I think David Stillman, board member Stillman, left the conversation feeling as though we had left amicably, but I felt that the conversation was like engaging with a dog barking at the mouth of a dark cave. I couldn't get a word in edgewise, and that dog didn't want me to go into the cave and turn on the lights.
I left disturbed, because I felt that what was said on the phone call and in the well-documented exchange was directly contradicted by an email that followed the next day.
Just to characterize why I felt that I was talking to somebody who I didn't feel I trusted, he said to me—and he's on their board, and I will take out the full use of the profanity—“Would I ever work again with Craig Kielburger? Eff, no. Would I ever want to work with Marc Kielburger again? Eff, no. But I'm here to protect my brother's legacy and to protect the work in Kenya, and that's what I'm doing.”
The next day I followed up with an email, saying that it was my understanding from our conversation that there was no love lost between him and the Kielburger brothers, so if his goal, in his role as a board member, was to protect the legacy of his brother and protect the work in Kenya, as he said, he could put me on the board. He could put me on the board and let me have a say, because I'm invested. He replied—and I'm paraphrasing here—that oh no, he loved Craig and Marc; and he didn't seem really excited about the idea of my being a decision-maker on the board.
When somebody says something one day and the next day contradicts it directly, trust is lost.