Official Statement of TarValon.Net Regarding Riley Robinson

[Drake O' Neeus]

Pfft. Compassion.

Are you speaking french? I don't recognize that word.

 

[Kitan Tataru]

Yeah but there is a difference between consequence and trying to inflict pain or harm for purposes of retribution.

I don't really understand what you're trying to imply here.

I think he means there's a difference between seeking consequences that are appropriate to the crime rather than seeking consequences that are disproportionally severe compared to the crime committed? I.e., there's a difference between making Riley pay the money back (possibly a proportionate consequence, I don't know), rather than putting him in jail for 20 years (possibly disproportionately severe compared to the crime)...?

 

[Zashara Sho'am]

In that case, I have no idea why he posted that. No one was talking about 'inflicting pain for the purposes of retribution'. That kind of extreme talk only serves to promote the flame war we all want to avoid. If anyone is reading that in any of the posts made, they need to consult with a dictionary and then come back to the discussion.

 

[Ty al'Djinn]

There won't be a flame war provided people use the sense they often exhibit on the site.


So long as everyone in the thread continues to have an open dialogue, everything will be fine- don't jump to conclusions about what other posters mean, if they didn't explain themselves well.

And if you want to make a new post, ensure you explain yourself well! It solves all the possible problems at once.

People on this site generally have enough sense to do that.

For my part, I do not care what happens to Riley- I care what happens to his family. I am all for him being punished, but it sounded like he had a wife and child? I would hope that whatever happens does not negatively affect those Riley loves and those that love him, other than those he has already harmed by his actions. That is why I would prefer he not be prosecuted, if it comes to that- if he doesn't have a family, and I'm totally wrong, then I really don't much care either way.

At the end of the day though, whatever happens he brought upon himself.

 

[Sela Narian]

I would not label a desire that a criminal face jailtime as angry retribution; it's a matter of justice. For example, when I said going to jail would harm him, it wasn't my being petty or trying to inflict pain. When you break the law and are caught, the court usually doesn't say, "Okay, give it back," and leave it at that.

Because you have broken the laws established by your state and nation, you are obliged to face the judge's verdict as to sentencing. If that includes years in jail, then yes. That will probably harm you. You are not supposed to like it.

Riley is an educated person. He has a master's degree. I am sure he knew that embezzling money is illegal and that one can go to jail for it. He knew this before he chose to steal our entire budget from us and did it anyway. Whether it happens or not, I'd say jailtime is absolutely proportionate to the crime.

 

[Deoan Kakarot]

And again, that's why I stated that we have a system that decides what is fair. If the legal system looks at the evidence and decides that paying it back, plus some fines, and a couple years of probation is fair, in light of all the evidence we cannot and have not seen, then I'm willing to accept that.

However, if the legal system looks at the evidence and decides that 20 years in prison is fair, in light of all the evidence we cannot and have not seen, then I'm willing to accept that, as there is likely a strong reason for it.

Judges aren't known for giving lots of time to white collar criminals.

 

[Sela Narian]

And again, that's why I stated that we have a system that decides what is fair. If the legal system looks at the evidence and decides that paying it back, plus some fines, and a couple years of probation is fair, in light of all the evidence we cannot and have not seen, then I'm willing to accept that.

However, if the legal system looks at the evidence and decides that 20 years in prison is fair, in light of all the evidence we cannot and have not seen, then I'm willing to accept that, as there is likely a strong reason for it.

Yup, this exactly.

 

[Miridyth Al'Landerin]

Thank you for the clarification Dralyn. *hugs*

 

[Hammar O'Justice]

After several days I am able to respond. Sorry for the delay. Here we go:

Question for Hammer.

Can we get clarification of what the Board "has" to do legally and what it doesn't?

No comment. Some advice that I have directly given to the Board is inappropriate to discuss here, and some I feel like I can discuss here to help educate the community as we all grapple with this. IMO this question involves the former.

As a corporation, what are the possible legal ramifications, if you can tell us, if the corporation doesn't seek legal action?

Same answer as above.

