Hi Greg,
Thanks for the eventual answer - I can understand that salaries/HR are a complicated issue to comment on. I'm sorry I have to press on a bit more to get an answer to my questions though.
I did note the answers Patricio gave to the Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-05-28/Special_report. I did miss your answer on my question whether this was a full time, or near a fulltime position (for the period concerning this salary) - quite an important figure to estimate the meaning of 'a role of this nature in organizations of similar size to the Wikimedia Foundation'.
The information available does suggest however that this was quite a steep salary increase with a decrease in responsibilities. I'm not sure that is a fair representation of the situation (I hope not), but that is what it looks like to me, based on the available information.
Based on the compensation size, Sue played continued to play a very significant role in the WMF. I'm glad that she remained available for that, as the board apparently felt a need for it. However, despite that important role and significant compensation, she was not mentioned on the list of 'staff and contractors' since she was replaced by Lila in June 2014 https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AStaff_and_contractors&type=revision&diff=96993&oldid=96984 .
This remains contradictory, and that is why I'm trying to get some clarity on the role Sue played in the past two years. The tasks described by Patricio in his response to the Signpost sound to me (but I might be naive in this) to be mostly relevant to the initial transition period, and not to span 2 years. Is Patricio underselling Sue's involvement and was there a reason not to mention her as contractor? Am I somehow misunderstanding the compensation issue (i.e. was there a compensation for earlier years, or was it lowered)?
Maybe I'm missing something here - if so, please point it out! Thanks in advance.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-06-05 0:18 GMT+02:00 Greg Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org:
Greetings,
Apologies for our delay in this response. In addition to the holiday weekend, questions related to HR issues require extra care and verification on our part. But again, I do want to apologize for that process taking all week.
Regarding Lodewijk's questions about Sue's special advisor role, including the timeline and how compensation was set, Sue served as a special advisor until May 31, 2016. Her pay included compensation for her extended role during the ED transition, and to match market rates for a role of this nature in organizations of similar size to the Wikimedia Foundation. Our Board Chair, Patricio Lorente, gave a response to the Signpost that provides more information[1].
John asked about filing and other fees paid by Jones Day, and if the fees were separate from consulting costs. Unfortunately, we don’t have an easy, quick way to divide the Jones Day expenses into registration fees and legal fees, but we can provide more information about where the costs came from. Each trademark application costs about $1,000–5,000 (sometimes more), including filing fees and attorney’s fees. The cost for each application depends on the country’s application fees, the country’s administrative hurdles, the breadth of protection we are seeking, whether we can reuse materials prepared for previous applications, and whether we encounter resistance from trademark offices or other trademark holders.
Finally, regarding John's question about non-program service investment in Europe (page 35), this represents our foreign currency bank accounts with JP Morgan in the UK. The purpose of this holding is to retain donations received in EUR, GBP, CAD and AUD in their original currency to minimize currency exchange risks.
I hope that clarifies the remaining questions, and again, thank you for your questions and feedback both on this list and elsewhere.
-Gregory Varnum Wikimedia Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-05-28/Specia...
On May 31, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Greg Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Greetings,
I just wanted to verify that we will be sending out answers to these
additional questions. This past weekend was a holiday in the United States, and so we have not yet finished gathering the information to give accurate response.
Thank you for your patience, and please let me know if you have any
additional questions.
Gregory Varnum Wikimedia Foundation
On May 31, 2016, at 4:16 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi,
Unfortunately I haven't seen an answer to my questions. Could you please acknowledge the receipt of the question if you're investigating? Or
could
you just say it is a ridiculous question and that you refuse to answer,
if
you think so? From the more elaborate answer on the Signpost questions,
I
understand that the role continues to this day - which makes it probably more relevant.
Please don't retreat in silence again.
Lodewijk
2016-05-25 14:39 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
Thanks Greg for the responses.
As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for
what
duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near
full
time), given that her compensation was as high as that of the ED
herself?
