On Dec 13, 2007 9:43 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
According to the Register, the Foundation's former COO was convicted
felon.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
This is just great. And now all the Register's previous material looks
correct
because they broke this nonsense. This is likely going to be all over
the
newspapers tomorrow. I'm so shocked and appalled that I don't even know what to say about this. Why were basic background checks not done and why didn't we know about this sooner. Are we trying to implode?
Why would you do a background check for a pretty standard office job? I don't know about the US, but in the UK such background checks are usually only done for jobs where the person will be working with children, or similar. Pretty much every application form I've seen has the question "Do you have any criminal convictions, other than any legally spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?" (or words to that effect), and they just take your word for it. If WMF didn't ask, then that was a serious mistake (although an understandable one - by the time she was employed directly, she had been working as a temp for a while, so it's entirely possible that no-one thought to ask when checking for such things changed from being the agency's responsibility to being WMF's - of course, it may be time to pick a new temp agency...), if they asked and she lied, then its not really WMF's fault. You can't go around refusing to trust anything anybody says.
Background checks probably wouldn't be done for a temp office worker.
There's a huge difference for a senior executive with signing authority - it is simply due dilligence. No wonder the audit isn't finished yet, now every single transaction she was involved in has to be properly tracked down. People forget that the WMF is a charitable organization and has some pretty stringent fiduciary responsibilities in law.
Risker