On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:55 AM, Kevin Gorman
Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a
director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election
cycle. As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause. Every
reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by
WMF employees. E.g., one early frequently cited reason was that he was
having inappropriate discussions with WMF employees - multiple WMF
employees came forward to say that he promised nothing untoward in these
conversations, and simply listened to their feedback. In an ideal
situation, Board tells the ED when they have conversations with most
employees, but that's only best practice in situations where Board alerting
the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine the purpose of the
conversations, which they would have hear.
Agreed with your larger point about removal for/without cause. All I can say is that the
bit I quoted doesn’t state for or without cause, it doesn’t seem to distinguish between
the two modes of removal.
More importantly, as the board has made abundantly
clear in recent weeks,
we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections'
board is gracious enough to allow the community to suggest board members,
which the board may then choose to accept or reject. Given the fact that
we do *not have* board elections, I don't think there's any doubt that
James can stand in the next 'community board selection.’
Fair point. I’m definitely not a lawyer. Nobody would be happier to see James stand for
reelection than myself. :-)
Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific email
James has requested you
to release multiple times contains no confidential information, and the
fact that you aren't releasing it isn't looking good to me. W/r/t an email
related to the removal of a community selected and trusted trustee, full
transparency seems necessary. You've said the email contains nothing of
mindshattering significance, and I suspect you are telling the truth there
- I suspect that at most it contains you making comments to James that
either weren't quite true or paint yourself in a less than great light.
But here's the rub: even if there's nothing too important in that email,
the fact that you're unwilling to release it means that you still don't get
that transparency in this situation is necessary. Are you willing to
release the email, redacting anything you view as reasonably necessarily
confidential w/r/t the BoT? I'm sure James will comment if your redactions
are excessive. Without any confidential information, all the email is is a
document that shines more light on a situation involving the removal of a
community 'selected' trustee, something that those involved should be as
transparent as possible about.
Jimmy, I agree with Kevin. Can you please release these emails? I realise you have a lot
on your plate, but I think it would be good of you to release these emails soon. I trust
you when you tell me that you are a champion of transparency and openness, and I also know
you have had a lot on your plate lately so I’m trying not to put too much pressure on you
at the moment.
I think, however, that the sooner you release the emails, the sooner it helps the rest of
us come to an understanding why the Board made their decisions and we can at the very
least feel more confident in the integrity of the Board of Trustees. This issue has
dragged on for over two months now, and none of us are still much the wiser, though many
of us are beginning to put the pieces together in our own heads. Which is dangerous, as we
may well be jumping to the wrong conclusions because we don’t have enough information.
Unfortunately, the lack of information is something that only the Board can resolve for
There are a number of other questions that still need answering around the grant
application, so I’d love to see you clarify them soon also.