Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s fundraiser.
We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our letter to Sue can be found herehttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-renewal.pdf on the Wikimedia UK wiki.
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
The Foundation acted to strip chapters of their fundraising authority at the first opportunity, based on what clearly seems to be a pre-determined ideological decision that doesn't take actual evidence into account and centralises movement decision making authority even further in the WMF?
Colour me surprised.
On 21 May 2014 17:10, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s fundraiser.
We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our letter to Sue can be found here< https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-...
on the Wikimedia UK wiki.
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have to say I'm quite surprised by this announcement and this course of action taken by the Foundation, though it's not the first time this has happened, and very few chapters are left with a fundraising agreement.
I don't know the reasons this action was taken, but I am troubled. :/
On 21 May 2014 18:09, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
The Foundation acted to strip chapters of their fundraising authority at the first opportunity, based on what clearly seems to be a pre-determined ideological decision that doesn't take actual evidence into account and centralises movement decision making authority even further in the WMF?
Colour me surprised.
On 21 May 2014 17:10, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has
given
us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s fundraiser.
We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our letter to Sue can be found here<
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-...
on the Wikimedia UK wiki.
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Craig Franklin wrote:
The Foundation acted to strip chapters of their fundraising authority at the first opportunity, based on what clearly seems to be a pre-determined ideological decision that doesn't take actual evidence into account and centralises movement decision making authority even further in the WMF?
Colour me surprised.
Hi.
As I understand the history here (and please correct me where I'm wrong), Wikimedia UK was one of the early chapters (along with Wikimedia Deutschland and a few others) that set up fundraising agreements in the mid-2000s. This resulted in a few Wikimedia chapters receiving a disproportionate and frankly exorbitant amount of money as donation income steadily increased over the years and the agreements (which were percentage-based) stayed in place. Eventually the agreements were renegotiated, but not before a few chapters had hundreds of thousands of dollars and no concrete plans for what to do with this money.
Wikimedia UK in particular had bad enough management issues that in late 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK worked together to generate a report about the various management and governance deficiencies within the organization, which was posted a little over a year ago.
The history here is complex and it's certainly possible that the Wikimedia Foundation is acting in its own interest rather than in the interest of the Wikimedia movement. However, I have difficulty understanding why the decision to not renew Wikimedia's UK fundraising agreement would be surprising, given the historical context. I'm not sure this decision would be surprising to an outside observer.
To that end, on the subject of outside observers and open letters: when writing such a letter, it's important to give context and err on the side of formality. I've never seen a professional letter begin with "Dear Sue" (no last name or contact information provided) and end with "Yours sincerely, Jon" (no last name or contact information provided). This isn't a huge deal, but it's perhaps indicative.
MZMcBride
Am 21.05.2014 15:33, schrieb MZMcBride:
To that end, on the subject of outside observers and open letters: when writing such a letter, it's important to give context and err on the side of formality. I've never seen a professional letter begin with "Dear Sue" (no last name or contact information provided) and end with "Yours sincerely, Jon" (no last name or contact information provided). This isn't a huge deal, but it's perhaps indicative
MZMcBride
Dear Sir!
??? With all due respect, but what kind of bullshit is this??
sincerely H.
Hubert Laska wrote:
Am 21.05.2014 15:33, schrieb MZMcBride:
To that end, on the subject of outside observers and open letters: when writing such a letter, it's important to give context and err on the side of formality. I've never seen a professional letter begin with "Dear Sue" (no last name or contact information provided) and end with "Yours sincerely, Jon" (no last name or contact information provided). This isn't a huge deal, but it's perhaps indicative.
MZMcBride
Dear Sir!
??? With all due respect, but what kind of bullshit is this??
Hi Hubert,
https://www.google.com/search?q=formal+letter+template may be helpful.
Nathan wrote:
The smart move is to seek a re-evaluation with the next ED, without poisoning the well. I'm sure that the WMUK staff and leadership are aware that no affiliate is entitled to process payments for the annual WMF fundraising drive... It might be worthwhile to consider that communications that suggest a sense of entitlement might not sit well with the many chapters who never had an expectation of being able to process payments.
Yep. Though in addition to the issue of a perception of entitlement, I think there's also a larger issue of re-establishing trust between the two organizations. That's perhaps the central issue here.
