Response to "Open Letter"

[Roy Laird]

Response to Open Letter: The WHOLE Story

This message is a response to an "Open Letter" sent out to various individuals and forums on Sunday, May 11, regarding the selection of this year’s North America representative to the Fujitsu Cup.. It is my personal response; I am not speaking for the Board, the AGA, or anyone else. Some of you have expressed a desire for such a response, by signing on to Mr. Li’s letter. This message is intended to satisfy that request.

The fact that Ming-jiu Jiang played for North America in Fujitsu, although ineligible according to AGA policy, raises serious questions, which I hope to address here. However, the account that you have seen is misleading and incomplete. Unless you have delved deeply into the appendices on Mr. Li’s blog (http://www.thegoblog.com/AGAletter.html) , as well as the one he circulated with his letter, you are missing critical information. I offer here a “Reader’s Guide” to a few important highlights. I find it disturbing that Mr. Li would publish communications that were clearly intended to be private, but he did, so I suppose it is fair to comment on them. By drawing your attention to that information here and placing it in context, I hope you will be better able to make a more informed assessment of what has transpired.

One message, from Ms. Urata of the Nihon Kiin on March 18 (Appendix 1 page 3), agreed to replace Mr. Jiang with Mr. Li, but very reluctantly, going on to express considerable dissatisfaction: "However this really makes us trouble. Need to replace all the printings, not only for printings many inconvenience AGA caused to The Nihon Ki-in. Please note from the next time, we cannot accept replace the representative also delay the qualification tournament. AGA informed us they will decide the representative within January, right?" (Appendix A, page 3.) I ask those of you familiar with Japanese social norms: when is the last time you have seen such outright expression of anger and distress from a member of that culture? The Nihon Kiin even took the extreme step of bypassing the AGA and contacting Mr. Jiang directly for information. They eventually concluded that they had no choice; but then . . .

On March 24, Ms. Urata wrote again, to him, the AGA and others, saying the tournament sponsor demanded additional information: the explanation offered by President Lash was not sufficient. (Page 4 of Appendix B.) Although Mr. Li gives the impression in his message everything was all worked out, at the time, in an e-mail sent on March 26, he marveled that "a low level Nihon Kiin worker dared to scold the President of the national organization of the United States." (Appendix C, page 4.) Perhaps he meant he thought that she was not important, so the message was also insignificant: but there was no question in my mind that it was an official communication and reflected official opinion and policy.

This led me to conclude what I already feared -- that we were on a path that would imminently damage our relations with the Nihon Kiin and the sponsor of a major international tournament. I spoke with President Lash, who did not agree with this course of action, but acquiesced.

No animosity or intent to do Jie harm came into play, quite the contrary. I am a big fan. When I was President, I was privileged to help him with his immigration status; we still admire the lovely Chinese vase in our guest room, a gift of appreciation from his Mom.

I did not request the Board’s authorization for two reasons. I believed 1) there was an urgent need for immediate action, and 2) the Board would agree when they understood the situation. I still believe 1), but 2) didn’t work out that way. After extensive discussion, the Board has neither approved nor condemned the action itself. We all agree however -- including me – that the by-laws contain nothing to justify such independent action by the Chairman. I regret my time-driven rush to judgment without properly consulting the whole Board. This episode has caused Jie a tremendous amount of pain and upset feeling, and I cannot express how bad I feel about that. At least if I had consulted more widely with the Board, the decision would have been easier to accept.

Mr. Li claims that “if Mr. Laird had been forthcoming, and offered resolutions and apologies at the very beginning, we would not be doing this now,” overlooking a message I sent him on April 18. Collectively drafted and approved by the Board, (attached below). It described the thinking, acknowledged that the Board was not consulted and extended an apology. Various other AGA officials have also been trying hard to work out a solution with Mr. Li. Intermediaries spoke with both sides, trying to find common ground, but as we see Mr. Li rejected their offers of help; phone messages from at least one Board member have gone unanswered.

In this message I have tried to be as open and clear as possible. I hope that this message will satisfy the concerns of those who have signed the petition and we can move forward to resolution. I’d be very glad to hear from anyone at roylaird@gmail.com if you have any further questions or concerns about this matter.

Roy Laird

-----------------------------------------------
A MESSAGE FROM THE AGA BOARD TO JIE LI, APRIL 18, 2008

Dear Jie,

I apologize for not responding sooner to your concerns below regarding the Fujitsu selection process. On behalf of the Board, I want you to know that we take your concerns over this troubling incident very seriously, and we have spent the time and attention needed to provide a full response to your very understandable questions and concerns. This message has been reviewed and approved by the Board as a response.

We all know that you must be very disappointed in how things turned out. As a friend and a fan, I personally truly regret that. In your message of March 26, you raised questions regarding the decision itself; in your more recent message you raised procedural questions.

