[IAEP] SLOBs approval needed for Bender expenses of $1, 389.29 for Constructionalism 2016 (was Re: Sugar Labs travel)

[Adam Holt]

Hi Bradley,

Sugar Labs Oversight Board has passed 2 motions to retroactively approve
Devin Ulibarri's compensation of $500 for February 1-5 at Constructionism
2016 in Bangkok, and his travel/conf expenses of $1690.39.  If these
presumably meet SFConservancy's travel/expenses policies, please arrange
this total ($2190.39) to be paid without delay.  Presumably subtracting
$787.31 to be paid to Walter Bender who bought Devin's flight, so the check
to Devin would be: $1403.08

Likewise Walter Bender's own travel/conf expenses ($1389.29) have also been
restroactively approved.  Ditto if these presumably meet SFConservancy's
travel/expense policies, please arrange for payment without delay.
Presumably adding $787.31 for Devin's flight, so the check to Walter would
be: $2176.60

Separately, as experts on this matter, does SFConservancy have an opinion
on Sugar Labs currently maintaining our legally-required 501(c)(3) bylaws
on an open-to-all wiki at
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance regularly changed by
passersby, without even mentioning the word "bylaws" curiously?

Any quick recommendations for us to improve our legal/governance practices
here, given your extensive experience?

