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.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> 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
> > 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
> > tapped for these funds?
> The 2015-2016 Annual Plan lists 2 FTEs under 'Executive', whereas the
> 2015-2014 plan listed 1.
> I'm not sure if this represents the second full-time equivalent contracting
> expense for the former-ED advisor role being added, or if the ED's personal
> assistant role got moved in to that 'department', or if that means
> something else, but it struck me as odd. (Unlike the other functional
> areas, there is no breakdown given by type.)
> under "Appending B", "Staffing by Functional Area"
> under "Staffing by Functional Area"
> > A second question. WMF demands exhaustive reporting from affiliates for
> > smaller amounts of money than Sue received. I am hoping that WMF followed
> > good practice by having a careful accounting of how Sue's time was used
> > benefit WMF in a manner consistent with the intent of donors when they
> > to WMF. Is there an accounting for Sue's use of time as a contractor, and
> > if so, in what level of detail do those records exist?
> > My impression from Jan-Bart's emails was that Sue's role as Special
> > was a volunteer role, similar to Advisory Board members. Why was Sue's
> > contractor status not disclosed in those emails?
> > As Lodewijk said, why was Sue not shown on the public list of paid staff
> > and contractors? Interns who earn far less than $300k per year are
> > on that list; I cannot imagine what good reason there would be to have
> > excluded Sue from the list unless there was an intent to hide that she
> > continued to be paid by WMF.
> > I am greatly troubled by this situation. It was opaque, the accounting
> > appears to be lax, and the more I look at it the more it seems to have
> > intentionally concealed in a manner that was inappropriate and designed
> > avoid transparency and accountability.
> Yes, it's worrying whether it's deliberate obfuscation or whether it's a
> case of "left hand not knowing what the right is doing".
> -- brion
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org