[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Board update on Governance Committee Report

[Noah]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Chevalier du Borg <virtual.borg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear N. Noah
>
>
Dear Chevalier,


> 2018-05-09 17:39 GMT+00:00 Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>:
>
>>
>>
>> *1. ETHICS: *
>>
>>
>> We can see from incontrovertible evidence shared in the chat messages
>> that both Chair and his Vice acted unethically engaged the CEO to privately
>> discuss HR issues related to a member of staff that even the CEO was
>> unaware of but yet also entertained it.
>>
>
>
>
> How is chair and vice chair converstion with CEO about a something they
> think is critical to company unethetical? I think they have right to share
> their concerns.
>


I think the board has a right to share concerns about the general
performance of the organization and would only hold the CEO accountable in
the event that they though, the organization is not operating in a manner
the board wished based on sets of duties (KPI) assigned to the CEO by the
board.

First of all, AfriNIC does have official methods of communications. In the
case of the board, I assume they tend to officially communicate on AfriNIC
matters either via their official emails or perhaps regular conference
calls. I am not sure if whatsapp messaging is also official form of
communication on any matter concerning AfriNIC board business. In light of
this, whatever concerns directors of the board had should have been
communicated officially to the CEO via official means. This way, you avoid
rookie incidents similar to the ones that happened whereby what was private
chats conversations become public.

And If you are going to attempt to gauge the performance of a
manager/staff, do it based on their performance which means that there has
to be some (KPI's) in place that you can base upon to objectively measure
such performances and in case of under-performance, make it a matter of
concern (warning) to the particular staff member so that they can improve.
This is certainly not individual directors of board business but the CEO
and HR responsibility. This way you avoid being subjective and personal but
rather objective on matters of staff performance.

Third, one manager running two different departments is obviously
challenging and basically sets up the manager in question up for failure
and as such you cant claim they are under performing at the time when they
were managing two separate departments. IMHO, when a vacancy arises in a
department especially a management role, most organizations HR departments
immediately seek to fill the vacant position as best practice in corporate
governance and management.



>
>
> Not you or me know the full story about this.
>


There was a document posted on this list by some anonymous person and there
have been a series of similar emails related to human resource challenges
with staff turnover etc posted on this community mailing list if you have
time to check the archives.


>
>
>
>>
>> In my humble opinion, these private chats alone were further evidence of
>> unethical behavior with all the hallmarks of work-place harassment if you
>> consider the contents showed in those discussions;
>>
>> - the Directors undermined a member of staff who up to this point had
>> been regarded as competent with unduly excessive and unfair criticism,
>> deliberately constraining their ability to perform their duty
>>
>
>
>
> Again, not you or I or anyone can determine competence of said staff base
> on the leak. You must also know of another board member at the time who
> report on this list that he is willing to testify to investigation and "it
> will not be on the staff's side".
>


I agree, we cant determine the competence of said staff but neither can the
directors have done the same unless of the directors are also now involved
in day to day operations of the organization.

Who evaluates staff performance, is it the CEO/HR or the directors of the
board?

In any case, even if there was some concerns, its the entire board that is
vested with the powers of determining the management of the organization as
per as per section 15.1(ii) of the bylaws.

That means, individual directors cant meddle in the operations of the
organization.



>
>
>
>
>> - the Directors made threats/comments about the staff that relate to the
>> employees job security without foundation and this is a form of work-place
>> harassment.
>>
>
>
> Maybe instead of jump to conclusion, you can ask what the chair and vice
> chair foundation was.  Since none of us work at company or are board, we
> don't know that.
>


My comment is based on the reaction of the member of staff at the time of
accessing private information questing their performance which is why in
their letter to the board, they claimed among other things,  "moral
harassment" and the organization not being favorable to women etc.... its a
sensitive matter and must be handled with great care else staff will
conclude they are being witch-hunted after all they have never been
subjected to warnings or told they were under-performing....

Just my view as an employee some where too..




