Thomas Dalton wrote:
As to your suggested changes in wording, feel free to make those recommendations to the Board. Again, it's worth keeping in mind that the drafting of this Statement was done at Board request.
That definitely surprises me. How exactly did the Board make such a request?
How do you mean? They probably discussed it in a board meeting and decided that one of them would go and talk to Mike (or maybe Sue, as his boss) and ask him to draw up a draft agreement. How else would it happen? Mike isn't likely to just spontaneously draw up agreements and ask the board to sign them, is he?
Normal housekeeping, and yes, the document was requested by the board at its last meeting.
Over the years, there have been a number of documents (code of conduct, pledge of personal commitment, conflict of interest document) that board members have been required to agree to and/or sign. The idea here is to review everything we've got, and develop one single comprehensive document, which either subsumes, or points to, other related policies. It's intended to be the main agreement governing the relationship between a board member and the organization, and is meant to cover board member commitment, responsibilities, confidentiality, non-disparagement, attendance/participation, etc, etc. And yes, non-disparagement is new, and it's not uncontroversial. There are good reasons to include it; there are also reasonable objections.
It's normal for an organization as young as ours to regularly review and finetune its policies. And frankly, I have always felt that the value of documents like this one lies primarily in the discussion that precedes the signing, rather than in the document itself. We're an unusual organization, and for us to have a healthy conversation about what for example -in our context- constitutes confidentiality - well, that is a good and useful thing.