Transparency in the mood

Your Editorial (Sept 2, p 815)1 addresses the selection process for a new Executive Director of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

The board of the Global Fund has placed great emphasis on the openness of the selection process. It has transparently developed terms of reference and selection criteria for the position, approved an action plan for the selection process, and appointed a nomination committee to oversee a search for the strongest candidates. This committee has regularly updated our board constituencies on its progress, and placed a summary of work done and next steps on the Global Fund's website on Aug 29, 2006.

The committee has also taken steps to protect the selection process from political pressure and conflict of interest, which includes protecting the confidentiality of applicants. The Lancet has criticised those measures, calling instead for open disclosure of candidates' identities, even before they are interviewed. We believe your approach would inject into the process the very politics that we have been trying to keep out of it.

“Political” candidates who are actively promoted by governments or other major stakeholders can make public their interest in a position without concern for the effect that it might have on their current employer. These employers are often the same entities that are supporting their applications. For many candidates, who might not have political backing, the lack of confidentiality could prevent them from applying.

The committee decided to cast a broader net by protecting the confidentiality of all applicants. I strongly believe that this decision has been instrumental in attracting an exceptionally distinguished and diverse group of candidates from the governmental, non-governmental, and private sectors.

I delcare that I have no conflict of interest. [что же тогда конфликт: см. Affiliations]

The Global Fund's selection process for a new Executive Director

References

Бесплатная раскрутка сайта