[Foundation-l] Foundation Discretion Regarding Personnel Matters
thomas.dalton at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 17:37:39 UTC 2007
> > 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.)
At first glance, that's how I would read it too. It's possible it was
signed when she got the job and Ant's email is just oddly worded
(remember, she's not a native English speaker), but that doesn't
explain why such an agreement was made.
> 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.
Without knowing the details, it's difficult to even guess why they
signed it. I struggle to think of a good reason, though.
> > "We
> > 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."
That's not so odd. When you agree to respect someone else's privacy it
doesn't usually preclude them revealing the information themselves.
What's odd is that they agreed to it at all.
More information about the foundation-l