Thanks Patricio for the clarifying answer. These specified numbers put the
whole story in a different perspective. While I'm sure that many people
still find these numbers to be very high (including myself), the WMF is
currently operating in a context of San Francisco, and that pushes numbers
up. Activity expectations for a 50k compensation compared to a 300k
compensation are also quite different, so this updated information puts to
rest quite a bit of questions.
The 40h statement in the 990 remains odd, but I'm indeed confident that Sue
made many more than those in the first months of 2014... I guess we can't
really blame the WMF for how the 990 form is set up.
I do hope that in the future the board will indeed make it explicit if an
advisory role, that could be confused for a totally volunteer role, is
compensated. Perhaps you could confirm still that this was quite a
one-of-a-kind situation (as Sue is also quite one-of-a-kind with all her
experience!) and that no other 'advisors' are paid compensation for their
time? (I'm thinking about advisory board, endowment advisors, FDC, AffCom
and what else).
2016-06-08 7:31 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgr...@gmail.com>:
> Thanks Patricio for the detailed answer which fully eliminated my concerns.
> One thing that bothers me all the time is the very late answer from the
> board. I'm pretty sure so many comments about Sue wouldn't be said if you
> sent this response earlier. We've been through this that these statements
> needs to be checked by the board, legal, probably comms, etc. and I
> understand it's time consuming but this is another case of a publicity
> crisis that could've been avoided by a faster response.
> Do you have any plans to improve this?
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:40 AM Kat Walsh <k...@mindspillage.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:50 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > > Patricio Lorente wrote:
> > >>We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
> > >>provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation
> > >>this time.
> > >
> > > Thank you for this e-mail.
> > >
> > >>One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This
> > is
> > >>reasonable, this confused even some of us involved in preparing this
> > >>response. Although the majority of activities reported on the Form 990
> > >>cover the Foundation’s fiscal year (specifically, the six months
> > >>July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), the IRS requires that details about
> > >>compensation for certain highly-paid individuals are for the full
> > calendar
> > >>year in which the fiscal year begins or ends.
> > >
> > > This parenthetical confused me. Six months from July 2014 to June 2015?
> > >
> > >>(2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the
> > >>transition period: $165,000.
> > >
> > > This is the key piece that I think most people didn't understand or
> > > realize. Was this information published anywhere previously (e.g., in
> > > Board minutes)? I wouldn't expect to see an exact amount, of course,
> > > this is a pretty substantial amount of donor money, so I'd expect at
> > least
> > > a "we approved a retention bonus for special advisor Sue Gardner"-type
> > > notice somewhere, typically on wikimediafoundation.org.
> > >
> > >>Sue’s special advisor status with the Foundation ended on May 31, 2016,
> > >>and she is no longer on contract with the Foundation or receiving any
> > >>compensation from it.
> > >
> > > I can't help but think about the tempestuous past year that the
> > > Foundation has had, including issues with Sue's immediate successor.
> > I left the board in the middle of this process, so I was present for
> > part of the discussions around what would happen but not all of it,
> > and my understanding may be out of date.
> > The understanding I left with is that the Special Advisor role would
> > be created and would be paid regardless of whether she was actually
> > being consulted--so that the outgoing ED would continue to reserve
> > time to be available, and the new ED would not have a financial
> > incentive to end the relationship early. However, this doesn't
> > guarantee that the relationship would continue to any significant
> > degree, only that the consulting time was already reserved and paid
> > for.
> > -Kat
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> 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