[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales in the news

[Thatcher131 Wikipedia]

>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 04/03/2008, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  >
> >  >  The bigger problem are the allegations mentioned in the article
> about
> >  >  use of foundation funds.  Three specific claims are made:
> >  >  -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine
> >  >  -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit
> >  >  -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
> >  >
> >
> >  I don't see the big deal here.  Employees are entitled to fill in
> >  expenses forms and their employers are permitted to say "Sorry Jimmy,
> >  that's just outrageous".
> >
> Intentionally submitting a receipt to a non-profit charity which one
> knows is unacceptable is unethical at best.  However, "intentionally"
> and "knows" are two key parts to that sentence which have not been
> proven - in fact, the entire incident has merely been alleged.
>

Grrr.  The allegation is that he used a Foundation credit card and did not
submit *any* receipts until forced by the auditors to do so.  As part of the
audit process, he repaid $7000.  What would have happened if the auditors
had not asked for the receipts?

Your comment also neglects a key bit of context - that we are talking
> about a non-profit charity.  A for-profit employer is legally
> permitted to reimburse just about anyone for just about anything.  A
> non-profit charity is not.


Precisely.  It's only one
of those "Puritan" things because it is a non-profit organization. See
[[William Aramony]] and [[Oral Suer]].
 It is small potatoes in comparison, and was apparently stopped, but it is
an indication that the Foundation did not exercise proper stewardship over
its finances until recently.

T.