Sorry if this a duplicate but I didn't receive it even though my later email came through
Begin forwarded message: > From: [email protected] > Date: August 5, 2011 7:07:02 PM CDT > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters > > > > > > On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> ==Design principles==* >> >> Our design principles for improving the fundraising model are: >> >> * We are deeply committed to decentralized pursuit of our mission and to >> supporting the long-term sustainability of chapters and other movement >> partners. >> >> * Because of its role as operator of the websites, the Foundation has to be >> satisfied that any organization directly receiving donor funds will treat >> them with an appropriately high level of care and transparency. >> >> * An organization can directly receive donor funds as a payment processor if >> the following criteria are met: >> ** There is sufficient money raised in the geography to merit the logistical >> effort. >> ** The organization offers tax deductibility or other incentives to local >> donors. >> ** Regulatory issues about any international funds flows are fully resolved. > > These three should be uncontroversial. > >> ** The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund >> proposed program work. > > This would be best to be written up as only applicable so long as WMF's > current financial resources are not enough to fund proposed program work > using the same criteria. > >> ** The Foundation can confidently assure donors to the chapter that their >> donations will be safeguarded, that our movement's transparency principles >> will be met, and that spending will be in line with our mission and with the >> messages used to attract donors. > > This is all rather ambiguous. But once it is hammered into something > concrete it should a trade of assurances with WMF providing the chapter with > the equivalent paperwork and the chapter doing it's own fiduciary duty by > seriously reviewing it annually and of course vice versa. > >> * The donation process should clearly disclose basic facts about the >> organization receiving the donation. > > > Uncontroversial > >> * The Foundation is committed to a grants program to continue to provide >> funds to those who can most effectively pursue our mission. > > Ambiguous but if I negotiating on the chapter-side I would see it written > into the contract that additional money (above the historical 50%) passed > through my organizations hands to WMF be earmarked for grants and that the > overall amount awarded in WMF grants must be at least x% greater than the > amount earmarked for grants. > > >> >> *==Next steps==* >> >> These concerns need to be substantially addressed prior to the start of the >> 2011 fundraiser. In particular, we expect all parties to live up to current >> fundraising agreements including full compliance with all reporting >> deadlines. >> >> We appreciate that some chapters have already started working on their >> budgets assuming that they would participate as payment processors in the >> 2011 fundraiser, but may not be able to meet the new criteria outlined >> above. The Foundation will work with these chapters to follow through on the >> principles of the current Fundraising Agreement to provide the necessary >> funds to continue their programmatic work and to meet their operational >> needs. >> >> The Foundation will significantly expand its grants program, and should work >> closely with the Audit Committee to continue improving the controls and >> disclosures around grants. > > Reviewing these agreements is the right thing to do. Since both chapter and > WMF share nearly identical principles and goals there should be little > difficulty negotiating the finer points to everyone's satisfaction. Best > case scenario is that each chapter/WMF can view this not only as an > opportunity to ensure that their current partner is being held accountable to > these shared principles, but also as an opportunity to lay the groundwork to > see that these principles will by upheld by the heirs of both organizations > whoever they might be. Worst case scenario this is viewed by some or all > parties as an exercise in defensiveness. But it is an issue that will only > be harder to resolve to everyone's satisfaction the more time passes. > > The elephant in the room is the chapter that will never exist till the > existing parties hammer things out into something that could feasible if it > were applied to the funds of the entire fundraising drive. One could argue > that the chapters negotiating the original agreement were given too much in > recieving 50% with so little accounting required. One could argue that that > chapters negotiating the original agreement gave up too much by not requiring > anything of WMF . And I would argue all involved hurt the development of > *successful* new chapters by setting up such perverse incentives. I would > urge all involved this time to keep in mind the chapters-yet-to-exist and all > current parties-under-unknown-future-leadership rather than only thinking of > securing an agreement for your party-as-it-currently-exists. > > BirgitteSB _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
