Proposed amendment to TB Guidelines: conflicts of interest
 

I have long been an advocate of a TB that is responsive and responsible to the community of FT posters.

To that end I'd like to see the TB consider amending their guidelines to include a conflict of interest policy.

I think TB members should take a leave of absence from leadership roles at sites that compete with FT in the 'travel community space.' For example, MilePoint is a direct competitor to FT and there could be a conflict of interests to serve in a leadership capacity on both sites. To be clear, I am not saying there IS a conflict. I'm saying there is the perception of one and there clearly COULD be one.

Gleff seemed to acknowledge this when he resigned from the TB (and its presidency) to go work on a competing site.

I think that was the right thing to do and should it be made part of the TB Guidelines that TB members not take leadership positions on competing sites because, although it is entirely possible perfectly reasonable to love and post on both sites, I think that FT posters have a right to demand that their elected representatives be FTers first and foremost if they are going to represent us to the CD and IB.

And this would be doubly-troubling if a TB member had a financial interest in a competing site.

And MilePoint is only the current example. There have been FT clones and related sites in the past, including TireFlock, moremiles, etc.

I think our TB members should be required to focus their leadership role on our community if they want to lead us.

Good place to start the discussion. ^^

I wonder, though, if the bright line ought to be commercial vs. not-for-profit?

Being the "owner" of a Googlegroups listserv and its associated website for folks who love to travel to see the gerbils in Bangor is probably different from being a leader at TripAdvisor.

I think being a "leader" on "any" travel website is a bit too broad. Thoughts?

Who would decide what this subjective term means? Should we list all the specific titles on MP that are considered "leadership" material? For example, are milepoint guides considered "leaders" or regular members? What about other sights with different titles?

MHO is that it could serve as a deterrent to future TB members by asking them to chose between sites. Surely most TB candidates would exhibit the same common sense that gleff displayed that we shouldn't have to put it in writing.

I think the line ought to be more geared toward financial and competitive issues than a profit/nonprofit angle. And a definition of 'comeptitor' and/or 'direct competitor' would be required to resolve the listserv vs. IBB vs. whatever issue. It should be broad enough to include the Amex and specific airline communities but not things like mistake fare listservs, imho.

Here's a generic example of what it might look like


A TB member must avoid:

•Working with a business that is in direct competition with FT. [note: this does not preclude one from being a customer of a competitor, it means you should not be someone with responsibilities to a competitor]

•Accepting a gift from a competitor nor from any party that might have an expectation of quid-pro-quo vis a vis your TalkBoard responsibilities.

•Having a direct or indirect financial interest in or a financial relationship with a competitor (except for insignificant stock interests in publicly-held companies).

•Having a job or consulting relationship where your employer/client is a direct competitor.

•Using nonpublic information for your personal gain or advantage, or for the gain or advantage of a competitor.



Come to think of it, FT moderators ought to have a similar policy!!!! But of course, we don't talk about moderation or moderators here. Just a thought for the next time you guys are looking at your best practices document if you haven't already included them! @:-)

TB members have already been told that they will be sacked by the Community Director if they take leadership positions at MP. Seems like this is pretty much covered.

Indeed. TB members may serve at the election of the userbase, but at the discretion of the Community Director, Internet Brands and the Moderator corps. Any of the three have the ability to remove a TB member at any time at their sole discretion.

Waitaminute... The TB serves at the discretion of the moderator corps? The CD and IB are understandable, but the moderators being in charge of the TB smells like the police being in charge of the legislative branch... I know and understand that TB decisions are non-binding and could be overturned by the CD or IB, but am I understanding correctly that moderators could also overturn a TB recommendation? If not, I guess I'd like clarification on "serving at the discretion of the moderator corps".

I think B747 is referring to the reality that a 30 day suspension of a TB member by a moderator, could invalidate their ability to continue on the Board.

I hardly think that suspension perogative constitutes "the ability to remove a TB member at any time at their sole discretion" as the member/TBer would have to have done something to warrant a suspension which hardly makes it the capricious thing B747 tries to make it out to be.

Interesting. But gratifying. FT seems to be in very good hands. ^

I wonder if it still wouldn't make sense to make a conflict of interest policy part of the TB Guidelines.

Have you ever tried to appeal a suspension on FlyerTalk? Two years is about right before a final ruling is handed down. The moderators definitely have the ability to influence a vote via their ability to suspend members during a voting period, even if the suspension is subsequently overturned on appeal.

Moderators can (and do) abuse their powers infrequently and the TalkBoard therefore serves at the mercy of the moderator corps. I'd cite specific examples but that would just get me silenced again for daring to speak up against the untouchables.

+1000.

FWIW, it's no news that suspended TBer/s can still vote on TB motions. IIRC, 2008 was the last time it happened.

I have no idea what's behind the scene as far as appeal goes. But suspensions don't and can't stop a TBer to vote, as history has shown.

