2022 Atlanta Board of Trustees Meeting

To keep the question simple, let ’s ask a question. S hould we have a formalized process in place for when a board member is going to speak at another organization that could be perceived as competing with OMA? It is suggested that there might be a benefit to such a process in light of a perceived wrongdoing by either an individual or members of the organization.

Proposal:

The Ethics Committee Charter offers two pathways forward upon a decision of the Ethics Committee. Though the construct of the charter does not lend to a clear reference, section b) on page 4 suggests that if the accused is not a member of the BOT, the BOT will convene a board committee to act. On page 5 section c), when the accused is a member of the BOT, then the Ethics Committee has the authority to act. Since there is no accused, then neither section applies. However, since the COI policy is a function of the BOT then it would seem reasonable that the Ethics Committee at least offers a pathway. Two suggestions are offered: 1. It is recommended that the Ethics Committee charter be amended so that when the question seeks a procedural correction to issues that concern the ethics of the organization but does not allude to a particular individual, it is clearer as to how the Ethics Committee is to act. 2. When a board member participates with an organization outside of OMA on a topic of interest to both organizations, there should be a process to mitigate a perceived conflict of interest that is public and accessible to the membership of the OMA.

i https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/conflict-of-interest

Page | 4