On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Snow writes:
And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting
things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it
look
better.
I think Michael's point here can't be overemphasized. It seems to me likely
that there would be just as much criticism and/or expressions of concern if
the Board appointment had been offset by a few months as there was when the
grant and the appointment occurred close in time. Perhaps there would have
been even more criticism, for the reasons Michael outlines. The fact that
the Board opted to go ahead with the appointment, knowing full well there
was a strong possibility their motivations would be questioned, is an
argument *in favor* of Matt's candidacy for a board appointment --
specifically, the Board felt Matt added so much value that it was worth the
risk that the appointment would be criticized as being a condition of the
grant.
There is only one thing I think wrong with the consensus narrative above. The description
"Matt added so much value it was worth the risk". More accurately it would read
"Matt added so much value it was worth the *cost*". There wasn't some
potential bad outcome that was fortunately avoided; there was an actual erosion of
confidence in WMF. People became a little more leery of the board and a bit more hesitant
to quickly endorse WMF positions.
I trust that the resulting good outcome was worthwhile all the same. But a good outcome
does not in and of itself restore what was paid out to gain the advantage. I know we
needed Matt's expertise. I do not think there can be any doubt attaching him was worth
the cost in confidence. Whether the money was worth the cost in confidence would be the
limiting factor long before the appointment of Matt. Looking at the situation alone it
surely was the right decision. But if every decision of this kind is only decided on
individual merits, confidence might erode too quickly.
The seat wasn't bought, truly it wasn't. But the price WMF paid was to surrender
that narrative in order to gain a valuable board member and a grant. No matter how much
any accurate and nuanced re-telling disagrees; the story will remain: "How the
American Executive bought a WMF Board Seat." The events hit too many of the right
notes for that title to die. Not to mention the loss of face the tale's death would be
to the storytellers at this point in time.
BirgitteSB