Basics:
- WMF is a US charity. Funds collected by, or through its website (even if legally collected by affiliated organizations) will be exposed to US-style scrutiny and need to be able to withstand that for the reputation of the movement as a whole. - Wikimedia is a worldwide charity. People who donate locally want to know their funds are supporting Wikimedia and not vanishing into pockets or being wasted. Chapters not yet able to provide and demonstrate that assurance are a risk if they take funds that become unable to be accounted for or where the accounting is not transparent and independently verified.
- It's easier to set good practices in place early on. It should have been a prequel to the agreement last year on direct payment/allocation, to ensure 6 figure cash from donors worldwide was only passed to chapters that were verified and agrred as being capable of responsibly handling it, criteria in place for that. Not a "catch up" afterwards. But good call to fix it now, at least.
WMF bears actual or perceived responsibility to ensure correct use of collections via *.wikimedia.org wiki fundraisers and WMF efforts. Those monies (as opposed to funds collected by local chapters' own efforts) are donated to support the wider project goals. Because of this, WMF cannot simply shrug it of or say "they are allocated to outside body X so we have no interest or role in checking their appropriate ultimate use."
It doesn't matter the legal relationship, WMF has a perceived responsibility to live up to, that even if the funds are used at chapter discretion, it should be clear they are being reasonably and completely used for the mission.
Alternative ways to approach decentralization might have included a ramp-up over a 2-3 year period, or funds transfer on a requisition basis, allowing each local organization to be gradually established and mature (which takes time). But better late than never. It would have been much harder and more painful to correct a chapter that was "difficult" in those areas, once established a few years down the line.
At least criteria are to be put in place now than never. For chapters in good order they should not be an issue.
FT2
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, There is fundraising together and there is fundraising perse. What is at issue is that chapters are and have always been expected to disclose their activities, providing financial statements. They are expected to be accountable and many chapters have largely not been accountable.
The consequence is very much that the decentralisation is not working because chapters are not committed to fulfil their obligations as is clear from their actions. What is at stake is the involvement and the benefits of chapters to the annual fundraiser. When chapters fund themselves in other ways (as well), then my understanding is that they are welcome to that particularly where they raise funds for particular named activities.
Wikimedia and any of the projects is a global affair and we need a global movement that includes the WMF, the chapters, the communities, the associated projects. We will and do benefit from being open transparent and accountable. The people who fund us have to appreciate us as a global movement and not as an organisation with tons of money hoarded by secretive people, in the nooks and crannies of our movement. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do
with
chapters?
That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from their perspective, so recentralising fundraising.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l