Howard, Will, I agree that "just because this is of interest to the public does not mean the public has a right to know" and also that "speculation in public... is more likely to damage rather than benefit both parties". I would expect an appropriately edited/worded statement however, because:

a) the only (third-party/unconfirmed) view available at the moment is that Nick "does not understand the organisation and what it's about", which is hardly a "as a regrettable but mutual parting of the ways", indeed it is damaging to Nick.

b) the membership may entrust the day-to-day running of the organisation, however the board would need to explain major decisions such as this, preferably in advance of them being leaked to the public, certainly soon after, or AGM questions may result. And the explanation, while not necessarily containing all the unnecessary/damaging detail, should help the membership to understand the decision taken. A "mutual parting of the ways" kind of explanation should be good enough for most in this case; though any organisation that uses this too frequently would soon lose my membership, as I have no wish to support secretive societies (but I don't believe the EFDSS has abused the term so far).

As an interested member, this is what I have seen so far:

- A guy brought in to improve the organisation's marketing
- a lot of positive results in marketing since his arrival
- a (yet unconfirmed) message/petition referring to his employment being discontinued, backed by a (yet unconfirmed) statement that in the public domain is damaging to this person

As a member both of the organisation and the interested public, I need therefore to see something that will put the above into some perspective and explain the situation sufficiently. I ask for no more than that, as can be verified by all my posts in this thread. I ask for no speculation, no "dirt" on anyone and no undue control over the board's operation. I only ask for someone to help me understand the decision.

Also, if I was Nick's prospective next employer, and all I have seen to date is what has been made public by some unknown person, I might well think twice. I think there might be some moral responsibility there too.

I hope that those who know me, and certainly many of the Mudcatters, would agree that I am no shit-stirrer. But I need to know if there is a bank standing order I need to re-think.