As donating members...what are our "rights" under the law? Do we even have any if we are not financially effected personally?

Not much and not really.

What responsibility does the Board of Director's have to the membership, especially since the board is not elected by the membership but appointed by other board members?

This is a thornier issue and is the reason why I didn't answer this on my phone.

In a normal corporation, the Board of Directors owes its duty to shareholders, who invest money to start the business and select a Board to make management decisions (including the hiring of officers like the CEO). The Board can be replaced via elections if the shareholders are unhappy.

TV, however, is a non-profit and has no shareholders. Instead, when a Board member steps down or if their term ends, they are either reinstalled or replaced by a vote of the other Board members. Board member terms are staggered so that actual votes are held instead of the Board just looking at each other and saying "I'll keep you if you keep me."

This means the Board is directly accountable to itself. However they still have a mission and certain fiduciary duties. Where a for-profit corporation has one mission (make the shareholders happy, primarily by earning profit), a non-profit has its own defined purpose which is explicitly NOT profit. The Board has a mission to accomplish that purpose, which can be to heal the sick, provide scholarships, promote literacy, have a social community, or a host of other things.

The Board's obligations to the TV community are therefore not really legal in nature (meaning, they are not enforced by law) but political. The law obviously restrains the Board from doing certain things (like, say, defraud the community) but it doesn't require the Board to, say, *obey* the community. It's the community's feet, and their ability to move someplace else, that reinforces the Board's attention to the needs of the community. As has been demonstrated to great lengths since this issue arose, the TV community is built on a vast lattice of interpersonal relationships. Those relationships are the ties that bind the Board, not the law.

So is this a "Board" decision in regards to prosecution, a MUST Legal thing the corporation must do in order to protect the corporation, or is this a polling of membership in order for the Board to better see what the membership wants in order to help them decide what they SHOULD do? Thanks for looking.

I'm honestly not sure what this question is asking.

 

[Hammar O'Justice]

And Hammar, I've gotta say, you are the most awesome attorney I could ever imagine. I cannot express that enough. I am VERY glad you're the one helping us wade through this. :bow

That's a really nice thing for you to say, but I'm sure my singing voice could change your mind in a heartbeat.

 

[Eli Soljourn]

That's a really nice thing for you to say, but I'm sure my singing voice could change your mind in a heartbeat.

You clearly haven't heard my family sing Happy Birthday.

I want to echo Kitan's sentiments, though. Thank you so much for all you're doing and for what information you have shared with us.

 

[Lyara Tieran]

Thank you, Hammar, for that clarification, and for being honest with the fact that you can't really tell us any of the legal stuff yet. It's good to know that the issue isn't being ignored, but is simply "not able to be discussed" at this time.

And there are a lot of people on here that I'm SURE sing worse than you. *cough* Eli *cough*

Thank you, also, for joining in the lighter side and kicking around a few joking statements with us. Good to know you're human.

 

[Jas'yn Al'Dragoran]

" Those relationships are the ties that bind the Board, not the law.*"

Hammer I understand that this would apply to decisions the board makes in general, but in cases where the board or agents of it raise money for various purposes related to the mission of the organization is there not a legal obligation to use the money donated for the purposes for which it was given ? Many thanks also for the attentive responses.

 

[Miridyth Al'Landerin]

Thank you Hammer and that does explain a huge amount for me personally and I truly appreciated your time in answering my questions. You are amazing and "happy birthday" is a very hard song to sing...Try "Tequila" is it easier and can be sung by most people . Seriously, though, you are amazing and I, for one, truly appreciate all that you are doing during this very difficult time.

 

[Hammar O'Justice]

" Those relationships are the ties that bind the Board, not the law.*"

Hammer I understand that this would apply to decisions the board makes in general, but in cases where the board or agents of it raise money for various purposes related to the mission of the organization is there not a legal obligation to use the money donated for the purposes for which it was given ? Many thanks also for the attentive responses.

Mostly yes, though in many cases the decision is up to the Board's discretion.

