auDA CEO and Director Caught Not Declaring Conflict of Interest

[DomainNames]

WOW! things are getting worse it seems!

http://www.domainpulse.com/2017/07/26/auda-ceo-director-conflict-interest/
auDA CEO and Director Caught Not Declaring Conflict of Interest
By David Goldstein July 26, 2017

"The auDA CEO Cameron Boardman has once again been caught out. Not content with hiding key documents from members by deleting historical information from the website, Boardman along with new director Dr. Michaella Richards have also now been caught out not declaring a conflict of interest in that both worked in the Victorian state government, possibly along with Chair Stuart Benjamin, first noted in an article comment on Domainer.com.au.

In October 2016 Dr. Michaella Richards was appointed as a Demand Class member upon the resignation of duly elected board member Miguel Wood. At the time auDA said they would be engaging a recruitment firm to replace Wood. A replacement director needs not be elected. Announcing her appointment in a member newsletter, Boardman also makes no mention of having worked with Richards.

Both Boardman and Richards worked together in the same department at the same time, at least in April 2015. For how long it’s not known. A final delegate list for the AusMedTech2015 [pdf] conference lists both of them working for the Innovation, Technology & Industry Programs department with Boardman as Executive Director and Richards as Director. So obviously the 2 worked together, and would have worked together quite closely given their positions.

Even if a recruitment company was engaged and independently chose Richards, who seemingly has no experience in domain names or any field that could be related, one would expect Richards to declare in her conflicts of interests that she and Boardman had worked together. But no. On attending her first board meeting, and I quote from the meeting minutes verbatim, “Michaella Richards advised so she no disclosures relevant to her role as an auDA Director.” [pdf] I assume that means she has no conflict of interest in her appointment.

Additionally, Richards appears to have never been a member of auDA being not listed as a current member and nor was she a member prior to her appointment. It’s not a prerequisite for directors to be members, but one would assume if one had an interest in auDA and domain names and being a demand class member, one would join. The definition of a demand class member is that the category is “for domain name holders (registrants), internet users and the general public.”

While it’s possible auDA could offer an explanation for either the oversight or the circumstances of Boardman and Richards, and possibly even Benjamin, working together, no comment has been sought from auDA. auDA’s Director Communications, Marketing & Engagement has previously advised by email they “don’t usually reply to requests for blog stories – as is outlined on our website contact page.”

 

[Lemon]

10th October Minutes
https://auda.org.au/assets/auDA-Board-Minutes-10-October-2017.pdf

The Chair and CEO advised they have interviewed Dr Michaella Richards and recommend her appointment to the auDA Board.

I see that there was no declaration to the board of their prior connection with Michaella Richards.
And look who interviewed her. Cameron Boardman and Stuart Benjamin.

 

[Lemon]

What really annoys me is that Michaella has been a board member for nearly a year in a time where auDA has been making a lot of (questionable) decisions. What influence and affect did she have on the board dynamics. No wonder auDA refuses to publish minutes for this period of time. I am sure they would make interesting reading.

 

[robert]

This changes everything.

Anyone who gets a job at auDA when they have had no history of owning any domain names, have not been involved in the industry, have not been a member . . . is clearly doing it for the cash incentive.

Why do the powers that be at the time employ people like this? I think we have just witnessed a possible reason.

Sure, a lot of people have to work to pay for the roof over their head, but there are other jobs out there for someone who just wants to work for money.

Wouldn't it be better to have people in charge who actually CARE about the industry they are regulating and representing? Who respect the roots of how the industry was created in the first place whilst ensuring the future of the industry is protected, instead of being manipulated for an alternative negative outcome?

A massive change at auDA is not only necessary, it's imminent.

 

[snoopy]

If the chair gets the boot then whoever is appointed to that position needs to be have absolutely no connection to other board members or management. No friends from other jobs, no Liberal Party members, no boarding school chums.

Simon Johnson probably made a wise move being the only director to abstain from the vote on appointing the CEO,

Resolution
The Board resolve to appoint Cameron Boardman as CEO of auDA, and the Board authorises the Chairman to enter into the contract of employment with Cameron Boardman.
Moved: Stuart Benjamin
Seconded: Tony Staley
Simon Johnson expressed support for the board’s decision but decided to abstain.

 

[Shane]

The following post isn't supposed to support the title of this thread, but given the subject (Michaella's appointment) I feel it is relevant.

Ordinarily this isn't the type of thing I'd post publicly about. I think most people know they can tell me anything and trust that I won't tell another soul. But this is a little different and I think is now worth sharing, and in any case, it's all about the way people acted rather than what was said...

My name was put forward as an option to fill the vacancy that was ultimately filled by Michaella.

The whole process was handled poorly in my opinion, from the initial contact through to the announcement of the decision.

Initially I exchanged a couple of emails with Stuart Benjamin. He then put my in touch with his receptionist to arrange a time for a phone discussion.

The date and time for that call then passed with nothing happening. I followed up SB via email and he told me he forgot... I found that a little hard to believe. Who doesn't use Outlook or some form of calendar when arranging appointments for their boss?

No further contact happened until the HR consultant contacted me. Despite the position being a demand class director, the position description was for an independent director, and it appears this is what I was judged against.

