SJ writes: It's more that the definition of "Trustee" is nuanced -- it means someone who can be trusted to act wisely and in a beneficial way. If a Board member chose, for example, to say something personally derogatory about Florence (for example) to the chapters, that not only damages Florence, but also the Foundation's relationship with the chapters. It turns out to be better for everyone if Board members believe their obligation is to frame their criticisms constructively rather than as personal attacks. Anthony writes: I think perhaps I wasn't clear -- nondisparagement is not the same thing as honoring confidentiality (although there may be overlap). What we want to do is give good people the maximum incentive (a) to become contributing members of the Board of Trustees, (b) to be critical of Foundation operations and policies while serving as a Board member, and (c) not to be "chilled" from fully contributing out of concern that disagreement will lead to being personally attacked by other Board members. I think there are other ways to express disagreement besides engaging in personal attacks, and I further believe that avoiding personal attacks not only serves fiduciary and ethical obligations better but also creates an atmosphere in which more people feel free to be critical in constructive ways. --Mike