Hal Bond

[Sasha Starr]

Dear Hal,

I'm surprised that you responded to my post. Nava and I are getting along fine...thank you.

I don't know why you are so surprised I'm citing material from a "private Governor's discussion". Chess in Canada is a fraternity and as you know Nava and I have been around a lot longer than you so it's not surprising we have governors as friends.

Aside from this... it's not about whether it was leaked or not... it's about your integrity.

You stated that you would remain neutral because you saw yourself in a conflict of interest. Being asked to "weigh in" is something you should have said no to based on your obvious conflict of interest.... and I suspect you know that.

There's no way that you should have tried to sway the executive as you did.

For you to have the temerity to actually cast a vote on the Kirsan nomination is absolutely alarming. Even though it is labeled as a “straw poll” this is the very poll that Vlad has used to justify endorsing Kirsan in numerous posts. Referring to it as a straw poll is simply a lame excuse to justify your breach of ethics.

As far back as the 2010 election you openly declared you were conflicted out on these issues and here you are right in the middle of it. There is more to it. Let me remind you BY-LAW NUMBER TWO OF THE CHESS FEDERATION OF CANADA # 15:
"Whenever a proposal is being considered which puts any CFC officer in a potential conflict of interest he shall declare the conflict and abstain from discussion, voting or other involvement in the matter."

Did Vlad call FIDE and ask if you were the "official spokesman" for them as he did with Kasparov’s representatives? No, he most certainly didn't and you most certainly shouldn't have voted for Kirsan's nomination.

Sasha

[John Coleman]

Re: Hal Bond

This seems to be a private communication; should it be on a public board?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Hal Bond

This seems to be a private communication; should it be on a public board?

It seems that it should at least be in the thread that he started before. Its kind of ridiculous to start a new thread for every response.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Hal Bond

This seems to be a private communication; should it be on a public board?

It seems that Sasha Starr considers everything about 'chess' to be in the public domain. I am not at all pleased with the way the Kasparov supporters seem to viciously attack everyone and anyone who was involved in the production of the Canadian vote in the FIDE election. Stumping for your candidate is one thing, publishing information that was supposed to be Governor confidential in order to attack an individual (especially one who works as tirelessly as Hal) is below LOW.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Hal Bond

It seems that Sasha Starr considers everything about 'chess' to be in the public domain. I am not at all pleased with the way the Kasparov supporters seem to viciously attack everyone and anyone who was involved in the production of the Canadian vote in the FIDE election. Stumping for your candidate is one thing, publishing information that was supposed to be Governor confidential in order to attack an individual (especially one who works as tirelessly as Hal) is below LOW.

Kerry, it sounds like you are in favor of keeping parts of chess private, especially pertaining to conversations and decisions of the voting members. I would say that keeping anything private like that only contributes to the cult status of chess, which is not a good thing at the very least from a public relations point of view. Decisions made in private can lead to abuses and corruption. It can lead to the development of a 'priesthood' which assumes supreme authority which no cult member should dare question.

The most famous precedent of making private conversations public was of course the Nixon Watergate scandal. From Wikipedia:

"In April 1974, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the tapes of 42 White House conversations. At the end of that month, Nixon released edited transcripts of the White House tapes, again citing executive privilege and national security; the Judiciary Committee, however, rejected Nixon’s edited transcripts, saying that they did not comply with the subpoena.

Sirica, acting on a request from Jaworski, issued a subpoena for the tapes of 64 presidential conversations to use as evidence in the criminal cases against indicted former Nixon administration officials. Nixon refused, and Jaworski appealed to the Supreme Court to force Nixon to turn over the tapes. On July 24, the Supreme Court voted 8-0 (Justice William Rehnquist recused himself) in United States v. Nixon that Nixon must turn over the tapes."

So there is precedent at least in the U.S. for making private discussions public where wrongdoing is suspected. Hal Bond has publicly admitted to doing something that went against the CFC Handbook and that might also go against FIDE regluations for any national federation executive member that is on FIDE's payroll. The fact that it is Hal Bond upsets me as much as anyone. I had assumed Hal Bond had nothing but the utmost sense of integrity. I hope it turns out that his wrongdoings were not done willfully.

But I commend Sasha for making this public knowledge regardless that it is Hal Bond being affected. Nothing that can be determined to be even under suspicion as wrongdoing should be swept under the rug. A U.S. presidency was brought down on this principle and the integrity of the U.S. government system is better for it.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Hal Bond

The Executive had asked Hal to speak to both sides. He reported back his findings. There was no attempt to influence our decision. None of the other 6 Executive, myself included, asked him to abstain.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Hal Bond

The Executive had asked Hal to speak to both sides. He reported back his findings. There was no attempt to influence our decision. None of the other 6 Executive, myself included, asked him to abstain.