People suggested that this included compensation for earlier years -
was
that the case? That would explain again a bit more.
Also part of the question was why the raise was so steep - was this
simply
matching the reality of the current job market, or was there something
else
behind it (i.e. a bonus mechanism etc).
It would be great if you could clarify! Thanks!
Lodewijk
2016-05-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum <
gvarnum@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Greetings,
Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the
Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990.
Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services
(totalling
US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As
our
global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to
strengthen
the trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s
marks
globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our
global
trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the
2014-2015
fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35
different
trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal
services
expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark application filing fees.
These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and
revised descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks
and
projects, including countries where readership was growing through
targeted
programs or distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile
readership).
Going forward, we anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a
decrease in
trademark expenses year over year, now that we have this initial
foundation
is in place. This investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its communities by ensuring that our trademark portfolio reflects the
maturity
and breadth of the Wikimedia movement, and protects us against certain forms of infringement or misuse.
Hi Gregory, Just to confirm, the stated US$1.7M stated on page p.61 includes filing and other fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government bodies around the world? If so, any chance you can separate it into such fees paid *through* Jones Day, vs the consultation fees of Jones Day. You say it was a 'significant portion', but that is very vague terminology, meaning very different things to different people; it would be nice to have a ball park figure.
Also there was a USD ~5.2 M investment in Europe listed on p. 35 as not being program services. I didn't see any reference to it in the FAQ; apologies if I missed it (It would be lovely if the source document was posted on meta for easier navigation, etc.). Could we have a little more info about this line item?
-- John Vandenberg
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gregory Varnum Communications Strategist (Contractor) Wikimedia Foundation gvarnum@wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sue served as a special advisor until May 31, 2016. Her pay included compensation for her extended role during the ED transition, and to match market rates for a role of this nature in organizations of similar size to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue remained the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly higher rate than when she was the actual ED, until FIVE DAYS ago? That is, well beyond any 'transition period' (and in fact longer than the employment of the person who replaced her)?
Interesting that Sue's contract ended on precisely the same day that Lodewijk reiterated his questions about the nature of her contract?
- Liam
On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue remained the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly higher rate than when she was the actual ED, until FIVE DAYS ago? That is, well beyond any 'transition period' (and in fact longer than the employment of the person who replaced her)?
Yes, this jumped out for me. I can understand paying out a 12 month golden handshake on the way out, and paying a previous CEO for a few days or weeks support during handover, but continuing to pay out at an eye-watering equivalent salary of $300,000 per annum, was a super-duper bonus for Sue.
However this is wrapped up in the normal "nothing to see here, move-along" WMF PR speak, these lottery prize level payouts have been a terrible, terrible deal in terms of the WMF delivering on its goals and values. I certainly did not see Sue saying anything in public to help avoid or repair any of the WMF board's strategic disasters in its highly public annus horribilis. I doubt that in truth she did much more in private, sorry, it's just not credible that the WMF has all its strategic manipulators hidden away in private rooms as if this were a court for the Borgia family.
I am utterly convinced that the WMF would do exactly as well, and possibly even better, by paying a CEO slightly less than it currently pays it's head of legal, certainly it would be rather stupid to pump up the interim CEO's salary by three times to match the celebrity CEO salaries that the WMF seems to have locked itself into.
Fae
this is worth reading http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060455/future-of-philanthropy/demanding-that-non...
On 5 June 2016 at 16:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue remained the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly higher rate than when she was the actual ED, until FIVE DAYS ago? That is, well beyond any 'transition period' (and in fact longer than the employment of the person who replaced her)?
Yes, this jumped out for me. I can understand paying out a 12 month golden handshake on the way out, and paying a previous CEO for a few days or weeks support during handover, but continuing to pay out at an eye-watering equivalent salary of $300,000 per annum, was a super-duper bonus for Sue.
