[Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

On 18/05/2008, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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?

It applies to any candidates that are "directors, trustees, or senior
officers" of "the Foundation or its affiliates". Other candidates
don't fall under this agreement. Obviously, I would expect them to be
treated with the same level of respect, but that's nothing to do with
this agreement.

>  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.

You make a good point. I think the important thing is that the
accusations be specific enough for the accused to be able to defend
themselves. Where possible, evidence should be provided, but you're
right that that often isn't possible.

>  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?

Yeah, that's a problem, I know. I would expect board members to
intervene only if there is something serious that they think the
electorate needs to know. They should keep personal opinions to
themselves and stick to facts.