[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[Anthony]

On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely right. That's what her job description as chairwoman is.
> If she were not doing that, she would have been removed from the
> position.
>
> It still does not entitle her to childcare expenses. Those have
> NOTHING to do with her direct function of being on the board. They
> are a secondary expense, one that when she accepted the board
> position, continued to remain her responsibility.
>
I really don't understand this line of reasoning.  If Ant travels to
Japan to participate in a WMF board meeting, someone has to take care
of her kids while she's gone (as I understand it she has at least one
child who is far to young to take care of emself).  If she pays
someone to do this, it is a direct cost of her having to attend the
meeting, i.e. it is a cost which she would not have incurred had she
not attended the meeting.  If attending board meetings in remote
locations is a direct function of being on the board, childcare
expenses have EVERYTHING to do with it.