The requirements for the independent director position were quite full on, and rightly so. But as we all know, the demand class director position is elected, and there are no such requirements in terms of qualifications and experience.

A couple of weeks following my Skype interview with the consultant, I was contacted by Ned to tell me he'd just heard SB announce the new director via at auIGF. That was the first time I'd heard anything about the position since the interview...

There was sloppy communication the whole way through, which ended in an incredibly unprofessional manner by publicly announcing the successful candidate without letting the others (or at least me) know about it.

I followed this up with SB and a few others. Nothing to do with the decision, but the communication. The response was more about talking me down, talking Michaella up, and not properly addressing my concerns about the communication.

I run a successful business. I'm busy 100% of the time growing my team and my business. I put aside time to speak with Stuart, to speak with the consultant, to put forward an application and go through the interview.

I honestly feel like my time was wasted and I was never a chance. I was just there to make up the numbers so they could say they interviewed X number of people.

It's not sour grapes. I could have posted about this 12 months ago and had a whinge. I just feel now is the right time to join others in sharing the not-so-great stories about the way auDA goes about its business and treats its members.

I love domain names, especially com.au domain names. I love how they help businesses like mine and many others to grow and prosper.

But I'm worried. I'm worried that the small group of people now controlling auDA are not doing it in the best interests of small, medium and large business owners. Or the general public for that matter. It appears to be all about themselves.

It's just not right.

 

[snoopy]

I followed this up with SB and a few others. Nothing to do with the decision, but the communication. The response was more about talking me down, talking Michaella up, and not properly addressing my concerns about the communication.

I run a successful business. I'm busy 100% of the time growing my team and my business. I put aside time to speak with Stuart, to speak with the consultant, to put forward an application and go through the interview.

I honestly feel like my time was wasted and I was never a chance. I was just there to make up the numbers so they could say they interviewed X number of people.

I think they would have interviewed you so they could say "well we considered him" when it is brought up later.

AUDA does not want domainers or their representatives on the board. That is why Tim is despised within AUDA.

The only way we will ever get people on the board is via democratic election, AUDA will work against us at every opportunity.

 

[Shane]

100%.

 

[DomainNames]

The following post isn't supposed to support the title of this thread, but given the subject (Michaella's appointment) I feel it is relevant.

Ordinarily this isn't the type of thing I'd post publicly about. I think most people know they can tell me anything and trust that I won't tell another soul. But this is a little different and I think is now worth sharing, and in any case, it's all about the way people acted rather than what was said...

My name was put forward as an option to fill the vacancy that was ultimately filled by Michaella.

The whole process was handled poorly in my opinion, from the initial contact through to the announcement of the decision.

Initially I exchanged a couple of emails with Stuart Benjamin. He then put my in touch with his receptionist to arrange a time for a phone discussion.

The date and time for that call then passed with nothing happening. I followed up SB via email and he told me he forgot... I found that a little hard to believe. Who doesn't use Outlook or some form of calendar when arranging appointments for their boss?

No further contact happened until the HR consultant contacted me. Despite the position being a demand class director, the position description was for an independent director, and it appears this is what I was judged against.

The requirements for the independent director position were quite full on, and rightly so. But as we all know, the demand class director position is elected, and there are no such requirements in terms of qualifications and experience.

A couple of weeks following my Skype interview with the consultant, I was contacted by Ned to tell me he'd just heard SB announce the new director via at auIGF. That was the first time I'd heard anything about the position since the interview...

There was sloppy communication the whole way through, which ended in an incredibly unprofessional manner by publicly announcing the successful candidate without letting the others (or at least me) know about it.

I followed this up with SB and a few others. Nothing to do with the decision, but the communication. The response was more about talking me down, talking Michaella up, and not properly addressing my concerns about the communication.

I run a successful business. I'm busy 100% of the time growing my team and my business. I put aside time to speak with Stuart, to speak with the consultant, to put forward an application and go through the interview.

I honestly feel like my time was wasted and I was never a chance. I was just there to make up the numbers so they could say they interviewed X number of people.

It's not sour grapes. I could have posted about this 12 months ago and had a whinge. I just feel now is the right time to join others in sharing the not-so-great stories about the way auDA goes about its business and treats its members.

I love domain names, especially com.au domain names. I love how they help businesses like mine and many others to grow and prosper.

But I'm worried. I'm worried that the small group of people now controlling auDA are not doing it in the best interests of small, medium and large business owners. Or the general public for that matter. It appears to be all about themselves.

It's just not right.

Shane thank you for posting this. I am sure there are many more stories people have but they had chosen to not post before but now the tide has changed and people are speaking out and rightly so!

Very clearly was is evident is there are serious issues which must be addressed.

The ONLY way to move forward seems to be with the removal of the current Chair and then most probably a whole new auDA Board and CEO.

There is also some validity to some former auDA staff members being invited back again if they would even consider it.

It is obvious what some people do is "window dressing" the auDA Chair appears to have wasted your time and I would say perhaps misled you you even had a chance at the role they already had set aside for someone else?

It is great you have come forward. We all already liked you but it just shows the credible people auDA could have had they have missed out on.

VOTE YES FOR RESOLUTION 4
AND THE RIGHT FOR MEMBERS TO VOTE ON RESOLUTIONS 1, 2 AND 3!