Thank you for coming forward, Ben and Asaf. I'd been debating whether or not to gather more details about the handling of this event, or for just trying to make sure that procedures went more smoothly in case any further trustee was removed, but this calls for a direct question: were documents intentionally being withheld from James - for a couple of months at that - that were either being distributed to other trustees, that he directly asked for, or that were reasonably necessary for him acting in good faith to fulfill his fidicuiary duties? I can't cite chapter and verse of state code - partly because it varies depending on what exactly was involved, and I'm far more familiar with Califonia's requirements than Florida's - but if so, this is a problem. California is an extreme state when it comes to stuff like this, but in certain situations, intentionally withholding information that a sitting board member is legally entitled to is in some cases something that results in the waiver of protection they normally enjoy in most of their duties conducted in good faith even in unrelated areas to any and all trustees that were involved in the decision to withhold information - going as far as to negate not even specifically purchased insurance coverage.
If documents were intentionally held from James while he was still in fact a sitting trustee that were either distributed to other trustees, that were drectly asked for by James, or that were reasonably necessary for him to uphold his duties of loyalty and care to WMF, I believe an outside investigation by a nonprofit consulting group that WMF doesn't have a pre-existing relationship is likely necessary. Best, KG On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Laurentius <laurentius.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Il giorno sab, 02/01/2016 alle 09.31 +0900, James Heilman ha scritto: > > Dear all > > > > I have been accused of three things: > > [...] > > Does the board agree that these three are the things contested to James? > * Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board > decisions; > * Releasing private board information; > * Publishing the statement about his removal on Wikimedia-l. > (the last one clearly cannot have had a role in his removal, so this > leaves the first two) > > Laurentius > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>