[Foundation-l] Travel policy

[Jimmy Wales]

I do not agree with this reasoning.  If it were legally possible (and  
it is not) I would like to see the possibility for board members
to get at least a small paycheck  (10,000 euros per year or similar).

I think that board diversity is an important goal.  And the practical  
reality is that serving on the board of the foundation takes up quite  
a bit of time and energy for all of us, and that is not likely to  
change.  Reimbursement of board expenses is quite important to  
ensuring that people are able to serve without their service being a  
financial burden.

(And, uh, cats and children are not particularly similar.)

--Jimbo


On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:

> Because Dependent care is not the responsibility of the foundation's
> expenses. There is a reason why other boards do not do this. If one
> is volunteering one's time as a board member, the volunteer is making
> a decision for themselves to give up that time. They must weigh that
> decision carefully against their own personal needs.
>
> If I were a board member, for instance, it would be incredibly
> unreasonable for me to ask for reimbursement for boarding, care, and
> feeding of my cats while I was gone. It was my decision to get the
> cats, and the assumption of responsibility is my own. Similarly, the
> decision to be on the board would also be my own, and therefore the
> foundation would not be beholden to the care of my cats.
>
> It's the same thing with dependents... if you cannot afford to keep
> care of them in the execution of ones duties, then do not sit on the
> board.
>
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>>
>>> 2.  Dependent care expenses are not reimbursed by most other
>>> organizations and should no longer be reimbursed by the WMF now
>>> that it
>>> has matured.
>>
>> Why ?
>> And, what does maturity have to do with that ?
>
>
> Not uncertain benefit: quite certain benefit. In any major
> organization, for profit or not, you cannot just say "I want to go
> here" without having the travel itself approved first. This
> significantly cuts down on irresponsible costs...There is plenty of
> travel that a foundation employee COULD go on and be reimbursed for,
> but does not NEED TO go on. If you want to travel some place you
> should be prepared to justify first why you are going there, and then
> once it's approved for you to go there, then you start discussion on
> how to minimize costs in transit.
>
> i.e. if there is a meeting for say free software that is really not
> all that important, and closely proceeds a major event, such as
> Wikimania, or a major annual open source/free software convention,
> it's not necessary to go to the first one.
>
> Similarly, there is no reason for every single member of the staff
> AND board to attend most events.
>
> The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
>
>> 1.  It should be made clear that travel must be approved in advance
>> before arrangements are made, in addition to the post-travel
>> approval of
>> expense reports.
>>
>
>> Florence Devouard wrote:
>>  Lots of bureaucracy for a quite uncertain benefit.
>>  If a person travelling for WMF provides expenses not fitting with
> the
>>  policy, he can reimburse afterwards. If the case is borderline,
> this can
>>  be discussed afterwards and case clarified.
>
> In all the boards I have been involved with, either having sat on or
> been an employee thereof, all of them have required prior approval of
> travel, and none of them have allowed reimbursement for dependancy.
>
> It comes down to a single fundamental rule: You absolutely,
> positively do NOT go ahead and do something first, and then get
> reimbursed for it later. That is one of the most fiscally
> irresponsible thing an organization can do, either for or not for
> profit.
>
> -Dan Rosenthal
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>