I'd like to look first at the decision itself, then I will answer your other questions. AGA officials erred in that Mr. Jiang's ineligible status was not noted at the time of the tournament. He was not eligible to represent the US because of our rule, adopted in January 2006, that no one can represent the AGA in more than two events per year. Only after we had submitted his name as our representative to the sponsors did we learn of the error. To avoid such errors in the future, we will do more to ensure that that all participants, including players as well as tournament staff, know the rules.

We then learned that by asking to change the player's name at such a late date, we had created a troublesome burden for the sponsor, who would now be required to reprint all the tournament literature, remake all the souvenir items, etc., replacing Mr. Jiang with your
self. You may view the outcome as "yielding to pressure;" to others, it's a respectful obligation not to impose upon others the consequences of our oversight.

Naturally, respecting the integrity and finality of tournament results is of great benefit to the AGA's strong players, and the AGA membership as a whole. Based on discussion with
some but not all Board members and others, I concluded that it had been inappropriate to withdraw Mr. Jiang's name, that action was needed in an immediate time frame, and that the Board would support this action.

This has been a case in which we discovered an error, and allowed that to disturb our thinking such that we followed up with more errors, causing additional harm. As in our games, we promise ourselves to avoid such compounding in the future. Please be certain that we deeply regret the distress for all concerned and will do our very best to avoid any repetition.

Roy Laird
Chair, Board of Directors
-------------------------------------

[JLi]

Mr. Laird,

Before addressing your entire letter later today, I would like to quickly dispel a myth (unfounded claims, you love them) now.

My U.S. citizenship has nothing to do with you, zilch. I do not know why you are bringing up this issue in a formal open letter, but since you did bring it up anyways, let me make it absolutely clear. My immigration status has Nothing to do with you or the AGA, period.

Thank you for your professionalism and civility. I'm sure since you have served the AGA for a long time, you will be able to bring more personal histories when you get into dispute with others.

Jie Li

[Javaness]

I think this sounds like the response I expected to see.

[DrStraw]

Originally Posted by JLi

Mr. Laird,

Before addressing your entire letter later today, I would like to quickly dispel a myth (unfounded claims, you love them) now.

My U.S. citizenship has nothing to do with you, zilch. I do not know why you are bringing up this issue in a formal open letter, but since you did bring it up anyways, let me make it absolutely clear. My immigration status has Nothing to do with you or the AGA, period.

Thank you for your professionalism and civility. I'm sure since you have served the AGA for a long time, you will be able to bring more personal histories when you get into dispute with others.

Jie Li

Where did Roy Laird claim to have helped you with your citizenship application? His only reference was to your immigration status, which is a completely different matter. I can speak from experience on this matter, having gone through the entire process myself.

[JLi]

Originally Posted by DrStraw

Where did Roy Laird claim to have helped you with your citizenship application? His only reference was to your immigration status, which is a completely different matter. I can speak from experience on this matter, having gone through the entire process myself.

Sorry Dr. Straw, I meant immigration status. Nonetheless, he is making reference to AGA member's personal history (false claim too) in his official AGA capacity. Do you find it appropriate?

Jie

[imabuddha]

Originally Posted by JLi

Nonetheless, he is making reference to AGA member's personal history (false claim too) in his official AGA capacity. Do you find it appropriate?

Appropriate or not, certainly this isn't the real issue at hand, is it?

[DrStraw]

Originally Posted by JLi

Sorry Dr. Straw, I meant immigration status. Nonetheless, he is making reference to AGA member's personal history (false claim too) in his official AGA capacity. Do you find it appropriate?

Jie

Agreed. It is not relevant to the current discussions.

[NeoNemesis]

Originally Posted by imabuddha

Appropriate or not, certainly this isn't the real issue at hand, is it?

If that's not the real issue at hand, why does Mr Laird bring it up continually, here, and in the emails? (along with the vase) I'd say that must be one fancy vase...

[ScatCat]

This doesn't belong in a public forum.

This is personal business between Mr. Laird and Mr. Li.

Dirty laundry doesn't belong in a public setting.

Take it up with the AGA.

[imabuddha]

Originally Posted by NeoNemesis

If that's not the real issue at hand, why does Mr Laird bring it up continually, here, and in the emails? (along with the vase) I'd say that must be one fancy vase...

It's one small part of Laird's response, and he didn't use it to justify his actions. I agree that it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and thus isn't really worth mentioning by Laird. However, why then should it be commented on when the real issues are still open? (rhetorical question)

FWIW, from all I've read about this issue it seems clear that Jie was wronged by two parties: the AGA and Laird.

The AGA must bear the primary responsibility for:
1. selecting a person who was ineligible by it's own rules for the tournament
2. not selecting the person in a timely manner as promised to the Nihon Ki-in (it was to be by January, right?)
3. the board not condemning the improper and unauthorized actions of the Chair

Mr. Laird must bear the responsibility for acting against the rules which he helped create, for the sake of a foreign organization, against the interests of a member of his own organization.

Since at this point "the deed has been done", the most productive thing that can be done is for the AGA to put in place measures to prevent similar problems from occurring again.