I would also like to more about the decision to remove James — I am not yet
able to reconcile the public statements I’ve seen from James and Jimmy.
However, I am less concerned about the apparent disconnect between the
board statement of unanimous support and James claim that there was not
I don’t think this is hard to understand. While I do not know the exact
sequence, it has been stated that a straw poll was taken in which some
board members express support for Lila and some did not. A straw poll is a
straw poll for a reason — it is often used to determine whether a subject
needs to be explored further. It is almost always the case that straw votes
are intended to be internal and not publicized. I’m not suggesting it is
improper to mention the results of a straw poll but it would be incorrect
to characterize it as a formal board conclusion. After the straw poll,
further discussion ensued and presumably some issues were identified and
some actions identified, none of which rose to the level that required
explicit mention in the minutes. Those board members who had expressed
concern about Lila presumably were satisfied that there concerns had been
heard, and were fine with the decision that she should continue. Thus, it
is not incorrect to say that there was unanimous support that Lila should
continue as ED.
I don’t think there’s much doubt that the expression of unanimous support
mask the fact that some board members had some reservations, but this type
of thing occurs at most board meetings. While there are issues that need
clarification I don’t think this is one of them.
Show replies by date
If the board is choosing not to participate for a particular reason, or
Jimmy is choosing not to release e-mails for a particular reason, then they
should say so. Nothing keeps them from offering that information
themselves. It isn't necessary for other people to speculate on whether the
deafening silence from the board is justified by a non-disparagement
agreement or some other concern about personnel confidentiality.
If that's the case, and it seems unlikely those responsibilities would
prevent the release of any information at all, they could simply offer "We
understand people would like us to comment about issues X, Y and Z but we
can't for reasons A, B and C." Regardless, the board can speak on its own
behalf or not and spectators guessing on the motivations behind their
choices add no new information and certainly can't excuse the gap into
outer space that used to be filled by a person named Patricio.