Fellow Wikimedians,
As you all know, Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore has sought funding of about *1.8 Crores* through the FDC process from Wikimedia Foundation to carry out work on seven local language projects in India that includes Kannada, Telugu among others. [1] The funds primarily cover the salaries of the people belonging to the CIS-A2K team among other administrative expenses and other expenses as outlined on their proposal page.
The proposal was up for Community review and comments until April 30th and many have recorded their response about it [2]. Several community members have come forward in pointing out that the staff salaries being paid and that being proposed - are quite on the higher side (which is up to 2.4 Lakhs per month per person).
Apart from the concerns on extremely high salaries for Indian norms of the team members of CIS-A2K team, there have been some serious concerns raised about some apparent Conflict of Interest [3] and non-compliance with the local laws (mainly Karnataka Societies act and the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act).
However, looks like the proposal has moved forward through the FDC process for funding despite the concerns raised and has gotten through to the next stage.
More concerns have now been raised by several community members on the Staff Assessment discussion page here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T...
I invite you to participate in the discussion and help steer this in the right direction.
[1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/The_Ce... [2] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T... [3] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge/Draft_Work_plan_Ju...
Thank you,
Dear Wikimedians,
Some responses here on Meta [1] on behalf of CIS. I have also commented in my individual capacity on the statutory aspects to the best of my knowledge. Also see some in-line replies.
On Monday 12 May 2014 05:45 PM, Hari Prasad Nadig wrote:
Fellow Wikimedians,
As you all know, Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore has sought funding of about *1.8 Crores* through the FDC process from Wikimedia Foundation to carry out work on seven local language projects in India that includes Kannada, Telugu among others. [1] The funds primarily cover the salaries of the people belonging to the CIS-A2K team among other administrative expenses and other expenses as outlined on their proposal page.
As may of you know, please note that CIS has proposed the said budget to implement 21 plans of which there are 7 language area plans, 8 stand along projects, 3 community strengthening initiatives, etc.
The proposal was up for Community review and comments until April 30th and many have recorded their response about it [2]. Several community members have come forward in pointing out that the staff salaries being paid and that being proposed - are quite on the higher side (which is up to 2.4 Lakhs per month per person).
As you may have already seen in the budget, please note that the salary proposed is for 7 employees on the CIS-A2K team and the average per person salary would come to less than 1 lakh per month, per person and not as stated above.
CIS-A2K welcomes your feedback and suggestions.
Thank you, Vishnu
[1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/The_Ce... [2] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T... [3] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge/Draft_Work_plan_Ju...
Vishnu,
There have been detailed discussion on how the salaries seem to overshadow everything else in CIS's proposal of *1.8 Crore*. And it is not just me, many other community members who have logged their comment there have felt that the salaries are quite extravagant to Indian standards. Even the staff assessment takes note of this.
You yourself seem to be drawing around *24 Lakhs *per annum (which is 2 Lakhs per month!) that excludes travel and reimbursements as declared by you. [1] I'm pretty sure even the readers on this mailing list recognize that these are pretty huge salaries that we're talking about for Indian standards in non-profits for the responsibilities outlined.
Further, on the FCRA compliance issues, the compliance to Karnataka Societies Act and the concerns about Conflict of Interest - there are apparently some grave issues *which require that more documentation is made public* by the CIS as stated by me at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T...
and at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T...
I'm afraid that just the explanations may not suffice here as the concerns are serious in nature. I sincerely hope that you shall open up the documents for at least the sake of transparency.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T...
On 13 May 2014 18:43, Vishnu visdaviva@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Some responses here on Meta [1] on behalf of CIS. I have also commented in my individual capacity on the statutory aspects to the best of my knowledge. Also see some in-line replies.
On Monday 12 May 2014 05:45 PM, Hari Prasad Nadig wrote:
Fellow Wikimedians,
As you all know, Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore has sought funding of about *1.8 Crores* through the FDC process from Wikimedia Foundation to carry out work on seven local language projects in India that includes Kannada, Telugu among others. [1] The funds primarily cover the salaries of the people belonging to the CIS-A2K team among other administrative expenses and other expenses as outlined on their proposal page.
