[foundation-board] [TIME-CRITICAL] Options re Near-Term Structure of Engagement of the ED / CEO

[paula le dieu]

Thanks Rufus.

I don't share the concerns regarding option 2. If that ensures that Pavel
is able to devote time and energy to the new role rather than worried about
his families healthcare then it sounds like a good option. The optics are
all very easily explained by the situation.

Either way, go ahead.

Regards
Paula

On 20 April 2015 at 19:08, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Exec summary: Karin (and I) are requesting approval from the board to
> proceed with either of 2 options for the engagement of the ED candidate
> (depending on what we (OK) can agree with him). Option 1 involves him
> signing now to be a UK employee from the 1st June and being a contractor
> until then. Option 2 involves him signing an agreement now to be a UK
> employee from 1st September and a contractor (full time from 1st June)
> until then. In both cases he would be announced as our CEO as soon as
> possible. If we hear nothing in the next 18h we will assume we are good
> to proceed.
>
> Following the selection of Pavel Richter for the ED / CEO role, Karin with
> support from myself has been leading on the negotiation with Pavel over the
> last 4 weeks. This has proved a slightly more drawn out process than
> anticipated because of issues around location. Here are the key points:
>
>
>    -
>
>    Pavel is based in Berlin at present (and his partner works there too)
>    -
>
>    There are reasons why Pavel should be in the UK:
>    -
>
>       We only support UK based employment and our CEO should be employed
>       -
>
>       [Not actually relevant but originally considered so] If UK is our
>       central hub our CEO would need to be here. However, there is uncertainty
>       about where - if anywhere - we will have our physical “Hubs” so this point
>       can be left for the present (though we would aim to look to look into this
>       as it may intersect with employment location question)
>       -
>
>    We want to get him on board as soon as possible
>
>
> Since it is a significant - and potentially costly - matter for Pavel to
> relocate immediately (given family etc) it seems sensible to allow for some
> deferral a) to allow for the “Hubs” question to be addresses b) so that if
> he does relocate it can be done in the most efficient way for him, his
> family and us.
>
> Based on discussions so far the 2 options on the table are:
>
>
>    -
>
>    Option 1: he signs UK employment starting 1st june and is a contractor
>    from now until then (1st June because he has other engagements to wrap up
>    before he can be full time)
>    -
>
>       We waive current clause in our contract about no more than 1m
>       outside the UK and leave to him how much time he spends in UK in the
>       initial 3-4m .
>       -
>
>       What’s the issue: Pavel is concerned that because he may not be
>       working in the UK or residing in the UK, even if he pays national insurance
>       there could be an issue with getting health treatment in Germany during
>       this initial period in case of a medical emergency. He could try to pay
>       health-care in Germany but that would possibly raise flags and he/we would
>       then be paying in 2 places at once. There is also a - minor issue - for us
>       that depending on where pavel actually spends his time for these few months
>       we may pay social security in the wrong country.
>       -
>
>    Option 2: he signs now UK employment starting 1st september and is
>    contractor until then (full-time from 1st June and part-time before that).
>    -
>
>       The concern: it would be normal for the CEO to be a full-time
>       employee and not a contractor.
>       -
>
>       How does it look to staff (if they found out), funders and so on.
>
>
> Rufus and Fiona’s preference in order from this set is:
>
>
>    -
>
>    option 1 with Pavel funding and managing health-care and social
>    security questions
>    -
>
>    option 2
>    -
>
>    option 1 with OK funding additional monies and complexity (and further
>    delay in signing).
>
>
> Pavel prefers option 2 and thinks it is not an issue being CEO and
> initially being a contractor: this can be presented - and honestly - as a
> transitional setup as we resolve location, and we can always seek to grant
> him signing rights if needed. I tend to agree but I am not an expert. It is
> also the case that option 2 saves some money and (very minor) legal risk.
>
> What is being asked of the Board: are you happy with either option as a
> form of engagement - and therefore can Karin and I proceed in closing on
> one of these (in the next day or so).
>
> I note that I met with Pavel and went through these options with him. He
> has a strong preference on Option 2 (he is quite concerned about how to
> sort out the health insurance question easily and appropriately). However,
> if Option 1 were the only option I think it would be possible (though
> possibly involving some additional expenditure and some additional
> discussion with him).
>
> Regards,
>
> Rufus
> --
>
> *Rufus PollockFounder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
> <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/> - see
> how data can change the world**http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/> |
> @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-board mailing list
> foundation-board at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/foundation-board
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/private/foundation-board/attachments/20150420/3dcd1b94/attachment-0002.html>