Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TinyHorseHands t1_iy3i5m4 wrote

I am 100% in agreement that the Board of Directors is really far out of line here (especially Alan Klein trying to sneak alterations into his contract, and it seems trying to make to CA's conflict of interest policy). He's my representative on the Board, and I will absolutely be casting my vote to get him out. Got removed for ethical violations, and then tries to changes the rules to make it okay going forward. That's repulsive.

That said, this line from the article didn't sit well with me:

>"Finally, even if there is an ethics violation committed by Ms. Boyd, it is implausible that the hypothetical violation was so egregious that it outweighs all the value Ms. Boyd is providing the community and justifies the board’s current course of action."

Why include that? Of course there are ethics violations that would justify using legal action to get her off the board. There is no evidence of any violations that I'm aware of, but to say it's implausible is ingenuine.

15

goliebs t1_iy3qg3e wrote

I was a little concerned that line might be misunderstood (I’m the author of the article). I totally agree with you that there are hypothetically possible ethics violations that would warrant dismissal. But I was trying to point out - as you did - that based on what we know it’s not reasonable and likely (I.e. plausible) that one of those hypotheticals exists in this case.

I included it because, in talking to several board members, they would have you believe that there is some super secret and awful thing that Lakey has done that they can’t talk about. It’s a bogus excuse they use because they know they can’t actually justify what they are doing. I was trying to highlight how silly it is.

12

TinyHorseHands t1_iy4w9ei wrote

Definitely get that and I totally agree. I think the way you have it written now is great. I generally don't expect a differentiation between implausible and impossible in like 99% of writing, so that threw me off.

2

goliebs t1_iy57x2k wrote

Thanks for highlighting it. I’m sure if it confused you it confused other people.

1

obidamnkenobi t1_iy4fi4v wrote

Yikes, that quoted part is an awful phrase! Can be used to justify any type of corrupt official, a real banana-republic mentality.
"sure our leader is corrupt and does terrible things, but I personally benefit, so how bad is it really...?"

1

goliebs t1_iy4k9re wrote

Haha. Relax guys. Not a “banana-republic mentality.”

Anyways, I agree that line was poorly worded and updated it to avoid confusion.

3