On 24 June 2011 10:22, <Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Thank you, Brigitte -- I think you've nailed it. To recap: The board had open seats it wanted to fill, and Matt had great qualifications and was willing to serve. The board then talked through all the various issues. Was inviting Matt to join the right decision? Board members researched and met him and weighed the pros and cons and decided yes. Would inviting Matt to join create perception problems? Probably not among external stakeholders because donors serving on boards is fairly normal in non-profit land, but yes among community members, because the community is (appropriately) a fierce defender of the independence of the projects. Should the board do what it thinks is best for the organization and the movement, even if its decisions/actions are unpopular? The board decided yes. Should the board try to separate the grant announcement from the Matt announcement to mitigate community anger? No, because that would be disingenuous. And, it might actually increase anger rather than mitigating it. Those kinds of deliberations are exactly the job of the board, and I believe board members handled them well, and came to the right set of decisions. But as Brigitte says, there was a cost: some community members' confidence in the board of trustees was eroded. The fact that all three elected board members were re-elected to their seats after this suggests that either the erosion was not very serious, or that community members' approval of the board in general over the past two years offset their concern about this specific issue. But having said that, even just the fact that we are talking about it here means the cost was not zero. So yes, Brigitte, you're right. Without beating a dead horse, I'd like to say a few additional quick things: 1) I do realize that some people's trust in the board was eroded here. But in direct contradiction to that, I find myself hoping that upon reflection, people's trust in the board might actually be strengthened by it. If I were a community member, I would tend to want to be vigilant about the board, always assessing their competence and commitment and values. The fact that the board did a thoughtful evaluation here and came to a responsible conclusion would reassure me, rather than the opposite. 2) I want to say that I have been really enjoying this conversation. Discussions on this list have a tendency to sometimes devolve into snark and accusations, and this one has been the opposite. Personally, I really appreciate people's serious, non-flamey engagement on this issue -- I feel like I've ended up with a much better, more nuanced understanding of where you're coming from. Thank you :-) Thanks, Sue