On 18/05/2008, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net> wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
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)?
A few questions. Does this apply only to criticism of candidates who are
sitting board members, or should the other candidates also be subject to
the same level of criticism?
It applies to any candidates that are "directors, trustees, or senior
officers" of "the Foundation or its affiliates". Other candidates
don't fall under this agreement. Obviously, I would expect them to be
treated with the same level of respect, but that's nothing to do with
this agreement.
Regarding the "evidence" you'd expect
to accompany this criticism, what
would you consider evidence on whether someone is suitable or unsuitable
for board membership? That question to me goes well beyond simply
whether they have done something wrong, or things that can be proved in
some quasi-legal sense. It requires an evaluation and the exercise of
judgment. When your boss gives you a performance review, or your
professor gives your exam a grade, is it appropriate to expect that they
"prove" the basis for their evaluation? That seems like a comparable
situation.
You make a good point. I think the important thing is that the
accusations be specific enough for the accused to be able to defend
themselves. Where possible, evidence should be provided, but you're
right that that often isn't possible.
Finally, in past elections board members have
expressed opinions on
candidates, and this has been criticized as interfering, unseemly, or an
attempt to manipulate the election process. In light of the request for
public criticism, how would you resolve this dilemma?
Yeah, that's a problem, I know. I would expect board members to
intervene only if there is something serious that they think the
electorate needs to know. They should keep personal opinions to
themselves and stick to facts.