hi Ilario,
I don't want to fuel this discussion, so I'll just reply briefly and shut up :) Hi Dariusz, governance is not a question mark that someone can mean as he wants.
In this case the real problem is connected with the stakeholders, and this is an unsolved real problem of governance.
As soon a board member has been selected/elected by a stakeholder, the board of trustees cannot dismiss it following the action taken in this specific case.
In this case the problem of un-governance is the identification of the stakeholders and the real power in the hands of each stakeholder.
The real problem of "un-governance" is more related with the action of the board of trustee than with James (at the moment).
I understand that James have "recognized his errors and admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board member" but at the moment the records of the board's meeting says that James voted against his dismission.
It means that you are doing a personal statement, but the official one is that James didn't accepted his dismission during the vote.
Kind regards
On 02.01.2016 12:08, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
Yet, when governance is involved, things work out a bit differently. I can explain to you how I understand the results of the vote. I myself considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did.