5 ms·

What is the alleged impropriety which she was removed for? The article is missing the most important piece of context.

hindsightbias 5y ago
If there is cause, the last thing a NP wants to do is drag it out into public. With most NP, someone is usually on the take. Either the people running them or the boards. Ask anyone you know at smaller NPs without significant legal teams.
- dbingham 5y ago
  > With most NP, someone is usually on the take Citation needed. My experience with non-profits -- and I've been involved in a number of them, including in board roles -- is that they are usually groups of people doing their utmost to achieve a mission with very limited resources. I have not found corruption at them to be particularly rampant.
  - gopher_space 5y ago
    The non-profits that interact with my parents church are filled with retirees from useful professions. Their missions to Africa staffed with ex-Seabees and the sort of teachers who built houses in their summers, for example. If a structure needs to be built the volunteers will arrive with hand-powered tools and years of experience actually using them. Everybody involved is pretty darn competent. I think the closest thing to corruption I've seen has been naive people spending money poorly because they haven't made local contacts themselves.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dpark 5y ago
It’s generally not appropriate to share details during an active investigation because 1) you don’t want to drag someone’s name through the mud incorrectly, 2) you don’t want to bias anyone involved in the investigation, 3) you don’t want to get sued to death for libel.
- alexdowad 5y ago
  Understood. I was hoping that someone here in the HN comments might have the low-down.
  - dpark 5y ago
    My fault. I misunderstood your search for gossip as another example of the strange outrage from other commenters here. “They didn’t publicly drag her name through the mud! Those duplicitous assholes!” Interest in what actually happened is totally reasonable.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  If the investigation is still active, then why did they already remove her?
  - dpark 5y ago
    Because the alleged behavior is problematic enough to justify an investigation. Someone allegedly abusing their power is generally removed from that position temporarily during the investigation. To do otherwise is generally just shitty, but also opening oneself up to liability. You cannot leave an alleged abuser in a place to continue their abuse. There are criminal penalties for that depending on the alleged abuse.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      If she were just suspended, I'd agree, but the article makes it sound like she was already permanently removed.
      - dpark 5y ago
        > “Black Girls Code's board said that Bryant *remains on the company's staff* while "serious allegations of workplace impropriety are being investigated."”
dogleash 5y ago
Forbes has more info https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2021/12/22/black-girls-code-ceo-kimberly-bryant-ousted/?sh=5529bbc4208c https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2021/12/22/black-gir...

If there is cause, the last thing a NP wants to do is drag it out into public. With most NP, someone is usually on the take. Either the people running them or the boards. Ask anyone you know at smaller NPs without significant legal teams.

dbingham 5y ago
> With most NP, someone is usually on the take Citation needed. My experience with non-profits -- and I've been involved in a number of them, including in board roles -- is that they are usually groups of people doing their utmost to achieve a mission with very limited resources. I have not found corruption at them to be particularly rampant.
- gopher_space 5y ago
  The non-profits that interact with my parents church are filled with retirees from useful professions. Their missions to Africa staffed with ex-Seabees and the sort of teachers who built houses in their summers, for example. If a structure needs to be built the volunteers will arrive with hand-powered tools and years of experience actually using them. Everybody involved is pretty darn competent. I think the closest thing to corruption I've seen has been naive people spending money poorly because they haven't made local contacts themselves.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dpark 5y ago

It’s generally not appropriate to share details during an active investigation because 1) you don’t want to drag someone’s name through the mud incorrectly, 2) you don’t want to bias anyone involved in the investigation, 3) you don’t want to get sued to death for libel.

alexdowad 5y ago
Understood. I was hoping that someone here in the HN comments might have the low-down.
- dpark 5y ago
  My fault. I misunderstood your search for gossip as another example of the strange outrage from other commenters here. “They didn’t publicly drag her name through the mud! Those duplicitous assholes!” Interest in what actually happened is totally reasonable.
josephcsible 5y ago
If the investigation is still active, then why did they already remove her?
- dpark 5y ago
  Because the alleged behavior is problematic enough to justify an investigation. Someone allegedly abusing their power is generally removed from that position temporarily during the investigation. To do otherwise is generally just shitty, but also opening oneself up to liability. You cannot leave an alleged abuser in a place to continue their abuse. There are criminal penalties for that depending on the alleged abuse.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    If she were just suspended, I'd agree, but the article makes it sound like she was already permanently removed.
    - dpark 5y ago
      > “Black Girls Code's board said that Bryant *remains on the company's staff* while "serious allegations of workplace impropriety are being investigated."”

dogleash 5y ago

Forbes has more info https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2021/12/22/black-girls-code-ceo-kimberly-bryant-ousted/?sh=5529bbc4208c https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2021/12/22/black-gir...