I've posted a potential project for a U.S.-based accountant to look into the WMF's past questionable accounting matters. (Let me know if you can't see the project description without enrolling in Freelancer.com.)



Only one U.S.-based accountant responded:



What do people think here... is it worth $250? If so, is anyone interested in splitting the cost and sharing exclusive access and rights to the results?

It's worth $250 if it's not just perfunctory.

Hasn't the WMF ever had an outside audit? I'd be surprised if the answer were "no."

So much for that!

I think he means "in association with the actual output of the assessment". Nobody would necessarily be able to "prove" it was his work, if the output states only "a professional accountant found...".

@ Sanger: Yes, they have has outside audits. But, those are typically measuring that the books balance, and that among a very small sample of individual transactions selected for deeper review, the paperwork is legitimate and retained. An audit by KPMG wouldn't necessarily "find" the Moscow subway and massage parlor receipts, for instance; just that the "Travel" column balanced.

I'd say the most you can hope for for your $250 is a detailed explanation of the laws involved and a statement that these laws may or may not have been broken, and that non-public information would be needed in order to figure out whether or not they had.

And considering that the first half borders on providing legal advice, you might not even get that.

Whether or not that's worth $250 to you, I can't say. It's not worth $250 to me. It's not even worth $1 to me.



It might. In fact, it probably should have. At the very least it would certainly have found that the reimbursement procedures were utterly inadequate. But it wouldn't have to make those findings public. Especially if the procedures (and the financial statements) were fixed before the audit officially began.

Considering that the WMF never published financial statements until *after* the audit was completed, it's likely that what happened was that someone took a look at everything without performing a formal audit (maybe they did a compilation), told them how to clean it all up, and only then did the official audit begin. If there are reimbursements for massage parlor receipts, they're reclassed from an expense to a loan. If the organization provides free hosting to a for-profit corporation run by the founder, you reclass it from an expense to accounts receivable. If an employee spends bail money on the company credit card, or uses company property for their own personal benefit, you reclass it from an expense to an employee receivable. If they then skip town and you doubt they'll ever pay it back, you list it as an "allowance for doubtful employee receivables" (*). This is all done before the audit begins, so it doesn't have to be mentioned in the audit.

If that's what happened (and we'll never know if it was or not), hopefully whoever did the compilation was independent from the whoever did the audit.

(*) I've been told that the particular employee receivable listed on Wikimedia's balance sheet was not related to Doran's bail money, but wasn't told what exactly it was beyond "moneys that are owed the Foundation from employees".

I was likewise coming to that as my own conclusion.



Is your "I've been told" source on the record, or off the record?

I don't remember. I believe it was in response to some comments I made on foundation-l, but even then I don't remember if it was a private response or a public one. I did believe them, since there are a multitude of other possibilities which are about equivalent.

EDIT: I looked back through my email. And it was a private message, from someone I consider to be credible, but who may have been misinformed.

It's a lot less expensive to write atrocious song parodies.

His linkedin profile tells me:

* Your reference search found 14 people:
o 1 is your connection
o 13 are friends of your connections
* ... who worked with your candidate at these companies:
o Black & Veatch
o FASCO
o H&R Block
o H&R Block Financial Advisors
o KCAccountant
o Sprint
o Various

But it looks like I need to upgrade my linkedin account to a "Business or Pro account" in order to know who to ask. It looks like that will cost $24.95 (US?); maybe I can guess who it is.


Sure. I'll put in US$100, and an extra $50 if it is a currently certified/accredited US accountant willing to put their name on any results which are unfavourable to the WMF. My only provisos are that the accountant must explicitly approve of any publication which mentions the results, and that the WMF must be given a few days advance warning.

I have another wishes-to-remain-anonymous sponsor for $25. Maybe this investment club has legs?

I'd go with a guy who has 12 years of experience in spelling.

Yeah, I wasn't necessarily saying this was "the guy" for the job. And on the other hand, for $250, I didn't anticipate we'd ever get Price Waterhouse. Certainly, Freelancer.com need not be the last stop on the recruitment path. It was merely a convenient first stop for me.

Just got another $50 pledge. With the varying amounts being pledged, that's going to be impossible to see that each sponsor gets an equal share of the value of the report. So, what I'll likely do is simply say that the flat pledge must be $50, with another $25 to be made available if the auditor elects to attach his or her name to the findings. This way, everyone will be all-in for the same $75, maximum.

Could we discuss what are the key things that should be investigated?

I think, in order of importance:

* WMF rental money to Wikia, Inc. developer space, after what appeared to be an unfair bidding process.

* Early fact that 60% of WMF board was composed of Wikia, Inc. employees/owners, yet the Form 990's said "no" business relationship existed among board.

* The Moscow massage and the Elevation Partners steak & wine fest expense reimbursement rort.

* Beck Foundation spend of $25,000 on volunteer-created Wikijunior content.