From: | Bill Allombert <ballombe(at)debian(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Staff Work WAS: SPI bylaws overhaul: Board Attendence |
Date: | 2016-11-18 16:08:21 |
Message-ID: | 20161118160821.GA1956@yellowpig |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 02:02:49PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 01:46 PM, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 01:32:21PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>On 11/17/2016 01:09 PM, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Do we have officers who could spend more time on SPI if they were paid
> >>>>to do so?
> >>>
> >>>A NPO cannot pay officers and ex-officers without creating a major
> >>>conflict of interest.
> >>
> >>An NPO can absolutely pay officers. They can't pay board members.
> >
> >However, all current SPI officers are board members.
>
> Yes.
>
> I have had lengthy discussions with legal for both SPI and for PgUS on this
> matter. It is completely acceptable to pay an officer of an NPO. It is not
> possible to pay a board member. It is completely acceptable to compensate an
> Officer who happens to be a board member for their duties as an Officer. It
> is also normal to do so.
In the US, maybe. In France it is absolutly illegal due to the above
conflict of interest issue, and that issue needs to be adressed even in the US.
Cheers,
Bill.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Filipus Klutiero | 2016-11-20 17:20:07 | Discussion topic (Re: SPI bylaws overhaul: new discussion draft) |
Previous Message | Bill Allombert | 2016-11-18 15:45:28 | Re: Staff Work WAS: SPI bylaws overhaul: Board Attendence |