1 |
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:55 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Hi Daniel, |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:53:24AM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
6 |
> > How about if they just abstain from any votes where there may be a |
7 |
> conflict |
8 |
> > of interest? I would hate to limit the ability of people to contribute |
9 |
> > technically just because they were elected to council. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> The confusing thing about this is, how would we define "conflict of |
12 |
> interest"? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Suppose that the council decides to accept an appeal from comrel. Is it |
15 |
> a conflict of interest for a member of the council who is also a member |
16 |
> of comrel to vote in the appeal? If it isn't, it is at least a pretty |
17 |
> strong perception that it is. |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
Often, "conflict of interest" is defined as "possible conflict of interest" |
21 |
-- meaning, if there is simply the potential for a conflict of interest, |
22 |
one would abstain from voting. There doesn't need to be a clear indication |
23 |
that there *is* a conflict of interest or that someone is abusing their |
24 |
position, just the *potential* for this to happen where someone *could* |
25 |
benefit from the decision being made (they are voting on a situation in |
26 |
which they happen to be personally involved, etc..) In these cases, those |
27 |
who find themselves in this position would abstain or would be asked to |
28 |
abstain, to prevent accusation that the vote was skewed. |
29 |
|
30 |
Potentially, it might be good if a member could also request a person to |
31 |
abstain if they felt there was a conflict of interest. The concept is that |
32 |
if the Foundation is able to eliminate potential conflicts of interest in |
33 |
votes, then the votes have much more authority (they are less subject to |
34 |
being questioned) and it helps to establish trust in the decision-making |
35 |
process. |
36 |
|
37 |
Best, |
38 |
|
39 |
Daniel |