The other example is not so much of consistency with their testimony--and it's been alluded to here--but it's that last May, before I attended my first board meeting, some of the first correspondence I received from the centre was a package of bylaw amendments that were proposed to be discussed at the June meeting. Mr. Beauregard circulated them in advance of the meeting for us to consider.
I read them over, and it was clear that some of them were housekeeping items. But one amendment would have gutted the responsibilities and the role of the executive performance review committee, and it would have placed the entire responsibility for his performance review criteria on him. I sit on another board, and last year, in the period leading up to this, we had been through a review of the performance review process. The proposed changes I saw in that document were completely outside the accepted norms of good governance.
I went to that meeting prepared to oppose those changes. As it happens, none of those amendments were considered at that meeting because we didn't get to that part of the agenda.