open communication........
open information with no filters.....
that is what I see us becoming.
So.....perhaps a broader peramiter other than legal /
illegal ; and certainly a chain of comand but also one
to represent the whistleblower.
provided of course that all other attempts to resolve
issues have taken place.
--- Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not much more to say :-)
>>>
>>> If you have any issue to raise, any criticism,
or whatever, please do
>>> not hesitate to comment.
>>>
>> My initial reaction to the whistleblower policy
was that it was a very
>> bad policy. However, I thought maybe I
was just
overreacting, so I
>> didn't comment on it. Then I asked
Danny, who
is a former employee of
>> the corporation, what he thought. His
response,
which I'm not going
>> to get into in detail on this list,
expressed
the exact same concern
>> that I had. The policy leaves the
executive
director and board chair
>> in a position of ultimate authority. And
there
isn't even an
>> executive director right now.
>>
>> The rest of my comments are my own, and not
derived from Danny's.
>>
>> "If any employee reasonably believes that some
policy, practice, or
>> activity of Wikimedia Foundation Inc is
in
violation of law, a written
>> complaint must be filed by that employee
with
the Executive Director
>> or the Board Chair." The word
"must" there is
incredibly disturbing.
>>
>> It also bothers me that employees are the ones
expected to sign this
>> policy. Looking at this policy, it seems
to me
that it will only
>> serve to stifle the spread of
information.
Anything anyone believes
>> to be illegal must be reported to the
board
chair. The board chair is
>> not required by the policy to do
*anything at
all* with that
>> information.
>>
>> I don't understand what the purpose was of the
whistleblower policy,
>> but it doesn't seem like it serves
any positive
purpose.
> Please first read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower to fully
> understand the basics of the whistleblower
issue.
>
> The purpose of a whistleblower policy is largely
to protect employees
> when they are reporting illegal activity, in
particular illegal activity
> from one of their "superior"
(hierarchically
speaking, eg, a person who
> can fire them). In the absence of a policy,
an
employee could report one
> of his boss is acting illegally and as a
consequence, be fired, or be
> mishandled (get no raise, have
responsabilities
removed etc...)
>
> The whistleblower policy is a statement from the
management and board,
> saying that it is okay to report illegal
activity
and that you can not
> be punished if you do that.
>
> However, to avoid simple baseless bad-mouthing,
the protection is only
> given if the employee comes with arguments,
facts, figures, photos, any
> type of evidence or at a minimum information
strongly supporting the
> suspicion of abuse. In the absence of
significant
documentation, an
> accusation from an employee will be perceived
as
personal attacks, and
> no protection will be offered. This is also a
good way to prevent
> constant recrimination against another
person. In
short, if an employee
> has a base for complain, he is protected. If
he
is just bad-mouthing
> with no argument, then there is no
protection.
>
> The policy we agreed upon is a fairly common one.
It really holds
> nothing special. It was reviewed by a
lawyer.
>
> Ultimately, an employee might refuse to sign it.
I am fine with the
> concept. But then, if he reports something
illegal, whether based or
> not, then is fired by his immediate boss as a
retaliation act, then, I
> believe he can not easily connect the fact he
is
fired from the fact he
> reported abuse.
>
> The main reason why this policy was adopted is
that this issue was
> raised in the past; by Danny himself, who
told me
once he did not dare
> report something, because he feared he would
be
fired. Well, with this
> policy, and if he had signed it, he would be
protected. The important
> point is that legally speaking, when there is
an
illegal activity going
> on around you, you are supposed to report it.
If
a kid is killed and you
> know the murderer, you are bound by law to
report
the name (unless it is
> someone family related etc...). However, an
employee could argue he did
> not respect the law, because he feared being
fired for reporting the
> abuse. With that policy, he can not claim
that he
would be fired. The
> important part in this is that if the
employee is
aware of illegal
> activity, and does not report it, then he is
"sharing" the
> responsability and becoming himself part of
the
abuse. Consequently,
> this is a powerful tool to ensure that abuse
is
reported.
>
> The second reason why the policy was adopted now
is that we expect to
> have a new ED very soon. Which means that the
board will be "further"
> from the staff and the staff mostly work with
the
ED. In case there is
> anything wrong going on with the ED, the
staff
can report to the chair,
> and they will be protected through the
policy.
> At the same time, it protects the ED, as
employees can not do
> bad-mouthing without facts. In short, if an
employee comes to us and say
> "the ED is securing money for
himself", the
answer we can give is "do
> you have proof of that accusation ? If you
do,
then please provide the
> documentation, and you are protected by the
policy. If you don't, please
> keep your opinions to yourself;
thanks".
>
> Note that the dual reporting system makes it
possible to report to the
> ED of an abuse by the chair. Note, for now,
this
policy has not been
> signed by any staff member. It must be signed
voluntarily.
>
> Last, the issue of the chair not being required
by the policy to act if
> he is reported an illegal issue. It is not
necessary to mention in the
> policy that the chair must act in case he is
informed of abuse, because
> he is required to act in case of abuse.
"All
corporate powers shall be
> exercised by or under the authority of, and
the
business and affairs of
> the Foundation shall be managed under, the
direction of the Board of
> Trustees." In case of non-action when
abuse is
reported, the chair is
> the first in line and usually gets
consequences
much heavier than simply
> being "fired".
===
message truncated ===
___________________________________________________________________________________
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.