If somebody gives money to TV with the expectation that it will be used for Tower purposes, the Board's decision how to use that money is almost always going to overrule the donor's expectation unless something egregious occurs, such as donating the money to a terrorist organization or setting it on fire in the park.

If a donor makes a donation conditioned on it being used for a particular purpose, which the Board acknowledges (or, most strongly, if the Board makes a promise to induce the donation) then the Board is indeed bound by that condition.

 

[Elays Saeryn]

I agree with Deoan.

I am glad we have a legal councel who will handle this.

 

[Emerald ní Róhan]

Thanks for the response, Hammar. Your answer was pretty much what I expected. Ultimately, we're not owed any answers at all. So it is extra amazing that the board and Hammar are taking such great pains to keep us informed as best they can. :clap

 

[Tazren Talamar]

Mostly yes, though in many cases the decision is up to the Board's discretion.

If somebody gives money to TV with the expectation that it will be used for Tower purposes, the Board's decision how to use that money is almost always going to overrule the donor's expectation unless something egregious occurs, such as donating the money to a terrorist organization or setting it on fire in the park.

If a donor makes a donation conditioned on it being used for a particular purpose, which the Board acknowledges (or, most strongly, if the Board makes a promise to induce the donation) then the Board is indeed bound by that condition.

Would donors have some kind of right to demand to know what the donated money was used for? An example ... say that the Depart of Technology raises money for buying new server space. The Board then decides that, no, we're going to use that money to sponsor a real-life event instead. Would they be obligated to say that they've used donations for another purpose than what was intended (as they themselves did not make the promise; the department did)?

It does feel a bit worrisome if donated money can just be used for other things, as long as the board themselves did not make the explicit promise, and aren't even obligated to mention that the money wasn't used as was planned.

 

[Lilli O' Neeus]

Historically, any time we have a fund raiser for the Tower, it is all labelled as going for "operating costs." This has always included our site maintenance, RL event funds, and funds for emergencies (though, I understand that those have been largely curtailed due to our growth and new status as a corporation) and funding our scholarship. This has given the board the freedom to divide the money as needed.

I have no reason to believe that this procedure will change.

So, essentially, the money is always used as intended, just the exact split is sometimes different.

 

[Hammar O'Justice]

Would donors have some kind of right to demand to know what the donated money was used for? An example ... say that the Depart of Technology raises money for buying new server space. The Board then decides that, no, we're going to use that money to sponsor a real-life event instead. Would they be obligated to say that they've used donations for another purpose than what was intended (as they themselves did not make the promise; the department did)?

It does feel a bit worrisome if donated money can just be used for other things, as long as the board themselves did not make the explicit promise, and aren't even obligated to mention that the money wasn't used as was planned.

This is a classic problem in agency law. "Agency" in this case isn't agency in the sense of "Central Intelligence Agency", but more like "I am in charge and this guy over here is my agent." The question of whether somebody has the authority to bind their principal (the boss) is a very common issue. A janitor probably can't commit IBM to a billion-dollar contract, but their Vice President of Contracts might be able to. Both are employees of IBM and both answer, ultimately, to the board, so how do you know the difference?

Ultimately two things need to happen:

1) The rules (whether by-laws, internal policies, or whatever) need to make it clear to the employees who has the power to do what. Can a janitor sign a 10-figure contract? No. Can a janitor put cleaning supplies on a company credit card that has a $500 limit? Very possibly. Can the VP of Contracts sign a 10-figure contract? Possibly, but the rules could state that he has to have written approval from the CEO (or, more likely, the Board itself) first. So, to use your example, the Board needs to make it clear to the Department of Technology what sorts of things the Department head has authority to go do and to say to people.

2) Communication should be clear when dealing with people outside the company (like vendors, purchasers, or, in this case, donors) what the person's authority is. If the Department of Technology has no internal authority to make promises on behalf of the company, then it should not solicit donations conditioned on that promise, and it should tell people that it doesn't have that authority.

All that aside, if a donor makes a gift that is explicitly conditioned on it being spent for Cause X (such as being spent on servers) and the Board (or an authorized agent) accepts the donation and the condition, then the condition is binding on the Board.