[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[Alison Wheeler]

On Mon, July 9, 2007 18:44, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Think of reimbursement as the foundation as a corporate entity buying
> things.  You have to go to Tapei. The foundation purchases the
> ticket, as you are a board member. They purchase your hotel room.
> Those are expenses inherent in the travel. The foundation does NOT
> purchase your child care. The foundation does NOT purchase your
> electric bills while you are away, or your pet feeding expenses, or
> your family member's lunch budgets. Those are not the purview of the
> foundation as an entity. Only getting you to the destination, giving
> you a place there to stay and conduct your business, and getting you
> back home. Child care has nothing to do with that.

I must *massively* disagree with you here, and am currently trying to
control myself in respect of the unrealisticness (such a word?) that this
view expresses (and you are not the only one to suggest this, just the
current one)

Doing something for a charity / foundation - such as the WMF - where you
aren't actually *paid* for the work you do can involve you in expenses you
wouldn't otherwise incur. As you note, this might include transportation
costs, hotel costs, but it *also* includes implicitly includes such things
as childcare costs!

In the UK - as but one example - the Inland Revenue (now "Revenue &
Customs",  USA-equivalent being the IRS) sets the rules on what a
self-employed person may deduct as a taxable expenses. That definition
boils down to "solely and only", ie things are deductible if they are
'solely and only' incurred by reason of doing the job / task.

Someone travelling away from home on Foundation business who - because
they are away from home and are therefore not there to undertake the task
themselves - needs to arrange for someone to provide childcare, should -
without any doubt whatsoever - have that expense - which they would *not*
incur if they were at home but *only* incur because they are on Foundation
business - paid. To suggest otherwise it not just unreasonable, but would
prevent the Foundation from doing its job and - might I add - stop many
people putting themselves forward to assist the Foundation in its tasks
(clearly a job which is thought worthless by some who would penalise those
who offer their own personal services freely).

Being a director of the Foundation brings few financial benefits, indeed
it is not allowed to do so (!), but penalising the *family* of someone who
offers his or her services should never, imho, be permitted or even
considered.

If Florence - and others in her position - was at home and had no
connection to the Foundation at al then there would be no expenses
incurred and no nothing to be refunded. Because she - and others - do this
work gratis, free, libre and seemingly without many thanks - it is
completely right and proper that these expenses incurred *because* of the
Foundation and *only* because of the Foundation should be repaid.

I used to be the London regional member of the Open University Student
Association - the largest such student organisation in the UK and one of
the largest in the world. I represented over 20,000 members and, like the
Chair and every other representative of that organisation who all - as
with the Foundation - gave freely of their time and energy for the benefit
of others - we were entitled to reclaim necessarily-incurred expenses such
as childcare. Not only was this financially fair, but also prevented any
gender bias in who would stand for election, etc.

To suggest refusing someone to repay the additional expenses they incur is
completely and utterly wrong.

Alison Wheeler