As may of you know, please note that CIS has proposed the said budget to implement 21 plans of which there are 7 language area plans, 8 stand along projects, 3 community strengthening initiatives, etc.
The proposal was up for Community review and comments until April 30th and many have recorded their response about it [2]. Several community members have come forward in pointing out that the staff salaries being paid and that being proposed - are quite on the higher side (which is up to 2.4 Lakhs per month per person).
As you may have already seen in the budget, please note that the salary proposed is for 7 employees on the CIS-A2K team and the average per person salary would come to less than 1 lakh per month, per person and not as stated above.
CIS-A2K welcomes your feedback and suggestions.
Thank you, Vishnu
[1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/The_Ce... [2] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T... [3] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge/Draft_Work_plan_Ju...
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Dear Hari,
Please see my replies in-line.
On Wednesday 14 May 2014 12:51 AM, Hari Prasad Nadig wrote:
Vishnu,
There have been detailed discussion on how the salaries seem to overshadow everything else in CIS's proposal of *1.8 Crore*. And it is not just me, many other community members who have logged their comment there have felt that the salaries are quite extravagant to Indian standards. Even the staff assessment takes note of this.
You yourself seem to be drawing around *24 Lakhs *per annum (which is 2 Lakhs per month!) that excludes travel and reimbursements as declared by you. [1] I'm pretty sure even the readers on this mailing list recognize that these are pretty huge salaries that we're talking about for Indian standards in non-profits for the responsibilities outlined.
Yes, it is no secret how much salary I draw or what the CIS-A2K program budget is and what we have proposed. Members on this list will remember that once I took over as the Program Director of CIS-A2K, I have ensured that we bring transparency to the entire CIS-A2K program including the project budget. We shared the entire A2K budget with the community in May 2013 on this list [1]. Staff salaries which also includes my salary were disclosed. Members on the list do know that we have taken this transparency measure much before the current FDC application (or at a time when we were not thinking about this FDC application). Neither I nor the current CIS-A2K team had any say in determining the salaries. There has been an extensive discussion on this here [2].
I am afraid that in your earlier mail the proposed A2K program plans number was wrongly quoted along with the per-person salary and I was merely highlighting the right facts.
Further, on the FCRA compliance issues, the compliance to Karnataka Societies Act and the concerns about Conflict of Interest - there are apparently some grave issues *which require that more documentation is made public* by the CIS as stated by me at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T...
and at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T...
We appreciated this effort on Meta here [3]. Again let me appreciate the community members and your effort to throw light on these concerns. As stated in the reply on Meta [3], and I quote here for the benefit of the members:
"CIS has never compromised in getting the best available professional expertise in complying with the various statutory requirements. So at the outset we need to state that CIS has always complied with the statutory advice received from our legal adviser and whenever required also sought second opinion. Thus to our current understanding we are in the best possible compliance with the statutory requirements for the not-for-profits in India. However, because a few of the community members, in the interest of continuing support to Wikimedia movement in India, expressed serious concerns, CIS will take every effort to share these with our legal advisers for their professional opinion. This could take some days, but we are certainly committed to sharing our legal advisers' opinion on these matters with the community and FDC at the earliest. This exercise is also important for CIS as it will help us to put ourselves in much better compliance, if required."
We are committed to seeking the opinion of our legal advisers on the concerns raised, as we respect the voice of the community members, including you. Also it is more in the interest of CIS to better comply with the statutory requirements.
I'm afraid that just the explanations may not suffice here as the concerns are serious in nature. I sincerely hope that you shall open up the documents for at least the sake of transparency.
Please note that CIS has never kept its documents closed to open them again. CIS gets its financial and institutional documents scrutinized every year and reports to multiple authorities as part of various statutory compliances. The Income Tax department periodically scrutinizes CIS's accounts. All the documents are always open for scrutiny by the donors. We have made every document available that was asked by the WMF's visiting team to CIS (which includes WMF's CFO Garfield Byrd) in February 2014. We had also thrown open all our document to the general public for scrutiny during May 2013. I have written to members on this list and other Wikimedia lists, inviting them to come and scrutinize all our documents during this Open Week. Please see the announcement here [4].
