>
> Was the investment in pound sterling?
> The pound has been going down steadily over the last year.
> And now we have a steep drop due to Brexit.
Am not speaking from a position of particular knowledge on this, but the
way I read original the email was simply that income was held in some kind
This site
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_(CEO)/Salary
States that a US American CEO salary would be from 70k up to 420k a year,
for Ngo 83k less. You are asking where and why the wmf executive director
is in this range Lodewijk?
Rupert
On May 31, 2016 10:21,
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:09 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2016 05:19, "Greg Varnum" wrote:
>>
>>
>> John asked about filing and other fees paid by Jones Day, and if the fees
>> were separate from consulting costs. Unfortunately, we don’t
Thanks Pete. I also think that Risker and I have different expectations for
financial disclosure and transparency. My view is influenced by my
experiences with Washington Stare government as well as my experience with
WMF grantmaking, where transparency is prioritized over privacy. Among
other
Risker, perhaps you missed this part of Patricio's message; I'm pretty
sure this is what Pine was referring to:
> In re-reading Jan-Bart’s original email [1] where he stated that Sue was
staying on as an advisor, it isn’t explicit that this was a paid position.
We should have been more clear on
I think Patricio would be surprised that you have interpreted his email
that way, Pine. There's nothing in his email that says anything about
proactive disclosure of the salaries of individual employees or
contractors. It would probably be appropriate to extend your thanks to Sue,
who has agreed
Thank you for pointing that out, Risker. The emails indeed cross paths and
I did not see it.
The point remains: the standard is proactive disclosure, not minimum and
delayed disclosure. The latter happened, and it is not ok. It is a relief
that Sue was not getting $300k per year as an advisor,
I consider the systematic omission of proactive disclosure of this
expenditure of at least $300,000 in donor funds to be financial misconduct
and a breach of trust. It's profoundly contrary to the values that this
organization claims to uphold.
Pine
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Brion Vibber
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W wrote:
> I've been following this discussion with some interest. Can someone point
> us to where Sue's compensation, after she left the Executive Director role,
> was budgeted in the WMF annual plans? That money cannot have come out of
Hi Greg,
Just to expand a little on what John is saying here, I find it a little odd
that the information to separate out the cost of actually making trademark
applications, and the cost of legal consultants, has not been separated
out. I confess I'm not that familiar with the rules of Form 990,
On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue remained
> the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly higher
> rate than when she was the actual ED, until FIVE DAYS ago? That is, well
>
With regard to Sue, adding to the list of concerns about the sheer amount
of money is that she wasn't the executive anymore, so why was she being
paid like one?
Pine
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Fæ wrote:
> Thanks Gnangarra.
>
> I'm familiar with Bridgespan, and when I
Thanks Gnangarra.
I'm familiar with Bridgespan, and when I worked as a strategy
consultant, I used the "starvation cycle" myself. It's a way of
framing the need for improvement differently from simply insisting
that 5% is saved each year, and instead using more meaningful
strategic goals.
This
I've been following this discussion with some interest. Can someone point
us to where Sue's compensation, after she left the Executive Director role,
was budgeted in the WMF annual plans? That money cannot have come out of
nowhere. Which line item, or line items, in the 2015-2016 Annual Plan were
this is worth reading
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060455/future-of-philanthropy/demanding-that-nonprofits-not-pay-for-overhead-is-preventing-them-fro
On 5 June 2016 at 16:23, Fæ wrote:
> On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> > On Sunday, 5 June
On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum wrote:
...
> Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue remained
> the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly higher
> rate
(anonymous) wrote:
> […]
> This remains contradictory, and that is why I'm trying to get some clarity
> on the role Sue played in the past two years. The tasks described by
> Patricio in his response to the Signpost sound to me (but I might be naive
> in this) to be mostly relevant to the
On 5 Jun 2016 05:19, "Greg Varnum" wrote:
>
>
> John asked about filing and other fees paid by Jones Day, and if the fees
were separate from consulting costs. Unfortunately, we don’t have an easy,
quick way to divide the Jones Day expenses into registration fees and
On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum wrote:
> Sue served as a special advisor until May 31, 2016. Her pay included
> compensation for her extended role during the ED transition, and to match
> market rates for a role of this nature in organizations of similar size to
> the
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the eventual answer - I can understand that salaries/HR are a
complicated issue to comment on. I'm sorry I have to press on a bit more to
get an answer to my questions though.
I did note the answers Patricio gave to the Signpost
Greetings,
Apologies for our delay in this response. In addition to the holiday weekend,
questions related to HR issues require extra care and verification on our part.
But again, I do want to apologize for that process taking all week.
Regarding Lodewijk's questions about Sue's special
Greetings,
I just wanted to verify that we will be sending out answers to these additional
questions. This past weekend was a holiday in the United States, and so we have
not yet finished gathering the information to give accurate response.
Thank you for your patience, and please let me know
Hi,
Unfortunately I haven't seen an answer to my questions. Could you please
acknowledge the receipt of the question if you're investigating? Or could
you just say it is a ridiculous question and that you refuse to answer, if
you think so? From the more elaborate answer on the Signpost questions,
19.05.2016, 17:25, "Chris Keating" :
> I'd like to second this question - 1.7M is a very significant sum and I am
> surprised that WMF has reason to spend this much on legal services (I had
> the impression that the WMF legal department handled most things
> themselves).
I was surprised how
but that does make sense in some ways as you'd expect the WMF legal be able
to review most written issues and deal with initial contact issues. As an
issue deepens then its only logical to have legal hand over the case to a
local practitioner who is licensed and has the depth of knowledge specific
Thanks Greg for the responses.
As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was
appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for what
duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near full
time), given that her compensation was as high as
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the Wikimedia
> Foundation's Form 990.
>
> Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling
> US$1.7M) which were
Gregory -
Thanks for the great response!
Richard.
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the Wikimedia
> Foundation's Form 990.
Greetings,
Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the Wikimedia
Foundation's Form 990.
Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling
US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our global
reach has grown over time, we
I do hope btw that the unfortunate derailing doesn't mean the questions
won't get an answer... I hoped those would be fairly obvious and easily
clarified.
Lodewijk
2016-05-20 0:52 GMT+02:00 Neil P. Quinn :
> I totally second this. I apologize for engaging with him earlier;
I totally second this. I apologize for engaging with him earlier; I didn't
realize at the time that he was such a pathetic troll.
*Neil P. Quinn*
+1 (202) 656 3457
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jake Orlowitz wrote:
> Seconding Lodewijk here. I can already count at least
Seconding Lodewijk here. I can already count at least 5 phrases or
statements that David Emrany has said which made me cringe and wonder why
hasn't this been blocked/moderated already?
Hostile, accusatory, and vulgar behavior degrades this entire forum (beyond
its already damaged capacity for
Thanks Lodewikj for your excellent catches.
1. The form-990 covers the period from 01-July 2014 to 30-June 2015.
During which the payments of US$ 300,000 to Sue Gardner
(SpecialAdvisor) was comparable to Lila Tretikov's (E.D.)
2. The largest contractor was "Jones Day" US$ 1,742,916 (almost 2
Hoi,
> First, there's an overview of 'highest paid contractors' (for reading
> along: page 61) and the top one is a law firm for 1.7 Million USD. Which is
> quite a big sum of money.
I'd like to second this question - 1.7M is a very significant sum and I am
surprised that WMF has reason to
Hoi,
For a bit of background form 990 is probably something everybody knows
about as it is financial and important and that is why we mention this..
For all of you who do not know, we have a FAQ where you may find what is
relevant about all this.
Thanks,
GerardM
PS sorry Greg for pulling your
35 matches
Mail list logo