I think that a broader-scoped review would be beneficial, including a review of the Board's alignment with nonprofit governance best practices, especially with respect to best practices surrounding the decision to dismiss James and the subsequent actions and comments of Board members. I believe that WMF commissioned a similar report about WMUK in the past, so there is precedent for doing this.
Pine On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Philippe - > > Well - one of the things is - from all public indication from the BoT - it > doesn't appear that it's their current inclination to do something like > commission an outside review of the situation by a consultancy familiar > with Florida NPO governance. I definitely don't want to pronounce early > judgement, but both public and private conversations have made me think > that this situation is worth a formal investigation, and allegations of > potentially intentionally withholding relevant documents from sitting > trustees just make me think even more than an outside review is > appropriate. I hate wasting $20 or $40k of movement money on such a > review, but since, if substantiated and not resolved, thes allegations > could be so damaging to Wikimedia, I unfortunately think it's necessary > unless James speaks out against the idea. > > Best, > KG > _______________________________________________ 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>