Thanks for engaging with CIS-A2K's work, which we always appreciate.
Best, Vishnu
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2013-May/009980.html
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T...
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/T...
[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2013-May/009980.html
[..snip..]
On 14 May 2014 12:53, Vishnu visdaviva@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid that just the explanations may not suffice here as the concerns are serious in nature. I sincerely hope that you shall open up the documents for at least the sake of transparency.
Please note that CIS has never kept its documents closed to open them again. CIS gets its financial and institutional documents scrutinized every year and reports to multiple authorities as part of various statutory compliances.
[...]
Noted.
Kindly make the following documents public:
1. Information about the AGMs and elections held by CIS for its governing body for all these years. 2. Latest copy of the Memorandum of Association as filed with the Registrar of Societies, Karnataka (as mandated by Clause 13 of the Karnataka Societies Registration act). 3. The annual filings of CIS with the Registrar of Societies, Karnataka for all these years. 4. The property ownership documents of the premises where CIS office works from. 5. The MoU signed by CIS with WMF. 6. The FCRA certification and compliance related documents.
Regards,
Dear Hari,
On Wednesday 14 May 2014 02:11 PM, Hari Prasad Nadig wrote:
[..snip..]
On 14 May 2014 12:53, Vishnu <visdaviva@gmail.com mailto:visdaviva@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm afraid that just the explanations may not suffice here as the concerns are serious in nature. I sincerely hope that you shall open up the documents for at least the sake of transparency.Please note that CIS has never kept its documents closed to open them again. CIS gets its financial and institutional documents scrutinized every year and reports to multiple authorities as part of various statutory compliances.[...]
Noted.
Kindly make the following documents public:
- Information about the AGMs and elections held by CIS for its governing body for all these years.
- Latest copy of the Memorandum of Association as filed with the Registrar of Societies, Karnataka (as mandated by Clause 13 of the Karnataka Societies Registration act).
- The annual filings of CIS with the Registrar of Societies, Karnataka for all these years.
- The property ownership documents of the premises where CIS office works from.
- The MoU signed by CIS with WMF.
- The FCRA certification and compliance related documents.
We do not have the property ownership documents (no. 4) as CIS does not own the building. These are with the owners and we cannot provide them.
As stated on this list many times we cannot share the WMF Grant Agreement (no. 5) without the explicit permission from WMF.
Rest of the documents could be made available. But the admin team is in the middle of audit. Let me consult Sunil (he will return to office mid next week) and get back on this.
Best, Vishnu
On 14 May 2014 16:20, Vishnu visdaviva@gmail.com wrote:
We do not have the property ownership documents (no. 4) as CIS does not
own the building. These are with the owners and we cannot provide them.
In that case, you could perhaps provide the rental agreement made and signed by CIS with the owner? And perhaps the electricity bill (which specifies the name of the owner)?
As stated on this list many times we cannot share the WMF Grant Agreement (no. 5) without the explicit permission from WMF.
Can a 'Society' do that? Shouldn't that be made public as per the law?
It is sad to know that MoU is being kept secretive and apparently seems to be concealing something on purpose.
Rest of the documents could be made available. But the admin team is in the middle of audit. Let me consult Sunil (he will return to office mid next week) and get back on this.
That would be too late, probably. It is very unfortunate to see a negative leaning response as well.
If everything is in order, surely, there's nothing preventing you from sharing it right away?
On Wednesday 14 May 2014 10:11 PM, Hari Prasad Nadig wrote:
We do not have the property ownership documents (no. 4) as CIS does not own the building. These are with the owners and we cannot provide them.In that case, you could perhaps provide the rental agreement made and signed by CIS with the owner? And perhaps the electricity bill (which specifies the name of the owner)?
Dear Hari,
Yes, this should be very much possible.
Cheers, Vishnu