Hi Alison, Taking your points in turn:
1. "whomever wrote and signed off on those letters appears to have caused the initial confusion and, indeed, current problem. Somehow this needs to be retracted big time." I put the full letter received from HMRC in my original post. The relevant part of our letter to them - which was drafted by me and signed off by the Board - was: " Wikimedia UK – the operating name of Wiki UK Limited – has been set up to support the “Wikipedia” website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, in ways that are compatible with UK charity law. These supporting actions all follow our ultimate aim of promoting education, culture and heritage. The Foundation is a US registered charity, but the rules are slightly different so Wikimedia UK has been established as an independent organisation, free to apply its funds as it chooses." Supporting the Wikimedia projects is what we are here to do. I do not accept that I have misrepresented the chapter at all or that there would be any benefit in "retracting" anything. There has been no confusion. Dressing it up in different words won't change anything, and adding "charitable" to the Memorandum & Articles won't make HMRC look at it any differently. Wiki Educational Resources never got to the stage of applying for charity recognition, so we can't say that thet case would have been treated any differently. Supporting Wikimedia projects is what we did in the Wikipedia Loves Art project and the Wikimania Conference planning - the two activities we were able to provide in our correspondence with HMRC. Focusing on a project other than Wikipedia would not help us at all - our activities have to be exclusively charitable so if supporting Wikipedia doesn't pass, then supporting a group of projects including Wikipedia won't pass either. Besides, Wikipedia is the most widely known project and in practice the one we'll spend most of our time supporting. That's the one everyone's heard of - so lets use it when talking to external people. 2. "with WMUKv1, I undertook a number of teaching / education activities" WMUK also has plans for education activities - for instance http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Projects/Proposals#Schools_project . Hopefully this example can help us in our appeal. 3. "WMUK/WER has only ever been "a Charitable organisation" until such time as it may be recognised as such." Not true. Being a charity is a matter of fact and not dependent on official recognition. As an organistion who reasonably considered themselves to be a charity, under the £5,000 Charity Commission limit and applying for HMRC recognition it was perfectly reasonable for us to describe ourselves as an "exempt charity" - which we occasionally did, albeit that most of the time we haven't seen the need to say anything at all about our charity status. 4. "Directors and their advisors should have sorted out a position on these matters - and with the assistance of those at the AGM tomorrow - before making this public at all" I don't accept this at all and it's not the way we've been doing things. We agreed at the outset that we would be open, transparant and participative - what we've done here is an example of this. We've always kept our supporters informed every step of the way. As soon as I received the letter I wanted to let our supporters on the email list know and have a broad debate about what we should do as a next step. The AGM will no doubt discuss this tomorrow as will the new Board in it's first meeting. There's no need to rush into anything and no advantage in keeping it under wraps and springing it on everyone tomorrow. Having something discussed in public is not the same as contacting the press. Andrew ---- Original Message ----- From: "Alison Wheeler" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 25 April, 2009 14:04:15 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected All, I cannot speak as to the formalities behind the current WMUK, but a number of points do arise. 1. "In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the 'Wikipedia' website." if true, whomever wrote and signed off on those letters appears to have caused the initial confusion and, indeed, current problem. Somehow this needs to be retracted big time. In the WMUKv1 Memorandum we had clearly separated ourselves from WMF/WP and wrote clearly Charitable (within the meaning of the relevant laws) terms to pass those hurdles. So far as I read the discussions for WMUKv2 the MoA wasn't so clear in that respect being much looser. 2. From Re Shaw, Public Trustee v Day [1957] "(a) increase of knowledge is not a charitable purpose unless combined with an element of teaching or education," is one of their reasons for the rejection. Certainly, with WMUKv1, I undertook a number of teaching / education activities on behalf of the Chapter, including training days for the British Library et al. 3. Re Thomas's "We need either stop using the word "charity" entirely ..." I would suggest that it should never have been used in the first place. WMUK/WER has only ever been "a Charitable organisation" until such time as it may be recognised as such. 4. Regarding early comments about "going to the media", by definition once it was on this public list it is already there. Arguably the Directors and their advisors should have sorted out a position on these matters - and with the assistance of those at the AGM tomorrow - before making this public at all. Instead brewery matters come to mind. Best wishes for the future, Alison Wheeler _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
