* * Dear all, Some of you have been following the lengthy ongoing debate about the future of fundraising in the Wikimedia movement. Mike Peel and I attended a meeting the weekend before last in Paris, with representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation and other chapters, where these issues were discussed at some length.
Earlier this week, the Board received another email from Sue seeking clarification on our position as a chapter. (Sue's letter is right at the bottom of this email). The Board are going to talk about this in a phone call on Saturday, but we wanted to share our current draft response and get some input. The current draft is below (I have summarised Sue's questions). * * Please feel free to respond on- or off-list. * * (As this is a publically archived list I ought to stress these replies are a personal discussion draft and have not been adopted as an official position by Wikimedia UK). * * *Do we still want to payment-process* Yes we do. We think it adds value to the movement - most obviously through Gift Aid, but we also think we can add value to the fundraiser in other ways (e.g. by generating recurring rather than one-off income) and because of the long-term value of the data in the fundraiser for both further fundraising work and outreach. There is also a risk of confusion for some donors who are used to giving to Wikimedia UK, or are already doing so on a recurring basis. Furthermore, we don't see how taking an administrative decision to stop raising money in a tax-deductible way can possibly be in donors' best interests. (Chris has actually put up a very cautious cost-benefit analysis on meta here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/WMF_staff_memo#Wikimedia_UK_cost.2Fbenefit_analysis - we draw your attenttion to it) *Are there other specific local requirements or incentives* So far as we can tell, everything has been explored. The reasons why Wikimedia UK participating is a good idea include the 25% extra from the donations possible through Gift Aid, exploiting local knowledge of donors, and the potential for us to make use of fundraiser data for other fundraising and outreach work. We think these are strong reasons. *Are there any other problems transferring money internationally* Don't think so. We know we can send the Foundation what are, in legal terms, discretionary grants restricted towards the charitable objectives the Foundation and Wikimedia UK share. We already do this and can continue to do this on the same basis. *Increased visibility of our internal workings* Since last August we've been engaged in a dialogue with you about these issues. We expect that to continue. We're optimistic that the Chapters Council, when up and running, will mean that many (though not all) of these things stop being a burden on the Foundation and become a peer review activity for Chapters. Furthermore, we think that it is just as important for us to be transparent and accountable were we to be spending money which we had received in the form of a grant, than if we were taking donors' money directly. *What if the answer's still No* We think there is now a fairly clear scenario which enables chapters to payment-process without prejudicing the Foundation's fiduciary duties, and without creating the idea that Chapters are dependent for their growth on payment-processing. There are many benefits to this scenario and few drawbacks. We would be disappointed if the Foundation did not choose this scenario. On 23 February 2012 20:52, Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi Roger, > > I'm so sorry I didn't see you at the Paris meeting, but I'm sure > you've heard from Chris and Mike --- it was very good. I am really > grateful to Christophe -- he did a great job of setting a > constructive, positive tone: it was fabulous :-) > > The meeting gave everybody there a chance to discuss where we're at, > share our current thinking, and kick around possible paths going > forward. As you know, we've been talking about these issues for many > months: it was good to have some F2F time together on them. You > probably also know that on March 9, I’m expected to deliver to the > Wikimedia Foundation Board a set of recommendations, one of which will > cover who should process donations that come in via the project sites. > > The purpose of this note is for me to gain further clarity about the > UK chapter’s current position on payment processing. I think I have a > sense of where you're at, but I'm not 100% positive. So the purpose of > this note is to get clarity where I'm not sure, particularly in light > of the letter the Board published a few weeks ago. > > First, some background. I want to be careful not to aim to speak on > behalf of the WMF Board of Trustees: at this point, it hasn’t decided > anything beyond what it's already published, and I do not yet know > what it will ultimately decide. Having said that, the Board did say > earlier this month that it is "sharpening" the criteria for payment > processing. That payment-processing is not a natural path to growth > for a chapter, and that in future, most chapters won’t > payment-process. It also said that if and when chapters > payment-process, it would be done primarily for reasons of tax, > operational efficiency, only where payment-processing is not in > conflict with funds dissemination principles and goals, and that > payment-processing should avoid a perception of "entitlement." There > was some initial confusion about what “entitlement” means, and in > Paris the Board members clarified that it means payment-processing > chapters would not be entitled to keep funds they process: funds for > payment-processing chapters