Board of Directors:

Actually, we don't need or want to know the details. From a purely management point of view, we believe that the failure is on the Board's side, in not knowing what is expected of a Board and in its inability to rise above a difficult situation. We believe the Board has failed in its fiduciary responsibility (duty of care) to the organization in a host of ways. The damage the Board has done to the organization may never be undone.

At this point, we are convinced that if the Board should do the right thing and step down, apologize to Michael and the membership, and let Michael get back to healing the organization he built. I suppose once the bylaws are reworked to describe the parameters of the board, including elections by the membership and term limits, that some of the current board members could be elected to a newly constituted board.

Finally, let me say that we are terribly concerned when we hear that large donors are allowed to be on the Board of any non-profit, unelected. I do understand that there is thinking that this is an acceptable practice. However, to our way of thinking, there is a huge conflict of interest. Yes, we are sure you are saying your interests are the same as TCAN's, but that is not true. Your interests are in seeing your dollars spent in a way that is satisfactory to you. As a Board member you can exert undue influence on spending that money. This is reason enough for the membership to want you to step down.

Our staying on as members and donors is contingent upon Michael's return.

It is up to you, the Board, to fix the problem you have created,

Jill and Jonathan Baker