About limiting the acceptance of new members Pickwick writes:
Kasper: “major source of income”
Is that income needed? Surely a much smaller stream of new members, recruited in a better way, could raise the moderate amounts necessary to pay server costs, paper clips and a few postage stamps.
Current spending is mostly for
A) salaries, and I think we had much better quality work from the volunteers “no longer retained”;
B) the exodus to Thailand, and I have yet to see any actual WORK mentioned that was done there in the 31 days of December (other than picking the place for January).
So the money seems to benefit those who make the decisions. Thankfully we are a charity now and published accounts have to be more accurate and more detailed than hitherto. Which reminds me that there are still areas of concern regarding the charitable status:
1. The financial statements online are still not identical with the ones filed with the US tax authorities and the New Hampshire charities regulators.
2. Casey may have perjured himself by stating falsely to the Attorney General that from 2003 to 2006 the company had several directors besides himself. The major reason for that could be that the truth may affect the legality of his own employment.
a) New Hampshire law requires a minimum of five directors, so with Casey as sole director the company had no legally composed Board of Directors. For that reason alone contracts entered into during that time may be invalid, including the employment contract he made with himself.
b) Casey as sole director signed his own employment contract on the dotted lines of both sides of the contract. There could not be a more blatant violation of all ‘conflict of interest’ principles, and for that reason alone this contract may be invalid.
c) New Hampshire law does not allow the chairman/president of a charity to be an employee at the same time. So when Casey as chairman/president signed his own employment contract he violated that law, and for this reason alone the contract may be invalid.
d) If Casey’s employment contract is invalid, he will have received his salaries without legal grounds, and may have to pay ~$70,000 back to the company. (That, and the other ~$70,000 of accumulated profits in the bank should keep CouchSurfing going for a good many years to come, as a volunteer based charity, without ill prepared world trips for the management.)
At the New Hampshire Department of Justice the case has been queued for review by an investigator in early 2008. My advice to the new Board of Directors is: sort it out before they start asking questions.
To sum up: I don’t think money is a valid argument to continue this unhealthy growth pattern.
indeed the leadership team has been so piss poor from not only managing the community aspects of cs but also from the very plain managing of resources available.
i would guess that the lack of humility in the management, who all seem to suffer from the “flashy title equals skills/success” syndrome, is not going to be adressed in the short run.
i have to wonder how the success can be established in the long run, given that they managed to drive away some of the most able and dedicated volunteers, networkers such as kasper and anu.
i am afraid that the majority of the leadership team has personal issues at managing teams that consist of individuals with more expertise and skill than themselves, hence, given the mediocre trackrecord, the future cs volunteering staff and delivered quality will be capped around “barely works”. visionary of course.