[Foundation-l] Chapters

[John Vandenberg]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 <de10011 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike
>>
>> I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
>> chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
>> restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison
>> is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best
>> people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an
>> international one based in another country.
>>
>> I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, "WMF is a U.S.
>> nonprofit
>> and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules", so is a German, French
>> or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own
>> country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to
>> comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they
>> will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which
>> doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either
>> party.
>>
>> I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model
>> that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of
>> charitable
>> funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in "Global
>> south"). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving
>> them
>> time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started,
>> doesn't
>> address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from
>> all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now,
>> but
>> in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be
>> given
>> freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of
>> its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most
>> of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection
>> (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to
>> another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of
>> being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a
>> grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable
>> because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we
>> stick
>> to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop
>> what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is
>> no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.
>>
>> Theo
>>
>>
>>
> The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a
> strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S.
> law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that
> the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international
> organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF.

You're strawman is alive.

If the chapters are funded by the WMF, non-US chapters need to abide by US law.

If all of the fundraising money goes to the WMF, who then distributes
it to chapters via grants, all chapters must comply with the US
regulations regarding use of money by a 501(c)(3) charity, and any
additional constraints that the WMF puts on these grants in order to
minimise its own risks and simplify its own compliance checking.

By doing this, the WMF is taking on more risk, rather than less.
And it is taking on more work, as it will need to ensure that all
chapters expenditure from these grants is compliant with US
regulations.

There are several chapters whose existing program includes activities
that are acceptable under their own laws, but will not be able to be
funded by WMF because of the US regulations.

--
John Vandenberg