would go through the same dissemination > process as funds to non-payment-processing chapters. > > In light of all this, and as I start drafting my final recommendations > to the Board, there are a few questions I’d like to ask you. I'm > cognizant that responding might seem burdensome for you -- you likely > don't have a Board meeting scheduled in the next few weeks, and I > expect you may not have super-easy, quick-turnaround access to legal > counsel. So please rest assured that my goal here isn't to burden you. > Some of these questions may be easy to answer -- if so, great! To the > extent that they are hard to answer, I'd be happy if you could give me > a provisional or partial answer. Please don't feel like you need to > drop everything to give me definitive responses, and please know that > any and all information will be helpful, even if it's incomplete :-) > > Here are my questions: > > * Assuming all of the above holds true (specifically, that the chapter > has no entitlement to retain or to control dissemination of the funds > it processes), does the UK chapter still aspire to payment-process in > 2012 and beyond? If you would still prefer to payment process, I’d > appreciate if you could share with me your thinking about why. > Basically -- how do you feel payment-processing would benefit your > chapter, and/or the Wikimedia movement overall? > > * Are there specific local requirements or incentives (beyond Gift > Aid, which I know about) that you're aware of that might make it more > difficult or costly for the Wikimedia Foundation to payment process > donations from the UK, relative to the UK chapter doing it? > > * I think the UK chapter and the Wikimedia Foundation have a pretty > good understanding of the restrictions you would face, if you did > payment-process, in transferring money to the Wikimedia Foundation. (I > mean, restrictions capping the amount or percentage you can transfer, > or restrictions on how that money can be used.) But I’d like to ask > you: in addition to what we’ve discussed in the past, is there > anything new that the Wikimedia Foundation should be aware of? We are > now (for the first time) talking about payment-processing chapters not > having an entitlement to the money raised out of their geography, so > what I’m mainly asking about is that. Assuming you weren’t entitled to > retain money, or control its distribution internationally -- does that > create any new problems or impediments for your chapter in freely > moving money out of the UK? > > * If you were to payment-process in 2012 and beyond, the Wikimedia > Foundation Board of Trustees might want to have increased visibility > into your chapter’s internal workings, to make sure it’s able to > confidently uphold its fiduciary responsibilities. Just as > illustrative examples -- this might include an assessment or > independent audit of your chapter’s legal and financial practices and > policies, site visits to your chapter’s offices, and/or the Wikimedia > Foundation requesting a seat on your Audit committee or on your Board > of Trustees. In general, can you provide your perspective on > requirements such as those? I remember that in the UK the idea of > reserved Board seats for this kind of thing seems less culturally > acceptable than in the United States: is that true? Are there other > legal or cultural impediments to the kinds of possibilities I've > raised, and if so, are there alternatives that might be better or more > appropriate? (Please bear in mind I’m not necessarily saying that the > Wikimedia Foundation would propose any of these: at this point I don’t > know. Before the Board considers the options, I’d like to get your > general thinking.) > > * If your chapter were not going to payment-process in 2012 and > beyond, either because the Wikimedia Foundation disallowed it, or > because you chose not to, what would the reaction of your chapter be? > ("Your chapter" could mean you, the Board as a whole, or chapter > members.) Would the UK chapter want to be allowed to payment process > in 2012, even if you couldn’t payment-process in years after that? (If > so, why?) What problems might stopping payment-processing cause for > your chapter, and are there ways the Wikimedia Foundation could help > resolve them? What kinds of issues would we need to resolve in a > transition period? Fast answers are okay here: I am really aiming to > make sure I don't miss anything important. > > Just so you know: I am also sending similar questions to the German, > French and Swiss chapters. If you want to coordinate your responses > with those chapter heads, that's fine with me. I'm sending this mail > to you individually because I'm primarily interested in the position > of the UK chapter and the other chapters that have recently > payment-processed, not in the general thoughts of observers on our > mailing lists. I feel like there's been lots of opportunity for people > to express general opinions. That said, I am totally fine with you > forwarding this mail to anyone you like, and/or discussing this on > lists such as the chapters list or internal-l. I don't consider it > confidential, and I am fine with you freely sharing it with anyone you > like. > > Like I said earlier in this note, my final recommendations are due to > the Board on March 9. So I would very much appreciate a reply --even a > partial one-- by March 2, if that's possible for you. I'm CCing Barry > because I'll be travelling next week, and I want to make sure we have > an open line for easy communication, especially if anything in this > mail seems unclear or confusing. > > Thanks, > Sue > > --
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
