[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales in the news

[Thatcher131 Wikipedia]

>
>
> Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
>
> >>>  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?
>
> That's incorrect. We have been requesting receipts from ALL board
> members from the very beginning. Michael (treasurer and acting
> accountant at that time) was extremely careful with that regards, and
> submitted updates on receivables. The receipts were requested by the
> treasurer, not by the auditors. Quite obviously though, doing the audit
> pushed us to clean any pending submission. Which is, in a sense, the
> main interest of an audit actually.
>
> > 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.
>
> Unless you can bring proofs that we did not exercise proper stewardship,
> I would hope that you will not claim as a fact that we did not.
>
> Ant
>


I guess you're saying that Jimbo was always required to submit receipts, but
in this case the impending audit gave the situation more urgency.  This
suggests that the reconciliation process was not timely; in my organization
if I don't submit my receipts within 10 days of getting back then I simply
don't get reimbursed, period.  (The problem of late receipts is of course
compounded when someone has a corporate credit card or blank check; it
removes most of the incentive for timely and accurate record keeping.)

I remain concerned about the possibility that Jimbo was allowed to record
his reimbursement as a donation.  While I realize that bloggers sometimes
have axes to grind, this seems like something that should be straightforward
to verify as either true or false.  The Foundation may not care whether they
record $500,000 in income and $100,000 in travel expenses or $507,000 in
income and $107,000 in travel expenses, but it would have an impact on
Jimbo's personal tax situation.

I should probably shut up now.

T.