Independent board: Difference between revisions

(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

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. 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:

"...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.

, to prejudice the independence of judgement.

Both the reports have opined that independent directors have

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.

@@ 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.  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:
+"...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.
+, to prejudice the independence of judgement.
+Both the reports have opined that independent directors have
+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.