MZMcBride
Stevie Benton, 21/05/2014 09:10:
We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our letter to Sue can be found herehttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-renewal.pdf on the Wikimedia UK wiki.
Ok, but did anyone in the world really believe for a second that WMF was ever going to change their mind after they managed to centralise UK income in WMF bank accounts?
Nemo
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Ok, but did anyone in the world really believe for a second that WMF was ever going to change their mind after they managed to centralise UK income in WMF bank accounts?
Sometimes it is better to take a step back to understand in which conceptual frame each decision is taken.
As I see it: - WMF: specialized in global matters, fearful of not having enough long-term resources to conduct its operation - Chapters: specialized in local matters, fearful of not having enough long-term resources to conduct their operation
And resources are not only money, also the independence and political capital to act, or to build-up donor's trust for future fundraisers.
Some chapters are taking a very active role in removing weight from WMF's shoulders also on global matters, and I think that increases trust. Perhaps there is a clear model about what expects each side, I was not able to find it (other than Chapters Dialogue), that would prevent disappointments like it seems in this case.
Cheers, Micru
Hi all,
A couple of things popped into my head that I am unsure of, but hope someone might be able to answer.
1) I understand that processing of UK donations in the US has significant tax implications on the funds collected. I would imagine that the WMF couldn't claim anywhere near the same tax relief on this income in the USA? 2) If there are tax implications, wouldn't it make more sense for the WMF to register its own charity in the UK, thereby it could essentially take WMUK out of the equation completely? 3) Could the fact that WMUK is currently spending approximately 50% of its income on non-project costs[1] be partly the reason for this decision by Sue? I understand that 3 years ago there was no staff in the UK and something like 90% of income was spent directly on projects, and now there are 12 staff with at the very least 50% of income being spent on non-project activities based on reports presented for the last FDC proposal. This could be a message that WMUK needs to trim the fat, especially if there are more overheads that are "hidden" within programme activity funding.
Not really sure what's going on here with the WMF, but the likelihood that what Nemo and Mircu state is possible, but we shouldn't discount other things as well.
But I would like to thank WMUK for sponsoring the "Airliners" project on Commons,[2] which will see over 200,000+ aviation images being made available via Fae's great work, and the chapters generosity. It's something that I don't think sponsorship would have come as easily from other sources.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/W... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners
Hi Russavia,
Just a quick response to your points:
1. Yes. Gift Aid isn't quite the same as tax deductibility. To take Wikipedia's example, when Mr Smith donates £100 to a charity, the charity gets £100 from him, plus an extra £25 from the government. It's more complex than this - not everyone is eligible - but broadly this is the case. 2. Probably not. See http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-re... . 3. I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect. The correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the correct figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs as a percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone wants more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with them by email. 4. As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of how, even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do great work for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have something similar for ships!
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 21 May 2014 12:22, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
A couple of things popped into my head that I am unsure of, but hope someone might be able to answer.
- I understand that processing of UK donations in the US has significant
tax implications on the funds collected. I would imagine that the WMF couldn't claim anywhere near the same tax relief on this income in the USA? 2) If there are tax implications, wouldn't it make more sense for the WMF to register its own charity in the UK, thereby it could essentially take WMUK out of the equation completely? 3) Could the fact that WMUK is currently spending approximately 50% of its income on non-project costs[1] be partly the reason for this decision by Sue? I understand that 3 years ago there was no staff in the UK and something like 90% of income was spent directly on projects, and now there are 12 staff with at the very least 50% of income being spent on non-project activities based on reports presented for the last FDC proposal. This could be a message that WMUK needs to trim the fat, especially if there are more overheads that are "hidden" within programme activity funding.
Not really sure what's going on here with the WMF, but the likelihood that what Nemo and Mircu state is possible, but we shouldn't discount other things as well.
But I would like to thank WMUK for sponsoring the "Airliners" project on Commons,[2] which will see over 200,000+ aviation images being made available via Fae's great work, and the chapters generosity. It's something that I don't think sponsorship would have come as easily from other sources.
Cheers
Russavia
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/W... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 21 May 2014 13:19, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
- Probably not. See
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-re...
