I have hesitated to comment on this thread for a variety of reasons. First, I have great respect for all three candidates running in the Eastern Region - the region Feng Yun is running in. Second, since I am currently Chairman of Policy and Governance (although I have had no conversations with the President - Select on him keeping me in that position) I would not want my comments contrued to be official in any way. My Committee looks into issues when asked, we do not offer opinions when we are not.
But since this thread has touched upon the issue of conflict of issue, and some of the other arguments touch upon the way the AGA runs itself, I would like to offer some thoughts and history, coming from the person who headed the group that created the current system, but ones that are unofficial.
Note that this will be a long post - and if you find all this detail uninteresting, not only are you a person who has my respect, but you personify the core issue of running this volunteer organization. Many of us care passionately about this game, but it is a game, a game we want to play, and while we care inordinately about it - we care about playing it, many/most do not want to invest the time and energy to run an organization.
This disconnect has become more pronounced with the arrival of the internet. Before IGS, sure, I really do not want to run the AGA or run my local chapter - but someone has to, and if someone won't, then I cannot play go, and I really want to play go, so I volunteer. But now, if there is no club, there is IGS, KGS etc - I can still play.
In the old days, running a national organization was difficult with no money and small membership. The AGA was run by a self selecting Board of Directors, many of whom, for sensible convenience and because of willingness, lived in NY or at least the East. I believe these leaders did a fine job, and made every effort to spread go throughout the country, but it was only natural that folks in other parts of the country began to resent that all the power resided in NY, and it is undeniably healthy for our leadership to be more geographically diverse.
Three things mandated and caused the system to be changed. First, technology made it so much easier to work together over vast distances. Second, American Go became more than just an East Coast thing - go was spreading, and not just on the coasts. Thirdly, ING funding meant there was some real money to do some things, and folks wanted a say on how that was handled.
We went through a period where we elected a President, and appointed regional Presidents, but the ultimate power still resided with a self selecting Board. Ultimately, the membership, or at least the membership that cared, wanted to elect the Board.
A lot of hard work went into the current system. Quite frankly, I was opposed to many of the changes, but I firmly believe that the system we have in place is a great one in theory, even if it has yet to fulfill what I consider its promise. Extensive discussions were held and the conclusion was clear: If the AGA is going to continue to thrive into the future we must continue to organize on a grass roots level, that while the internet was increasingly becoming our best breeding ground for go players, AGA chapters and tournaments were both the best things the AGA can provide and best way to gather those players into members, particularly the active members that can run this organization, Congresses etc.
So we elect regional directors based on our Chapters. The brilliant Rick Mott added a weighting mechanism that allows the smallest of clubs, doing the hard lonely work to have a say and not be swamped by the larger ones. Regional Directors have and should keep in touch with these Chapter leaders and represent those concerns. We also have an at large Director directly elected by the individual members. For those who suggest all Directors be elected that way I offer this comment, referencing the nature of Go Players I mention above. Most of us just want to play. Chapter leaders are more inclined to care about governance issues, to have interacted with the AGA and to know the people involved. Statistics will show that virtually all chapter heads vote, and these votes represent a majority of members in their regions. Voting turnout for the direct election is much lower.
Again, in theory, we have a great system. In practice, there are some problems and disputes. One is a philosophical one which has yet to be resolved. One of the early proponents of this system called the directors "The Magnificent Seven". I preferred "The Seven Wise Men" (forgive the sexism). My view is that we need to create an effective and efficient orgainization under the President that runs this organization, day to day, month to month and almost year to year. My view of the Board is that the Seven act more as a Supreme Court - overlooking the President's efforts and making sure we are on the right track and formulating long term goals. While I recognized it would take a while for the balance to get where I would like it - we seem to be definitly still in "The Magnificent Seven" mode of development - "Magnificent" implying a far more active role in day to day affairs than I would prefer. This is somewhat understandable - with many of our best and most passionate people running for the Board, they naturally have their fingers in the cake.
But regardless of whether the Board is Wise or Magnificent, it is the final say for what is done in this organization. And so, Policy and Governance did make recomendations regarding this issue. I wish I still had the report. We laid out specific examples of potential conflicts and gave opinions on the situation. While some of the scenarios where unanimous, many were split.
We were concerned about the AGA being independant, and free from outside or personal interest. Independance is important, and not irrelevant, the ING Foundation had charitably sought to impose a rule set on us in the past, and we deftly negotiated an agreement that gave us great benifit and maintained our independance. Similarly, today we are receiving substantial outside interest and help from Korea, with our new pro system, but our indepencance must be maintained.
We recomended that no one should be a member of the AGA Board of Directors if they were a member of another national go organization. We also recomended that no one who made their primarily living as go player should be allowed to run for Board of Directors. Note, we were not rejecting the valued experience, aid, help or efforts of anyone - this experience and expertise could be well employed by the President within his/her administration. It was simply an expression that the top level of our organization be free from outside influence or personal gain.
Votes were split on other scenarios, but my recollection was that the majority would have prohibited, for example, Chuck Robbins from running because he was one of the owners of Slate and Shell (note: no longer). There was even some feeling that a business interest as minor as our own Daniel Smith's Joseki program should prohibit his candidacy.
These recomendations were soundly rejected by the Board - in favor of the, in my opinion, vague conflict of interest provision we have now. And let me say, LOUDLY, given my remarks above, that Chuck Robbins has been BEYOND careful in abstaining from any votes and discussions involving AGA - Vendor issues. Similarly, I am unaware, nor do I necessarily believe, that Daniel Smith has or would do anything inappropriate.
However, the problem remains. Under the current policy, a conflicted person has to recognize their own conflict and act upon it. There is really no guidance as to the nature of conflicts, nor any mechanism to enforce compliance. Furthermore, to get Machiavellian, there is absolutely nothing to prohibit a conflicted person from proplerly abstaining, but swapping votes on other issues to pursue the conflict.
Now I recognize that some may and did, see these concerns as paranoid delusions, but I felt at the time that it was important to inform the Board about these concerns, even the ones I thought were pretty out there. And so, I inform this group.
_________________ My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle
|