Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en
I the text there are several affairs written non-accurately, and some written in the way that suggests another order of the activities.
I, as a then-chair, haven't asked for financial reward (and so more not for myself - what is not written here, but he usual use of the words suggests that). Firstly I have proposed that Matej (than simple Board member) would register the organisation for 2% - it would be possible if the Board would change his function to Chair or Vice-Chair. Matej have rejected that and the Board was still asking me to register. Then I have asked (as a condition) for fulfilling a activities from the Annual plan for 2017 related to capacity development of our activists. The specified amount is right. It was not a financial reward.
Another issue is the time sequence. The actual text suggests that the activities was running in the presented sequence. But that is not even possible because of required rights to do specified activities. Actually the situation was in this order: firstly we was dealing about the registration of 2%, than I resigned my position as a Chair and informed that I resign from membership from 1st January 2019. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- The time sequence was indeed reversed. It is now corrected. The rest stands. The chair asked for a reward and paid it to himself on the day of his resignation.--Jetam2 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please, Jetam2, do not spread false and libelous information. You are the highest representant of a Wikimedia Affiliation, so as you are spreading false and libelous information, it makes untrustworthy not only you but also the Wikimedia User Group Wikimedians of Slovakia. You, of course, can consider it to be a reward, but it clearly doesn't make it reward. You opinion is still only opinion. I have paid myself nothing from WMSVK. I have reimbursed myself from costs for books for the organisation. It was not paying myself. You can look for the decision. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Dear KuboF Hromoslav and all. I now realize that it is necessary to come back to things and re-explain since other avenues where they were discussed are not available to those checking Meta. I apologize for a longer post but it is better than to go back and forth.
- Let me start with a bit of a background. In Slovakia, those taxpayers that have income tax to pay may designate an institution/organization that will receive 2% of their income tax to be paid. Organizations wishing to receive the 2% have to submit an application to the tax authorities to make themselves available for this program. The deadline was in mid-december. With Radoslava being abroad, KuboF was the only person who could submit it. He asked the Board for a 100 EUR payment. He would not submit the application otherwise. Realizing that participation in the 2% program would result in the UG receiving more money than this payment, Radoslava and Matej (Jetam2) agreed to KuboF's demand.
- As to the books that KuboF is mentioning, they are indeed a reward/gift. KuboF proposed that the UG buys a collection of books for 200 € that he had picked and saw as fit for the UG. Radoslava and Matej did not see this purchase as particularly useful for the UG, it seemed more useful to KuboF personally. However, they decided to make the purchase a reward/gift to KuboF upon his upcoming retirement from the Board provided he completes his commitments. They understood that KuboF accepted this.
- KuboF resigned from the board but on the same day transferred 200 € and 100 € from the UG account to his own account. The rest of the board was neither informed of nor in agreement with this step. They asked KuboF to return the funds but that has not happened. After discussion and consideration of the circumstances, Radoslava and Matej decided to make the books (200 €) a gift since KuboF had done good work for the UG in the past and not to pursue the matter further. Whether this is called a reward or gift or any other name in the annual report is an interpretation of the UG and its AGM, an annual report can only be taken as such, no more, no less. There still remains the 100 € which KuboF transferred to himself with no reason given in the transfer protocol. While accusing us of providing misinformation, KuboF has not provided any alternative explanation for this action and neither has he returned the money to the UG as requested.
- I hope this clarifies the situation. If not, I am available for further comments and clarifications. Perhaps KuboF will clarify too.--Jetam2 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clear up potential confusion: I did not mean that KuboF should correct or edit the report itself. There are other avenues, such as this discussion, an email to AffCom, at an AGM etc. Thanks!--Jetam2 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)