One of the things that I am most concerned about if you were to just move towards recusal, is you just end up in a situation where by necessity the other fund members just have to take the recused person's word for the grant being good (or you pass up on all the most valuable grant opportunities
I agree this would be a very bad outcome, and I'm surprised you think it is a possibility. Individuals/organisations should not be precluded from receiving LTF grants due to their personal lives, particularly if LTF continues to be the major funder for certain types of grants. I think the onus is on LTF to find a way of managing COIs that avoids this, while also having a suitably stringent COI policy.
Another thing missing is the procedure when multiple members recuse themselves from a decision. It seems important:
(a) that decisions are always made by more than one individual
(b) that applicants are not disqualified from receiving grants on the grounds of (e.g.) having COIs with multiple fund managers.
It is also worth thinking about COIs when it comes to board composition. Having multiple board members that are more isolated romantically/socially/geographically from the Bay Area scene would make the fund more robust to COIs, particularly if the standards for recusal are raised.
I understand your hesitance about board-profusion, but this seems like a reasonably clear-cut case in which a layer of non-public decision-making is necessary to manage COIs in a responsible way.
One possibility is having the CEA trustees do this, alongside the oversight they already provide.
A fund member had some substantial past romantic and/or sexual relationship with a potential grantee that ended more than a year ago, or is a metamour of an applicant in an ongoing relationship
...
This is not sufficient cause for recusal, but should be made public when the fund member decides to not recuse themselves and the grant is made
I'm not sure information about past romantic/sexual relationships/metamourships should ever be made public.
not a healthy community norm
reputational hazards for individuals, the fund, and the community
grantees might be discouraged from applying due to concerns about publicizing their personal lives
individuals might feel pressured into publicly disclosing personal information in order to make or receive a grant, or might later come to regret publicly disclosing the information
large scope for unforeseen negative consequences
An external board should be available to deal with situations like this - they can then either insist on recusal, or judge the COI not to be a problem.
I agree this would be a very bad outcome, and I'm surprised you think it is a possibility. Individuals/organisations should not be precluded from receiving LTF grants due to their personal lives, particularly if LTF continues to be the major funder for certain types of grants. I think the onus is on LTF to find a way of managing COIs that avoids this, while also having a suitably stringent COI policy.
Another thing missing is the procedure when multiple members recuse themselves from a decision. It seems important:
(a) that decisions are always made by more than one individual
(b) that applicants are not disqualified from receiving grants on the grounds of (e.g.) having COIs with multiple fund managers.
It is also worth thinking about COIs when it comes to board composition. Having multiple board members that are more isolated romantically/socially/geographically from the Bay Area scene would make the fund more robust to COIs, particularly if the standards for recusal are raised.
I understand your hesitance about board-profusion, but this seems like a reasonably clear-cut case in which a layer of non-public decision-making is necessary to manage COIs in a responsible way.
One possibility is having the CEA trustees do this, alongside the oversight they already provide.
I'm not sure information about past romantic/sexual relationships/metamourships should ever be made public.
An external board should be available to deal with situations like this - they can then either insist on recusal, or judge the COI not to be a problem.