On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
"Trustees agree that that, during their terms on
the Board and for
three years thereafter, they shall not, in any communications with the
press or other media or any customer, client or supplier of the
Foundation, or any of the Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions
on community mailing lists, blogs, or other community forums,
personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally
disparages or is personally derogatory of the Foundation or its
affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior
officers."
That explicitly bans all public criticism. Criticism is good,
criticism is how things improve. Sometimes that criticism has to be
public to be effective - for example, how can we make an informed vote
for board members if we're not allowed to know that they've done
various things wrong during their previous term in office (of course,
I would expect anyone making such accusations to provide evidence to
support them)?
Agreed. Some of this depends on who is evaluating what is derogatory or
critical, or perhaps what constitutes "personal" criticism. Nevertheless,
it seems difficult for board members who have a responsibility to
communicate actively and openly with the community, particularly about
controversial issues, to do so without running afoul of this paragraph.
It is also extraordinarily broad, in every way: "...affiliates or any of
their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers...", "3 years
after" being on the board, &c. Can someone who thinks this statement is a
good idea point to an existing document used/signed by organizational boards
of directors that includes a similar anti-criticism clause?
SJ