On 5 December 2014 at 14:12, mathias.damour@laposte.net wrote:
----- Mail original -----
De: "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com
Actually, under Sue Gardner, the offer was that if the chapter did change its ways, it would become a payment processor again. As a trustee at that time, who was sent all the correspondence, this was exactly what was put in writing.
And did you believe her ?
Mathias
No, I and another trustee made that exceedingly clear.
Though I was a trustee, I was excluded by the then Chairman from the vote on how we proceeded. It was a truly nasty way to conduct the matter. A procedurally and legally recorded vote of the board was never held, something that I strongly complained about at the time. This was never corrected nor was there ever a personal apology. I would hope that the current board behaves differently with trustees who might oppose the "party line", though as that same trustee is still on the board, I guess meaningful governance reform has yet to happen. Every indication shows that politics and PR are still considered more important than public transparency and honesty to the community.
I have raised this before, but I think it's too "non-positive" a "non-success" to get anywhere with the way the charity that I helped to create works today. My reward for being concerned about the organization, is that I am no longer allowed to be a voting member of the UK charity.
Fae