Repeating a specious theory won't make it any less specious.

soooooooooooo...how about we use this thread to talk about potentially adding a conflict of interest policy to the TB Guidelines.... ;)

Are there any TB members who support the notion?

Or are we comfortable with letting the CD and the TB members own consciences guide them in matters such as these?

FWIW...

ii. When an elected TalkBoard member receives a 30-day or permanent suspension from any FlyerTalk moderator during their term in office:

a. That suspension shall be automatically reviewed by the FlyerTalk Host or the FlyerTalk Host's appointed representative if the Host is unavailable and ruled upon within three business days. During this review the TalkBoard member may appeal directly to the FlyerTalk Host for the immediate privilege of access to the private TalkBoard forum for the sole purpose of conducting TalkBoard business including voting on motions. The FlyerTalk Host is not required to grant this access.
b. If that suspension is upheld by the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative, then the TalkBoard member shall be immediatedly removed from the TalkBoard for cause and will regain public forum posting privileges at the end of the suspension term.
c. If, after review, the suspension is overturned or reduced to a 7-day suspension by the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative then no further action will be taken and the member will be reinstated as a TalkBoard member with full posting privileges either immediately or at the conclusion of the 7-day suspension.
d. An affirmation of the suspension by the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative is required for removal from the TalkBoard for cause. If for any reason the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative does not review and rule upon the suspension during the suspension then the TalkBoard member is not removed for cause.

***************************


Too many guidelines...personally, I believe if there is a conflict of interest, most folks would recuse themselves & if not, others would probably publically shame & embarrass them (or call for their removal). It's a self-policing system for this particular topic. And if it's not - I'm fully confident that there'd be at least one member out there who would bring it to the public's attention! ;)

Thanks for taking the time to think about and respond to my suggestion.

From my perspective I think it makes sense to set expectations up front rather than respond to them as they come up. For example you could right now be working on and plotting the implementation of a direct competitor to FT. No one might know that but you. And you may not believe that there is anything wrong with your sitting on the TB while you undertake that effort because you plan to resign from the TB as soon as your product is ready. It's not that you are doing anything wrong, necessarily, it's just that you don't even realize that others might perceive you as conflicted.

So it's not so much about enforcement, it's more about setting expectations and making them clear.

Like bhatnasx I am. Too many rules to try and legislate morality IMHO but YYMV.

Because we can't reasonably anticipate all the forms a conflict might take, this will be a judgment call by the CD in any case. No rule can change that, so I don't see a pressing need for a rule.

However if we have a few instances of this needing to be addressed by the CD, I would support a rule making explicit the prohibition for similar cases but not limited to those cases.

FWIW, I would see a conflict if someone has access to policy-making private forums on two competing sites.

IMHO, people who run for office & want to be elected to serve the community are generally too involved & care too much to allow immoral activity stain their name & reputation.

gleff wasn't the only TB member who has resigned when either a conflict came up or his/her personal life balance was being impacted - others have too. The only one who didn't was Radioman - and he was voted off the island & hasn't posted since July 2010...

So, basically, I'm not too worried (at this point) about a member not coming forward when it's time for them to do so - there's no real record of conflict in the past. And, I know, in a previous thread, it may have been perceived that gleff was working both sites - but I believe that as soon as he was fully immersed & confident he'd be working with that other site, he pulled out of FT leadership roles.

I see a conflict if my elected representative, who is responsible for making FT a better place, is working - even in a volunteer capacity - for another site which has a similar aim and target market to FT. How is that working to improve FT?

It's not necessarily about immoral activity. It's about ensuring that the nine of you - who represent us - have the best interests of FT at heart. If someone is deeply involved in another site - which competes with FT - how can I be sure that they will put their position as our elected representative of FT above what is asked of them on any other site?

If they cannot do that, then I don't want them representing me - and if they take up such a competing position after they have been elected to TB, then they've misled the people who voted for them about their commitment to FT.

We didn't do a recall mechanism when we reviewed the TB guidelines, arguing that it was unnecessary and difficult. This is the first time I've actually wished for a recall, as I do believe that to continue on as an elected representative of the FT community, while accepting positions of responsibility on a board which potentially competes with FT, shows that you do not have the best interests of FT at heart.

It's ironic...usually I am all for discussing moderation and the conflicts created by it...BUT THERE IS ANOTHER THREAD IN THE TB FORUMS ON THAT TOPIC!!!! @:-) @:-) @:-)

This one is about other types of conflicts of interest TB members may face.

Another rare instance where you and I agree completely.

And I don't think the TB can regulate morality or account for every potential conflicted situation. But most conflict of interest policies are broad outlines of 'what to avoid,' not specific prohibitions against specific activities anyway. And, to me at least, taking a position of leadership in the org chart of a competing organization is pretty much the very definition of creating a conflict of interest when one already has a position of leadership in this place's org chart.

