[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[George Herbert]

On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
> 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 think we should make a couple of things clear...

One is that the "usual" US situation of not reimbursing for childcare
is not a legal or ethical mandate not to.  The Foundation is not doing
anything wrong in making these reimbursements.

Two, there are a lot of US jobs where childcare expenses are part of
"the package", to enable people who are human and have kids to still
be productive parts of the workforce.  The rationale here is the same
as it is abroad, where it's more common.

Whether the Foundation choses to do this or not is a matter of choice.
 I think it's relatively unusual for a US organization, but not
unreasonable.  It's been an open part of the record.  Given the scale
of the budget, and the time devoted by the board, I think it's unfair
to call it unreasonable or improper.

It's perfectly legitimate to question whether you want the Foundation
to do it, though.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com