Comments on: AtP2: As we say, not as we do http://positiveposition.com/blog/2006/05/31/atp2-as-we-say-not-as-we-do/ A NEW and IMPROVED rant about the good, the bad, and the ugly in public relations. Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:33:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Ike http://positiveposition.com/blog/2006/05/31/atp2-as-we-say-not-as-we-do/comment-page-1/#comment-25032 Ike Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:32:44 +0000 http://positiveposition.com/blog/?p=259#comment-25032 Eric, my understanding of this issue was that board members were being punished for criticizing key administrators, not other board members. One was punished for what a facial expression during a meeting. The flashpoint that is igniting this is the ACLU's recent political stands on policies not related to its charter. Board members who even disagree privately with those political planks are being targeted and censured. Even more ironic when you consider the ideals that organization is known for. Eric, my understanding of this issue was that board members were being punished for criticizing key administrators, not other board members. One was punished for what a facial expression during a meeting.

The flashpoint that is igniting this is the ACLU’s recent political stands on policies not related to its charter. Board members who even disagree privately with those political planks are being targeted and censured.

Even more ironic when you consider the ideals that organization is known for.

]]> By: Eric Eggertson http://positiveposition.com/blog/2006/05/31/atp2-as-we-say-not-as-we-do/comment-page-1/#comment-24904 Eric Eggertson Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:21:51 +0000 http://positiveposition.com/blog/?p=259#comment-24904 I haven't really studied the ACLU case, Ike, but it's pretty standard practice to ask board members to present a unanimous front when challenged about a board decision. The idea is that you have the right to argue your side long and hard, but once the board makes a decision, it's your job to explain the board's rationale for the decision, not try to undermine its decision. Organizations that continually reopen issues because board members indicate that support for a decision was soft, open themselves to having to continue flip-flopping on decisions that have already been made. It sounds like the ACLU is being a bit heavy-handed in their treatment of board members. The courts offer judges the opportunity to offer dissenting votes. I suppose boards of directors could do the same... I haven’t really studied the ACLU case, Ike, but it’s pretty standard practice to ask board members to present a unanimous front when challenged about a board decision. The idea is that you have the right to argue your side long and hard, but once the board makes a decision, it’s your job to explain the board’s rationale for the decision, not try to undermine its decision.

Organizations that continually reopen issues because board members indicate that support for a decision was soft, open themselves to having to continue flip-flopping on decisions that have already been made.

It sounds like the ACLU is being a bit heavy-handed in their treatment of board members. The courts offer judges the opportunity to offer dissenting votes. I suppose boards of directors could do the same…

]]>