[Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility

[Michael Snow]

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?

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.

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?

--Michael Snow