This item showed up on the BBC news site last week:
(Pyongyang, July 16) North Korean Military chief Ri Yong-Ho has been removed from all official posts, according to state media. (...) In a short statement, the party said Mr. Ri had been removed from his posts because of illness.
At about the same time, this item appeared on the site of the Dutch Bridge Federation (NBB), for non-Dutch speakers it can be translated as follows:
(Utrecht, July 13) Peter Zwart, since 2006 treasurer and since 2009 chair of the board of the Dutch Bridge Federation (NBB) has decided to resign from his post as chair effective immediately as well as to leave the board. Background is a difference of opinion on the role of the board in an operational matter.
What do these items have in common?
Suddenly somebody disappears from the scene without any explanation.
In case of Mr. Ri, the usually well-informed BBC reporters added “Few people here are taking the regime’s explanation of illness at face value”, considering that he was seen alive and kicking only days before the announcement. It is very unlikely that somebody suddenly becomes that ill that he has to resign from his job.
In the case of the NBB, it was well known that the chair was busy with the strategic planning for the NBB for the upcoming years. A draft had been circulated mid June to (amongst others) the advisory council of the federation. Now, the draft needed a lot of work, but the chair was actively involved in the process. Also, the board has repeatedly said, that they are there to deal with strategy and long-term vision, not with daily operations. So why resign on an operational matter that you don’t have to deal with in the first place?
In short, we have two press statements that raise more questions than they’ll ever answer. What is really happening here?
Well, let’s find out.
I’m not a member of the Chõson Nodongdang (aka the communist party of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), so I cannot ask their leadership and I have my doubts it would be wise for any member to ask.
However, I am a member of the NBB. The NBB is a democratic organization where the members decide and have to approve every major proposal. Of course, for practical reasons, there is a board of directors responsible for actual running of the organization. However, the board of directors is appointed by the membership and has the obligation to inform the membership of what they did, the membership can then approve or disapprove, and in the latter case, take corrective action. But before one can actually do this, one needs information.
So, I asked and heard nothing.
I pointed out that this wasn’t the first sudden resignation from the board in the last year. In December, another board member resigned for very vague reasons (“Reasons that were important to her”) though she continued with all other activities for the NBB. Isn’t that strange, there is a conflict, you resign from the forum where one deals with strategy but stay active in an operational position. This will force you to carry out the strategy that you didn’t agree with in the first place?
Others asked and also heard nothing.
Some inconsistent comments were made but nothing was said that made it clear what the problem is. However, the matter was serious enough for the chair to leave his post without reporting to the membership on what the board did. Or, to put it another way, the chair does no longer want to be responsible for the actions of the remainder of the board.
That looks pretty serious, can you imagine one democratic, member driven, organization where this would be acceptable? No, neither can I and don’t come up with comparisons to commercial companies, broken marriages or the like, they are not membership driven organizations.
I made a few phone calls, nothing really worth mentioning, but I did hear a few other things in the process. The board wants to reduce itself in size, removing but not replacing the current board members with a background in competitive bridge. They have asked to nominate candidate board members to oppose the members of the current board. However, this announcement is well hidden on the website. Note that both are great for a board that wants to do what they want to do, without interference from those members. Other things that have been asked for over the last years like a communication plan (describing how to use the Internet, social media and related matters in order to promote the game), an introduction event to the game for non-players, and others, have been quietly discarded by the board. Whatever their agenda is, it didn’t fit on it.
And all this for an organization with serious problems: membership growth has stopped, the average member is getting older and older, junior bridge is getting smaller and smaller. (For numbers, click here.)
Is there something we, as members of the organization interested in improving and promoting the game, can do about this?
Yes, on November 3, there will be the annual bridge congress where the board, by law, has to report on their activities in the last year and announce their plans for the coming year. The membership, represented by the bridge clubs, has to approve. If you care, put the date in your agenda now. Clubs can be represented by everybody, if you care but your club officials don’t, talk to them and ask if you can represent your club. Ask critical questions, come up with counter-proposals, suggest board members.
Of course, if you are happy with the game being run by the local politburo without input from the membership, then stay at home.
Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion only. I am a member of the advisory council of the NBB, but the views expressed in this blog do not in any way represent the opinion of the advisory council of the NBB.