This means that the WMF would need to establish an independent fundraising institution in the UK in order for it to be a registered charity. This would be in exactly the same ways as other global charities successfully manage it under UK law.
- I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect. The
correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the correct figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs as a percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone wants more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with them by email.
A strange response from WMUK as Russavia included a link to the analysis in his email, so this seems to be a tangent to the issue of the most recent accepted and analysed financial report, showing that more than 50% of funds are spent on non-project activities. Just in case people missed it, the link was https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/W...
The technical way of redefining English words in such a way so that the significant expenses of running trustee board meetings with staff support, or paying for highly expensive lawyers and management consultants as part of governance issues, gets reported as a deliverable open knowledge Wikimedia project, is unhelpful as a way to convince the Wikimedia community, or the WMF, that the UK charity is efficient compared to WMDE or the WMF. Using words this way undermines the value of the reports.
As a bizarre example the SORP way of conveniently redefining English words, I could re-employ Jon Davies as a temporary "management consultant" rather than a "permanent employee", even giving him twice the income to take home, and yet this could be reported as a significant increase in the efficiency of the charity, as an expensive line item would move from administration to programme costs. I doubt that many Wikimedians are taken in by this management jargon, as opposed to common sense or plain English use of words.
- As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of how,
even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do great work for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have something similar for ships!
...
On this, we can agree. The Avionics Project represents less than 0.1% of funds handled by the UK charity, yet these volunteer centric and cheap-as-chips projects now represent the significant majority of tangible outcomes for Wikimedia Commons, if one, say, counts the actual number of media files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, rather than soft (so-called "narrative") measures, or internal facing measures of success like supporting the Wikimania conference. As for ships, I have uploaded many thousands of historic images of ships to Commons which are highly valued by other unpaid Wikimedia volunteers, however these were not supported by Wikimedia UK due to previous concerns raised about my volunteer uploads from a potential partner institution that might have employed a WIR and might have done something similar. If the charity wishes to extend the project to media such as this, the trustees know how to find me.
PS For those unfamiliar with my background, I was previously a trustee of Wikimedia UK and even served time as the Chairman, until I resigned after lots of political unpleasantness. My awareness of WMUK figures comes from that hands-on experience, not so long ago.
Fae
To offer a clarification, SORP stands for Statement of Recommended Practice and offers a standard for best practice in charitable accounting. http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Accountin...
Cheers Simon
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ Sent: 21 May 2014 14:17 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement
On 21 May 2014 13:19, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
- Probably not. See
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-ab out-registering-a-charity/can-i-register-the-uk-branch-of-an-overseas- charity/
This means that the WMF would need to establish an independent fundraising institution in the UK in order for it to be a registered charity. This would be in exactly the same ways as other global charities successfully manage it under UK law.
- I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect. The
correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the correct figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs as a percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone wants more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with them by email.
A strange response from WMUK as Russavia included a link to the analysis in his email, so this seems to be a tangent to the issue of the most recent accepted and analysed financial report, showing that more than 50% of funds are spent on non-project activities. Just in case people missed it, the link was https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/W...
The technical way of redefining English words in such a way so that the significant expenses of running trustee board meetings with staff support, or paying for highly expensive lawyers and management consultants as part of governance issues, gets reported as a deliverable open knowledge Wikimedia project, is unhelpful as a way to convince the Wikimedia community, or the WMF, that the UK charity is efficient compared to WMDE or the WMF. Using words this way undermines the value of the reports.
As a bizarre example the SORP way of conveniently redefining English words, I could re-employ Jon Davies as a temporary "management consultant" rather than a "permanent employee", even giving him twice the income to take home, and yet this could be reported as a significant increase in the efficiency of the charity, as an expensive line item would move from administration to programme costs. I doubt that many Wikimedians are taken in by this management jargon, as opposed to common sense or plain English use of words.
- As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of how,
even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do great work for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have something similar for ships!
...
On this, we can agree. The Avionics Project represents less than 0.1% of funds handled by the UK charity, yet these volunteer centric and cheap-as-chips projects now represent the significant majority of tangible outcomes for Wikimedia Commons, if one, say, counts the actual number of media files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, rather than soft (so-called "narrative") measures, or internal facing measures of success like supporting the Wikimania conference. As for ships, I have uploaded many thousands of historic images of ships to Commons which are highly valued by other unpaid Wikimedia volunteers, however these were not supported by Wikimedia UK due to previous concerns raised about my volunteer uploads from a potential partner institution that might have employed a WIR and might have done something similar. If the charity wishes to extend the project to media such as this, the trustees know how to find me.