>
>
>
>
>>
>> *2. HARRASSMENT:*
>>
>> Let me also point out to this community and the board, what I believe
>> would be additional forms of harassment both ethically and morally.
>> - Insulting someone
>> - Unfair treatment based on gender or language
>> - Other misuses of power or position
>>
>> Again, from the document that found itself on the mailing list, it was
>> pretty obvious to all of us that  inappropriate language was used by a
>> member of staff and from your communication
>>
>
>
> That should be responsiblility of HR and ultimely CEO no?
>


Certainly and measure must be put in place to contain work-place harassment
of any form and those who harass other must be disciplined accordingly.



> If you want make this an issue, then you must also call for their
> resignation for not handle this internal staff harrassement leading to it
> being escalate to board and now in this court of public opinion (without
> all the facts)
>


The board is objectively empowered as per sections 15.1(ii)  to deal with
all management and affairs of the organization.



>
> While I have no problem with board related parts of report being disclose
> her, all parts about staff must remain confidential and internal to AFRINIC.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I therefore call upon the board and management to sort out the looming
>> human resource challenge facing AfriNIC today.
>>
>
>
> Wait!!!! will that not be interfering? Is that not job of CEO and HR?
>



Not necessarily, the board is objectively empowered as per sections
15.1(ii)  to deal with all management and affairs of the organization.They
will put the CEO to task as a board.


>
>
>
>>
>>
>> *3. ACCOUNTABILITY:*
>>
>> To conclude my submission, let me point out that the resolution passed by
>> the board to task the GC to come up with Terms of Reference for the
>> Investigation Committee in order to avoid conflict of interest on the past
>> of the entire board was the proper thing to do and this reasoning should be
>> followed to the end though I am surprised that the board tasked the GC to
>> formulate the ToR, engage an IC but did not consider the privacy and
>> confidentiality Implications of the process when it was clear that the
>> community requested and expected an independent assessment of the situation
>> and not a board view of the assessment.
>>
>
>
> Need for accountability must not exceed need to keep any confidential
> staff issue in that report private.
>


Acknowledge...



>
>
>>
>> It is more surprising that the board did not anticipate the course of
>> things and has now requested for more time to go through the report  and so
>> far we have not heard of any concrete actions or measures taken towards the
>> staff issues.
>>
>
>
>
> Wait!!! ... do you want board to give us concrete actions to solve staff
> issue? Is that not CEO and HR job?
>


Not necessarily, the board is objectively empowered as per sections
15.1(ii)  to deal with all management and affairs of the organization. They
already stated that some appropriate measure will be taken in this regard
and we shall know by 31st of July from the last communication from the
board.




>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Its my personal recommendation that the board send back the report to the
>> GC who should engage the IC to come up with a report that will not have
>> legal implications to the organization due to the local Data Protection
>> Laws. This should then be shared with the community and membership in my
>> humble opinion.
>>
>
>
> You and I agree on this conclusion.  But unfortunate, since both issues
> are link very tightly, I suspect some member of this community will always
> be unhappy with that outcome.\
>


Acknowledge...


>
>
> Maybe, the board may be cover up something
> Maybe, management may be cover up something
>
We dont know. Trust must start somewhere. If we cannot trust them, then
> maybe time to replace the hierachie with people that we can trust so they
> can do the work.
>


Just maybe but then transparency is very important too..



>
>
>
>
>>
>> *4. GOVERNANCE:*
>>
>> In terms of governance going forward, I believe the community and  the
>> membership want to see measures in place that will ensure a safe and
>> conducive working environment for the staff and the organization at large.
>> The board still has great opportunity to sort out a whole range of issues
>> including improvement of existing measures in place.
>>
>
>
>
> For the no. 3 time. That is job of CEO and HR. CEO is responsable for that
> to this community, not the board. Board' job is to judge whether that is
> the case.
>


In complete agreement and the board's judgement is objectively based on the
powers vested to them by the bylaws in terms of the management of the
organization.



>
>
> --
> Borg le Chevalier
> ___________________________________
> "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat"
>



-- 
*./noah*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20180515/de853cb4/attachment.html>