In short, because that's what UK charity best practice, outlined in the
SORP, says we have to do when preparing accounts. Every charity in the UK
does this because our regulator believes it's the most transparent way of
doing things.
Basically, if people go as trustees, it's a governance cost. Otherwise,
it's a charitable cost, because we're spreading knowledge - albeit
knowledge of best practice, rather than knowledge of Wikipedia. This
knowledge is imparted to other chapters, which in turn use that knowledge
to become more effective at fulfilling our global mission.
On 2 Jun 2014 21:13, "Michael Peel" <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2014, at 13:27, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
So for trustee expenses: not all of the board
went as trustees, as two
(at
least) were invited as speakers - reporting that
as a trustee cost
wouldn't
be accurate. As to staff – I attended as the
Chief Executive, but the
other
two staff were also invited speakers. One of the
staff had some costs
paid
by the Foundation.
I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Would the trustees/staff have
been invited as speakers if they weren't trustees/staff? If not, then why
make the distinction here?
Thanks,
Mike
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>