when the circumstances are right and the people in question are clear-eyed. If a man is able to rob one house with impunity he's a thief, if he's able to rob a neighborhood with impunity he's a crime lord, but if he's able to rob an entire city with impunity he very frequently (not usually! but frequently) sets his mind to making the city flourish.

I agree with you. Its sad how aggressive people become over even a small amount of money. The more I hear about ex-pros lobbying for tournament monies and help from the AGA about tournament monies, the more disappointed I get. The AGA should serve mostly amateurs, this just stinks.

illluck · #8

I got a completely different impression of her statement compared to jts and badukJr (though I agree that there's a bit too much rhetoric). Her criticisms of the current state of organization appear valid to me given what little I've been reading and hearing from people. I think characterizing her as "the money money money candidacy" and "aggressive... over even a small amount of money" is way too harsh.

vash3g · #9

I'm gonna throw something out there for a point of interest:

When voting for items on the board that relate to strong players, professional program, and the like she must abstain her vote on the topic at hand when the board votes. This is a conflict of interest and is described in the AGA bylaws.

hyperpape · **#10**

By which standard Jie Li should have been abstaining on the strong players' related decisions, right? (That's not a criticism, just making sure I understand you).

Javaness2 · **#11**

vash3g wrote:

I'm gonna throw something out there for a point of interest:

When voting for items on the board that relate to strong players, professional program, and the like she must abstain her vote on the topic at hand when the board votes. This is a conflict of interest and is described in the AGA bylaws.

For the record, as nobody will know what vash3g is talking about

Section 11. Conflict of Interest.

In order to avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof, anyone in a policy or decision making position in the AGA shall recuse himself or herself from any discussion where his or her personal, business, or commercial interests may conflict with the interests of the AGA. Policy and decision makers may be so instructed by the Board of Directors, with cause, and must provide the Board with information it may request in order to make such a determination. Anyone nominated for such a position in the AGA will inform the Board of any potential sources of such conflicts of interest when they accept nomination. Potential nominees will cooperate with reasonable inquiries the Board may make in order to reach a decision. The Board will render judgment on possible conflicts of interest within 21 days of receiving a written response to any such inquiry. Anyone in such a position within the AGA must inform the Board of Directors of any potential sources of such conflicts of interest whenever such potential sources of conflict arise.
a) Family members of AGA policy/decision makers may seek AGA employment, subject to Board approval, guidance, and control.
b) Board members shall recuse themselves from a conflict of interest deliberation if they have an involvement, or apparent involvement, in the case.
c) The Board of Directors is the sole authority within the Corporation to determine whether a conflict of interest exists and, if so, the appropriate remedy
d) The Board shall write and publish its policies and requirements regarding the
provisions of this section.

Joaz Banbeck · **#12**

Feng Yun wrote:

...
I want to make AGA decision making more transparent... The AGA lost tens of thousands of dollars at the 2011 Go Congress without explanation to members...

I like this part.

Javaness2 · **#13**

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Feng Yun wrote:

...
I want to make AGA decision making more transparent... The AGA lost tens of thousands of dollars at the 2011 Go Congress without explanation to members...

I like this part.

Is that actually true?

vash3g · **#14**

hyperpape wrote:

By which standard Jie Li should have been abstaining on the strong players' related decisions, right? (That's not a criticism, just making sure I understand you).

According to the bylaws, this is correct.

vash3g · **#15**

Javaness2 wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Feng Yun wrote:

...
I want to make AGA decision making more transparent... The AGA lost tens of thousands of dollars at the 2011 Go Congress without explanation to members...

I like this part.

Is that actually true?

This is true by all accounts I've heard and was reported in the E-Journal. From what I've been told by those in the know this is a semi-sensitive issue between some AGA personnel. I believe they are keeping it private at this time because they dont want to cause a bigger stir and let it be known that the issue was taken care of.

vash3g · **#16**

Feng Yun wrote:

...
I want to make AGA decision making more transparent...

Jie Li also wanted to make the AGA decision making more transparent. Can anyone who reads the minutes or the EJ find examples of this that are NOT ones sent out by DanielTheSmith?

Ill even sweeten the pot to a couple beers for someone at a congress if they can find a couple of examples.

snorri · **#17**

vash3g wrote:

This is true by all accounts I've heard and was reported in the E-Journal. From what I've been told by those in the know this is a semi-sensitive issue between some AGA personnel. I believe they are keeping it private at this time because they dont want to cause a bigger stir and let it be known that the issue was taken care of.

Which issue of th E-Journal reported this?

jts · **#18**

Quote:

Is that actually true?

This is true by all accounts I've heard and was reported in the E-Journal. From what I've been told by those in the know this is a semi-sensitive issue between some AGA personnel. I believe they are keeping it private at this time because they dont want to cause a bigger stir and let it be known that the issue was taken care of.

Originally I thought nothing of this... Any organization that runs its conventions as profitable ventures needs to be prepared to accept losses. But the fact that there is a secret explanation that normal people aren't allowed to know is very disappointing, and starting to look like a pattern.

pwaldron · **#19**

jts wrote:

Originally I thought nothing of this... Any organization that runs its conventions as profitable ventures needs to be prepared to accept losses. But the fact that there is a secret explanation that normal people aren't allowed to know is very disappointing, and starting to look like a pattern.

You may recall that the Rochester congress also initially showed a loss. After finalizing the books (and, I think, realizing that they were overcharged by the venue) the event showed a small profit. I don't expect the AGA has any desire to push an E-Journal headline about a significant loss in the congress, but if it doesn't appear in the board minutes (when will they be posted?) then I would be worried.

hyperpape · **#20**

It's alluded to in the notes that have been published. It doesn't sound like another miracle in line with Rochester is forthcoming.

Upcoming Elections - Feng Yun appears in the line up

Who is online