Respect is the cornerstone of a good environment. You create a respectful community by requiring that everyone treat everyone else with the respect that they deserve. You do this by having written policies and by actively enforcing those policies. Don’t let people get away with disrespectful comments. All members of your community (regular members and staff members) must treat one another with respect at all times.
You should encourage your members to attack the point and not the person. Address what people say, don’t try to attack them as human beings for having a given view. This extends to respect of choice.
[Managing Online Forums by Patrick O’Keefe pages 219-220]
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Last Call for Feb. Chess Blog Carnival
This is a tremendous opportunity for the chess fans to sample the best of the chess blogs that are active today. The internet contains many talented writers and analysts who are both famous and unknown. One of the exciting things about this project is that you may discover the earliest writings of one of the great players and/or pundits of the future. January saw a tremendous response. Even Susan Polgar was in on the action. Carnival articles include these categories:
- Annotated Games
- Book Reviews
- Chess Culture and Politics
- Chess Events
- Endgame Play
- Humor
- Improvement
- Opening Theory
- Position Analysis
- Strategic Concepts
Should those who represent the USCF be held to a higher standard?
Should those who represent the USCF be held to a higher standard and subject to a higher degree of criticism merely because of their position, as opposed to their alleged wrongdoing? Putting it another way, if both a USCF representative and a USCF member were accused of the same infraction, should both be subject to an identical amount of coverage, commentary and scrutiny? USCF officials have expressed that USCF members should be held to the same or higher standards as our USCF representatives and leaders. Many others feel those in a position of leadership or authority should be held to a higher standard of conduct than the USCF membership.
Further we often hear from those who have authority over us “I am not a paid employee of the USCF - I am a volunteer.” Some people feel that giving volunteers that serve us a break for not doing a good job should be the standard. We are told we ought to recognize their volunteer status and be more lenient. Our volunteers often argue this largess should apply to them. When a poor job is done we usually hear a litany of rationalizations as well as all the effort, hard work, time and money the individual provides for chess as if this mitigates poor behavior or results. We are always reminded since they receive no money for their service they should not be held to higher standards or even a simple professional standard of care.
Those in authority might argue at best they should be treated no differently than anyone else. However, in the view of many, it is thought those in a position of authority over us should have a duty to set an example. Like it or not, they can be viewed as role models and, as such, these people have a special responsibility to the membership. People who we delegate authority to are accountable to a special degree, ex officio - merely because of their position. What is usually forgotten is these individuals have been given positions of authority and with extra authority comes extra responsibility. Even though we very much appreciate the work of our volunteers, a bottom line argument is if people don't want responsibility or to be accountable for their actions they should not volunteer to serve a tax exempt organization.
Further we often hear from those who have authority over us “I am not a paid employee of the USCF - I am a volunteer.” Some people feel that giving volunteers that serve us a break for not doing a good job should be the standard. We are told we ought to recognize their volunteer status and be more lenient. Our volunteers often argue this largess should apply to them. When a poor job is done we usually hear a litany of rationalizations as well as all the effort, hard work, time and money the individual provides for chess as if this mitigates poor behavior or results. We are always reminded since they receive no money for their service they should not be held to higher standards or even a simple professional standard of care.
Those in authority might argue at best they should be treated no differently than anyone else. However, in the view of many, it is thought those in a position of authority over us should have a duty to set an example. Like it or not, they can be viewed as role models and, as such, these people have a special responsibility to the membership. People who we delegate authority to are accountable to a special degree, ex officio - merely because of their position. What is usually forgotten is these individuals have been given positions of authority and with extra authority comes extra responsibility. Even though we very much appreciate the work of our volunteers, a bottom line argument is if people don't want responsibility or to be accountable for their actions they should not volunteer to serve a tax exempt organization.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
With Korenman
Mikhail is a candidate for the USCF Executive Board this year. I hope he wins. He's been on the Scholastic Committee and he has some great ideas.
This is another picture from last year's National High School Championships that I just discovered.
See also http://www.jacklemoine.com
Monday, February 9, 2009
Bill Hall and Mike Mulford
Another picture from the National High School Championship last year. Bill Hall is the Executive Director of the US Chess Federation. Mike Mulford was a friend of mine back in the 1970's. We played a match in his college dorm room in Seattle. He hired me for my first accounting job in 1983.
Mulford goes by the handle "Mulfish" in his internet chess postings. This picture was taken just after an impromptu meeting with us and Hal Bogner. Bill and Hal led Mike and me through the whole FSS/Mottershead Report scandal, how it first came to their attention and what they did. They were very nice and informative. They answered my questions as best as they were able to do, given the legal constraints that they were under.
Jack Le Moine
http://www.jacklemoine.com
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Hal Bogner and Me
In the next few days I shall post some pictures from last year's National High School Championship. I was new to the digital camera game and I had thought that I had lost my pictures. I did find a few. Also, because I was a newbie, the date and time stamp are not reliable. I think it was on the 16th not the 14th that the picture was taken.
Hal Bogner has been active in chess for all his adult life. He was in on the ground floor of the Chessmaster computer playing program, ChessBase, the database program, General Manager of the Internet Chess Club, and currently a partner in The Chess Magnet School. We spent a great deal of time together. While we're in opposite camps as far as USCF politics goes, I don't see why he's such a bad guy.
I recommend his Chess Magnet School. Tell him Jack sent you!
Jack Le Moine
http://www.jacklemoine.com
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Why have formal processes for board member removal?
What are the proper or usual steps to remove a board member?
