[Foundation-l] Audit charter and whistleblower policy

[Azdiyy]

language is no brainerr barrierr

"It must be signed voluntarily."

Not much more to say :-)

azdiyy

On 19/06/07, dan harp <dharp66 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> open communication........
>
> open information with no filters.....
>
> that is what I see us becoming.
>
>
> So.....perhaps a broader peramiter other than legal /
> illegal ; and certainly a chain of comand but also one
> to represent the whistleblower.
>
> provided of course that all other attempts to resolve
> issues have taken place.
>
>
> --- Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, illegal is illegal in the legal sense.
> > This policy is only about reporting a violation of
> > the (US) law.
> >
> > ant
> >
> >
> > effe iets anders wrote:
> > > Does illegal here also mean "not in line with the
> > policy / strategy
> > > set by the Board"?
> > >
> > > KR, Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2007/6/19, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
> > >> Anthony wrote:
> > >>> On 6/15/07, Florence Devouard
> > <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> * and a whistleblower policy
> > >>>>
> >
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Whistleblower_Policy&oldid=21384)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Not much more to say :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you have any issue to raise, any criticism,
> > or whatever, please do
> > >>>> not hesitate to comment.
> > >>>>
> > >>> My initial reaction to the whistleblower policy
> > was that it was a very
> > >>> bad policy.  However, I thought maybe I was just
> > overreacting, so I
> > >>> didn't comment on it.  Then I asked Danny, who
> > is a former employee of
> > >>> the corporation, what he thought.  His response,
> > which I'm not going
> > >>> to get into in detail on this list, expressed
> > the exact same concern
> > >>> that I had.  The policy leaves the executive
> > director and board chair
> > >>> in a position of ultimate authority.  And there
> > isn't even an
> > >>> executive director right now.
> > >>>
> > >>> The rest of my comments are my own, and not
> > derived from Danny's.
> > >>>
> > >>> "If any employee reasonably believes that some
> > policy, practice, or
> > >>> activity of Wikimedia Foundation Inc is in
> > violation of law, a written
> > >>> complaint must be filed by that employee with
> > the Executive Director
> > >>> or the Board Chair."  The word "must" there is
> > incredibly disturbing.
> > >>>
> > >>> It also bothers me that employees are the ones
> > expected to sign this
> > >>> policy.  Looking at this policy, it seems to me
> > that it will only
> > >>> serve to stifle the spread of information.
> > Anything anyone believes
> > >>> to be illegal must be reported to the board
> > chair.  The board chair is
> > >>> not required by the policy to do *anything at
> > all* with that
> > >>> information.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't understand what the purpose was of the
> > whistleblower policy,
> > >>> but it doesn't seem like it serves any positive
> > purpose.
> > >> Please first read
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower to fully
> > >> understand the basics of the whistleblower issue.
> > >>
> > >> The purpose of a whistleblower policy is largely
> > to protect employees
> > >> when they are reporting illegal activity, in
> > particular illegal activity
> > >> from one of their "superior" (hierarchically
> > speaking, eg, a person who
> > >> can fire them). In the absence of a policy, an
> > employee could report one
> > >> of his boss is acting illegally and as a
> > consequence, be fired, or be
> > >> mishandled (get no raise, have responsabilities
> > removed etc...)
> > >>
> > >> The whistleblower policy is a statement from the
> > management and board,
> > >> saying that it is okay to report illegal activity
> > and that you can not
> > >> be punished if you do that.
> > >>
> > >> However, to avoid simple baseless bad-mouthing,
> > the protection is only
> > >> given if the employee comes with arguments,
> > facts, figures, photos, any
> > >> type of evidence or at a minimum information
> > strongly supporting the
> > >> suspicion of abuse. In the absence of significant
> > documentation, an
> > >> accusation from an employee will be perceived as
> > personal attacks, and
> > >> no protection will be offered. This is also a
> > good way to prevent
> > >> constant recrimination against another person. In
> > short, if an employee
> > >> has a base for complain, he is protected. If he
> > is just bad-mouthing
> > >> with no argument, then there is no protection.
> > >>
> > >> The policy we agreed upon is a fairly common one.
> > It really holds
> > >> nothing special. It was reviewed by a lawyer.
> > >>
> > >> Ultimately, an employee might refuse to sign it.
> > I am fine with the
> > >> concept. But then, if he reports something
> > illegal, whether based or
> > >> not, then is fired by his immediate boss as a
> > retaliation act, then, I
> > >> believe he can not easily connect the fact he is
> > fired from the fact he
> > >> reported abuse.
> > >>
> > >> The main reason why this policy was adopted is
> > that this issue was
> > >> raised in the past; by Danny himself, who told me
> > once he did not dare
> > >> report something, because he feared he would be
> > fired. Well, with this
> > >> policy, and if he had signed it, he would be
> > protected. The important
> > >> point is that legally speaking, when there is an
> > illegal activity going
> > >> on around you, you are supposed to report it. If
> > a kid is killed and you
> > >> know the murderer, you are bound by law to report
> > the name (unless it is
> > >> someone family related etc...). However, an
> > employee could argue he did
> > >> not respect the law, because he feared being
> > fired for reporting the
> > >> abuse. With that policy, he can not claim that he
> > would be fired. The
> > >> important part in this is that if the employee is
> > aware of illegal
> > >> activity, and does not report it, then he is
> > "sharing" the
> > >> responsability and becoming himself part of the
> > abuse. Consequently,
> > >> this is a powerful tool to ensure that abuse is
> > reported.
> > >>
> > >> The second reason why the policy was adopted now
> > is that we expect to
> > >> have a new ED very soon. Which means that the
> > board will be "further"
> > >> from the staff and the staff mostly work with the
> > ED. In case there is
> > >> anything wrong going on with the ED, the staff
> > can report to the chair,
> > >> and they will be protected through the policy.
> > >> At the same time, it protects the ED, as
> > employees can not do
> > >> bad-mouthing without facts. In short, if an
> > employee comes to us and say
> > >> "the ED is securing money for himself", the
> > answer we can give is "do
> > >> you have proof of that accusation ? If you do,
> > then please provide the
> > >> documentation, and you are protected by the
> > policy. If you don't, please
> > >> keep your opinions to yourself; thanks".
> > >>
> > >> Note that the dual reporting system makes it
> > possible to report to the
> > >> ED of an abuse by the chair. Note, for now, this
> > policy has not been
> > >> signed by any staff member. It must be signed
> > voluntarily.
> > >>
> > >> Last, the issue of the chair not being required
> > by the policy to act if
> > >> he is reported an illegal issue. It is not
> > necessary to mention in the
> > >> policy that the chair must act in case he is
> > informed of abuse, because
> > >> he is required to act in case of abuse. "All
> > corporate powers shall be
> > >> exercised by or under the authority of, and the
> > business and affairs of
> > >> the Foundation shall be managed under, the
> > direction of the Board of
> > >> Trustees." In case of non-action when abuse is
> > reported, the chair is
> > >> the first in line and usually gets consequences
> > much heavier than simply
> > >> being "fired".
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>      ___________________________________________________________________________________
> You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
> in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>