This seems equally unsatisfactory. The Executive asked for "findings" from someone who has a conflict of interest? Now it seems the entire Executive is implicated in wrongdoing.

We have only your word that there was "no attempt to influence our decision". Were any records kept of exactly what was said and reported?

And then you say no one asked Hal to abstain... despite the clause of the CFC handbook that Sasha quoted. Even if the handbook wasn't in legal force, that clause is likely not something that would be removed... if the CFC wants to have any integrity, that is.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Hal Bond

The Executive had asked Hal to speak to both sides. He reported back his findings. There was no attempt to influence our decision. None of the other 6 Executive, myself included, asked him to abstain.

It seems right and logical that the CFC's FIDE rep would provide (and be expected to provide) just the type of briefing information you're talking about, Fred. In fact, surely the provision of briefing information to the CFC must be part of the FIDE Rep's job description. I don't understand why some people are trying to give Hal a rough ride for just doing his job.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Hal Bond

This seems equally unsatisfactory. The Executive asked for "findings" from someone who has a conflict of interest? Now it seems the entire Executive is implicated in wrongdoing.

We have only your word that there was "no attempt to influence our decision". Were any records kept of exactly what was said and reported?

And then you say no one asked Hal to abstain... despite the clause of the CFC handbook that Sasha quoted. Even if the handbook wasn't in legal force, that clause is likely not something that would be removed... if the CFC wants to have any integrity, that is.

I thought you'd be celebrating your Independence day today. You know, singing about bombs bursting in air, the home of the brave, the land of the free. Dirty, crime ridden, poverty stricken cities, and that sort of thing.

I guess Canadian chess politics is more interesting to you Americans.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Hal Bond

It seems right and logical that the CFC's FIDE rep would provide (and be expected to provide) just the type of briefing information you're talking about, Fred. In fact, surely the provision of briefing information to the CFC must be part of the FIDE Rep's job description. I don't understand why some people are trying to give Hal a rough ride for just doing his job.

Yes, Peter, and this is why the FIDE rep is not supposed to have any potential conflict of interest. Hal's paid arbiter position with FIDE is such conflict of interest, if Hal were (for example) to feel that the election of Kasparov would possibly lose Hal his position. I don't know what the likelihood of that event would be. Maybe Sasha can speak more to this, because Sasha seemed to imply that Hal provided not just "briefing information" but went so far as to press for the Executive to endorse Kirsan. Hal himself said he "weighed in" on the election, which also implies expressing opinion as to how the Executive should vote. If no records were kept, this could turn into "he said, he said", but regardless, the entire process is now tainted with possible corruption.

The Handbook clause that Sasha quoted seems to very expressly forbid what Hal did, even providing mere "briefing information". The Executive should never have allowed Hal to be put in this position in the first place.

[Garland Best]

Re: Hal Bond

Here's the thing. The Governor's forum provides a venue where Governors can freely discuss matters regarding the CFC. It provides the same sort of function as caucus meetings serve in provincial/federal governments. One can discuss crazy ideas, argue over points, and so forth, with expectaction of privacy.

At the same time we have our quarterly meetings where formal reports are given, motions carried, etc. All in the open.

If we don't have a forum where we can discuss matters privately, many members would not want to voice all their opinions freely.

I believe that this structure of private forum and open meetings is a good balance. Not perfect, but good. Once that privacy is violated, that ends the value of the forum as a governing tool.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Hal Bond

Paul. I think it is incorrect to imply Hal holds any paid position within FIDE. To the best of my knowledge Hal has gotten any arbiter positions he has held on merit, on a tournament by tournament basis, despite Canada voting against KI in the past.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Hal Bond

Paul. I think it is incorrect to imply Hal holds any paid position within FIDE. To the best of my knowledge Hal has gotten any arbiter positions he has held on merit, on a tournament by tournament basis, despite Canada voting against KI in the past.

If that is true, I stand corrected. I was sure that Sasha somewhere in all these threads made this point, that Hal receives payment from FIDE and it is tied to his arbiter position and this counts as a conflict of interest for Hal.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Hal Bond

Paul. I think it is incorrect to imply Hal holds any paid position within FIDE. To the best of my knowledge Hal has gotten any arbiter positions he has held on merit, on a tournament by tournament basis, despite Canada voting against KI in the past.

Fred that it is at odds with what with you posted here previously that suggests that Hal does get income from FIDE. At that time you even seemed to know how much he gets paid by suggesting it was a small part of Hal's annual income.

[George Mastrokoukos]

Re: Hal Bond

Trying to imply that Hal Bond has financial connections with FIDE is simply ridiculous. Every arbiter who refs a top event gets some fixed stipend according to FIDE regulations. These stipends are provided by the event organisers (not FIDE) and of course they do not represent any permanent income. Hal Bond is one of the most honest guys around in world chess. Attacking Hal with such weird accusations is a joke. I wonder where the campaign strategy ends and where libel starts.