Adam Holt
Sugar Labs Oversight Board Liaison to SFConservancy.org

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Adam Holt <holt at laptop.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy
> <accounting at sfconservancy.org> wrote:
>
>> Adam,
>>
>> The accounting department at Conservancy never received a reply to this
>> thread below.  As Representative, I would have expected reply to come
>> from you.
>>
>> > Walter Bender wrote on 10 February:
>> >> Please find attached my expenses for the Turtle/Music Blocks workshop
>> >> in Thailand this month.
>>
>> I wrote on  8 March:
>> > I have processed this expense report for a total expenses amount of
>> > $1,389.29 for Bender's travel to the Constructionalism 2016 conference.
>> > However, I don't see any records of SLOBs approval of this expense.
>> >
>> > Adam, as Representative, can you please communicate ASAP that the SLOBs
>> > have approved this expense?
>> >
>> > Once I have this, we can send the reimbursement.
>>
>> ... and, as such, Walter has still not been reimbursed for his $1,389.29
>> for travel to the Constructionalism 2016 conference.
>>
>> I really would appreciate if you'd either approve the expense, or
>> indicate that it should not be paid, so I can give a definitive answer
>> to the traveler about whether the reimbursement request will be paid.
>>
>> (I know that SLOBs tend to approve things via meetings, so you can just
>> send a link to SLOBs minutes if it was approved at a meeting already.)
>> --
>> Bradley M. Kuhn
>> President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
>>  |------> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper since we can't afford to hire one.
>> Pls donate so we can increase staff: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>>
>
> Hi Bradley Kuhn who does all the hard work behind SFConservancy Accounting,
>
> Sorry I was away in Haiti when you wrote in March.  Your file
> Sugar/Ledger/sugar.ledger correctly shows Walter Bender's $807.22
> flight + expenses to Thailand's Constructionism 2016 = $1389.29 total.
>
> If SL's Oversight Board was supposed to vote on this affirmatively per
> SFConservancy policies, can you just clarify those policies,
> particularly with many new board members since February 2nd 2016, so
> that we're fully in compliance without confusion going forward?
> If SL Board pre-approval of expenses or budgets are necessary and/or
> wise then any particular suggestions for resolving this expeditiously
> most appreciated.  Thank you greatly in advance for your time.
>
> Aside: Caryl Bigenho and Dave Crossland have been working on a
> Treasurer suggestion for Sugar Labs to possibly make such financial
> clarity and promptness more of a priority for our community in future,
> relevant later this spring if SL's Board chooses to act on this or similar,
> but we are not quite there yet encoding norms of financial transparency/
> responsiveness/intentionality that our community agrees on broadly,
> and if so how we're going to get there:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jIFuZ9bX-Bv675BpA1KmcEcRcX4PRCOUEX0ICRUkOc
>
> > > Devin Ulibarri  traveled with me (I bought his plane ticket but he
> > > will submit his other expenses separately).
> >
> > On another related matter, I have not received a trip report and expense
> > report from Ulibarri.  Per instructions from Conservancy's Executive
> > Director, Karen Sandler, on this matter, I have not processed the part
> > of the Bender's reimbursement request but will do so as part of Devin's
> > full expense report when it arrives.
>
> I will presume Devin Ulibarri's Constructionism 2016 expenses ($787.31
> flight + $903.08 Music Blocks/conf-related expenses = $1690.39 total)
> approval process would follow the exact same process as you outline
> for Walter's above, as soon as that's clarified.
>
> Separately it seems Walter Bender misunderstood that SL's Board agreed
> to pay Devin Ulibarri an additional $500 in compensation, above and
> beyond Devin's travel expenses:
>
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2015-\
> 12-17&oldid=96639
>
> In fact, SL's Oversight Board requires 4 votes for all decisions as was
> clarified immediately upon my joining SL's Board near the end of 2009,
> generally to protect against the temptation to schedule meetings
> around different voting factions, when quorum drifts etc, whatevs.
>
> This requirement for 4 votes (majority of seats) was confirmed on
> December 11th 2009, when the motion "SL is and should be a GNU/Linux
> distributor" failed, receiving only 3 votes:
>
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11
> And again more recently on March 4th 2016:
>
> http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2016-03-04T16:00:36#i_28624\
> 08
>
> I have modified the 2015-12-17 records at
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions to reflect the
> correct and agreed-upon procedure (4 votes minimum, certainly that's
> been the case since I joined SL's Board at the end of 2009).
>
> Walter or others wishing to resubmit a motion to pay Devin Ulibarri
> $500 in compensation, should feel free to do so (insofar as
> SFConservancy Travel Policies permit retroactive financial approvals,
> which is NOT something to encourage in future instances obviously, but
> in these special circumstances it may obviously be necessary, with all
> Board members voting their conscience per usual).
>
> Sugar Labs needs to be a place where we learn from our human mistakes
> WITHOUT recriminations going forward, when small debuggings/reviews
> bring us closer to the goal, in keeping with our universal principles
> (reflect,
> iterate, collaborate, learn!)
>
> Finally, Devin Ulibarri is a great person by absolutely all
> appearances, who I don't happen to know, so I'd be remiss to explain
> why I _personally_ abstained from voting during Dec 17th 2015's vote
> (mine being 1 of 4 abstentions, alongside Daniel Francis, Chris Leonard,
> Gonzalo Odiard) to pay him $500 compensation.  That reason is my
> personal convictions around financial prudence.  My own opinion being
> that $500 compensation for a 5-day conference is too high for Sugar
> Labs to be paying _anybody_ at this current stage.  That caution is
> strictly only my opinion however.  Four months later, with a very new
> Board, it is far more important today that we look to the future
> resolving all such matters forthrightly with everyone voting their clear
> conscience (whatever motions/votes arise) honoring agreed-upon
> procedures respectful of Software Freedom Conservancy requirements.
>
> Sincere Respect and Thanks -- to Bradley and All,
>
> Adam Holt
> Sugar Labs Oversight Board Liaison to SFConservancy.org
>
> CC'd to ieap at list.sugarlabs.org as there's a growing if not universal
> community request for timely transparency and process clarity, around
> vision/governance/finance (enforced by bylaws implicit across
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance but that too
> needs to be clarified, as bylaws simply cannot be edited by random
> passersby on a wiki, leaving the legally-binding version to guesswork).
> Nonetheless identifying/organizing our legal nonprofit bylaws is not
> a huge job in the end as outlined above.  Most important of all, if
> everybody is civil about innocent human procedural mistakes, soon
> to be resolved now that they are understood, Donors will also
> increase their trust in the Sugar community as our organ of
> deliberative forward movement -- catalyzing conscientious action
> far beyond hype~
>
> --
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>
> --
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160409/edf9663c/attachment-0001.html>