1. Discuss situation with member and/or submit a report to the board
2. Ask member to resign or schedule a leave of absence
3. Accept complaint/report activating a committee process
4. Petition a recall or conduct board removal vote
5. Seek impeachment or court removal
6. Ultimately term limits (including the length of time on the board and how many total terms) should remove the member
Why should a board member be removed? An ineffective board member causes stress, slows progress and weakens the morale of the rest of the board. Reasons for removal should be based on the person's current actions with regard to the organization, not on whether they are not a nice person, on something objectionable done in the past, or on their non public behavior. Constantly missing meetings, introducing conflicts of interest, other breaches of fiduciary duty or board policy, illegal or inappropriate behavior while serving on/running for the board, and preventing others from functioning are all reasons why a board member should be removed. Actions that are contrary to the wishes of the membership are harder to justify unless the actions have injured the reputation or negatively affected the finances or viability (like loss of membership/sponsorship) of the organization. All of the above should be items considered by our organization’s Bylaws/Ethics Committees and ultimately by our Board of Directors when putting proper steps in place.
What happened? In October 2007 when I was discussing with Bill Hall the steps to take in regard to the allegations presented in the Mottershead report it became clear there were no formal procedures in place to be able to resolve such concerns. With no formal procedures, we understand the President of the USCF Executive Board and also possibly the USCF Executive Director felt it might be best to come up with a report and suggested it be sent it to the USCF Ethics Committee. As a result a report was created and submitted to the USCF Executive Board for their review. In the mean time the information was distributed throughout the organization which within a few weeks found itself in the hands of the media and general public. The USCF Executive Board (EB) appointed a Board Subcommittee to consider issues related to charges made by Brian Mottershead. Once the report’s conclusions were verified a complaint was also submitted to the USCF Ethics Committee for their review. A request for resignation and a petition for recall were attempted. Eventually an action was submitted for court removal of the board member.
So what? It has been argued that if the initial findings had been presented to Bill Hall, and he determined a more thorough investigation take place, a person with more background and loyalty to the USCF should have picked it up and carried the finding to the ethics committee, or a special committee set up by the EB to investigate it. One can argue this actually is what happened - just not in a way everyone desired. We can endlessly debate the lack of formal process, the slowness of the activities, the uncoordinated and overlapping steps, media reporting impacts, as well all the related infighting and finger pointing. One can only point out that as far as we know the duplicative steps of impeachment or a forced leave of absence were not invoked and all of those involved in pursuing proper steps appear to have suffered some form of retaliation. Perhaps better term limits could have helped. It seemed like more membership energy was expended trying to verify/discredit the report or discover how the public got the information rather than to properly adjudicate who did what the report had claimed. When our leadership sets an example by fighting we should expect no less from our members. If we are to learn from what has happened, all of these points can be areas for future improvement as well as provide motivation for a more formal process for board member removal.
1. Discuss situation with member and/or submit a report to the board
2. Ask member to resign or schedule a leave of absence
3. Accept complaint/report activating a committee process
4. Petition a recall or conduct board removal vote
5. Seek impeachment or court removal
6. Ultimately term limits (including the length of time on the board and how many total terms) should remove the member
Why should a board member be removed? An ineffective board member causes stress, slows progress and weakens the morale of the rest of the board. Reasons for removal should be based on the person's current actions with regard to the organization, not on whether they are not a nice person, on something objectionable done in the past, or on their non public behavior. Constantly missing meetings, introducing conflicts of interest, other breaches of fiduciary duty or board policy, illegal or inappropriate behavior while serving on/running for the board, and preventing others from functioning are all reasons why a board member should be removed. Actions that are contrary to the wishes of the membership are harder to justify unless the actions have injured the reputation or negatively affected the finances or viability (like loss of membership/sponsorship) of the organization. All of the above should be items considered by our organization’s Bylaws/Ethics Committees and ultimately by our Board of Directors when putting proper steps in place.
What happened? In October 2007 when I was discussing with Bill Hall the steps to take in regard to the allegations presented in the Mottershead report it became clear there were no formal procedures in place to be able to resolve such concerns. With no formal procedures, we understand the President of the USCF Executive Board and also possibly the USCF Executive Director felt it might be best to come up with a report and suggested it be sent it to the USCF Ethics Committee. As a result a report was created and submitted to the USCF Executive Board for their review. In the mean time the information was distributed throughout the organization which within a few weeks found itself in the hands of the media and general public. The USCF Executive Board (EB) appointed a Board Subcommittee to consider issues related to charges made by Brian Mottershead. Once the report’s conclusions were verified a complaint was also submitted to the USCF Ethics Committee for their review. A request for resignation and a petition for recall were attempted. Eventually an action was submitted for court removal of the board member.
So what? It has been argued that if the initial findings had been presented to Bill Hall, and he determined a more thorough investigation take place, a person with more background and loyalty to the USCF should have picked it up and carried the finding to the ethics committee, or a special committee set up by the EB to investigate it. One can argue this actually is what happened - just not in a way everyone desired. We can endlessly debate the lack of formal process, the slowness of the activities, the uncoordinated and overlapping steps, media reporting impacts, as well all the related infighting and finger pointing. One can only point out that as far as we know the duplicative steps of impeachment or a forced leave of absence were not invoked and all of those involved in pursuing proper steps appear to have suffered some form of retaliation. Perhaps better term limits could have helped. It seemed like more membership energy was expended trying to verify/discredit the report or discover how the public got the information rather than to properly adjudicate who did what the report had claimed. When our leadership sets an example by fighting we should expect no less from our members. If we are to learn from what has happened, all of these points can be areas for future improvement as well as provide motivation for a more formal process for board member removal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