However this is wrapped up in the normal "nothing to see here, move-along" WMF PR speak, these lottery prize level payouts have been a terrible, terrible deal in terms of the WMF delivering on its goals and values. I certainly did not see Sue saying anything in public to help avoid or repair any of the WMF board's strategic disasters in its highly public annus horribilis. I doubt that in truth she did much more in private, sorry, it's just not credible that the WMF has all its strategic manipulators hidden away in private rooms as if this were a court for the Borgia family.
I am utterly convinced that the WMF would do exactly as well, and possibly even better, by paying a CEO slightly less than it currently pays it's head of legal, certainly it would be rather stupid to pump up the interim CEO's salary by three times to match the celebrity CEO salaries that the WMF seems to have locked itself into.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I've been following this discussion with some interest. Can someone point us to where Sue's compensation, after she left the Executive Director role, was budgeted in the WMF annual plans? That money cannot have come out of nowhere. Which line item, or line items, in the 2015-2016 Annual Plan were tapped for these funds?
A second question. WMF demands exhaustive reporting from affiliates for far smaller amounts of money than Sue received. I am hoping that WMF followed good practice by having a careful accounting of how Sue's time was used to benefit WMF in a manner consistent with the intent of donors when they give to WMF. Is there an accounting for Sue's use of time as a contractor, and if so, in what level of detail do those records exist?
My impression from Jan-Bart's emails was that Sue's role as Special Advisor was a volunteer role, similar to Advisory Board members. Why was Sue's contractor status not disclosed in those emails?
As Lodewijk said, why was Sue not shown on the public list of paid staff and contractors? Interns who earn far less than $300k per year are included on that list; I cannot imagine what good reason there would be to have excluded Sue from the list unless there was an intent to hide that she continued to be paid by WMF.
I am greatly troubled by this situation. It was opaque, the accounting appears to be lax, and the more I look at it the more it seems to have been intentionally concealed in a manner that was inappropriate and designed to avoid transparency and accountability.
Pine
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I've been following this discussion with some interest. Can someone point us to where Sue's compensation, after she left the Executive Director role, was budgeted in the WMF annual plans? That money cannot have come out of nowhere. Which line item, or line items, in the 2015-2016 Annual Plan were tapped for these funds?
The 2015-2016 Annual Plan[1] lists 2 FTEs under 'Executive', whereas the 2015-2014 plan[2] listed 1.
I'm not sure if this represents the second full-time equivalent contracting expense for the former-ED advisor role being added, or if the ED's personal assistant role got moved in to that 'department', or if that means something else, but it struck me as odd. (Unlike the other functional areas, there is no breakdown given by type.)
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/WMF2015-16AnnualPlan.... under "Appending B", "Staffing by Functional Area" [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e0/2014-15_Wikimedia_Fou... under "Staffing by Functional Area"
A second question. WMF demands exhaustive reporting from affiliates for far smaller amounts of money than Sue received. I am hoping that WMF followed good practice by having a careful accounting of how Sue's time was used to benefit WMF in a manner consistent with the intent of donors when they give to WMF. Is there an accounting for Sue's use of time as a contractor, and if so, in what level of detail do those records exist?
My impression from Jan-Bart's emails was that Sue's role as Special Advisor was a volunteer role, similar to Advisory Board members. Why was Sue's contractor status not disclosed in those emails?
As Lodewijk said, why was Sue not shown on the public list of paid staff and contractors? Interns who earn far less than $300k per year are included on that list; I cannot imagine what good reason there would be to have excluded Sue from the list unless there was an intent to hide that she continued to be paid by WMF.
I am greatly troubled by this situation. It was opaque, the accounting appears to be lax, and the more I look at it the more it seems to have been intentionally concealed in a manner that was inappropriate and designed to avoid transparency and accountability.
Yes, it's worrying whether it's deliberate obfuscation or whether it's a case of "left hand not knowing what the right is doing".
-- brion
I consider the systematic omission of proactive disclosure of this expenditure of at least $300,000 in donor funds to be financial misconduct and a breach of trust. It's profoundly contrary to the values that this organization claims to uphold.
