On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've been following this discussion with some
interest. Can someone point
us to where Sue's compensation, after she left the Executive Director role,
was budgeted in the WMF annual plans? That money cannot have come out of
nowhere. Which line item, or line items, in the 2015-2016 Annual Plan were
tapped for these funds?
The 2015-2016 Annual Plan[1] lists 2 FTEs under 'Executive', whereas the
2015-2014 plan[2] listed 1.
I'm not sure if this represents the second full-time equivalent contracting
expense for the former-ED advisor role being added, or if the ED's personal
assistant role got moved in to that 'department', or if that means
something else, but it struck me as odd. (Unlike the other functional
areas, there is no breakdown given by type.)
[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/WMF2015-16AnnualPlan…
under "Appending B", "Staffing by Functional Area"
[2]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e0/2014-15_Wikimedia_Fo…
under "Staffing by Functional Area"
A second question. WMF demands exhaustive reporting from affiliates for far
smaller amounts of money than Sue received. I am hoping that WMF followed
good practice by having a careful accounting of how Sue's time was used to
benefit WMF in a manner consistent with the intent of donors when they give
to WMF. Is there an accounting for Sue's use of time as a contractor, and
if so, in what level of detail do those records exist?
My impression from Jan-Bart's emails was that Sue's role as Special Advisor
was a volunteer role, similar to Advisory Board members. Why was Sue's
contractor status not disclosed in those emails?
As Lodewijk said, why was Sue not shown on the public list of paid staff
and contractors? Interns who earn far less than $300k per year are included
on that list; I cannot imagine what good reason there would be to have
excluded Sue from the list unless there was an intent to hide that she
continued to be paid by WMF.
I am greatly troubled by this situation. It was opaque, the accounting
appears to be lax, and the more I look at it the more it seems to have been
intentionally concealed in a manner that was inappropriate and designed to
avoid transparency and accountability.
Yes, it's worrying whether it's deliberate obfuscation or whether it's a
case of "left hand not knowing what the right is doing".
-- brion