Independent board - Revision history

Jukeboksi: Protected "Independent board": spammers ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 14:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)))

2016-09-10T14:10:06Z

Protected "Independent board": spammers ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 14:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)))

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:10, 10 September 2016
(No difference)

142.177.109.161 at 19:01, 9 September 2004

2004-09-09T19:01:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:01, 9 September 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. They are absolutely necessary to attract any major donor.		An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. They are absolutely necessary to attract any major donor.

			They are also often appropriate in government tasks. See [http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2004/s2672.html] which specifies "an independent board to review current and make recommendations for new standards and procedures for the classification of information for national security
			purposes" in the USA. Presumably selection of directors would be state of the art given US concerns with its [[national security]], and should be looked at as a model.

	Private sector companies that are publicly traded also require such boards. "Currently, in India and the UK, the Listing Agreement and the City Code provide that non-executive directors should be independent of management and free from any business or other relationship which could interfere with the exercise of their independent judgement, leaving the board to identify the parameters, which leaves the issue open-ended." [http://fecolumnists.expressindia.com/full_column.php?content_id=28785 a call for independent board members in the Financial Express of India] which goes on to document the [[w:Higgs and Naresh Chandra Committee]] in India which:		Private sector companies that are publicly traded also require such boards. "Currently, in India and the UK, the Listing Agreement and the City Code provide that non-executive directors should be independent of management and free from any business or other relationship which could interfere with the exercise of their independent judgement, leaving the board to identify the parameters, which leaves the issue open-ended." [http://fecolumnists.expressindia.com/full_column.php?content_id=28785 a call for independent board members in the Financial Express of India] which goes on to document the [[w:Higgs and Naresh Chandra Committee]] in India which:

142.177.109.161: definition from private sector, for use in resolving corruption claims and so on

2004-09-09T18:59:34Z

definition from private sector, for use in resolving corruption claims and so on

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 9 September 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. They are absolutely necessary to attract any major donor.		An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. They are absolutely necessary to attract any major donor.

	The [[CGO]] will have a strictly independent board of directors that will be legally responsible for what the [[Publish Wiki]] broadcasts about companies and products. Any [[groupthink]] in this respect is extremely dangerous, as, believing one's own bullshit (see [[Wikipedia]]) can destroy any charitable group. Auditors and regulators take commitments to charitable donors very seriously.		Private sector companies that are publicly traded also require such boards. "Currently, in India and the UK, the Listing Agreement and the City Code provide that non-executive directors should be independent of management and free from any business or other relationship which could interfere with the exercise of their independent judgement, leaving the board to identify the parameters, which leaves the issue open-ended." [http://fecolumnists.expressindia.com/full_column.php?content_id=28785 a call for independent board members in the Financial Express of India] which goes on to document the [[w:Higgs and Naresh Chandra Committee]] in India which:

			"...defines an '''independent director''' as a non-executive person not having any pecuniary relationships or transactions with the company, its promoter, management and associated companies, including that of vendor, auditor or attorney, or family ties with promoter/management, or having substantial shareholding.





			Obviously the [[Wikimedia]] [[worst practices]] do not lead to such a board.

			The [[CGO]] will have a strictly independent board of directors that will be legally responsible for what the [[Publish Wiki]] broadcasts about companies and products - and which selects or fires the [[Chief Editor]]. It will run [[Consumerium Governance Organization election]]s.

			Any [[groupthink]] in this respect is extremely dangerous, as, believing one's own bullshit (see [[Wikipedia]]) can destroy any charitable group. Auditors and regulators take commitments to charitable donors very seriously.

Jukeboksi: rm false statement

2004-06-18T21:23:57Z

rm false statement

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 18 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. They are absolutely necessary to attract any major donor.		An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. They are absolutely necessary to attract any major donor.

	Some, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a [[board]], loading it instead with insiders, i.e. from [[Bomis]]. One reason to avoid having such a board is to ensure that "friendly" people are in charge if their pet projects are someday audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who avoid scrutiny of truly independent directors.

	The [[CGO]] will have a strictly independent board of directors that will be legally responsible for what the [[Publish Wiki]] broadcasts about companies and products. Any [[groupthink]] in this respect is extremely dangerous, as, believing one's own bullshit (see [[Wikipedia]]) can destroy any charitable group. Auditors and regulators take commitments to charitable donors very seriously.		The [[CGO]] will have a strictly independent board of directors that will be legally responsible for what the [[Publish Wiki]] broadcasts about companies and products. Any [[groupthink]] in this respect is extremely dangerous, as, believing one's own bullshit (see [[Wikipedia]]) can destroy any charitable group. Auditors and regulators take commitments to charitable donors very seriously.

142.177.93.19 at 15:17, 17 June 2004

2004-06-17T15:17:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 17 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one.		An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. They are absolutely necessary to attract any major donor.

			Some, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a [[board]], loading it instead with insiders, i.e. from [[Bomis]]. One reason to avoid having such a board is to ensure that "friendly" people are in charge if their pet projects are someday audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who avoid scrutiny of truly independent directors.

			The [[CGO]] will have a strictly independent board of directors that will be legally responsible for what the [[Publish Wiki]] broadcasts about companies and products. Any [[groupthink]] in this respect is extremely dangerous, as, believing one's own bullshit (see [[Wikipedia]]) can destroy any charitable group. Auditors and regulators take commitments to charitable donors very seriously.

Jukeboksi: rm useless slander

2004-06-17T08:25:28Z

rm useless slander

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:25, 17 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. Stupid organizations, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a [[board]], as it might mean their pet projects may someday be audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who are clearly trying to avoid scrutiny.		An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one.

142.177.8.5 at 00:01, 17 June 2004

2004-06-17T00:01:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 17 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. Stupid organizations, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a board, as it might mean their pet projects may someday be audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who are clearly trying to avoid scrutiny.		An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. Stupid organizations, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a [[board]], as it might mean their pet projects may someday be audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who are clearly trying to avoid scrutiny.

142.177.75.54 at 17:53, 20 February 2004

2004-02-20T17:53:48Z

New page

An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. Stupid organizations, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a board, as it might mean their pet projects may someday be audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who are clearly trying to avoid scrutiny.