Pine
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I've been following this discussion with some interest. Can someone point us to where Sue's compensation, after she left the Executive Director
role,
was budgeted in the WMF annual plans? That money cannot have come out of nowhere. Which line item, or line items, in the 2015-2016 Annual Plan
were
tapped for these funds?
The 2015-2016 Annual Plan[1] lists 2 FTEs under 'Executive', whereas the 2015-2014 plan[2] listed 1.
I'm not sure if this represents the second full-time equivalent contracting expense for the former-ED advisor role being added, or if the ED's personal assistant role got moved in to that 'department', or if that means something else, but it struck me as odd. (Unlike the other functional areas, there is no breakdown given by type.)
[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/WMF2015-16AnnualPlan.... under "Appending B", "Staffing by Functional Area" [2]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e0/2014-15_Wikimedia_Fou... under "Staffing by Functional Area"
A second question. WMF demands exhaustive reporting from affiliates for
far
smaller amounts of money than Sue received. I am hoping that WMF followed good practice by having a careful accounting of how Sue's time was used
to
benefit WMF in a manner consistent with the intent of donors when they
give
to WMF. Is there an accounting for Sue's use of time as a contractor, and if so, in what level of detail do those records exist?
My impression from Jan-Bart's emails was that Sue's role as Special
Advisor
was a volunteer role, similar to Advisory Board members. Why was Sue's contractor status not disclosed in those emails?
As Lodewijk said, why was Sue not shown on the public list of paid staff and contractors? Interns who earn far less than $300k per year are
included
on that list; I cannot imagine what good reason there would be to have excluded Sue from the list unless there was an intent to hide that she continued to be paid by WMF.
I am greatly troubled by this situation. It was opaque, the accounting appears to be lax, and the more I look at it the more it seems to have
been
intentionally concealed in a manner that was inappropriate and designed
to
avoid transparency and accountability.
Yes, it's worrying whether it's deliberate obfuscation or whether it's a case of "left hand not knowing what the right is doing".
-- brion _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Pine, have you read Patricio's email in the new thread?
Risker
On 7 June 2016 at 20:28, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I consider the systematic omission of proactive disclosure of this expenditure of at least $300,000 in donor funds to be financial misconduct and a breach of trust. It's profoundly contrary to the values that this organization claims to uphold.
Pine
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I've been following this discussion with some interest. Can someone
point
us to where Sue's compensation, after she left the Executive Director
role,
was budgeted in the WMF annual plans? That money cannot have come out
of
nowhere. Which line item, or line items, in the 2015-2016 Annual Plan
were
tapped for these funds?
The 2015-2016 Annual Plan[1] lists 2 FTEs under 'Executive', whereas the 2015-2014 plan[2] listed 1.
I'm not sure if this represents the second full-time equivalent
contracting
expense for the former-ED advisor role being added, or if the ED's
personal
assistant role got moved in to that 'department', or if that means something else, but it struck me as odd. (Unlike the other functional areas, there is no breakdown given by type.)
[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/WMF2015-16AnnualPlan....
under "Appending B", "Staffing by Functional Area" [2]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e0/2014-15_Wikimedia_Fou...
under "Staffing by Functional Area"
A second question. WMF demands exhaustive reporting from affiliates for
far
smaller amounts of money than Sue received. I am hoping that WMF
followed
good practice by having a careful accounting of how Sue's time was used
to
benefit WMF in a manner consistent with the intent of donors when they
give
to WMF. Is there an accounting for Sue's use of time as a contractor,
and
if so, in what level of detail do those records exist?
My impression from Jan-Bart's emails was that Sue's role as Special
Advisor
was a volunteer role, similar to Advisory Board members. Why was Sue's contractor status not disclosed in those emails?
As Lodewijk said, why was Sue not shown on the public list of paid
staff
and contractors? Interns who earn far less than $300k per year are
included
on that list; I cannot imagine what good reason there would be to have excluded Sue from the list unless there was an intent to hide that she continued to be paid by WMF.
