On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is almost exactly wrong. The lesson here should not be that
the Board failed to take public relations into consideration when co-opting a new member. The message is that the examination of candidates failed to turn up really quite substantial allegations of a lack of integrity and ethical leadership. If your background check process looks for expertise or criminal history but doesn't examine work experience for serious failures, then the background check process is broken. Adding a "what will people think?" 'subroutine' is not a solution.
it may be a language issue. We want to widen the background check process so that it includes issues beyond just criminal activity, basically. I called it a "PR check", but it is not just focusing on "what will people think" for its sake, but rather paying particular attention to a wide array of issues that could raise concerns, basically to be able to sensibly discuss which of them are legitimate, and which are not.
dj