Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 1:54 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-ville is exactly right. Who will police the board? The board themselves? Riight. If the board were to become corrupted, there would be no check on them.
We could reach a certain level of paranoia that is really absurd. The better idea is to mandate qualifications on who can become a board member in the first place, mandate that the community must have a hand in electing the majority of the board, and limit terms to something reasonable. It may also be worth adding the restriction that the board cannot appoint it's own members, except perhaps in some extenuated circumstances (mass resignation, etc).
If we had "police" for the board, then who would oversee these police? what if the police became corrupt? If we are sufficiently paranoid, there are simply no acceptable solutions. We need to have faith in the board members we elect, and take solace in the fact that terms are time-limited.
Indeed, a Board that is fully corrupted would be greater than the sum of seven individual corruptions. Since individuals have different thresholds of corruptibility such a scenario would not likely happen overnight. I do not attribute any of these recent events to malice. Errors of judgement should never be interpreted as anything more than that. Suspicions arise when a board inexplicably ignores events and their lessons. The perception of a corrupt Board is a cumulative perception of ignored lessons.
Ec