On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Alec Conroy
<alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The bigger problem are the allegations mentioned in the article
about
use of
foundation funds. Three specific claims are made:
-Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine
-Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit
-Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
I don't see the big deal here. Employees are entitled to fill in
expenses forms and their employers are permitted to say "Sorry Jimmy,
that's just outrageous".
Intentionally submitting a receipt to a non-profit charity which one
knows is unacceptable is unethical at best. However, "intentionally"
and "knows" are two key parts to that sentence which have not been
proven - in fact, the entire incident has merely been alleged.
Grrr. The allegation is that he used a Foundation credit card and did not
submit *any* receipts until forced by the auditors to do so. As part of the
audit process, he repaid $7000. What would have happened if the auditors
had not asked for the receipts?
Your comment also neglects a key bit of context - that we are talking
about a non-profit charity. A for-profit employer is
legally
permitted to reimburse just about anyone for just about anything. A
non-profit charity is not.
Precisely. It's only one
of those "Puritan" things because it is a non-profit organization. See
[[William Aramony]] and [[Oral Suer]].
It is small potatoes in comparison, and was apparently stopped, but it is
an indication that the Foundation did not exercise proper stewardship over
its finances until recently.
T.