[PaoloVecchi] PaoloVecchi
https://community.documentfoundation.org/u/paolovecchi
January 16
The sections of the German Civil Code are just some of the various
elements taken in consideration by several lawyers to come to the same
conclusions.
I have not yet had the time to read hundreds of pages of legal
documents, but to a first exam I have not seen references to the German
Civil Code. Of course, I will read all the documents before entering in
a discussion with the lawyers, but I will not take their opinion - they
are consultants - as law unless I see a specific article which mention
the word “discussions” in addition to the word “decisions”, which is
what I have not found in the Italian Civil Code (including the articles
you are mentioning).
italovignoli:
in the Italian Civil Code there isn’t any Article which prevents
people whose Conflict of Interest is known/declared to participate
in discussions
For that you should look at the anti-corruption laws and regulations,
you’ll find an FAQ here: Conflitto di interessi - www.anticorruzione.it
https://www.anticorruzione.it/-/conflitto-di-interessi
This is about “decisions” and “actions”, and not about “discussions”
(unless the Conflict of Interest has not been declared or is not known,
which is not the case of TDF where the Conflict of Interest is clear
even if not formally confirmed). If we had to exclude conflicted parties
from any discussion, we would probably have to close all parliaments
wordwide, starting from the US Congress and the EU Parliament.
This is the Italian text you are referring to:
Secondo l’interpretazione della giurisprudenza amministrativa, la
situazione di conflitto di interessi si configura quando le decisioni
che richiedono imparzialità di giudizio siano adottate da un pubblico
funzionario che abbia, anche solo potenzialmente, interessi privati in
contrasto con l’interesse pubblico alla cui cura è preposto. La gestione
del conflitto di interessi è, dunque, espressione dei principi
costituzionali di buon andamento e imparzialità dell’azione amministrativa.
L’interesse privato che potrebbe porsi in contrasto con l’interesse
pubblico può essere di natura finanziaria, economica o derivante da
particolari legami di parentela, affinità, convivenza o frequentazione
abituale con i soggetti destinatari dell’azione amministrativa.
And this is the Deepl translation into English:
According to the interpretation of administrative jurisprudence, a
situation of conflict of interest arises when decisions requiring
impartial judgement are taken by a public official who has, even
potentially, private interests that conflict with the public interest
for which he or she is responsible. The management of conflicts of
interest is therefore an expression of the constitutional principles of
good administration and impartiality.
The private interest that may conflict with the public interest may be
of a financial or economic nature, or may derive from particular ties of
kinship, affinity, cohabitation or habitual presence with the persons to
whom the administrative action is addressed.
As you can see the word used is “decisions” and there is not a reference
to “discussions”.
one of the reasons for the Conflict of Interest is enmity/animosity,
a condition which is extremely clear from the tone of many messages
I’m pleased to see that you noticed it as well. Once you have read the
many documents and threads you will likely notice that more check and
balances need to be put in place to avoid the issues seen during this term.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding here, but when I have mentioned
enmity/animosity I was referring to the entire BoD, nobody excluded (to
be clear, you are included), and to one person external to the BoD who
has clearly expressed a hostile personal agenda against the BoD.
In my opinion, because of the different real and potential Conflicts of
Interest existing within TDF’s Board of Directors (economic, relational,
historical, personal, etc.), the Board of Directors itself should not be
involved in decisions which can affect - directly or indirectly - the
software.
There is a large number of not for profit foundations which solve this
issue by appointing a “blind trust” for decisions which affect the money
spent on a task, a project, a product, etc. The blind trust provides a
non binding opinion which can be approved or rejected by the BoD. If
rejected, the issue returns to the blind trust, which has to provide an
alternative solution, until consensus is reached (in any case, the BoD
cannot take an independent decision).