> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:55 AM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a
> director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election
> cycle.  As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause.  Every
> reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by
> WMF employees.  E.g., one early frequently cited reason was that he was
> having inappropriate discussions with WMF employees - multiple WMF
> employees came forward to say that he promised nothing untoward in these
> conversations, and simply listened to their feedback.  In an ideal
> situation, Board tells the ED when they have conversations with most
> employees, but that's only best practice in situations where Board alerting
> the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine the purpose of the
> conversations, which they would have hear.

Agreed with your larger point about removal for/without cause. All I can say is 
that the bit I quoted doesn’t state for or without cause, it doesn’t seem to 
distinguish between the two modes of removal. 

> More importantly, as the board has made abundantly clear in recent weeks,
> we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections' - the
> board is gracious enough to allow the community to suggest board members,
> which the board may then choose to accept or reject.  Given the fact that
> we do *not have* board elections, I don't think there's any doubt that
> James can stand in the next 'community board selection.’

Fair point. I’m definitely not a lawyer. Nobody would be happier to see James 
stand for reelection than myself. :-)

> Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific email James has requested you
> to release multiple times contains no confidential information, and the
> fact that you aren't releasing it isn't looking good to me.  W/r/t an email
> related to the removal of a community selected and trusted trustee, full
> transparency seems necessary.  You've said the email contains nothing of
> mindshattering significance, and I suspect you are telling the truth there
> - I suspect that at most it contains you making comments to James that
> either weren't quite true or paint yourself in a less than great light.
> But here's the rub: even if there's nothing too important in that email,
> the fact that you're unwilling to release it means that you still don't get
> that transparency in this situation is necessary. Are you willing to
> release the email, redacting anything you view as reasonably necessarily
> confidential w/r/t the BoT?  I'm sure James will comment if your redactions
> are excessive.  Without any confidential information, all the email is is a
> document that shines more light on a situation involving the removal of a
> community 'selected' trustee, something that those involved should be as
> transparent as possible about.

Jimmy, I agree with Kevin. Can you please release these emails? I realise you 
have a lot on your plate, but I think it would be good of you to release these 
emails soon. I trust you when you tell me that you are a champion of 
transparency and openness, and I also know you have had a lot on your plate 
lately so I’m trying not to put too much pressure on you at the moment. 

I think, however, that the sooner you release the emails, the sooner it helps 
the rest of us come to an understanding why the Board made their decisions and 
we can at the very least feel more confident in the integrity of the Board of 
Trustees. This issue has dragged on for over two months now, and none of us are 
still much the wiser, though many of us are beginning to put the pieces 
together in our own heads. Which is dangerous, as we may well be jumping to the 
wrong conclusions because we don’t have enough information. Unfortunately, the 
lack of information is something that only the Board can resolve for us.

There are a number of other questions that still need answering around the 
grant application, so I’d love to see you clarify them soon also.

Chris


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to