Thank you, Luis, for the good suggestions. Pine On May 5, 2016 08:49, "Luis Villa" <l...@lu.is> wrote:
> tl;dr: the board did not effectively perform one of their most important > roles (managing the ED); the board (and board candidates) should be talking > about how they will fix that. > > [Also, see the very bottom for some relevant disclosures, since I've been > asked after previous postings to this list.] > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:02 PM MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > > > Tim Starling wrote: > > >Board members have a duty to act in the interests of the WMF as a > > >whole, but it does not follow that denying anonymity to whistleblowers > > >is in the best interests of the WMF. In fact, I think this Lila/KF/KE > > >case demonstrates the opposite. > > > > > >I would encourage the Board to extend the current whistleblower policy > > >to provide protection to employees making anonymous complaints via > > >certain intermediaries (such as active Board members), rather than > > >requiring complaints to be made directly to the Chair of the Board; > > >and to specify that the forwarding of such anonymous reports by Board > > >members to the Chair would be permissible. > > > > > >If we want to avoid a repeat of this affair, then employees should be > > >encouraged to communicate serious concerns to the Board as early as > > >possible. > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy > > > > You mention anonymous complaints and serious concerns, but the current > > whistleblower policy seems to be pretty clear that it only applies to > > laws, rules, and regulations. The text of the policy indicates, to me at > > least, that even alleged violations of other Wikimedia Foundation > policies > > would not be covered by the whistleblower policy. Would you extend the > > Wikimedia Foundation whistleblower policy to cover regular (i.e., > > non-legal and non-regulatory) grievances? > > > > My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > sought > > out and then appointed a tech-minded chief executive, who came from a > tech > > organization, in order to "transform" the Wikimedia Foundation from an > > educational non-profit to be more like a traditional tech company. Many > > employees of the Wikimedia Foundation disagreed with this decision and > the > > chief executive made a series of poor hires who ran amok (looking at you, > > Damon), but I don't think anything rose to the level of illegal behavior. > > > > From my perspective, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the staff mutinied > > and ultimately successfully deposed the appointed executive director. I > > don't see how this whistleblower policy or most variations of it that a > > typical non-profit would enact would really be applicable here. > > > > As MZ says, the problem here is not the whistleblower policy. There should > be other policies and processes to monitor and address non-legal > performance problems with the ED/CEO. Creating and executing on these > policies and processes is one of the key responsibilities of a non-profit > board. > > Unfortunately, those policies and processes were not working during my last > six months at the Foundation. > > Some things that the board should do to change this situation: > > - *Make the board HR committee effective.* This would involve at least: > - Simply documenting *who is on the HR committee and how to contact > them*. > Last fall, there was no way for staff to even know who was on the HR > committee until my repeated questions to *four separate board > members* > led to this edit > < > https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=HR_Committee&type=revision&diff=103767&oldid=95573 > >. > As of when I left, there was still no way to confidentially email the > entire committee as a group. > - Using of one of the board's appointed slots to appoint an *HR > expert*, as has been done in the past with finance. (I assume Arnon > was an attempt at this. If so, I'm very sorry it did not work out.) > - Improving *policies* *on staff-board contact*. The whistleblower > policy is not the right place for this, but it was all the staff > had. And > for board members, the Handbook > < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Board_member_standard_of_conduct > > > is unfortunately not clear on how to address HR issues. Better > policies, > explaining roles and responsibilities, might have helped both groups. > - *Monitor organizational health*. This would involve at least: > - Conducting a *regular engagement survey* with (ideally) a trusted > neutral reporting results to the board as well as the executive > team. This > is now in place through HR, but was not done until monitoring of > office > attendance indicated that people hated coming to the office, and > tends to > break down in an executive crisis (since HR may not be trusted). > - *Exit interviews* with all departing executive staff. To the best > of my knowledge, the current board did not do this, even after 9-10 > executives departed in the space of a year. This is good > practice even when > the board has endorsed a "cleaning house" of the executive staff (as > may > have occurred here), since those staff are still likely able to > provide > insight into the performance of the ED that the board may not be > able to > glean themselves. > > There are, of course, many other things a board can do to help with these > issues (leading on creation of a clear strategy; putting a staff rep on the > HR committee; regular contact with staff and executives; etc., etc.) But > these are the utter, utter basics that are still, to the best of my > knowledge, unresolved. > > Besides the points above, I'd like to see: > > - When I asked board candidates > < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions&diff=prev&oldid=15497994 > > > what they thought the top responsibilities of the board were, I was > hoping > to see at least one person say "HR". Obviously many votes have been > cast, > but I'd still like to hear the candidates speak about how they will > effectively fulfill their HR-related responsibilities ("select, evaluate > and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director > < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Effective_Board_oversight > > > "). > - The HR committee is supposed to do a yearly self-assessment > < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Human_Resources_Committee > >. > I think the current HR committee and the board should publish that > self-assessment, and share (*as part of the hiring plan*) how they plan > to > monitor *and support *the next ED's performance. > > Slightly more than two cents- > Luis > > [Disclosures: > > - After I left, I did not sign a termination or contracting agreement > with the organization, so I did not become a contractor with the > organization. I do still speak to many friends within the org, but have > not > discussed this email with them. > - I was one of the people who spoke to James (as well as other board > members) about Lila last fall. I appreciate his efforts on behalf of the > staff, as well as his efforts to protect our confidentiality. > - My baby was due yesterday, so I probably won't check the list again > for quite a while. :) Still, hope this is helpful to highlight some > specific actions the board could be taking.] > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
