[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[Dan Rosenthal]

(preface: i know this is not your position.)

But that's just it, why should we be outside the norm of American  
charitable boards? Ok yeah, we have some differences, collaborative  
wiki, web 2.0, etc. etc. It's still a board, and boards have certain  
requirements to be run effectively, and one of those is the financial  
independence of the board members from the organization they serve.

Think of reimbursement as the foundation as a corporate entity buying  
things.  You have to go to Tapei. The foundation purchases the  
ticket, as you are a board member. They purchase your hotel room.  
Those are expenses inherent in the travel. The foundation does NOT  
purchase your child care. The foundation does NOT purchase your  
electric bills while you are away, or your pet feeding expenses, or  
your family member's lunch budgets. Those are not the purview of the  
foundation as an entity. Only getting you to the destination, giving  
you a place there to stay and conduct your business, and getting you  
back home. Child care has nothing to do with that.

If dependent reimbursement is given out as a benefit or gift to the  
board, rather than a staple of function, that's something completely  
different. But lets be perfectly honest: there's no evidence that the  
foundation is in a financial position to be giving benefits and gifts  
like that,.

-Dan Rosenthal
On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Brad Patrick wrote:

> I think, though, that the importance of this discussion is an  
> ideal, as
> Jimmy described.  Rather than solely be an opportunity for the  
> rich, people
> from all walks of life and financial means should be able to  
> contribute,
> including as a board member.  (This is very much outside the norm  
> of most
> American charitable boards).  I'm not stating my own position here,  
> just
> saying that is what I think Jimmy meant.