[Foundation-l] Future board meeting (5-7 april 08)

[effe iets anders]

2008/4/11, Michael Snow <wikipedia op verizon.net>:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>  > I guess it all depends on exactly what is meant by "disparaging". I
>  > expect the actual agreement was rather more precise than the title.
>  >
>
> The difference between disparagement and legitimate criticism would need
>  to be defined, yes, and Mike will be working on a formula to try and
>  provide a little more clarity. In the meantime, with or without a
>  non-disparagement agreement, board members still have a fiduciary
>  obligation to always act in the best interests of the organization.
>
>
>  --Michael Snow
>
>
If such an agreement is needed, that saddens me very much, because it
means things are going wrong within the foundation. People should be
able to cooperate in a constructive manner, and should not need an
agreement (if I understand it's purpose correctly) to be polite to
each other and to the rest of the world.

I am wondering, why would you ever want to even have the possibility
to sue someone over inpoliteness at all? On one side you have things
(insults from a certain degree etc) that are not permitted by law
anyway. No need to make a seperate agreement for that. On the other
side you have things that are permitted by law, or in a grey area.
Then you have two options: the majority of the board agrees it was bad
to do, and can act, or the majority thinks it is "okey", and decides
not to do anything here. An ultimate respond can be in any case to
"fire" the board member from the board...

But, as the board and staff consist of grown ups who have good
communication skills, it should be possible to work things out. Can
someone clarify to me why this could not be the case in the
Foundation?

BR, Lodewijk