I am greatly troubled by this situation. It was opaque, the accounting appears to be lax, and the more I look at it the more it seems to have
been
intentionally concealed in a manner that was inappropriate and designed
to
avoid transparency and accountability.
Yes, it's worrying whether it's deliberate obfuscation or whether it's a case of "left hand not knowing what the right is doing".
-- brion _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thank you for pointing that out, Risker. The emails indeed cross paths and I did not see it.
The point remains: the standard is proactive disclosure, not minimum and delayed disclosure. The latter happened, and it is not ok. It is a relief that Sue was not getting $300k per year as an advisor, which helps the situation considerably. Regardless, there should have been proactive disclosure. I am glad that Patricio agrees. I think that we should consider more robust accounting procedures in the future. I do not appreciate being blindsided.
Pine
I think Patricio would be surprised that you have interpreted his email that way, Pine. There's nothing in his email that says anything about proactive disclosure of the salaries of individual employees or contractors. It would probably be appropriate to extend your thanks to Sue, who has agreed to the posting of her own direct salary for the 2015-16 fiscal year, despite the fact that it would not come close to the Form 990 reporting threshold.
Risker
On 7 June 2016 at 20:42, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for pointing that out, Risker. The emails indeed cross paths and I did not see it.
The point remains: the standard is proactive disclosure, not minimum and delayed disclosure. The latter happened, and it is not ok. It is a relief that Sue was not getting $300k per year as an advisor, which helps the situation considerably. Regardless, there should have been proactive disclosure. I am glad that Patricio agrees. I think that we should consider more robust accounting procedures in the future. I do not appreciate being blindsided.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Risker, perhaps you missed this part of Patricio's message; I'm pretty sure this is what Pine was referring to:
In re-reading Jan-Bart’s original email [1] where he stated that Sue was
staying on as an advisor, it isn’t explicit that this was a paid position. We should have been more clear on this point.
Speaking for myself, along with Patricio, I do appreciate Sue's willingness to disclose information, presumably in the interest of resolving this matter. I am accustomed to Sue acting in the best interest of the Wikimedia movement, but we shouldn't take it for granted; this would all be a much bigger fiasco without that bit of information.
I do think it helps a great deal to know that, but it doesn't dismiss all the important questions. Many of us (who are used to the term "advisor" being used only for the unpaid advisory board) were surprised to learn there was compensation at all. In addition, I'm not so happy to hear from James Heilman (in a Facebook comment) that he was unaware of Sue's availability as a paid advisor during his tenure as a Trustee.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 6/7/16, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think Patricio would be surprised that you have interpreted his email that way, Pine. There's nothing in his email that says anything about proactive disclosure of the salaries of individual employees or contractors. It would probably be appropriate to extend your thanks to Sue, who has agreed to the posting of her own direct salary for the 2015-16 fiscal year, despite the fact that it would not come close to the Form 990 reporting threshold.
Risker
On 7 June 2016 at 20:42, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for pointing that out, Risker. The emails indeed cross paths and I did not see it.
The point remains: the standard is proactive disclosure, not minimum and delayed disclosure. The latter happened, and it is not ok. It is a relief that Sue was not getting $300k per year as an advisor, which helps the situation considerably. Regardless, there should have been proactive disclosure. I am glad that Patricio agrees. I think that we should consider more robust accounting procedures in the future. I do not appreciate being blindsided.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks Pete. I also think that Risker and I have different expectations for financial disclosure and transparency. My view is influenced by my experiences with Washington Stare government as well as my experience with WMF grantmaking, where transparency is prioritized over privacy. Among other benefits, this approach prevents exactly the kind of surprises that we are discussing in this thread.
Pine
Thanks Gnangarra.
I'm familiar with Bridgespan, and when I worked as a strategy consultant, I used the "starvation cycle" myself. It's a way of framing the need for improvement differently from simply insisting that 5% is saved each year, and instead using more meaningful strategic goals.
