Monica, I too truly believe there may have been a misunderstanding about the conflict of interest discussion this afternoon. Let me give you an example or two to clarify.
If somehow we were voting today on whether to pay some travel money to me to attend a conference or a meeting, conflict of interest protocols would very strongly suggest that I myself do not vote on that particular item. This doesn't mean that anyone at OASIS or LegalXML doesn't trust me, or that my work or contributions aren't valued or are somehow doubted - it simply means that because I am directly or even indirectly affected by the decision, I shouldn't be voting on it. That's all. The amount of $ does not matter at all, whether it's $500 or $5000, the principles in play are the very same.
Another example could be the ECF item today in regard to having training materials hosted online somewhere. Let's pretend that Jim's MTG company was in the business of hosting online materials and was in line to receive that contract. Well then Jim shouldn't vote on that particular item, because he and / or his employer are directly or indirectly affected by the decision. And even though the amount is just $1000, it doesn't matter, Jim still wouldn't vote.
Because you are admittedly involved in the running of the summer schools, you are therefore indirectly affected by any funding decision that affects whether students can go or not go to summer school. Since as we all know, perception is 90% of reality, Scott was just giving friendly useful advice on avoiding even the very slightest perception of possible conflict of interest.
The world is full of presidents, prime ministers, cabinet ministers and the like who have fallen because they overlooked seemingly rather trivial matters like perception of conflict of interest, so it's good to be reminded of these protocols from time to time. At my former court employer, each and every year we were all required to sit in a room for 15 minutes and painstakingly re-read the court's Conflict of Interest Guidelines --- and then sign a document stating that we have revisited the guidelines. It was quite a nuisance --- but probably worth it, for our own protection, just to be safe.
R
PS: Monica, you are certainly an OASIS distinguished contributor in my book!
>
From:
>
To:
> CC:
>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:27:03 +0000
>
Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Summer School LEX2012 >
> Monica, >
> I want to second what Scott said in that your contributions to LegalXML and the governance and expansion of the Member Section has been invaluable. Please understand that Scott was just trying to help us stay within in the legal frameworks in which OASIS operates. Regardless of the rules, I think I speak for every member of the Steering Committee in that we understand and support what you are doing. Please continue to let us know how we can help. >
>
Thanks, >
> Jim Cabral
> MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
> www.mtgmc.com > (206) 442-5010 Phone > (502) 509-4532 Mobile >
> Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve. >
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > > >
