[foundation-board] Engaging a PA/Admin Assistant: Nearing a Decision

[Ian Brown]

On 12 Jul 2010, at 10:21, Rufus Pollock wrote:

> und HEFCE institutions though non-HEFCE institutions can partner. In
> this case OKF is partnering but my role was as a subcontractor to the
> principal insitution (university of cambridge, cheminformatics). The
> reason this did not go through the OKF was a) I am still a JRF at Emma
> until October b) they needed a named person for project manager -- it
> could not be an org.

In this case, we should make it entirely clear that this is a Rufus personal project, not an OKF project, and funds (and their consequent obligations) should not come near OKF.

>> Sorry I missed the discussion about a PA (which sounds entirely sensible), but why would s/he be engaged by you rather than OKFN?
> 
> a) it was about credit checks (it was easier to arrange credit checks
> for me as an individual) b) the OKF not needing to engage them as an
> employee (as they would be engaged personally)

Again, we need to be crystal clear whether this is a Rufus or OKF matter. If the latter, there MUST be a clear separation. I am *extremely* uncomfortable if courts or journalists could in any way interpret a "Rufus" hire as an OKF hire. 

> I am completely open to the Board's opinions here and am happy to do
> this either way.
> 
>>> * Is late-middle-aged with 2 grown up children (youngest of which is
>>> at university)
>> 
>> Age and family status are of course entirely irrelevant to a hiring decision - and it would be illegal discrimination for either to play any part in the decision.
> 
> Indeed and I am aware of that -- perhaps I should have simply left it
> out of the summary. However, I think that it was useful to give some
> background context to e.g. why they wished to work part-time as
> opposed to full-time etc -- age/family status is in no way relevant to
> a decision but it does give context as to why they were seeking this
> kind position and those motivations may be relevant in a decision.

You should not have asked the question in the first place - you have already potentially opened up OKF to legal action from the unsuccessful applicant.