On 11 July 2011 15:07, J. Colaco < jc> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > COMMENT: > > > > (c) I am not so sure that the phrase "because of a conflict of > interest" has been used appropriately. As stated, it implies that > something untoward went down. I am almost sure that this was not the > case. > > (d) More than one family member on a board, while not always > prohibited, is not a great idea - mainly to avoid any appearance of > any 'collusion' and 'railroading' in the decision making process. > Conflict of Interest issues would only arise IF (for instance) an > officer from a rival organization was also serving on the Board of its > rival. > > (e) Normally, one hears public airing of Association-related rancor > emanate from Goans in Kuwait. The tradition appears to have spread to > London. > > jc > RESPONSE: This is what Wiki has to say about a conflict of interest -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest If two members of the same family are on Board, it would be fair to assume they would vote likewise irrespectively, or that they would support each other, their impartiality would be thrown out of the window. This is known a conflict of interest. One is the interest of doing what one feels is correct and the other is the interest to support one's spouse, son or father. Please try to follow with what is going on at the moment with News Corp International at the moment with the phone hacking scandal in London and who is supporting who, to the detriment of whom. I am glad that JC mentioned that he is not sure on this one! JC Does not know the goings on of Associations in London - there are husband and wife teams, coupled with father and son - where do you think this leads to? We have had parallel Village Associations here in London - this has led to the eventual demise of some. Welcome to the real World. On another issue I do not respond to spam emails - this is the umpteenth request - get me off your lists. This for all the spammers who are on this forum. DEV BOREM KORUM Gabe Menezes.
