On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@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.