[Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com]

Sorry if this a duplicate but I didn't receive it even though my later email came through

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
> Date: August 5, 2011 7:07:02 PM CDT
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters
> 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> 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