[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[GerardM]

Hoi,
The reason why the norm of American charitable boards is relevant up to a
point is that we are a global organisation. The point where the American
norms lose their values in comparison is where an American law stops giving
us options. When there is room for us to decide what is good, we are allowed
to do so.

We want the board to be a reflection of the people that make up our
community. We want these people be the ones that are most likely to do a
mature job for us. I would rather have parents on the board then another
bright kid who still has to learn much about the realities of life.

The amount of money involved in child care is not that much in the grand
scale of things. When you consider the amount of time the board members put
into their vocation it is a steal.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>