The Board can deny, disagree with or ignore the lack of transparency with the recent Alternative Pathways BFO, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a lack of transparency.
On June 9th I wrote a letter to the Board regarding transparency issues with the changed Alternative Pathways Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO). Specifically, the wording of the BFO budget document was revised from the original posted in the May 4th Board Docs. Then, instead of posting the new document in the June 1st Board Docs just like every other financial document that was going to be discussed and voted on at that meeting, the changed document was reposted to the May 4th Board Docs. This essentially “hid” the changes from the public who may have wanted to comment on the changes during the Board’s public comment. To compound the transparency issues, the document retained the original date and signature of April 14th which was clearly false as the changes were made sometime after May 4th.
When I brought these transparency issues to the attention of the Board in my June 9th letter, the response I received was:
“In regard to your note of June 9, I would disagree with your assertions that there is an attempt to hide information from the community.”
Really? Is that the best response the Board could come up with to a blatant transparency issue? They couldn’t even counter the facts. Guess what – “Perception = Reality” and in this case my perception is that this was a blatant attempt to hide information as I had previously written to the Board and publicly commented on this BFO at the May Board meeting.
Actually, my assertion was that “hiding these changes in the May 4th Board Docs was deceptive in nature and violated all Board stated intentions of transparency.”
Disputing “attempt to hide information” does NOT dispute my assertion of a lack of transparency, which this clearly was.
In addition, the April 14th, 2017 signed date on the document is false. Where’s the transparency there?
I even wonder whether this is a legal document since the date does not reflect the actual date of the changes.
The Board says that they are all for transparency, but by ignoring and refusing to take corrective action on the non-transparent changes to this BFO, their actions certainly speak louder than their words.