PS For those unfamiliar with my background, I was previously a trustee of Wikimedia UK and even served time as the Chairman, until I resigned after lots of political unpleasantness. My awareness of WMUK figures comes from that hands-on experience, not so long ago.
Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2014 13:19, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
- Probably not. See
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-re...
This means that the WMF would need to establish an independent fundraising institution in the UK in order for it to be a registered charity. This would be in exactly the same ways as other global charities successfully manage it under UK law.
- I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect.
The
correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the
correct
figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs
as a
percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone
wants
more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with
them by
email.
A strange response from WMUK as Russavia included a link to the analysis in his email, so this seems to be a tangent to the issue of the most recent accepted and analysed financial report, showing that more than 50% of funds are spent on non-project activities. Just in case people missed it, the link was
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/W...
The technical way of redefining English words in such a way so that the significant expenses of running trustee board meetings with staff support, or paying for highly expensive lawyers and management consultants as part of governance issues, gets reported as a deliverable open knowledge Wikimedia project, is unhelpful as a way to convince the Wikimedia community, or the WMF, that the UK charity is efficient compared to WMDE or the WMF. Using words this way undermines the value of the reports.
As a bizarre example the SORP way of conveniently redefining English words, I could re-employ Jon Davies as a temporary "management consultant" rather than a "permanent employee", even giving him twice the income to take home, and yet this could be reported as a significant increase in the efficiency of the charity, as an expensive line item would move from administration to programme costs. I doubt that many Wikimedians are taken in by this management jargon, as opposed to common sense or plain English use of words.
- As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of
how,
even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do
great work
for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have
something
similar for ships!
...
On this, we can agree. The Avionics Project represents less than 0.1% of funds handled by the UK charity, yet these volunteer centric and cheap-as-chips projects now represent the significant majority of tangible outcomes for Wikimedia Commons, if one, say, counts the actual number of media files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, rather than soft (so-called "narrative") measures, or internal facing measures of success like supporting the Wikimania conference. As for ships, I have uploaded many thousands of historic images of ships to Commons which are highly valued by other unpaid Wikimedia volunteers, however these were not supported by Wikimedia UK due to previous concerns raised about my volunteer uploads from a potential partner institution that might have employed a WIR and might have done something similar. If the charity wishes to extend the project to media such as this, the trustees know how to find me.
PS For those unfamiliar with my background, I was previously a trustee of Wikimedia UK and even served time as the Chairman, until I resigned after lots of political unpleasantness. My awareness of WMUK figures comes from that hands-on experience, not so long ago.
Fae
Reading over the linked Meta page, it actually looks like this disagreement over expense ratios might be a misunderstanding. It's at least possible that the performance ratios Richard Nevell reported were misinterpreted as a description of how costs were classified.
I looked up the 2013 budget for WMUK[1] and did a rough classification of expense types. I get *£*434,552 in "programmatic" spending vs. 336,568 in administrative costs. Out of 771,119 in total planned expenditures, the programmatic spending is 53%. That's the inverse of Fae's calculation on the linked meta discussion.[2] Of course, 53% is still quite low and I'm glad to read that the recent quarter has climbed past 80%.
In any event, this is only tangentially related. I agree with Max's criticism of the letter as a little less professional and more emotional than I would have expected, particularly given WMUK hasn't participated as a payment processor since 2011. The smart move is to seek a re-evaluation with the next ED, without poisoning the well. I'm sure that the WMUK staff and leadership are aware that no affiliate is entitled to process payments for the annual WMF fundraising drive... It might be worthwhile to consider that communications that suggest a sense of entitlement might not sit well with the many chapters who never had an expectation of being able to process payments.
[1]: https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArU6-SFBZAbs... [2]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/W...
Richard,
To answer 1 and 2 together, and thanks for your response....
As you noted, under Gift Aid charities receive a 25% premium on donations (I hope that's correct just going on your figures), and I can't see the WMF really wanting to lose what is essentially, well, a gift.
