[Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012

[phoebe ayers]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:16 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There is no requirement to know everything.  There is a requirement to
>>> make decisions in the best interests of the organisation, *as you see
>>> it*.  If a trustee persistently abstains on the big decisions because
>>> they cant see *it* (no vision), or wish to avoid scrutiny, they are
>>> abusing their right to abstain and failing the organisation as a
>>> trustee.
>>
>> If they do it persistently, then sure. Is there a board member that is
>> doing it persistently?
>
> How could I know that as previously abstainers were not recorded as
> such.  My hope, expressed in my original email to this list, is that
> looking forward abstentions will be well explained in the minutes or
> forcibly curtailed if abused.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg

Abstains have always been recorded, just like yes/no/recusal votes.
The only thing that has changed is attaching names to the vote.

Stu is right that we use the language "recuse" when there is a
conflict of interest and the trustee *should* not vote; abstain is
simply not voting.

-- phoebe