This piece in no way explains why the WMF is in the habit of paying its CEO twice what the UK Government pays its Prime Minister. I doubt anyone believes that the WMF job is twice as stressful, delivers twice the value, is twice as accountable or twice as hard.
If we were to bring some hard numbers into the WMF board to /benchmark/ the CEO salary decision making process, compare the WMF CEO package to that of charities of the same size to the WMF. Here's a few facts from a survey of UK charities:[1] * In the 100 highest paying charities, CEOs are paid a median of $235,000. * Cancer Research UK have an income of $770m and pay its CEO, Sir Harpal Kumar, $330,000. * Barnardo's have an income of $400m and pay Peter Brook a salary of $215,000. * Scope has over 3,500 employees, an income of $140m, and pay Richard Hawkes a salary of $200,000.
Probably the best comparative example from this handful is Cancer Research UK (CRUK) as they are both in the technology and science/academic sector and pay an almost identical CEO salary as the WMF does. Their strategic goal is to find new cures for cancer applying leading edge science, and run a massive programme of public communication and education (including improving Wikipedia articles, which I was lucky enough to help out with!). Their direct spend on scientific research projects is over $165m,[2] more than a magnitude larger than the WMF's spend on software development and with far, far greater technical and ethical challenges.
The reason that the WMF rewards its CEO at the same prestigious level as CRUK, is because they are trapped in the Silicon Valley bubble and fixed in the belief that they must pay top executive salaries competing with commercial Silicon Valley IT companies, rather than comparing themselves to charities or educational institutions. If the WMF board really want to shake up their strategy, they should start planning to have some development and management teams in cities other than San Francisco, if only to unlock themselves from their current unrealistic group-think, and start behaving like a leading edge professional educational charity, rather than a for-profit "breaking everything is good" Silicon Valley dot com.
Links: 1. http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-highest-earners/management/ar... 2. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/our-organisation/annual-report-and-...
Fae
On 6 June 2016 at 04:10, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
this is worth reading http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060455/future-of-philanthropy/demanding-that-non...
On 5 June 2016 at 16:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue remained the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly higher rate than when she was the actual ED, until FIVE DAYS ago? That is, well beyond any 'transition period' (and in fact longer than the employment of the person who replaced her)?
Yes, this jumped out for me. I can understand paying out a 12 month golden handshake on the way out, and paying a previous CEO for a few days or weeks support during handover, but continuing to pay out at an eye-watering equivalent salary of $300,000 per annum, was a super-duper bonus for Sue.
However this is wrapped up in the normal "nothing to see here, move-along" WMF PR speak, these lottery prize level payouts have been a terrible, terrible deal in terms of the WMF delivering on its goals and values. I certainly did not see Sue saying anything in public to help avoid or repair any of the WMF board's strategic disasters in its highly public annus horribilis. I doubt that in truth she did much more in private, sorry, it's just not credible that the WMF has all its strategic manipulators hidden away in private rooms as if this were a court for the Borgia family.
I am utterly convinced that the WMF would do exactly as well, and possibly even better, by paying a CEO slightly less than it currently pays it's head of legal, certainly it would be rather stupid to pump up the interim CEO's salary by three times to match the celebrity CEO salaries that the WMF seems to have locked itself into.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
With regard to Sue, adding to the list of concerns about the sheer amount of money is that she wasn't the executive anymore, so why was she being paid like one?
Pine
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Gnangarra.
I'm familiar with Bridgespan, and when I worked as a strategy consultant, I used the "starvation cycle" myself. It's a way of framing the need for improvement differently from simply insisting that 5% is saved each year, and instead using more meaningful strategic goals.
This piece in no way explains why the WMF is in the habit of paying its CEO twice what the UK Government pays its Prime Minister. I doubt anyone believes that the WMF job is twice as stressful, delivers twice the value, is twice as accountable or twice as hard.
