On Dec 14, 2007 12:17 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 11:50 AM, Thomas Dalton
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but to my
knowledge there is no law
against stating that there a legal reasons for not disclosing
something. The board could have said "There are certain issues
regarding Carolyn Doran and her departure which we cannot discuss for
legal reasons." That way the board remains transparent while still
obeying the law.
Ant has already stated that a confidentiality agreement was signed at
the time of Carolyn's departure.
Could you point me towards that statement?
(Whether or not the confidentiality agreement was signed "at the time
of Carolyn's departure" is, I suppose, something I read into it.)
There is, however, no law forcing the foundation to
confidentiality agreements (to my knowledge - it would be a pretty
pointless law if it existed, since it would be equivalent to a law
requiring the confidentiality itself, which would be much easier).
No, there isn't, and I'm pretty sure I said at the time (September)
that it was improper for the Foundation to make such an agreement in
the first place.
promised not to tell you" is not a good reason for not telling us,
they should never have made such promises in the first place. If the
agreement was made when Carolyn *left*, then I can't see any good
reason for signing it - you sign confidentiality agreements when you
form a relationship with someone (because if you didn't, they would
refuse to work with you), not when you end it.
Looking at the email, I guess the time that the agreement was signed
was not made clear. What's even stranger is that the agreement
apparently bars the Foundation from saying anything, but not Carolyn
herself. "Carolyn has the full right of talking to you, but we, as an
organization, can not give details."