As Fae mentioned in his response, the WMF could set up a trust in the UK for the sole purpose of fundraising, to ensure that the 25% gift aid is retained. They could then distribute these funds to whichever countries they like.
This is apparently how Greenpeace operates with the Greenpeace Environmental Trust[1] used to fundraise for the organisation, and Greenpeace Limited doing the stuff that wouldnt be legal for the charitable trust to do. With the fundraising the GET receives they can use these funds to support the upkeep of their foreign ships, or to protest Russian goings ons in the Arctic.
I sincerely can't see WMF wanting to lose the premium on donations which I am sure they are aware of, and they don't want WMUK collecting donations, so the logical conclusion to this is that they are bypassing WMUK to do this themselves (which they have already stated, except for the how).
So that we have some idea could we please get some figures on how WMUK collected for the WMF, and how much of the 25% premium (if that it was it is) the WMUK received.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/Charity...
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Russavia,
Just a quick response to your points:
- Yes. Gift Aid isn't quite the same as tax deductibility. To take
Wikipedia's example, when Mr Smith donates £100 to a charity, the charity gets £100 from him, plus an extra £25 from the government. It's more complex than this - not everyone is eligible - but broadly this is the case. 2. Probably not. See
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-re... . 3. I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect. The correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the correct figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs as a percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone wants more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with them by email. 4. As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of how, even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do great work for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have something similar for ships!
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 21 May 2014 12:22, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
A couple of things popped into my head that I am unsure of, but hope someone might be able to answer.
- I understand that processing of UK donations in the US has significant
tax implications on the funds collected. I would imagine that the WMF couldn't claim anywhere near the same tax relief on this income in the
USA?
- If there are tax implications, wouldn't it make more sense for the WMF
to register its own charity in the UK, thereby it could essentially take WMUK out of the equation completely? 3) Could the fact that WMUK is currently spending approximately 50% of
its
income on non-project costs[1] be partly the reason for this decision by Sue? I understand that 3 years ago there was no staff in the UK and something like 90% of income was spent directly on projects, and now
there
are 12 staff with at the very least 50% of income being spent on non-project activities based on reports presented for the last FDC proposal. This could be a message that WMUK needs to trim the fat, especially if there are more overheads that are "hidden" within programme activity funding.
Not really sure what's going on here with the WMF, but the likelihood
that
what Nemo and Mircu state is possible, but we shouldn't discount other things as well.
But I would like to thank WMUK for sponsoring the "Airliners" project on Commons,[2] which will see over 200,000+ aviation images being made available via Fae's great work, and the chapters generosity. It's
something
that I don't think sponsorship would have come as easily from other sources.
Cheers
Russavia
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/W...
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 21 May 2014 12:22, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
A couple of things popped into my head that I am unsure of, but hope someone might be able to answer.
- I understand that processing of UK donations in the US has significant
tax implications on the funds collected. I would imagine that the WMF couldn't claim anywhere near the same tax relief on this income in the USA?
Very significant; with some caveats, any donation from someone who a) is a basic rate taxpayer (earns more than ~£10k/year) and b) fills in a short form agreeing to it, gets increased by 25% by HMRC.
This is handled by the charity rather than the donor - ie, the donor still pays tax and then the charity recovers it, rather than the donor claiming a tax deduction as in the US model. (It's an open question which of these is more efficient...).
I don't believe an overseas charity would be eligible for this rebate, and so money paid to WMF directly by UK residents is not going to get this aid.
- If there are tax implications, wouldn't it make more sense for the WMF
to register its own charity in the UK, thereby it could essentially take WMUK out of the equation completely?
...which is why WMUK was created in the first place, including a lot of legal back-and-forth to demonstrate that it was actually possible under charity law! (It took quite a while to get to this stage, including a first chapter which basically fizzled, but charitable donations was right there on day one as an issue.)
The chapter qua chapter has done some pretty good things, but one of the big drivers from the very first discussions back in 2005 (or earlier?) was the efficiency of being able to fundraise and take advantage of gift aid; everything else followed on since then. Of course, Wikimedia as a whole had a lot less money in 2005 and we were all somewhat unclear on what a chapter could actually do ;-)
So it seems a little weird, to me, to create a second charity to do the job that the first one was created for...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org