It isn’t at all the right of a chairperson to keep the details private, to the contrary it’s our duty to be fully transparent with our decisions and with the information we used to reach these decisions.
As from section 8.3c " In exceptional cases, these may be treated as confidential, if so required. The resulting decisions shall be made transparently in a timely manner, and the confidentiality pertaining thereto shall end once the need for confidentiality has been resolved;"
Regardless of the legitimacy of the vote, which is still being debated, the chairperson did not publish a decision based on “advice”.
The chairperson personally requested an opinion, not an actual legal advice, explicitly mentioning the desire to replace the deputy chairperson. There is no reason to keep that a secret for the community as there wasn’t and there isn’t any privileged information that must remain confidential in the first place.
The chairperson used only the start of a sentence as the excuse to remove Emiliano but completely discarded the rest of the sentence and the other paragraphs. Neither the chairperson nor the rest of the board wanted to evaluate the chairperson’s position in relation to the full legal opinion that we received.
The chairman mentions in the decision that “there is fundamental disagreement and mistrust between the deputy chair, and a majority of directors” but that’s a very misleading statement as it seems to suggest to the community that Emiliano is not trustworthy. There are no records of directors, apart from the chairman or Cor, ever fundamentally disagreeing with Emiliano and I found no record of mentions of mistrust by any director toward Emiliano.
It is in my opinion unacceptable that a chairperson uses misleading messages to replace Emiliano for “being guilty” of having performed his duties by challenging motions that were obviously going to be detrimental for TDF and the community as it then turned out to be the case.
It is also unacceptable that the rest of the board passively accept yet another motion without showing any interaction with it and without challenging it knowing that the rationale put forward by the chairperson is factually wrong, the portion of a sentence extracted from a legal opinion does not match the situation and that we have actual advice against this motion.
Unfortunately this is yet another situation where, IMHO as a witness of what is going on within the board and a member of the board of trustees, the majority of the board failed to perform its duties in an unbiased, objective and transparent manner leading yet again to a further erosion of trust for this body.
Having also the chairperson and Cor censoring this forum, not only flagging but actually deleting posts from directors and members of the board of trustees, using as an excuse that legal advice is being disclosed in public, which clearly hasn’t been done yet but it should, surely doesn’t help in improving the reputation of this board.
5 of my posts in this thread have been deleted by the chairperson and Cor, which in my opinion should not be in charge of moderating the forum as they clearly introduce their own biases, so let’s see if this is going to be the 6th one.
Paolo