On Mon, July 16, 2007 23:25, GerardM wrote:
This means that people who are blatantly negative about the organisation should not stand for election. When like Danny you leave the employment in a huff and insists on running with the slogan: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" it does not demonstrate a positive towards our organisation. Given the rather public outing of what are in his mind dirty linen, the negative attitude is underlined even more.
And again you, basically, slander Danny. I do wish you would stop this unreasonable behaviour. Firstly, the statement "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" was a perfectly reasonable one - it was and still is clear to many in the communities that the openness of the Board / Foundation and its actions is lacking in many areas and - arguably - it was reasonable for a candidate to raise this as 'their' issue in the recent election. How a voter views this is up to them, not you. Secondly, it is *you* who sees this as 'negative' I certainly don't. All the candidates - as I have noted previously - had the best interests of the Foundation and projects at heart and therefore, by definition, are acting and promoting their *positive* solution to improving them. That you personally disagree with their position doesn't detract in any way from their good intentions.
I also fail to see why there is a conflict of interest. When a board member exits gracefully from the board or chapter, it may be exactly in the interest of the Foundation, a Chapter to offer a job. It is not as if there is a promise that such a job will be available.
Except that as the board that the person has just left will have set the parameters for that position and thus the ex-board member has privileged information about it to the detriment of other possible applicants (who may not even be made aware of the possible recruitment in the first place). This is why such behaviour is banned in many jurisdictions.
Alison