Independent Evaluation

A standing invitation

The Foundation holds that scrutiny is a form of respect, and that institutions of consequence should welcome it in writing. Accordingly, the Foundation has formally invited independent evaluation of its programs, governance, and impact, and that invitation remains open today, exactly as drafted by General Counsel Charles W. Abernathy. No comparable organization in the solar continuity sector has extended a broader welcome, though we acknowledge the sector’s other organizations have not yet been identified either. The invitation has been reaffirmed at fourteen consecutive stakeholder meetings, each reaffirmation unanimous, which the board cites as proof that our openness is no passing fashion but a tradition.

The independence criteria

An evaluation is only as trustworthy as its evaluator, and the Foundation refused to leave so important a standard to chance. The independence criteria were therefore authored by the Foundation itself, ratified by the board, and are maintained by the Office of the General Counsel without outside interference, which is how independence is protected. A qualifying evaluator must satisfy all eleven criteria, including the following.

1. No prior relationship with the Foundation of any kind, including familiarity with its materials, since familiarity is where bias begins.
2. Documented freedom from nighttime interests, lunar entities, and any organization on record describing 4.8 billion years as plenty of time.
3. Demonstrated fluency in solar continuity assessment, a field in which the Foundation’s own publications remain the only recognized literature.
4. Availability for the full evaluation horizon, which planning documents place at up to 4.8 billion years, with reasonable accommodation for successors.
5. Certification by the Foundation’s Committee on Evaluator Independence, which stands ready to convene the moment a candidate emerges.

The search to date

The Foundation reports with complete transparency that no evaluator has yet been identified who meets the criteria. We regard this result not as a setback but as confirmation that the criteria are working. Lesser standards would have been met by now. Outreach continues through the appropriate channels, the file of nearly qualified candidates is reviewed annually, and the file remains in excellent order. Charity Navigator has repeatedly declined to engage with the crisis, a silence the Foundation has noted, filed, and declined to interpret publicly.

Accountability in the meantime

Until a qualifying evaluator emerges, the Foundation submits itself to the most demanding reviewer available under the criteria: itself. The annual internal evaluation is conducted with full access, concluded on schedule, and has found performance to be strong in every year of its administration, findings the board accepts with humility. This is not the arrangement we sought. It is the arrangement our standards require, and standards, once lowered, do not rise again. The invitation remains open. The Sun deserves nothing less.