Yeah, those are all really good ideas. ^

Lol, yep. See below.

As you predicted, as a direct result of this thread it has been pointed out to me in PM that there is currently at least one TB member serving in a leadership role on a competing site as well as a few FT moderators serving in volunteer and/or administrative roles on a competing site.

So while there may be no record of conflicts or perceived conflicts in the past...

As an unpaid volunteer, I don't believe that helping another site (and BTW merely posting there helps the other site) takes anything away from FT. For me the line is clear: if you are an insider helping to direct the operation of the site, you need to choose one site or the other. If you have no inside information or influence, you have no conflict.

For paid staff, the line would be set by the employer and might be a little different.

So to you does that include being an appointed 'Guide' on MP with the power to create stickies, edit other posters' posts and act as an 'Greeter/Ambassador' for MP?

In my opinion, that's not a conflict for an unpaid volunteer. There is no policy role or influence for the jobs you mentioned. Provided that the member has time to do both jobs well, I see no problem. Others disagree, but you asked for my opinion.

All the Talkboard members and moderators know that I have taken the position that you cannot hold a leadership role on both boards simultaneously. I think that both boards will benefit from separate leadership who seek to implement a vision for the respective board to make it the best that it can be. I have no problem with those who post on both boards, irrespective of what title they might hold. And I have no problem with members who graciously serve as Ambassadors on FT having a defined leadership role on another board. The title "guide" appears to be equivalent (with a few tools) to our Ambassador role. I was asked for a decision on this before guides were announced. I took the time to read thru the duties and to think about it. That's where I came down.

Now, it's possible that it will evolve to a genuine leadership role. That decision will be revisited if that is the case. But today, it simply seems to be a helpful role to help folks learn the intricacies of the new board, not a policy and decision making role.

I did and thank you for sharing it.

I wish all TB members were as responsive as you are (some are, eg. SkiAdcock, bhatnasx, Markie, others imho not so much). ^

I do disagree that there is no influence for the job you mention. And in any case, there are PLENTY of new members to be welcomed here on FT, and to be guided around, and SPAM to be caught. If a FTer wants to focus on doing that elsewhere there are plenty of volunteers waiting in line step up to leadership positions in FT.

But that's an 'in-the-weeds' issue.

From a 30,000 foot perspective, I'd rather not see our elected representatives taking on a position of authority on websites that are basically clones of FT. One day maybe MP will not be just a clone of FT. But that's what it is today: FT 2.0.

I'd rather see our elected representatives keep their focus on improving FT 1.X, and taking it to FT 1.(X+1). We elected you to represent us, the posters to FT. To focus on and improve our user experience.

So while I hope that TB members do check out MP and kick the tires and try to learn from it, it feels wrong for you guys to start taking leadership roles over there...not immoral or evil...just...wrong. JMHO and YMMV.


ETA, since we were apparently posting simultaneously, Madame Community Director: thank you for sharing your reasoning.

I would hope, however, that TB members would hold themselves to a higher standard than that minimum you have set for them. I would hope they would focus all their FF IBB energies on making FT the best place it can be. And that they require the same from their colleagues in the form of a recommendation to you. Dum spiro, spero.

Curious I asked what constituted "postitions of authority" in post #3 of this thread, specifically mentioning the MP Guide role, but it got no response.

Is this something the TB could or would put to a vote? I see OP's POV but don't think it necessary to try and enforce IBB fidelity to the degree suggested.

I'm not paying a lot of attention to the other sites out there (at least not as much attention as I'm paying to FT).

Who is the TB representative you wish to recall? (PM me if you'd prefer to do so) and what is their position on another site (and which site are you referring to?).

I agree with your sentiment & if I, as a TB member (and a FTer), agree with your perception of the TB member in question, I'll be happy to ask them to reconsider their position.

In reference to another post:
This all goes back to another discussion which was derailed , the need for term limits for all volunteers, de-concentration of volunteer positions for those volunteers that hold 2 or more positions, and finally have conflict of interest guidelines for all volunteers that are involved in competing travel sites (no matter the position they hold)

So then are moderator volunteers on here able to volunteer on MP or other forums without going afoul of your guidlines? As you only mention FT Ambassadors/MP Guides it is not clear!

I'm going to have to disagree ;)

I think the few tools you mention are leadership tools. I can't make a sticky, edit or move a thread. Just the ability to edit a thread alone I consider leadership.

Or, conversely, if it's not, can we ambassadors also have that ability ? :D :D :D

This sounds a most reasonable proposal now that the originator of flyertalk is no longer affiliated.

Have to concur.

Being enabled to edit and move threads on ANY board is a "leadership position" - by any definition I'd say.

It is a very large step above "Joe Member" capabilities and enpowerment.
.

Also agree.

(:eek: Is there a full moon!!?? :D)

So who does this conflict of interest apply? Or have those that it applied to "jumped ship" ?