If we were to bring some hard numbers into the WMF board to /benchmark/ the CEO salary decision making process, compare the WMF CEO package to that of charities of the same size to the WMF. Here's a few facts from a survey of UK charities:[1]
- In the 100 highest paying charities, CEOs are paid a median of $235,000.
- Cancer Research UK have an income of $770m and pay its CEO, Sir
Harpal Kumar, $330,000.
- Barnardo's have an income of $400m and pay Peter Brook a salary of
$215,000.
- Scope has over 3,500 employees, an income of $140m, and pay Richard
Hawkes a salary of $200,000.
Probably the best comparative example from this handful is Cancer Research UK (CRUK) as they are both in the technology and science/academic sector and pay an almost identical CEO salary as the WMF does. Their strategic goal is to find new cures for cancer applying leading edge science, and run a massive programme of public communication and education (including improving Wikipedia articles, which I was lucky enough to help out with!). Their direct spend on scientific research projects is over $165m,[2] more than a magnitude larger than the WMF's spend on software development and with far, far greater technical and ethical challenges.
The reason that the WMF rewards its CEO at the same prestigious level as CRUK, is because they are trapped in the Silicon Valley bubble and fixed in the belief that they must pay top executive salaries competing with commercial Silicon Valley IT companies, rather than comparing themselves to charities or educational institutions. If the WMF board really want to shake up their strategy, they should start planning to have some development and management teams in cities other than San Francisco, if only to unlock themselves from their current unrealistic group-think, and start behaving like a leading edge professional educational charity, rather than a for-profit "breaking everything is good" Silicon Valley dot com.
Links:
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-highest-earners/management/ar... 2. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/our-organisation/annual-report-and-...
Fae
On 6 June 2016 at 04:10, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
this is worth reading
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060455/future-of-philanthropy/demanding-that-non...
On 5 June 2016 at 16:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue
remained
the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly
higher
rate than when she was the actual ED, until FIVE DAYS ago? That is,
well
beyond any 'transition period' (and in fact longer than the
employment of
the person who replaced her)?
Yes, this jumped out for me. I can understand paying out a 12 month golden handshake on the way out, and paying a previous CEO for a few days or weeks support during handover, but continuing to pay out at an eye-watering equivalent salary of $300,000 per annum, was a super-duper bonus for Sue.
However this is wrapped up in the normal "nothing to see here, move-along" WMF PR speak, these lottery prize level payouts have been a terrible, terrible deal in terms of the WMF delivering on its goals and values. I certainly did not see Sue saying anything in public to help avoid or repair any of the WMF board's strategic disasters in its highly public annus horribilis. I doubt that in truth she did much more in private, sorry, it's just not credible that the WMF has all its strategic manipulators hidden away in private rooms as if this were a court for the Borgia family.
I am utterly convinced that the WMF would do exactly as well, and possibly even better, by paying a CEO slightly less than it currently pays it's head of legal, certainly it would be rather stupid to pump up the interim CEO's salary by three times to match the celebrity CEO salaries that the WMF seems to have locked itself into.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue remained the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly higher rate than when she was the actual ED, until FIVE DAYS ago? That is, well beyond any 'transition period' (and in fact longer than the employment of the person who replaced her)?
Its now been a full working day. Can we have a clarification on this point?
(anonymous) wrote:
[…]
This remains contradictory, and that is why I'm trying to get some clarity on the role Sue played in the past two years. The tasks described by Patricio in his response to the Signpost sound to me (but I might be naive in this) to be mostly relevant to the initial transition period, and not to span 2 years. Is Patricio underselling Sue's involvement and was there a reason not to mention her as contractor? Am I somehow misunderstanding the compensation issue (i.e. was there a compensation for earlier years, or was it lowered)?
[…]
Is compensation for earlier years legal in the US? In Ger- many, since the clarification in the Mannesmann trial (cf. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannesmann-Prozess), this would not be possible.
Tim
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org