Anthony wrote:
On 6/15/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
- and a whistleblower policy
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Whistleblower_Policy&ol...)
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".
ant